Growth actually comes only when the consumers buy more products. With the population increasing at a steady rate, higher rate of money growth ensures that people buy more. It is this increased propensity to consume that creates overall growth. We would need more electricity, more turbines and more mining. So, if the consumer spend does not increase, and assuming that there is no existing unfulfilled demand, any other indicator measuring industrial growth would be pure a pure illusion.
Check this link -
http://www.hindu.com/2009/05/10/stories/2009051055611400.htm
In a survey conducted by CII for March April 2009, they have said that there is a slight improvement in the manufacturing sector. They have created some categories like negative, moderate and high growth and have said that most of the sectors have inched up in the March April period.
For first, the measures of classifying industries in the three segments have not been specified. I am sure that the survey must have had some measures, but the CII press release or the reporter, assuming a reader of limited intelligence, spared him of details. That these details would have allowed him to make his own unbiased judgement is a different story.
Inn many cases many surveys with an aim of proving growth. Their aim is of course something very noble - maybe to lead to an increase in the sentiment. They use, abuse and twist standard measurements to prove the hypothesis that they had started with. This is a major reason to give categorical data and avoid specifying the survey method and assumptions in reports. The company chieftains having an access to the complete report are of course too busy to go in to the nitty gritty issues.
As far as growth is concerned, without an increase in consumer spending all growth would either be for two reasons -
1. A buildup of inventory
2. Data / Method manipulation
An inventory buildup is nothing but postponing the slowdown. Besides blocking capital, it could have disastrous results of building up stocks that may not sell. Data and method manipulation is like a self fulfilling prophecy. It keeps the firms happy till the time they suddenly have to shut shop. This may be partly due to the psychological behaviour that says that humans create self belief worlds to avoid recognising situations that are potentially dangerous.
A good measure to measure the automobile sector growth would be to trace the out flow of auto loans issued by the finance companies. Finance industries are highly regulated and getting this data would not be a problem. Measuring gowth on the basis of factory dispatches would be skewed by the change of pipeline inventories with the dealers.
In all this circus I can conclude that companies are intent to hide the real growth or fall. They use selective measures at different points of time to prove the point they want to prove. Maybe in some other post I will discuss the motivations for this.
My simple prescription - macro indicators like growth can be measured by very simple and straight indicators. To make real use of the published growth indicators it is very important to investigate the method used and the assumptions. Any jubilation or a planned course of action without this simple probe would be a dangerous step.
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Survivors of Overcapcity in Chinese semiconductor industry
The capacity utilisation in Chinese semiconductor industry is at 40%. Check this article here for details.
http://www.circuitsassembly.com/cms/news/8212-nearly-60-of-china-chip-manufacturing-goes-unused-in-q1
Who will survive, the large plants or the small ones? The obvious answer and also suggested by the article was that this low capacity utilisation was a death knell for small and marginal players. There is an assumption here that smaller companies would be unable to compete on technology and price.
The costing that have been arrived for large companies have been with the assumption of close to a full capacity utilisation. These large companies with a larger components of fixed costs would not be able to sell the products at the same price in case of a recession. The smaller and flexible companies with their abilities to produce smaller batch sizes at the same prices as before. So, who would survive?
Besides this it depends a lot on the source of capital. A company with little or no borrowed funds would have no fixed interest burdens. They would definitely find it easier to survive. Assuming that the smaller players would probably be less leveraged this again gives the advantage to smaller players.
The large players however might be able to influence government policies. They might be able to extract interest set offs and other tax decisions. Being larger they of course have a louder voice to influence the government. However this alone will not be sufficient to ensure their survival . The demand needs to pick up faster. All said I would vouch for the smaller players surviving.
http://www.circuitsassembly.com/cms/news/8212-nearly-60-of-china-chip-manufacturing-goes-unused-in-q1
Who will survive, the large plants or the small ones? The obvious answer and also suggested by the article was that this low capacity utilisation was a death knell for small and marginal players. There is an assumption here that smaller companies would be unable to compete on technology and price.
The costing that have been arrived for large companies have been with the assumption of close to a full capacity utilisation. These large companies with a larger components of fixed costs would not be able to sell the products at the same price in case of a recession. The smaller and flexible companies with their abilities to produce smaller batch sizes at the same prices as before. So, who would survive?
Besides this it depends a lot on the source of capital. A company with little or no borrowed funds would have no fixed interest burdens. They would definitely find it easier to survive. Assuming that the smaller players would probably be less leveraged this again gives the advantage to smaller players.
The large players however might be able to influence government policies. They might be able to extract interest set offs and other tax decisions. Being larger they of course have a louder voice to influence the government. However this alone will not be sufficient to ensure their survival . The demand needs to pick up faster. All said I would vouch for the smaller players surviving.
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Product proliferation
Companies had recklessly increased their product offerings in the last few years. I think in one my the earlier posts I have called this a corporate Hara kiri. Production capacity was a constraint and an increase on variety would mean a higher setup time component. This would further reduce the output.
One thing that has changed is that Production capacity is not a constraint now. Demand has drastically come down. In this period if surely makes sense to offer more variety of products and try to win over more customers.
There are two costs associated with variety. One of them is the cost of setup and changeover. The cost is the value of time in which the machine and operators are not productive. It does not involve an actual cash outflow. More changeovers would mean more idle time and less production and hence the cost. This cost is applied assuming that capacity is a constraint. If there is excess capacity more change overs would not have any impact. This part of the costs could be totally ignored.
The second set of costs would be the costs of inventory. Higher variety would mean a higher variety. Companies would have to take care of these costs. Higher inventories could cause a drastic increase in costs. Companies could look into modularisation or product postponement as a solution to this.
Companies have to and should expand their product offerings. That done, they will have to do it smartly and avoid the costs of inventories that it would create. Costs of set up could be ignored. Check this report on Grainger coming out with its largest ever catelogue.
http://www.inddist.com/article/CA6634851.html?nid=3901
A few months back I would have called it a stupid move. But, with the current reality and the an assumption that Grainger will manage it well, I think it was a smart move.
One thing that has changed is that Production capacity is not a constraint now. Demand has drastically come down. In this period if surely makes sense to offer more variety of products and try to win over more customers.
There are two costs associated with variety. One of them is the cost of setup and changeover. The cost is the value of time in which the machine and operators are not productive. It does not involve an actual cash outflow. More changeovers would mean more idle time and less production and hence the cost. This cost is applied assuming that capacity is a constraint. If there is excess capacity more change overs would not have any impact. This part of the costs could be totally ignored.
The second set of costs would be the costs of inventory. Higher variety would mean a higher variety. Companies would have to take care of these costs. Higher inventories could cause a drastic increase in costs. Companies could look into modularisation or product postponement as a solution to this.
Companies have to and should expand their product offerings. That done, they will have to do it smartly and avoid the costs of inventories that it would create. Costs of set up could be ignored. Check this report on Grainger coming out with its largest ever catelogue.
http://www.inddist.com/article/CA6634851.html?nid=3901
A few months back I would have called it a stupid move. But, with the current reality and the an assumption that Grainger will manage it well, I think it was a smart move.
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Location
Dell shifts from Limerick to Poland. Check the link below
http://uk.reuters.com/article/UKNews1/idUKTRE5076PT20090108?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0
This change is a continuation in the changing paradigm at Dell. For one it started selling computers through a third party (Walmart) last year. Dell has traditionally been strong in the B2B segment. The move to retail computers through Walmart was probably to take a pie in the individual consumer market. This decision could have been taken as Dell sees a reduced growth or stagnation in the B2B market.
In the individual consumer segment (home segment) the major differentiation is on price, except for Apple of course. This is forcing Dell to look at all possible sources to save money. This includes shifting to a different location and even getting more work done by its vendors. This is a new game for Dell. And like I had written in an earlier post, it is too early to say if Dell will thrive in this change.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/UKNews1/idUKTRE5076PT20090108?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0
This change is a continuation in the changing paradigm at Dell. For one it started selling computers through a third party (Walmart) last year. Dell has traditionally been strong in the B2B segment. The move to retail computers through Walmart was probably to take a pie in the individual consumer market. This decision could have been taken as Dell sees a reduced growth or stagnation in the B2B market.
In the individual consumer segment (home segment) the major differentiation is on price, except for Apple of course. This is forcing Dell to look at all possible sources to save money. This includes shifting to a different location and even getting more work done by its vendors. This is a new game for Dell. And like I had written in an earlier post, it is too early to say if Dell will thrive in this change.
Friday, January 2, 2009
modified JIT
The American media has never understood the Toyota Production System (TPS). Like I mentioned in the last post, by using "JIT" to denote TPS, an image has been created of an ultra efficient factory with 'zero' inventory and all supplies coming in small lots. Inventory is just one of the many wastes in TPS.
Check this link
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601101&sid=a67TdTDZscbQ&refer=japan
One more time an American newspaper is predicting a 'modified' JIT. They had done this about 18 months back when Japan had an earthquake and Riken, Toyota's key piston rings supplier had suffered extensive damages. The article predicts / prophesies that JIT will have to be modified as a lot of suppliers may shut shop. The tone of the article seems like a little kid who has always lost and sees a faint hope of getting back one.
America's automakers have never been able to match up to the Japanese. They tried superficial implementations without much success. All this seems to have hurt their ego a bit too much. The American press has always tried to belittle the Japanese systems and has quite often come up with predictions of the end of TPS. This article is nothing but one more such attempt.
The recession is sure going to force Toyota to change some policies. A few Japanese companies may also close. But, keeping extra inventory definitely does not mean a modification in JIT. JIT is more about an approach of continuous improvement and waste eradication. If the current nature of industry demands higher inventory than keeping it certainly would not go against the tenets of JIT/ TPS.
Check this link
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601101&sid=a67TdTDZscbQ&refer=japan
One more time an American newspaper is predicting a 'modified' JIT. They had done this about 18 months back when Japan had an earthquake and Riken, Toyota's key piston rings supplier had suffered extensive damages. The article predicts / prophesies that JIT will have to be modified as a lot of suppliers may shut shop. The tone of the article seems like a little kid who has always lost and sees a faint hope of getting back one.
America's automakers have never been able to match up to the Japanese. They tried superficial implementations without much success. All this seems to have hurt their ego a bit too much. The American press has always tried to belittle the Japanese systems and has quite often come up with predictions of the end of TPS. This article is nothing but one more such attempt.
The recession is sure going to force Toyota to change some policies. A few Japanese companies may also close. But, keeping extra inventory definitely does not mean a modification in JIT. JIT is more about an approach of continuous improvement and waste eradication. If the current nature of industry demands higher inventory than keeping it certainly would not go against the tenets of JIT/ TPS.
Monday, December 29, 2008
lean healthcare
The Toyota Production System (TPS) earned the sobriquet 'JIT' in the 1960s. It created a very narrow view of TPS and created an image that it was suitable only for discrete and repetetive manufacturing industries. It created an image that implemeting TPS meant 'zero inventories'. Actually zero inventories are only possible when the production shop is shut down for good.
The word 'lean' has replaced JIT to describe TPS. The word first surfaced in an article by Krafcik in the Sloan Management Review in the Fall 1988 issue. Womack's book 'The machine that changed the world gave the word 'lean' worldwide acceptance. Both Krafcik and Womack talked about TPS. The only difference was that they talked in terms of generic principles. This caused a
huge change in the nature of TPS implementations. Service organisations started implementing their own version of TPS.
Check this article of lean implementation at a small hospital.
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/12/23/leanhealth/
It gives a very good message. TPS / Lean / JIT is not merely about inventory reduction. They are a set of principles. It is about making work more simple and reliable. Kanban, TPM, etc are merely tools. Lets hope more organisation abandon the jargons and fall in love with the simplicity of TPS.
The word 'lean' has replaced JIT to describe TPS. The word first surfaced in an article by Krafcik in the Sloan Management Review in the Fall 1988 issue. Womack's book 'The machine that changed the world gave the word 'lean' worldwide acceptance. Both Krafcik and Womack talked about TPS. The only difference was that they talked in terms of generic principles. This caused a
huge change in the nature of TPS implementations. Service organisations started implementing their own version of TPS.
Check this article of lean implementation at a small hospital.
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/12/23/leanhealth/
It gives a very good message. TPS / Lean / JIT is not merely about inventory reduction. They are a set of principles. It is about making work more simple and reliable. Kanban, TPM, etc are merely tools. Lets hope more organisation abandon the jargons and fall in love with the simplicity of TPS.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
End of an era?
The GM and Chrysler bailout funding drama just does not seem to end. Both sides have their points. But that the Christmas vacations may never end in these two companies is definitely a possible situation. Read this article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/15/business/15costs.html?fta=y
It is a common academic statement that rarely have companies survived by cutting costs. Yet, it seems sad that such huge multi billion dollar enterprises have to stoop to a level of monitoring all purchases of over $10,000. Everything in the press is about how these and other auto companies are acting to reduce costs. Nothing is about new strategies on how to earn more money. If saving costs is a prime requirement, pensions - they are said to be as much as $1500 per car for GM, could be first reworked. Better deals with hospitals could be worked out, lower insurance premiums negotiated. A 10% savings here would be a lot higher than the savings from saving a few sheets of paper or electricity.
That sales will fall is an accepted fact. Earning more money means increasing margins. It also could mean doing something else with the spare capacity / resources. Auto companies could think of a business where they refurbish old cars. People still would need to move and cheaper used cars (that are refurbished by the original company) could be a good business.
The companies need to do something positive and not merely cut costs. I am sure there would be a way. If nothing is possible maybe they could prepare for a grand end that has a minimal impact. All said, with the current spree of cost cutting and waiting for the 'bridge' loan seems to be a stop gap measures. The sales are going to continue to fall and a new loan would again be required in due time. All the Best Gm and Chrysler.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/15/business/15costs.html?fta=y
It is a common academic statement that rarely have companies survived by cutting costs. Yet, it seems sad that such huge multi billion dollar enterprises have to stoop to a level of monitoring all purchases of over $10,000. Everything in the press is about how these and other auto companies are acting to reduce costs. Nothing is about new strategies on how to earn more money. If saving costs is a prime requirement, pensions - they are said to be as much as $1500 per car for GM, could be first reworked. Better deals with hospitals could be worked out, lower insurance premiums negotiated. A 10% savings here would be a lot higher than the savings from saving a few sheets of paper or electricity.
That sales will fall is an accepted fact. Earning more money means increasing margins. It also could mean doing something else with the spare capacity / resources. Auto companies could think of a business where they refurbish old cars. People still would need to move and cheaper used cars (that are refurbished by the original company) could be a good business.
The companies need to do something positive and not merely cut costs. I am sure there would be a way. If nothing is possible maybe they could prepare for a grand end that has a minimal impact. All said, with the current spree of cost cutting and waiting for the 'bridge' loan seems to be a stop gap measures. The sales are going to continue to fall and a new loan would again be required in due time. All the Best Gm and Chrysler.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
