October 8, 2007
GM Tackles Strategy in Wake of Souring Commodities
Analysis of:
GM looks to substitute materials to reduce costs: Purchasing VP calls price increases "scary" and outlines upcoming plans | www.purchasing.com
This analysis is solely the work of the author. It has not been edited or endorsed by GLG.
Implications: To say that GM sees the next horizon of cost savings within commodity substitution only paints a narrow view of the larger issue facing GM, Ford and Chrysler. North American automobile marketplace success dictates the need for innovative products with styling and performance demanded by its customers. Forward reaching innovation of established and new components / composites, engineered for safety and reliability, are just one step needed for these 3 to survive, and is good for the global industry at large.
Analysis: For years North American labor costs have been cited as the number one, noncompetitive burden these companies faced when compared with European and Asian producers operating in North America. But regardless of the weight placed there, this is just one example of a multi-decade postponement practice by what was once the Big 3 that reached into all aspects of a conventional design, build, and sell strategy. Rather than GM cost-managing itself out of business, GM has looked in the mirror, and the right analysis points to a holistic versus tactical approach to cost, design and innovation.
What successful company would not look at the cost of its materials, seeking value in substitution and innovation, particularly with promise of financial and performance benefits which, if managed appropriately, will find its way into influencing consumer choices boosting sales? Rather than approach this from the pure "cost reduction" play, is this an early sign of a newly reshaped engineering/purchasing/design team/finance group emerging that puts the supplier community, along with the commodity watch groups, on notice, something a kin to us all seeing more innovation to come out of GM's R&D and marketing departments?
Substitution in the automotive industry implies all components are the same, something that ignores the litany of Federal and State regulations, safety concerns, threats of litigation for product failure, and most importantly, the need for engineering precision in order for thousands of individual parts to work in a synchronized fashion. Rather than strapping in for lower supplier payments, smart suppliers should take this as notice, reinforcing the call to be part of an integrated design team that ultimately delivers vehicles that consumers demand at price points that make them attractive for everyone without compromise to safety, reliability, or performance.
Analysis: For years North American labor costs have been cited as the number one, noncompetitive burden these companies faced when compared with European and Asian producers operating in North America. But regardless of the weight placed there, this is just one example of a multi-decade postponement practice by what was once the Big 3 that reached into all aspects of a conventional design, build, and sell strategy. Rather than GM cost-managing itself out of business, GM has looked in the mirror, and the right analysis points to a holistic versus tactical approach to cost, design and innovation.
What successful company would not look at the cost of its materials, seeking value in substitution and innovation, particularly with promise of financial and performance benefits which, if managed appropriately, will find its way into influencing consumer choices boosting sales? Rather than approach this from the pure "cost reduction" play, is this an early sign of a newly reshaped engineering/purchasing/design team/finance group emerging that puts the supplier community, along with the commodity watch groups, on notice, something a kin to us all seeing more innovation to come out of GM's R&D and marketing departments?
Substitution in the automotive industry implies all components are the same, something that ignores the litany of Federal and State regulations, safety concerns, threats of litigation for product failure, and most importantly, the need for engineering precision in order for thousands of individual parts to work in a synchronized fashion. Rather than strapping in for lower supplier payments, smart suppliers should take this as notice, reinforcing the call to be part of an integrated design team that ultimately delivers vehicles that consumers demand at price points that make them attractive for everyone without compromise to safety, reliability, or performance.
Report a Concern
More GLG News in
Energy & Industrials
Most Popular:
Source Article | Expert Analyses
YRC to Get Concessions?
tdu.org
Weekly US rail shipments tumble 9.1 percent
biz.yahoo.com
USA-Ocean currents can power the world, say scientists
www.telegraph.co.uk
Amid economic crisis, wind power spins more slowly
features.csmonitor.com
Lufthansa launches Italia brand
www.breakingtravelnews.com
The gale of a credit crisis blows the wind away!
November 26, 2008
The Peaksters are right on theory, perhaps wrong on timing
November 25, 2008
Order Cancelations Will Not Approach Half of The Order Book
November 24, 2008
BASF, Dow Chemical, PPG signal arrival of new world financial order
November 24, 2008
In 11th Hour at YRC Worldwide, Teamsters Have Few Choices
November 21, 2008

