Last month our neighborhood Blockbuster store vaporized into the Cloud. It reminded me to circle back with each of our clients about which aspects of their businesses will be Cloud vapor as well. Cloud Computing is steadily consuming hardware in favor of software and services, and I think it’s good for customers, the environment, and those businesses prepared to change.
Blockbuster customers, like many consumer and corporate customers, now prefer to select and access movies from their homes, instead of driving to a physical location for pick up and drop off. From Blockbuster’s corporate news: “Blockbuster is transforming to give customers ultimate access to home entertainment. We’re not just about brick and mortar stores anymore. Customers can…download a movie directly to their computer or entertainment device.”
Nearly every electronics contract manufacturer (EMS, ODM) will lose some customers as hardware (OEM) companies transform into software and/or services companies leveraging the Cloud. By extension, it makes one wonder: Will all the world’s semiconductor suppliers eventually be vying for design wins at the same dozen remaining hardware companies? What will the electronic-component distributors be distributing to the former hardware companies?
It’s about efficiency and convenience. Minimize distributed hardware and maximize software and services. Ever since TFI’s first Design-for-Environment Workshop (spring 2005 at Microsoft’s headquarters), we’ve been training engineers in “dematerialization”: designing the highest level of customer functionality using the smallest, lightest-weight hardware — or no hardware at all.
Of course, the Cloud does not vaporize energy usage. But it can achieve Lean and Green savings through using efficient data centers powered by renewable energy and “free” or outside-air cooling.
Executives: Don’t fear the Cloud. Plan for it! Product obsolescence owing to technology advancement has been the pattern since the Stone Age. So, stay ahead of it and be willing to remake your company several times.
What aspects of your business are vaporizing into the Cloud, and how can you profit from it?
By TFI Consultant Nikki Pava and TFI Intern Ben Marshall
As today’s businesses strive to move their manufacturing hubs closer to their customers while maintaining low costs, many are looking to Eastern, Central, and Southern Europe. Its proximity to Western European markets makes for reduced shipping time and costs and greater in-region responsiveness. With so many corporations announcing carbon-reduction plans, having cost-effective manufacturing and design centers close to end customers is becoming more important. For TFI’s study Electronics Design and Manufacturing in Eastern Europe, we are investigating the viability of each country in the region for electronics design and manufacturing: infrastructure, history of electronics industry, employment figures, and which companies perform which functions there.
Here are a few interesting facts that we’ve found through our research:
- Hungary boasts 7 of the global top 10 EMS companies as well as more than 20 recycling companies in operation.
- Russia is now the world’s third biggest destination for outsourcing software behind India and China.
- Czech Republic is one of the most successful “transition” countries in terms of foreign direct investment per capita.
- Dell started manufacturing in Poland in 2006 and recently transferred ownership of their manufacturing plant to Foxconn.
- The Bulgarian Government is lowering investment thresholds and increasing incentives to electronics manufacturers investing in high-unemployment regions.
- Sony has been producing TVs in Slovakia since 1996, moving there before anyone else in Eastern Europe.
- Ukraine’s creation of free economic zones makes for tax holidays and lower import/export duties.
- Ericsson recently invested EUR 30 million for part of Elcoteq’s manufacturing process in Estonia, including the hiring of 1,200 employees.
- One-third of Serbian college graduates come from technical schools, and Serbia has the highest rate of English speaking population in Eastern Europe.
- Despite experiencing an electrical fire at its Romanian facility, Plexus management is continuing their commitment to manufacture in Romania given “growth plans in this geographically important area.”
- Foxconn has invested US$60 million in Turkey to produce 3 million computers annually for Hewlett Packard.
Other countries we are researching for the study include Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Moldova, Slovenia, Macedonia, Croatia, Belarus, and Albania.
There is a lot happening in these countries as it pertains to electronics companies (OEMs, EMS/ODMs, suppliers, and recyclers) that many of us do business with each day. We look forward to uncovering more information about these countries in the coming weeks. Let TFI know if you’d like to be a recipient of these insights, and if you have any industry tidbits of information about these countries you’d like to share, please reply to the survey or to this blog.
While commenting on the recent wage hikes at some China-based Electronics Manufacturing Services companies (in EMSNow.com, July 12, 2010), Flextronics CEO Mike McNamara described “…a shift in thinking from purely lowest cost to one of increased social and supply-chain responsibility.” He added, “…I am encouraged that this will be a positive change for customers, employees and communities.” I was pleased to see Mr. McNamara’s comment, and maybe more OEMs’ manufacturing-decision makers will broaden their calculations of “lowest cost” to include level of risk, logistics, customer responsiveness, managerial time, and environmental and social responsibility. But there is one OEM industry — Cleantech — that has embraced these factors from its beginning, and therefore has predominantly chosen in-region, in-house manufacturing where they have full jurisdiction over healthy conditions and living wages for workers, as well as short-distance product movement yielding lower supply-chain risks and minimal environmental impact.
Having lived in the San Francisco Bay Area since age 6 (except for a recent year in EMEA), I am accustomed to seeing innovation initiate waves of economic vitality. Growing up in Silicon Valley in the late ‘60s and through the ‘70s, I always thrilled at driving past the Stanford Linear Accelerator on the way to San Francisco. We passed by Apple Computer’s headquarters on just about every family errand. My classmates’ parents were patent holders at IBM, HP, Intel, and (in the case of my father) Lockheed.
But no innovation wave has pleased me more than the Cleantech companies springing up here – not only for the geeky-smart, environmentally-conservative innovations that I love, but also for their socially- and environmentally-responsible supply chains. Solyndra (maker of cylindrical solar-energy systems) is building a huge factory in Fremont. Bloom Energy manufactures 100% of its energy-efficient fuel-cell generators in Sunnyvale, proximal to its many California customers. Tesla Motors just took over a portion of the Fremont-based NUMMI plant in partnership with Toyota to build Tesla’s full-electric sedans (I have one on order).
Not all Cleantech companies have sufficient scale or funding to manufacture in-house. Efficient-lighting company Redwood Systems is going the manufacturing-outsourcing route for their electronic controls, but chose a nearby Silicon Valley EMS facility (Creation Technologies’ California operations).
So, why haven’t these Cleantech executives been deterred by conventional arguments that wages in California are ridiculously high to be competitive? How are these execs thinking that the stiff environmental regulations in California can be good for business? Have they somehow missed the fact that China has become the world’s manufacturing center?
No. These executives choose in-region and often in-house manufacturing because of their more complete calculations of “lowest cost” and realization that corporate and consumer customers are savvy enough to notice their responsible supply chains. And the Cleantech industry’s success – as measured by the plenitude of capital investments and long line of customer orders — is already legendary.
What do you think? Will the Cleantech companies’ in-region, often in-house manufacturing strategies lead them to financial ruin, or create a trend?
by Pamela Wiseman, TFI Senior Operations / Supply Chain Consultant, and contributing expert for TFI’s study in progress, Electronics Design and Manufacturing in Eastern Europe
Electronics manufacturing in Central and Eastern European is a hot topic these days, especially with questions at the forefront about social responsibility and rapidly rising labor rates in China, as well as volcanic disruptions to global supply chains in our recent memories. Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Poland have developed strong capabilities over the last decade with Romania, Estonia, and Turkey also active areas for some electronics companies. Someday soon, North Africa will likely become the new frontier.
The main interest in Central and Eastern European capabilities is — as you would expect — to access a ”low cost” solution to fulfill manufacturing and service requirements for European markets. Although in some of the region’s countries the transportation infrastructure is not as developed as we would like, there are some tax benefits as well as time, inventory, and logistics savings to be had. The labor cost cannot match China, but if your market is in Europe, it is definitely worth sharpening the pencil to seriously consider your manufacturing-location options. With the rapid rise in wages paid to Chinese EMS workers, the cost differential may not last forever. In the end, low cost (measured as price paid by the OEM to the EMS) is paramount in the manufacturing location selection process. Other elements such as quality and social responsibility play a role, but for some research respondents these factors continue to take a back seat because they are harder to quantify as a “cost.” In the ultimate review of an accurate business case, total costs considered must also include inventory investment, logistics expense, transportation time and risks, OEM travel time, and the value of the complexities required to manage cost, quality, and delivery from afar.
Electronics companies are continuing to expand sales, service, and distribution into the region with Poland, Romania, Hungary, Czech, Ukraine, Russia, and Turkey being of greatest interest. In Central and Eastern Europe, as well as Europe as a whole, markets are fragmented and cultures, languages, customs, and regulations can vary widely adding to the complexity. It’s important not to approach business with Europe as one “entity,” due to the distinct differences between the countries. Despite some hurdles, ease of doing business and infrastructure are thought of positively and are rated by our research respondents as “fair-to-good.” For other respondents, however, the significant positives of building and servicing product in Europe for European customers are not enough to sway the decision away from Asia, where the companies have grown accustomed to manufacturing. In especially the developing Central and Eastern European countries, the lack of logistics capabilities is so far an insurmountable barrier for some.
The ultimate question is, are we really considering and weighing all of the key elements accurately enough?
I’ve learned, from serving as VP of Operations at electronics companies for many years, that it is critical to develop a sound business case that considers all of the costs and benefits in the decision to choose a manufacturing supplier and location. Further complicating these decisions is that relative costs, benefits, and risks change rapidly within constantly evolving global economies. The right choice today may well be the wrong choice on a time scale measured in only months! Risk assessment is critical, and the risks often grow exponentially with the distance between manufacturer and customer due to all the complicating factors to consider!
For anyone contemplating doing business in the European market, it’s a must to seriously consider the relatively lower risk and the great benefits of manufacturing in Central and Eastern Europe.
Weigh in on your views about electronics design and manufacturing in Central and Eastern Europe! Our report so far features country-by-country OEMs, EMS/ODMs, and suppliers; economic insights and relative ease of doing business; skill of workforce; sales channels; service/recycling; prevalent electronics industries; and strategies up and down the supply chain. Reply to the blog, take our survey, or join in with the study’s sponsors.
Last year we posted a TFI Friday Best of Blogs about what we had been reading that we suspected would interest and benefit TFI’s clients and network. Now, in time for your summer reading, we are updating the list. I invited our team to recommend books on the topics of supply chain, outsourcing, logistics, the tech industry, economics, environment / sustainability, or a combination of them – such as the book I am recommending this time.
A Taiwanese friend whom I met in Israel had me read Prosperity Without Growth: Economics for a Finite Planet, by Tim Jackson. Jackson is Economics Commissioner on the Sustainable Development Commission, the UK Government’s independent adviser on sustainable development. He lays out rational reasons why economic growth a la the past century cannot – alone – guarantee prosperity, and how flourishing within limits is a sounder formula for prosperity to come. TFI clients experiencing rebound growth from the recent economic contraction will find insights on strategies for assuring success even when growth is not assured.
TFI Logistics Consultant Jon Gilbert dug into his bookshelf to recommend a logistics “cookbook” comprising well-written advice and “recipes” for managing outsourcing of logistics. Self published by Cliff Lynch, Logistics Outsourcing – A Management Guide, 2nd Edition is a good read and valuable tool that Jon uses frequently as he advises clients.
Kim Allen, TFI Environment Consultant, recommends Profit Beyond Measure, by H. Thomas Johnson and Anders Bröms. This gem of a book offers a simple but radical solution to operational waste that has been realized by two major manufacturers: Toyota and Scania (a Swedish truck maker). The waste reduction method elegantly eliminates the traditional structures that supposedly “manage” waste, such as complex forecasting techniques and theoretical models. Instead, intelligence is created throughout the entire system, and practical understanding by those “on the floor” is used to improve efficiency. This system mimics a natural ecosystem, and was the basis of Toyota’s market value rising above that of the “Big Three,” as well as Scania’s stability for more than 65 years.
We are lucky enough to have Ben Marshall as a summer intern; he is a mechanical engineering student at UCLA and is helping our clients with design-for-environment. The two books he recommends are Right Relationship, by Peter G. Brown and Geoffrey Garver, and Just Good Business, by Kellie McElhaney. Right Relationship is, as he describes it, about helping our economy fit into the earth’s structure, as opposed to the other way around. Just Good Business is a guide to branding a company’s corporate social responsibility efforts.
TFI Environment Consultant Nikki Pava recommends Thriving Beyond Sustainability by Andres R. Edwards (who also wrote The Sustainability Revolution). Edwards describes how we can go beyond “sustainability” and attain “thrivability.” This book features examples of people and organizations that are creating positive transformations in all areas of sustainability. The frameworks outline areas such as regenerative design, community activism, and going “glocal,” which encapsulates the “think globally, act locally” world view. Thriving Beyond Sustainability provides inspiration and optimism that we all need today.
Finally, my colleague Pam Wiseman (TFI Operations and Supply Chain Consultant) shares that she is immersed in Theory U, about transformational leadership — creating the future and pushing beyond the constraints of the past. It’s especially pertinent in a complex and fast changing world with serious problems that need new and innovative solutions. Sustainability, climate change, terrorism, and our dependence on fossil fuels are a few examples of the complex and difficult problems that we face. Leaders need new ways of thinking and impetus to drive change. This framework can help drive transformative thinking.
Many thanks to the TFI team for their recommendations — I’ll load the books I haven’t yet read on my electronic reader before vacation. What are you reading that you believe will foster the TFI community’s success in business and in the world?
by Nikki Pava, TFI Environment Consultant
In the May 21st TFI Friday Best of Blogs, we pointed to the electronic-product companies’ (OEMs) complete swing from vertically-integrated manufacturing in the 1980s, to outsourcing the entire supply chain a decade later. In the current outsourcing model, it is necessary for OEMs big and small to ensure that the materials in their products are from ethical sources, that all companies they work with uphold fair labor standards, and that they do everything possible to avoid being connected with a disreputable supplier with egregious environmental violations. Having your supply chain and operations be as transparent as possible to customers, investors, and non-government organizations is one of the best ways to reduce risk.
Fostering transparency are many frameworks that a technology company can use, depending on the aspect of sustainability goals and objectives. For example, electronics companies have settled on using LEED as the framework for green buildings and the Carbon Disclosure Project for reporting their carbon emissions and plans to reduce them. Many companies involved in electronics supply-chain management are ISO 14001 certified, addressing continual environmental improvement of operations.
I consider the Global Reporting Index (GRI) to be a particularly effective framework, because it helps management to ensure that a wide spectrum of business decisions lead to continuously improving sustainability performance. Companies within the electronics supply chain — including OEMs, contract manufacturers, and component/materials suppliers — could greatly benefit from this recognized, public sustainability-reporting framework. Notable large players in the electronics industry, including Samsung, Applied Materials, and IBM, all reported to the GRI in 2009.
When a company publicly shares all of its sustainability information, it demonstrates management’s commitment to pursuing sustainable business practices. The GRI makes the information public, so potential customers or investors have quick access to this information. Additionally, as more companies are putting more scrutiny into the types of suppliers they select, they look to create relationships with companies that have similar values. Thus, by using the GRI reporting framework, management can quickly assess other companies’ environmental performance, human rights record, and regulatory actions before collaborating with them.
There are two parts to the GRI: first, it’s a “network-based organization that has pioneered the development of the world’s most widely used sustainability reporting framework, and is committed to its continuous improvement and application worldwide.” Second, the framework itself is a set of indicators and principals that companies can use to measure all parts of their business operations (economic, environmental, and social performance). The framework allows for comparisons between companies, as well as for benchmarking and informed target setting.
If you would like to learn more about the GRI and become a Certified Training Partner in the USA, I recommend that you attend the upcoming conference hosted by the ISOS Group and Triplepundit. It will take place at the Faculty Club at the University of California Berkeley, on July 29-30. Please let me know if you would like to register: NPava@TFIenvironment.com.
What do you think: does public sustainability reporting truly benefit supply-chain management? Please reply at the bottom of the blog.
John Shegerian and Mike Brady of the Green is Good weekly radio show speak with Pamela J. Gordon, founder of Technology Forecasters, Inc., and CEO of TFI Environment.
"Change is scary [to a company]," Gordon admits. "We form a team with the client, and together we create ways to change and reduce that waste that works within that corporate culture."
By Jon Gilbert, TFI Logistics Consultant
As product lifecycles grow ever shorter, increasing velocity becomes more critical in managing the supply chain. Reducing new product development time, supplier lead-time, and speed of transport are all key in gaining competitive advantage.
Despite all the desire for speed, numerous factors are working against speeding up transportation. In the past few months, steamship lines have begun “slow steaming” programs, reducing capacity and adding as much as 50% to transit times in certain lanes. Airfreight costs are rising with demand as capacity remains constrained, and fuel costs are on their way up once again. This all adds up to higher and higher costs to go fast.
How do industry leaders cope with these issues? Many have been looking to near-sourcing alternatives, moving manufacturing, final assembly, and/or test closer to demand. This allows for fast cycles at low cost. A recent Stanford Business Journal article talks about the benefits of keeping production close and supply chains short. The result: much greater profits. Their story focuses on fashion, but the similarities to our industry are obvious.
Interestingly, we see commonalities evolving in regional supply markets. While component manufacturing has largely been driven to Asia, it has become popular to build subassemblies and finished goods in Eastern Europe and Mexico. This specialization is partly an effect of the tendency of similar businesses to locate near each other, but it also has much to do with the economics of shipping. As components are built into subassemblies, and finally combined into finished goods, density (kilograms divided by cubic meter) of the items generally decreases. Think of shipping capacitors versus assembled circuit boards, versus finished goods. Each is less dense than its precursor. Shorter shipping distances are optimal for the lower-density finished goods.
In an ideal world, perhaps the entire supply chain would be replicated close to demand in multiple places. Instead, the manufacturing economics work in favor of a split-manufacturing strategy with multiple regions participating in the supply chain (lengthening the chain). It makes great sense to create large capacity to build high volumes of uniform parts in a single location, and Asia has largely won this market. For final assembly, the scale is much smaller, and localizing production and adding opportunities for postponement make much more sense.
For these reasons, we are seeing many of our clients pursuing strategies to satisfy demand with more localized capabilities. The benefits are clear – reduced transportation costs, greater speed to market, and greater responsiveness.
What are you doing to shorten your lead-times?
How does your company plan to compete as transportation costs rise and cycle times grow ever shorter?
One of my favorite reporters from Business Week interviewed me Tuesday about the 13 (so far) suicides by employees at Foxconn / Hon Hai. I explained that moving production away from manufacturing suppliers (EMS, ODM) is tough, but that OEMs should set exit strategies in case a full or partial withdrawal becomes necessary for business or ethical reasons.
From the reporter’s questions about business repercussions from worker-rights violations, I got a sinking feeling: Will the raging sales of Apple’s iPad dip perceptibly based on the now widely known string of suicides at their manufacturing supplier, Foxconn? Or will there be no business impact at all? In other words, are name-brand (OEM) companies’ sales less impacted when egregious violations of employee rights occur at their contract manufacturers as opposed to at their own sites?
(As for the underlying reasons for the suicides, see an upcoming article by TFI Shanghai-based Analyst Fanny Lee and me in SMT magazine.)
Certainly Nike shoes were boycotted years ago after the Vietnam-based employee treatment was made public. And Kathie Lee Gifford worked to counter sweat-shop abuses after a human rights group reported in 1996 sweatshop labor conditions in Honduras where Gifford’s line of clothing was made. Today, some drivers are at least thinking about choice of gas / petrol stations in light of the BP oil spill.
But is knowledge of worker rapes (as was brought out a few years ago in Mexican contract manufacturers), suicides, illegal overtime, and age violations at contract manufacturers — which granted are seen as one step removed from the name brand company — spurring corporate and consumer customers to make different choices in name brand purchases? And if not, why not?
I’d like to hear your thoughts. Please reply at the bottom of the blog.
The title above is a statement my colleague Mike Kirschner (DCA president) made during a day-long Design-for-Environment Workshop we co-led. He’s right that when the industry long-ago migrated from vertical integration to an outsourced model, no one anticipated the breadth and depth of global environmental requirements to come, or how stringing together long supply chains with dozens of links in far-flung geographies and diverse business cultures would make cost-effective compliance nearly insurmountable.
Think about IBM’s vertical-integration model through the 1980s — designing and making semiconductors (IBM still designs), fabricating bare printed-circuit boards and component packaging (now Endicott Interconnect Technologies), assembling the components (for example in Toronto, which became (Celestica), and building personal computers (Lenovo). IBM and many other electronics companies at the time controlled product-concept design through decisions about raw materials, and product manufacturing through end of life. Today it’s hard to find vertically integrated hardware companies. Recent capital-venture-funded tech companies have outsourced manufacturing (or even much of product design!) from the beginning. Nokia has been one of the few companies hanging onto manufacturing — sometimes more and sometimes less (announcing “more,” this week).
Raw materials are sourced so far up their supply chains that supply-chain managers can’t begin to control substances’ composition, origins, and working conditions during extraction. It’s too much to ask of especially mid-sized and smaller companies to staff the number of product stewards needed to continually track global requirements for substance-restriction, energy consumption, and reuse/recycling and align their own product roadmaps accordingly.
It’s ironic, but meeting today’s environmental requirements for products would have been easier back in the vertically-integrated past than in today’s outsourced, long-supply-chain reality. Nonetheless, here are ways to meet and stay ahead of environmental requirements, cost effectively.
First, because decisions about design, manufacturing, and compliance are spread out across company departments, gain top-level executive support to make lasting and successful Design-for-Environment (DfE) processes and sustainability programs. Next, plot on a 5-year DfE roadmap the likely environmental regulations from customers, regulators, and standards committees that will affect your individual company’s product lines. Finally, proactively design to those requirements to avoid costly and iterative emergency reactions and having products blocked from an increasing number of markets.
Easy, right? Frankly, today’s changing nature and expanding scopes of global environmental-protection requirements can be overwhelming to designers and supply-chain managers.
So, after that DfE Workshop, Mike and I developed a customized service that applies TFI’s success rate at training engineers in DfE and getting buy-in from corporate executives, along with DCA’s continual tracking and influence of global regulations and standards, to individual clients’ product roadmaps. We realized that we are well positioned to customize 5-year DfE roadmaps for individual companies’ product lines, and to recommend how to systemically and cost-effectively execute the plan. Our DfE Process Integration Roadmap aligns those long supply chains with holistic product-compliance plans, avoiding costly and arduous sequential changes in reaction to new requirements.
Mike likes to use the image of a tsunami to describe the overwhelming number of environmental requirements rushing in — sometimes with little warning and from distant shores. I like to think of the challenge facing all of us to strategically prepare for environmental requirements as yet another fiercely competitive element of excellent supply-chain management. It’s not as much surfing treacherous waves as building a strong infrastructure with insights into the future and with unwavering executive support.
If you’re curious about building supply-chain processes that indeed align with current and upcoming environmental requirements, grab your surfboard and reply below.
Contact TFI | 2000 Santa Clara Avenue, Alameda, CA 94501 USA. Phone 1-510-601-9107
Copyright © 2010 Technology Forecasters, Inc., all rights reserved. | 
RSS Feed | Friday Best of Blogs
