In the "here today, obsolete tomorrow" world of electronics, no supply chain partner wants to get stuck with mountains of parts for yesterday's hot-selling cell phone or PC. But running a lean operation doesn't have to mean pushing your inventory problems onto someone else. Solectron found a better way.
As supply chain management challenges go, running an electronics industry supply chain may be the business world's equivalent of playing in the extreme sports leagues. For these players, the challenge is to run lean— unburdened by inventories of components for products that could become obsolete in a flash—and to do that without sacrificing reliability. The industry's penchant for sourcing in far-flung locations doesn't make it any easier. Without stocks on hand, how can you possibly guarantee the just-in-time delivery of parts that are produced 10,000 miles away up a dirt road in China?
In the last few years, one popular method of dealing with this dilemma has been to hand off the challenges and risks to someone else, namely the supplier. Under a strategy known as vendor managed inventory (VMI), suppliers of parts and components retain ownership of that inventory up until the moment it's needed, often locating supply depots right next to the manufacturer's facilities. It's ideal for the manufacturer—which gets what it wants almost the moment it needs it—but it's not a great proposition for the supplier, which is forced to assume the burden of juggling inventory ordered vs. inventory needed.
Of course, that's not to imply that all companies using VMI are gleefully handing off inventory responsibilities to their suppliers, then running as fast as they can in the other direction. Some, like electronics manufacturer Solectron Corp., have taken a very different tack. For Solectron, which manufactures components like printed circuit boards and routers and assembles PCs and cell phones, getting lean has meant getting more, not less, involved in the part of the supply chain controlled by its suppliers. Solectron's philosophy is that it makes sense to minimize inefficiencies for suppliers, since they are a crucial part of the supply chain too. It has also managed to move toward a change in mindset about internal processes—bringing manufacturing and distribution together as a whole, treating manufacturing and logistics as part of a seamless process.
Solectron plays a pivotal role in the brave new world of efficient electronics distribution. The Milpitas, Calif.-based company counts among its customers such high-tech giants as Cisco Systems (13 percent of sales), Nortel, Hewlett-Packard, Ericsson and IBM, which all outsource production to Solectron to cut their own costs. Solectron operates around 60 manufacturing plants around the world and deals with more than 3,000 suppliers globally. "We have parts coming at us from all sorts of countries. From a supply chain perspective, keeping visibility of where our stuff is all the time is difficult," says Jim Molzon, Solectron's vice president of customer fulfillment and global logistics.
Beyond VMI
VMI wasn't providing Solectron with the kinds of efficiencies Molzon wanted, and so in the summer of 2003, the company commenced a "lean supply chain" initiative that focused on streamlining both the supply chain and manufacturing operations. The process is effectively taking Solectron out of VMI and into a supply chain where no one's trying to shove responsibility for anything onto anyone. It also, ultimately, benefits the end customer, Molzon says, by improving operations all around.
"Instead of carrying inventory just in case, we're working very closely with our customers, anticipating their requirements, and we're working with suppliers to create more of a pull environment," says Molzon. Allowing real-time information about real consumption to pull inventory through the supply chain rather than producing parts on the basis of far-ranging predictions and then pushing them into the manufacturing process is, of course, not a new idea. But it's hard to do, and it's particularly crucial in the electronics industry where delivery times on some components run as long as 45 to 60 days and the products they go into may become obsolete in the same period.
Molzon wanted to create a "pull environment" by getting information to suppliers about what Solectron's needs actually were, rather than relying on forecasts. "Forecasts are important, but the actual physical movement of components from suppliers to our manufacturing plants is more based on actual consumption," he says. "We historically had forecasts and brought inventory in on the basis of those. If demand changed, you had too much or not enough."
Molzon says he's working on "fundamentally improving the supply chain." Forecasts, Molzon says, would try to predict demand 26 weeks from now, rendering them less than perfect.
"Part of it is getting information out more quickly, but it's more about getting information out about what the actual demand is—what did we produce yesterday? What are we going to produce in the next week?"Molzon says.
All the same, for Molzon, working with suppliers to get a leaner supply chain going meant one very important thing had to happen first of all—getting his own house in order.
"The tack we took in [the] first six months was internally focused, getting our own operations lean, getting our facilities so they could act in a lean fashion. Then the supplier initiative has been in the last nine months or so."
The next step was to pick his battles. "We're working with our key suppliers initially. We can't dedicate our resources to all of them, but with the key suppliers we have initiatives for better communication."
It's an evolution, not a revolution, Molzon says, and it doesn't mean Solectron is taking back all the responsibility for getting inventory right. "At the end of the day, there has been a pushing back onto the suppliers." But Solectron's version of lean is so collaborative that Molzon no longer considers the term "VMI" applicable. "It's a different approach to working with the supply base, making us and them much more responsive to needs in the marketplace."
Knowledge is power
These days, Molzon is working with suppliers and other partners in the supply chain to get a more realistic overall estimate of the landed cost of goods. Logistics costs typically are "baked in" to purchasing estimates, instead of being kept separate. "[Estimates] used to be based more on labor costs and the intuitive idea that it must be cheaper in China," Molzon says. "We're moving now to looking at logistics costs, duty and taxes, and we're looking at the overall duty structure, taking the entire supply chain and incorporating all the cost drivers, not just the easy ones, to find the piece cost rate."
Katherine Smith, global division representative at Costa Mesa, Calif.-based Interliance LLC, a management consulting firm specializing in foreign trade, agrees that this kind of analysis is helping change supply chain practices.
"Predictability through technology is developing into a must-have for global manufacturers in order to make the right choices. For example, if a large order comes through to a manufacturer in China and must be turned around, then shipped off to an assembler in Romania, and then to a packaging facility in Mexico for final distribution out of Irvine, California, what kind of costs are accumulated?" Smith asks. "Forecasting these puzzles in order for a company to save in operating costs is taking a primary role in the bigger picture of manufacturing and distribution."
However, what works for Solectron isn't necessarily going to work for all electronics manufacturers, Smith points out, and VMI is by no means dead. "Manufacturers and distributors can't wear a one-size-fits-all solution for their supply chain and must instead customize and take pieces from the processes that work best for them."
One way or another, manufacturers need to take ownership of what's going on in their extended supply chain. "Manufacturers are ultimately responsible for the quality of the inventory delivered to the distributor," says Smith, "and this puts the pressure on them to tightly rein in the supply chain."
a kinder, gentler VMI
Depending on who you talk to, VMI is either the way of the future or a scourge visited on hapless suppliers. To a customer that has managed to shift the ownership and responsibility for managing inventory to its suppliers, VMI probably looks like a pretty good deal. But to a supplier burdened with the costs and responsibilities of managing and replenishing its customers' inventory, it probably looks more like a headache.
Is there a way to make VMI work for both parties? GT Nexus Inc., the logistics technology firm in Alameda, Calif., has done some research on that question. The company recently released a white paper in conjunction with the Electronic Supply Chain Association (ECSA) that contained suggestions about how the electronics manufacturing industry could continue to reap the rewards of VMI by working more cooperatively with suppliers.
According to the white paper, the trouble is that many of the decisions a manufacturer makes about sourcing come from the purchasing department, without consultation with the logistics guys. This creates a fundamental conflict of interests. "Low cost, global sourcing is driven by the procurement organization and aims at cost of goods sold (COGS) reduction, at the expense of higher transportation cost and leadtimes. Conversely, VMI's champion is the supply chain organization, striving to gain operational efficiencies, based on short and frequent replenishment cycles. At first glance, these trends certainly seem hopelessly at odds," comments the GT Nexus/ESCA report, released in November 2004.
It's a tricky knot to tease apart. But at least the logistics department can work on lessening its share of costs by working with suppliers, the report says. In that spirit, it offers the following suggestions:
Take advantage of technology that enables users to obtain more detailed tracking and tracing information on individual parts. That way, goods in transit become part of the counted inventory in a "virtual warehouse."
Buy global freight services across your company's total transportation volume, sharing those rates with the VMI suppliers when they move the inventory.
Track total logistics costs, including the leg involving the VMI supplier, and share and minimize these costs between buyer and supplier.
Congestion on U.S. highways is costing the trucking industry big, according to research from the American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI), released today.
The group found that traffic congestion on U.S. highways added $108.8 billion in costs to the trucking industry in 2022, a record high. The information comes from ATRI’s Cost of Congestion study, which is part of the organization’s ongoing highway performance measurement research.
Total hours of congestion fell slightly compared to 2021 due to softening freight market conditions, but the cost of operating a truck increased at a much higher rate, according to the research. As a result, the overall cost of congestion increased by 15% year-over-year—a level equivalent to more than 430,000 commercial truck drivers sitting idle for one work year and an average cost of $7,588 for every registered combination truck.
The analysis also identified metropolitan delays and related impacts, showing that the top 10 most-congested states each experienced added costs of more than $8 billion. That list was led by Texas, at $9.17 billion in added costs; California, at $8.77 billion; and Florida, $8.44 billion. Rounding out the top 10 list were New York, Georgia, New Jersey, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Louisiana, and Tennessee. Combined, the top 10 states account for more than half of the trucking industry’s congestion costs nationwide—52%, according to the research.
The metro areas with the highest congestion costs include New York City, $6.68 billion; Miami, $3.2 billion; and Chicago, $3.14 billion.
ATRI’s analysis also found that the trucking industry wasted more than 6.4 billion gallons of diesel fuel in 2022 due to congestion, resulting in additional fuel costs of $32.1 billion.
ATRI used a combination of data sources, including its truck GPS database and Operational Costs study benchmarks, to calculate the impacts of trucking delays on major U.S. roadways.
There’s a photo from 1971 that John Kent, professor of supply chain management at the University of Arkansas, likes to show. It’s of a shaggy-haired 18-year-old named Glenn Cowan grinning at three-time world table tennis champion Zhuang Zedong, while holding a silk tapestry Zhuang had just given him. Cowan was a member of the U.S. table tennis team who participated in the 1971 World Table Tennis Championships in Nagoya, Japan. Story has it that one morning, he overslept and missed his bus to the tournament and had to hitch a ride with the Chinese national team and met and connected with Zhuang.
Cowan and Zhuang’s interaction led to an invitation for the U.S. team to visit China. At the time, the two countries were just beginning to emerge from a 20-year period of decidedly frosty relations, strict travel bans, and trade restrictions. The highly publicized trip signaled a willingness on both sides to renew relations and launched the term “pingpong diplomacy.”
Kent, who is a senior fellow at the George H. W. Bush Foundation for U.S.-China Relations, believes the photograph is a good reminder that some 50-odd years ago, the economies of the United States and China were not as tightly interwoven as they are today. At the time, the Nixon administration was looking to form closer political and economic ties between the two countries in hopes of reducing chances of future conflict (and to weaken alliances among Communist countries).
The signals coming out of Washington and Beijing are now, of course, much different than they were in the early 1970s. Instead of advocating for better relations, political rhetoric focuses on the need for the U.S. to “decouple” from China. Both Republicans and Democrats have warned that the U.S. economy is too dependent on goods manufactured in China. They see this dependency as a threat to economic strength, American jobs, supply chain resiliency, and national security.
Supply chain professionals, however, know that extricating ourselves from our reliance on Chinese manufacturing is easier said than done. Many pundits push for a “China + 1” strategy, where companies diversify their manufacturing and sourcing options beyond China. But in reality, that “plus one” is often a Chinese company operating in a different country or a non-Chinese manufacturer that is still heavily dependent on material or subcomponents made in China.
This is the problem when supply chain decisions are made on a global scale without input from supply chain professionals. In an article in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Kent argues that, “The discussions on supply chains mainly take place between government officials who typically bring many other competing issues and agendas to the table. Corporate entities—the individuals and companies directly impacted by supply chains—tend to be under-represented in the conversation.”
Kent is a proponent of what he calls “supply chain diplomacy,” where experts from academia and industry from the U.S. and China work collaboratively to create better, more efficient global supply chains. Take, for example, the “Peace Beans” project that Kent is involved with. This project, jointly formed by Zhejiang University and the Bush China Foundation, proposes balancing supply chains by exporting soybeans from Arkansas to tofu producers in China’s Yunnan province, and, in return, importing coffee beans grown in Yunnan to coffee roasters in Arkansas. Kent believes the operation could even use the same transportation equipment.
The benefits of working collaboratively—instead of continuing to build friction in the supply chain through tariffs and adversarial relationships—are numerous, according to Kent and his colleagues. They believe it would be much better if the two major world economies worked together on issues like global inflation, climate change, and artificial intelligence.
And such relations could play a significant role in strengthening world peace, particularly in light of ongoing tensions over Taiwan. Because, as Kent writes, “The 19th-century idea that ‘When goods don’t cross borders, soldiers will’ is as true today as ever. Perhaps more so.”
Hyster-Yale Materials Handling today announced its plans to fulfill the domestic manufacturing requirements of the Build America, Buy America (BABA) Act for certain portions of its lineup of forklift trucks and container handling equipment.
That means the Greenville, North Carolina-based company now plans to expand its existing American manufacturing with a targeted set of high-capacity models, including electric options, that align with the needs of infrastructure projects subject to BABA requirements. The company’s plans include determining the optimal production location in the United States, strategically expanding sourcing agreements to meet local material requirements, and further developing electric power options for high-capacity equipment.
As a part of the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the BABA Act aims to increase the use of American-made materials in federally funded infrastructure projects across the U.S., Hyster-Yale says. It was enacted as part of a broader effort to boost domestic manufacturing and economic growth, and mandates that federal dollars allocated to infrastructure – such as roads, bridges, ports and public transit systems – must prioritize materials produced in the USA, including critical items like steel, iron and various construction materials.
Hyster-Yale’s footprint in the U.S. is spread across 10 locations, including three manufacturing facilities.
“Our leadership is fully invested in meeting the needs of businesses that require BABA-compliant material handling solutions,” Tony Salgado, Hyster-Yale’s chief operating officer, said in a release. “We are working to partner with our key domestic suppliers, as well as identifying how best to leverage our own American manufacturing footprint to deliver a competitive solution for our customers and stakeholders. But beyond mere compliance, and in line with the many areas of our business where we are evolving to better support our customers, our commitment remains steadfast. We are dedicated to delivering industry-leading standards in design, durability and performance — qualities that have become synonymous with our brands worldwide and that our customers have come to rely on and expect.”
In a separate move, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) also gave its approval for the state to advance its Heavy-Duty Omnibus Rule, which is crafted to significantly reduce smog-forming nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions from new heavy-duty, diesel-powered trucks.
Both rules are intended to deliver health benefits to California citizens affected by vehicle pollution, according to the environmental group Earthjustice. If the state gets federal approval for the final steps to become law, the rules mean that cars on the road in California will largely be zero-emissions a generation from now in the 2050s, accounting for the average vehicle lifespan of vehicles with internal combustion engine (ICE) power sold before that 2035 date.
“This might read like checking a bureaucratic box, but EPA’s approval is a critical step forward in protecting our lungs from pollution and our wallets from the expenses of combustion fuels,” Paul Cort, director of Earthjustice’s Right To Zero campaign, said in a release. “The gradual shift in car sales to zero-emissions models will cut smog and household costs while growing California’s clean energy workforce. Cutting truck pollution will help clear our skies of smog. EPA should now approve the remaining authorization requests from California to allow the state to clean its air and protect its residents.”
However, the truck drivers' industry group Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) pushed back against the federal decision allowing the Omnibus Low-NOx rule to advance. "The Omnibus Low-NOx waiver for California calls into question the policymaking process under the Biden administration's EPA. Purposefully injecting uncertainty into a $588 billion American industry is bad for our economy and makes no meaningful progress towards purported environmental goals," (OOIDA) President Todd Spencer said in a release. "EPA's credibility outside of radical environmental circles would have been better served by working with regulated industries rather than ramming through last-minute special interest favors. We look forward to working with the Trump administration's EPA in good faith towards achievable environmental outcomes.”
Editor's note:This article was revised on December 18 to add reaction from OOIDA.
A Canadian startup that provides AI-powered logistics solutions has gained $5.5 million in seed funding to support its concept of creating a digital platform for global trade, according to Toronto-based Starboard.
The round was led by Eclipse, with participation from previous backers Garuda Ventures and Everywhere Ventures. The firm says it will use its new backing to expand its engineering team in Toronto and accelerate its AI-driven product development to simplify supply chain complexities.
According to Starboard, the logistics industry is under immense pressure to adapt to the growing complexity of global trade, which has hit recent hurdles such as the strike at U.S. east and gulf coast ports. That situation calls for innovative solutions to streamline operations and reduce costs for operators.
As a potential solution, Starboard offers its flagship product, which it defines as an AI-based transportation management system (TMS) and rate management system that helps mid-sized freight forwarders operate more efficiently and win more business. More broadly, Starboard says it is building the virtual infrastructure for global trade, allowing freight companies to leverage AI and machine learning to optimize operations such as processing shipments in real time, reconciling invoices, and following up on payments.
"This investment is a pivotal step in our mission to unlock the power of AI for our customers," said Sumeet Trehan, Co-Founder and CEO of Starboard. "Global trade has long been plagued by inefficiencies that drive up costs and reduce competitiveness. Our platform is designed to empower SMB freight forwarders—the backbone of more than $20 trillion in global trade and $1 trillion in logistics spend—with the tools they need to thrive in this complex ecosystem."