Tag Archives: Melbourne

Manufacturing is not returning to the West

There’s many claims over the last year or so that “manufacturing is returning to the West” and “China’s days as the world’s factory are numbered”{{1}}. These claims are misguided.

[[1]]Vivek Wadhwa (23 July 2012), The End of Chinese Manufacturing and Rebirth of U.S. Industry, Forbes[[1]]

We’ve just reached a time where manual and skilled labour is no longer a major manufacturing cost, causing final assembly to slowly drifting toward the customer base it serves. This shift reduces the length of the supply chain from assembly to your front door resulting in a reduction in turn-around time which, in turn, reduces working capital requirements and allows manufacturers to push product updates through the supply chain faster.

Manufacturing isn’t leaving China and other low cost manufacturing centres. What has changed is that it now makes good sense to manufacture some high value but low volume and bulky products in other major markets, such as the U.S.

The problem with thinking that manufacturing is returning to the first world is the implicit assumption that this also means that the old manufacturing jobs will return. They won’t. They no longer exist. It also ignores that fact that the huge scale of manufacturing in China will help it to grab the lions share of the world manufacturing market for some time to come.

Manufacturing as a manual process

Consider Henry Ford’s assembly line from 1913: a complex, labour intensive process that created a large number of good, blue collar jobs.

566px-Ford_assembly_line_-_1913Source: Public Domain

When we think of manufacturing this is the image we usually have in head. It’s a bit like those train crossing signs that have a caricature of a steam engine on them. It might not be the current reality, but it’s the image we use to understand what’s going on around us.

As transport costs dropped, work moved to lower cost countries

Back in Henry Ford’s day transportation was expensive. Factories were often located close to the markets they served to minimise transport costs, with management struggling to ensure that enough raw materials arrived at the factory to keep it busy. However, the development of railroads, steam ships, and the shipping container network incrementally cut the cost of transport until it cost roughly the same to move a box across the world as it did to move it across the country.

As Marc Levinson points out in his book, The Box{{2}}:

[[2]]Marc Levinson, The Box: How the Shipping Container Made the World Smaller and the World Economy Bigger. iBooks.[[2]]

As transportation costs decline relative to other costs, manufacturers can relocate first domestically, and then internationally, to reduce other costs, which come to loom larger. Globalization, the diffusion of economic activity without regard for national boundaries, is the logical end point of this process. As transport costs fall to extremely low levels, producers move from high-wage to low-wage countries, eventually causing wage levels in all countries to converge. These geographic shifts can occur quickly and suddenly, leaving long-standing industrial infrastructure underutilized or abandoned as economic activity moves on.

This is the shift we’re thinking of when we consider off-shore manufacturing: China as the source of cheap (and fairly unskilled labour).

Today, manufacturing is not a manual process

Apple released an interesting video the other day{{3}}. It shows the manufacturing process for the new Mac Pro.

[[3]]Greg Koenig (22 October 2013), How Apple makes the Mac ProAtomic Delights[[3]]

SourceApple

What’s interesting about this process is how few people are involved.

Manufacturing has changed a lot in the last few decades. What was once dominated by manual labour is now an automated and highly efficient process. Machines have replaced people. We can see this in many of the factories that are returning to the West: they’re all highly efficient, highly automated, capital intensive operations that require very little manual or skilled labour.

7395855880_053e6daede_cSource: Steve Jurvetson

Machines, however, have yet to replace engineers

While capital has won over manual and skilled labour, that same is not true for engineers: knowledge workers.

As Roger Martin found in his research for a recent HBR article{{4}}:

[[4]]Roger L. Martin (October 2013), Rethinking the Decision Factory, Harvard Business Review[[4]]

I vividly remember working with the CEO of one of North America’s largest bread manufacturers in 1990–1991. He had just replaced a labor-intensive and antiquated plant with the most advanced bread bakery on the continent. He proudly told me that the new computerized ovens and packaging machinery had reduced direct labor costs by 60%. But meanwhile, a throng of new and expensive knowledge workers had been added at both the head office and the plant—engineers, computer technicians, and managers—to take care of the sophisticated computer systems and state-of-the-art equipment. The new plant wasn’t quite the unalloyed good that it appeared at first sight. Variable costs of manual labor fell, but the fixed cost of knowledge workers rose, making it critical to keep capacity utilization high—which was possible in some years but not in others.

While the West has been worried about losing it manufacturing capability, many of the off-shore manufacturing destinations have been investing in education. China, for example, now has a huge engineering workforce that companies can draw own to sort out their manufacturing problems.

It’s this incredible ability to mobilise huge workforces that is keeping many manufactures in China. An article in the New York Times from last year has an Apple anecdote that shows this in action{{5}}.

[[5]]Charles Dugigg & Keith Bradsher (21January2012), How the U.S. Lost Out on iPhone Work, The New York Times[[5]]

Another critical advantage for Apple was that China provided engineers at a scale the United States could not match. Apple’s executives had estimated that about 8,700 industrial engineers were needed to oversee and guide the 200,000 assembly-line workers eventually involved in manufacturing iPhones. The company’s analysts had forecast it would take as long as nine months to find that many qualified engineers in the United States.

Moving closer to the customer

The rapid pace of change in today’s market is driving companies to reduce the time between final assembly and when the product drops into the customer’s waiting hands.

Zara is the poster child for this shift, with a supply chain can create a new product and then have it in the stores in around two weeks. Zara has used this ability to disrupt the traditional annual, seasonal fashion cycle, resulting Zara becoming one of the largest retailers in the world.

Apple’s recent decision to make the Mac Pro in the U.S. is part of a trend to move the manufacturing of high value but low volume and bulky products closer to the customer. Elon Musk’s Tesla is also part of this trend.

Manufacturing automation technology has reached the point that it makes more sense to locate the manufacturing of these products closer to the customer, allowing transport costs and delivery times to be minimised.

We shouldn’t assume, however, that this trend will end with manufacturing returning to the West.

It’s easy to forget the more people live in Asia than in the entire rest of the world combined. If manufacturing is moving to be closer to the customer, then we need to remember that there are more customers in Asia than in the rest of the world. China’s position as a manufacturing powerhouse appears safe for the time being.

CK6aONG

Source: valeriepieris

What we mean by “export” is changing

So just where will this trend take us? (And, by extension, will our old export industries return, bringing their jobs back with them?)

The future of manufacturing and export seems – like to many industries – connected to the knowledge economy.

Those old manufacturing jobs are never coming back. They no longer exist. Similarly, thinking in terms of operating a factory and then exporting to another country is also looking somewhat antiquated.

Today (or perhaps, tomorrow) a manufacturer is a simply company that is run from one country and, from there, manages the sale of products in another.

Kogan{{6}} is a great example of this. The business is run from South Melbourne, Australia, which is where the products are designed. The products themselves are made in China and (in many cases) shipped directly to the United Kingdom where they are sold via the company’s UK web site (which is also managed from Port Melbourne, but hosted somewhere “in the cloud”).

[[6]]Kogan @ PEG[[6]]

An even more interesting example is another local business which sells safety barriers that are placed around robots in factories to ensure that workers aren’t accidentally injured. They recently started exporting to Europe. They did this by setting up a small, automated factory in Germany to service the European market. The barriers are designed in Australia and the designs are beamed directly to the machines in Germany, machines that consume resources from all over the globe.

So manufacturing – as we’ve traditionally understood it – is not returning to the West. The blue collar jobs that went overseas are not coming home to give our rather lacklustre economies a boost.

We can also expect China to remain an manufacturing powerhouse for the foreseeable future. The huge scale of operations over there, and the ability to rapidly redeploy these resources, will allow China to grab more than it’s fair share of the world manufacturing market.

Manufacturing, like so many industries{{7}}, is changing, and changing rapidly. What’s most interesting though, is how a new generation of companies are emerging that are finding ways to exploit this situation to “export”, and create new, knowledge intensive jobs at home in the process.

[[7]]The destruction of traditional retail @ PEG[[7]]

Source: Steve Jurvetson

People don’t like change. (Or do they?)

I seem to be having a lot of conversations at the moment around whether people (you, me and everyone else) like and embrace change, or whether they resist it. The same question arises for companies. Like a lot of these questions, I think it depends. As individuals we don’t mind change, given appropriate circumstances. Organisations also want to change (and in today’s business environment it seems to be a question of changing or becoming irrelevant). However, people in organisations are usually strongly incentivised to dislike change, especially if they want to make that next repayment on their new mortgage. Fixing this, and creating a culture that embraces change, means changing the way we think about and structure our organisations and our careers. It means rethinking the rules of enterprise IT.

Every time a conversation comes around to the topic of change, I’m always reminded of a visit I made to a Toyota factory something like a decade ago. It’s so long ago now that I can’t even remember the reason for the visit, but that’s not the point of this missive.

Toyota, like most businesses, loves change. (Many large companies reorganise so often that change seems to be the only constant.) Change, embodied in the development of the Toyota Production System, was what took Toyota from the bottom of the global car industry to the top. Change is also why many of us have moved companies, following jobs as our employers reorganise their operations. For some of us, change is an opportunity. For many though, change is the tool of the man as he tries to disrupt our lives. Change means unwanted relocations, pay cuts, career stalls, or the need to shift jobs when we don’t want to. Change is something to be resisted.

What was interesting about my visit to Toyota though, was the attitude of the workers on the shop floor had to change. They didn’t hate it. They didn’t even resist it. They actually arrived at work each day eager to see how work practices had been changed since the end of their last shift.

A Toyota assembly line circa 2000.
A Toyota assembly line circa 2000

The concrete example I saw of this was the pre-sorting of seatbelt parts into coloured tubs. Apparently only a few weeks earlier the parts had been arranged on a wall. All hooks and dangling parts, like your Dad’s tools in the shed. When a car came down the assembly line a worker would select the parts appropriate for the car model, and then attach them to the car. Each seat belt had roughly four parts, so that meant there was three unnecessary decisions. Unnecessary decisions usually mean mistakes, mistakes waste time and money, and there were a number of mistakes made.

One day a member of the shop floor team had had the bright idea of pre-sorting the seat belts to avoid these mistakes. Some coloured tubs were sourced (some of the shop floor team drove to the local Walmart with a little petty cash), parts were sorted into tubs, and they gave the idea a trial run. Selecting seatbelt parts for a car now only required one decision: which tub?

The idea was a huge success; error rates went down dramatically. I hear that it was even taken global, and implemented in most Toyota factories around the world. (Though being around ten years ago, and with today’s rapid pace of change, I expect that the tubs have been superseded by now.)

What’s interesting about this story is that the change originated on the shop floor, from the assembly line worker who were actively looking to improve operations, rather than from head office as part of a reorganisation. Some of the improvements I heard about even resulted in the elimination of jobs, with the workers redeployed elsewhere in the factory. Workers weren’t just changing how they did something, they were also changing what they did. Change was what made the work interesting and engaging for the workers, rather than being seen as an oppressive tool used by the man.

I think we can safely set aside the idea that works don’t like change, as this story is not an isolated incident. Why then, do so many people resist change? Why, for every Toyota factory, there is a story like the UK newspaper industry, where workers (and unions) resisted change for decades, until Rupert Murdoch came along.

Rupert Murdoch, destroyer of unions, and good Melbourne boy
Rupert Murdoch, destroyer of unions, and good Melbourne boy

The problem is not people or organisations, but people in organisations.

People are funny things; they tend to do what you incentivise them to do. There’s an excellent article over at the NY Times, The no-stars all-star, which talks about measurement and incentives in basketball. We often talk about “what gets measured determines what gets done” from an employee incentive point of view, but this article puts some real meat on the bones of that argument.

Shane Battier, the no-stars all-star
Shane Battier, the no-stars all-star

As the article says (on page two):

There is a tension, peculiar to basketball, between the interests of the team and the interests of the individual. The game continually tempts the people who play it to do things that are not in the interest of the group.

A little later it goes on to mention (on page three):

A point guard might selfishly give up an open shot for an assist. You can see it happen every night, when he’s racing down court for an open layup, and instead of taking it, he passes it back to a trailing teammate. The teammate usually finishes with some sensational dunk, but the likelihood of scoring nevertheless declined. “The marginal assist is worth more money to the point guard than the marginal point,” Morey says.

The point guard’s career is defined by the number of assists he makes (among other metrics), and he’ll try and increase the number of assets even if it’s not in the best interest of the team. After all, teams come and go, while he has a career to maintain.

Once you place a person into a role you have put them on a career path which will determine their attitude to change.

Usually we take an operational approach to defining roles, rewarding people for the volume of work they are responsible for. Career progression then means increasing the amount of work they are responsible for, regardless of what this means for the company.

Measuring a project manager in terms of head count or revenue under management will give them a strong preference for creating ever bigger projects. It doesn’t matter if the right thing to do is create more, smaller projects, rather than run a programme of a few major projects as we have in the past. Your project manager’s career path is to increase their head count and revenue under management. And they do have those private school fees due soon.

Just like the point guard, change that will prevent career progression will be resisted (remember those kids in private school), even if it is counter to the company’s best interests. Which makes the current transformation we’re seeing in IT all the more important, because if we set the wrong incentives in place then we just might be our own worst enemies.

We can’t force a square peg into a round hole; nor can we force our existing employees to take their current roles and careers into a new organisational model. They just don’t fit. Take IT for example. We can’t expect many modern IT departments to spontaneously modernise themselves, transforming into agile business-technology engines under their own volition. It’s not that the departments don’t want to change: they do. Nor are most of the employees, as individuals, opposed (remember the Toyota example). But the combination of people and organisation will repel all but the most destructive boarders.

It’s interesting how other games, games other than basketball that is, have structural solutions to this problem. One solution is the line-up in baseball. From the NY Times article (page two, again):

“There is no way to selfishly get across home plate,” as Morey puts it. “If instead of there being a lineup, I could muscle my way to the plate and hit every single time and damage the efficiency of the team — that would be the analogy.”

Solving this problem in IT means rethinking the rules of IT.

The game of IT has, for the last few decades, been determined by the need to deliver large, enterprise applications into the IT estate. Keep the lights on, don’t lose orders, and automate anything that hasn’t yet been automated. Oh — and I’d like my reports accurate and on time. IT as the game of operational engineering. It was these rules that drove the creation of most of the roles we have in enterprise IT today.

However, this has changed. Decisions are now more important than data, and the global credit crunch is driving us to reconsider the roles we need in IT. We’re trying to reinvent our IT departments for the modern era – I even posted about how this was driving the need the need to manage technology, and not applications – but we haven’t changed the rules to suit.

If we want out people to embrace change, as the people on the shop floor at Toyota did, then we need to provide them with roles and careers that support them in the new normal. And this means changing the rules. Out with the more – more applications, larger projects, more people – and in with the new.

So what are the new rules for IT?

What does it take to be an expert?

How do we measure a guru’s worth? In this case, I’m specifically thinking about social media / communications gurus. Do you need 10,000 followers watching every tweet about the incremental progress of your hair cut? Or is it enough to squeeze out one gem a day which then is referred through multiple social networks?

This is a variation of the old (in Internet terms) chestnut, “would you trust a social media expert who doesn’t use social media”. It’s hard to see this as a black and white issue though, as I doubt there’s a communications professional out there who doesn’t use social media in some way. The real distinction is between someone who gorges at the social media trough, against someone who picks and chooses their involvement.

I’m reminded of a comment from rec.food.cooking back in the early 90s:

Never trust a skinny chef.

The assumption was that a chef who didn’t enjoy food enough to over indulge couldn’t be a good chef. This is just wrong, confusing quantity with quality. Just like the critic in Ratatouille, some chefs are more selective about what they consume, but this doesn’t mean that they have less passion or ability than their more indulgent peers.

I don't LIKE food. I LOVE it. If I don't love it, I don't SWALLOW.
Anton Ego

Anton Ego: I don’t LIKE food. I LOVE it. If I don’t love it, I don’t SWALLOW.

So the real question is: do we measure social media professionals by the volume of their engagement with the medium, or by the quality of their engagement. McDonalds (an international chain) vs. Vue de Monde (50 seats in Melbourne). Do you need to tweet 50 times a day to be considered a guru? Or will one well placed tweet a day qualify you?

My preference is for the advice of someone who demonstrates knowledge and insight into the medium, an understanding of the problem I’m trying to solve, and I’ll measure that insight by what they publish. The volume of their engagement is a secondary concern.

The future of innovation – beyond 2009

I’ll be involved in the panel discussions at the next InnoFuture Momentum on October 13th, 3:30pm to 6:30pm, in Telstra’s Executive Briefing Centre, Level 18, 35 Collins Street, Melbourne.

We are all fascinated by the future. The future always looks brighter. The prospect of a promotion, developing a winning product or promotion, bigger budget, new government incentive … tomorrow, next quarter, next year … If we realise that there is no future, only what we do today, we can focus on innovation that will result in a better future. Risk, courage, learning from parallel industries and cultures, harnessing our talents… Thinking with an open mind how to create a better world …

The events is structured around a series of industry panels, one of which I’m responsible for.

Innovation has been seen as an arms race—the race for more ideas, more content, more investment, more involvement. If we can see more ideas, get access to more content, get more of our team involved, if we can get it earlier in its lifecycle, then we might be the ones with first mover advantage. However, modern communications technology means than ideas are no longer scarce but freely available. New generation media empires, such as TED, have industrialised the idea collection process, creating vast idea smorgasbords for us to graze on. Today’s challenge is synthesis: understanding what problems are interesting, selecting the ideas which add value to a solution (as not all ideas are created equal), and then bringing together these ideas to create something new. How do we step out of the ideas arms race, creating the space and time our team need to synthesize these new, innovative ideas when presented with a challenge?

We also have an interesting group of participants on the panels (including myself):

  • Ilya Joel-Pitcher, EDS a HP Company
  • Mark Toomey, Infonomics
  • Hafeez Bana, Deloitte
  • Nicole Keating, GHD
  • Neville Christie, CEO Institute, Innovation Group, and discussion moderator

Hope to see you there!

Ahead of trends – the random effect

I’ll be speaking at InnoFuture Momentum on August 5th, 3:30pm to 6:30pm, in Telstra’s Executive Briefing Centre, Level 18, 35 Collins Street, Melbourne.

InnoFuture Momentum is a dedicated network for innovation professionals to Connect, Attract and Adapt.

The topic for the event is Ahead of trends — the random effect.

When a concept becomes a trend, you are a not the leader. How to tap into valuable ideas for products, services and communication before they are seen as trends, when they are just … random? Albert Einstein said that imagination is more important than knowledge. Let’s open the doors and let the imagination in for it seems that in the current crisis, the right brain is winning and we may be rationalized to death before things get better.

I’ll be speaking about Of snow mobiles and childhood readers: why random isn’t, and how to make it work for you.

There’s an interesting roster of speakers:

  • MC & Host: Leonie Valentine, GM, Customer Experience Marketing, Telstra Industry Panel: Diverse industry perspectives will be presented to provide a balanced insight into this important thought leadership topic.
  • Drew Ginn, OAM, ‘Oarsome Foursome’ : The future is now: what are the random moments for professional high performance.
  • Elizabeth Rudd, FutureNous: Picking up weak signals – why are they valuable in making future decisions and how to tune in.
  • Charlie Nelson, Foresee Change: random numbers… yes, but there is no such thing as ‘random’… the patterns associated with the wisdom of crowds … and how you can the wisdom of crowds work for you
  • Peter Evans-Greenwood: Of snow mobiles and childhood readers: why random isn’t, and how to make it work for you.
  • Discussion Moderator: Amantha Imber, Inventium: Latest Australian Author of a business bestseller ‘The Creativity Formula’ (soon to be released).

The event wraps up with an interactive discussion and networking. Walk away with inspiration & ideas to implement. Meet other corporate innovators and innovation evangelists. Share ideas over a drink! Experience the stimulating environment of the high-tech Telstra Executive Briefing Centre.

Hope to see you there!