Sorry folks, the "blue" highlights did not show up, I edited out Ahne's
original email.
Terry.
In a message dated 9/17/2010 12:21:28 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:
Ahne, I had a chance to think about your questions, see my responses below
in blue.
Supply chain: Do you mean the chain that stretches from the design
engineer
and the manufacturing engineer of the product to the design engineer and
the manufacturing engineer of the part or material needed? Plus all those
necessary pieces in between? (Can you say DFM?)
My dissertation was
limited to a tiny, tiny part of the supply chain, that being the actual
supply of
parts to the manufacturer, and the ability to remain AGILE, despite
extremely volatile demand. It was necessary to limit it thusly due to the
fact
that otherwise you cannot get your arms around the subject, and show any
relationships.
What conflict occurs is that we follow (generally) a business model of
reduced inventory, reduction of cost, long distance Lower cost region
outsourcing, and expect yet to keep domestic demand met with customer
satisfaction
as a requisite which means that delivery to the customer has to be on
time.
My theory in industry is very basic which says as volatility of demand
increases so does the need for AGILITY in communication to keep the supply
chain flowing and meeting the demand of the customer. That is one tactic
in a
war to keep customers satisfied, yet at the same time keep your company
solvent with an efficient supply chain.
However you are right! The entire process must be looked at in aggregate
with multiple cross-functional teams and concurrent design engineering,
to
achieve simultaneous goals of efficient supply chain with customer
satisfaction. We have paradigms of servicing the customer, and we have
paradigms of
supply chain efficiency. What I am saying is that the two paradigms have
to
be combined to produce a GREATER truth in supply chain efficiency.
Otherwise we end up with a board (or a product) that looks great from a
design
phase, but if your demand is VOLATILE, you cannot keep the quality, nor
the
supply, nor the flexibility agile enough to satisfy the customer. This is
much more
an application of Michael Porter's "value chain" in which everyone is
involved to make sure that the end customer ends up with an on time,
quality
product, and you end up with a quality robust, agile product which can be
flexible in quantity and design, as the final product goes through the
life
cycle from introduction, growth, maturity, and decline. Many companies
have
lost their shirts in one of the cycles due to a product that does not
have the
ability to move with overall agility. Lean concepts are fine, but only go
so far, Total quality and business management principles are much more
applicable, and ultimately however you have to deal with the unknown, and
design and produce with a model of business that allows you to deal with
all
environments, and all types of demand.
This is just the tip of the iceberg. My goodness you are so right,
EVERYONE has to be involved, and not only that: We have a tendency to
compartmentalize people and give them conflicting goals of cost
reduction, customer
satisfaction, and those priorities all have to mesh together.
The real mind blower is, NONE of those people should compromise in their
goals. Of course we do, but to really drive a product you have to achieve
not a compromise of goals but goals which are built in to the product so
that
they are all achievable. And then as the product moves through the life
cycle, the process must be ongoing and creative. I have been in
situations
where this does not happen, and its not very pretty.
It looks great when we create it, we have problems when we implement it,
and then when we outsource it, we have all kinds of intercultural
communication problems which make it even more challenging!
Its good to be talking with you. The survey was admittedly a compromise I
apologize. It became tedious, but with language if you change the
questions
too much then you get more interpretation. That is why survey research is
so limited, and then when you do case study research you can lose
objective view, actually that's part of a case study or action research.
However I thank
you immensely for your time, your feedback, and your knowledge you have
imparted to me. I truly believe knowledge is power, and brings us out of
the
darkness.
Respectfully,
Terry B. Baker (814)-329-7357
Doctoral Candidate
University of Maryland University College
3501 University Blvd. East
Adelphi, MD 20783 USA
Phone: 800-888-UMUC (8682)
Tom Mierzwa (Chair, Doctoral Program)
Monica Graham (Admissions and Advisory Contact)
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask]
______________________________________________________________________
---------------------------------------------------
Technet Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 15.0
To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Technet
To temporarily halt or (re-start) delivery of Technet send e-mail to [log in to unmask]: SET Technet NOMAIL or (MAIL)
To receive ONE mailing per day of all the posts: send e-mail to [log in to unmask]: SET Technet Digest
Search the archives of previous posts at: http://listserv.ipc.org/archives
Please visit IPC web site http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16 for additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-615-7100 ext.2815
-----------------------------------------------------
|
