American politicians and pundits should stop complaining about successful Chinese competition for greentech and other “good”  jobs.  Rather than complain, they should get off their soapboxes and work towards incentivizing and encouraging US industry.  They should be asking following question:  ”The Chinese have their plan, what’s ours?”

This article from yesterday’s Industry Week cites a congressional panel which concludes that China’s government is aggressively encouraging the foreign investment in, and development of, key industries– this to the detriment of those industries in the US.  From that article:

China employs a variety of incentives, including subsidized land, energy and water, to foreign companies that relocate their operations there. China uses tax incentives and preferential loans, the report notes, to further reduce the cost of investing in China.

The report says China is selectively targeting industries such as auto parts, machine tools, information technology, optics, photonics and clean renewable energy. This policy, it warns, is contributing to the loss of jobs in the upstate New York area even as the state seeks to become a global leader in the renewable energy field.

The report adds that it is not just manufacturing jobs that are moving to China. “Advanced technology companies in the region that have been moving their manufacturing operations to China are now relocating their research, development and innovation operations there as well,” it finds.

The Chinese have been doing what they should do by building a platform for development by private companies, both local and foreign.  They invest in the development of the industries and they get the jobs associated with those industries.

And here’s an example of the Chinese government’s “can do” approach to clean energy from a report by Reuters posted on November 15th:

China selects 294 solar power plants for subsidy

(Reuters) – China has identified 294 solar power projects with total generating capacity of 642 megawatts (MW) in its first pilot program.

Beijing has said it will subsidies  [sic] at least half of the investment cost.

The capacity will be nearly 30 percent more than the minimum target Beijing set in July when it launched the unprecedented “golden sun” plan, which was part of China’s drive to catch up in a global race to find alternatives to fossil fuels.

One would expect that the Chinese solar panel manufacturer Suntech, or it’s Chinese competitors will get a lot of orders out of this initiative.  Speaking of Suntech,  two days before the above-mentioned article appeared, Reuters ran an article about China’s solar rooftop program:

Suntech to develop 20 pct of China’s Solar rooftop plan

Nov 13 (Reuters) – Chinese Solar panel maker Suntech Power Holdings Co Ltd (STP.N) said it expects to develop about 20 percent of the 91 megawatts of solar projects under China’s solar rooftop program.

The solar rooftop program was launched in March to increase the efficiency of buildings through photovoltaic (PV) solar systems.

Once again it seems that Chinese pols are actually doing something about encouraging clean energy and developing the industries to support it.  (Suntech, by the way, is plowing some of it’s gains into job creation in the USA– t is building a solar power panel factory in Arizona.  Everything’s connected!)

It reminds me of Taiwan in the 90’s. The government targeted computer manufacturing as key industry for development.   They created research institutes devoted to technical and market development, and helped steer local companies into the field.  They gave development loans to the 4 key players and Taiwan’s computer industry developed quite nicely.

Now I know it’s not that simple. There are trade agreements which need to be taken into account, and it might be desirable to establish job-creation metrics which would be tied to government incentives or assistance.

All of which leads me to Charles Schumer and his rant about Shenyang Power Group getting the lion’s share of the jobs associated with a huge wind power project in Texas.  Schumer’s rant fails to mention that:

• Shenyang Power got the lion’s share of the jobs, but it also invested the lion’s share of the money for the project.  (Yes, there is an application for stimulus money made by the American side, but it’s only for a pretty small minority shareholding).
• The turbines which will be made by Shenyang will all use a key component made by GE.  I’m guessing it will use other imported (maybe from the US?) components as well, but I don’t know.

So the Chinese government invested and encouraged the turbine industry, and invested in a project in the States that uses turbines.  They are putting up the money and taking risk, and stand to make money and get jobs out of it.   Also,hundreds of thousands of US homes will get cleaner electric power.  GE will get orders for their components.  See how everything’s connected?

Yes, the Chinese government have  focused on being competitive in key industries.  That’s called leadership and that’s what they should be doing. It’s what the US should have been doing as well.

Stop complaining and start competing!

Consider the source, but according to an article in today’s Global Times (a fairly new English-language paper published in the PRC) western manufacturers are increasing their outsourcing activities in China:

Foreign countries have started outsourcing to China again after a brief slowdown last year.

The first nine months of the year saw 3,287 new enterprises providing services that have been outsourced to China launched, offering 585,000 new jobs. International service contracts won by Chinese enterprises in the first nine months are valued at $12.7 billion, up 212 percent from the same period last year, according to Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM) figures released Tuesday.

As of the end of September, there were 8,060 enterprises with 1.4 million employees operating in the outsourcing industry.

The rest of the article cites the existing and potential threats to China’s outsourcing business, namely India with it’s large English speaking population, but others as well.

For those of us operating the the Pearl River Delta, where most of this outsourcing is being performed, it might mean that the PRD is still an attractive place to set up export-oriented manufacturing.  At the very least, since we assume that the GT writes what Beijing wants written, it means that the authorities are still interested in making China an attractive destination for western export manufacturing.

According to a CNN report,  NAFTA, proximity to the U.S. market, and lower costs (largely the results of inverse currency fluctuations of the peso and yuan)  have tipped the scales in favor of Mexico (and against China) as the new manufacturing destination of choice for U.S.- bound products.

This China Daily article quotes Guangdong governor Huang HuaHua and Guangdong Party Chief, Wang Yang making it very clear that the pre-downturn initiatives aimed at moving the province’s manufacturing base up the value chain will continue.

With the outline of the reform plan for the Pearl River Delta formally approved by the central government at the end of last year, the delta scheme has now been adopted as part of the nation’s overall development strategy. This will see the nine cities in southern China’s Guangdong province transformed into advanced manufacturing and modern service centers.

The article doesn’t talk about what they plan to do about the low-value exporting factories currently operating here, but Huang was quoted by People Daily in April saying:

…the province will step up efforts to achieve a change in development pattern by evolving self-innovative industry and upgrading industrial structure, while boosting the transfer of labor-intensive industries in the delta region to less developed regions and transferring labor forces from the agricultural to the manufacturing sector as well as from the rural area to the delta region.  [italics mine]

For me it raises the following questions:

• How will they encourage/force the transfer of labor-intensive industries out of the province?
• How will they define “labor intensive”?
• How fast will they move?
• How will they deal with the most local government and semi government bureaucracies who are still benefiting from those labor-intensive industries operating in their villages and industrial zones?
  

Last month I wrote a post, “Dumping your waste upstream isn’t LEAN“, giving an example of how one large American company I know (and have left unnamed) has been bullying it’s vendors into accepting the costs of wasteful stocking in order to lower it’s own costs and leadtimes, while actually raising their own costs in less obvious but more significant ways.

This month, Bill Waddell of Evolving Excellence gives another example– none other than General Motors. Anyway, for another (more skillfully written) take on a similar issue, go to his post here.

Yesterday I visited a small factory owned by a friend of mine. I had visited the facility once before, when times were good and they had more orders than they could keep up with.  As I said, business was good, but the harder they worked the more they had issues with delivery, quality and cash flow.

During that first tour, I was chatting with my friend’s production manager. Pointing at the mountains of semi-finished goods on the factory floor, I explained that in those mounds were hiding defects (later to be discovered by customers), clogging the production cycle (impacting delivery), and tying up his boss’s cash (needed for sales, marketing and other investmens).  Reducing the WIP, I argued,  would be a solid first-step in turning the place around.

To my surprise, the production manager seemed well versed in LEAN. He understood how to balance the production on both sides of the bottleneck, and how to eliminate non value-added steps in the process.  He understood the value of JIT and Jidoka.

“All good stuff”, he said.  “But we can’t implement it here.”

Why? Because they were too busy for LEAN or JIT.   If they tried he explained, it would slow the process flow, resulting in even more delivery problems.  Yes, in principle it’s a good idea.  But not here.  Not now.

That was during the good times. Yesterday’s visit showed a much slower factory, with much fewer workers and lots fewer orders. Some things, however, haven’t changed. There are still piles of WIP on the factory floor, and (not surprisingly) they are still having quality, delivery and cash-flow issues. Once again, I broached the subject of LEANing the production flow, and once again there was a “good reason” not to. Whereas before they were “too busy” for LEAN, now there was “not enough work” to go LEAN. Now the thinking, it seems, is that if they go LEAN and utilize their labor (and other resources) efficiently then some people wouldn’t have enough work to be kept busy.   (I mentioned to him that the workers who were idled by balancing the line could be employed in his factory’s 5S efforts, but that didn’t go over too well).

This I’ve heard before.  LEAN makes sense.  It’s good stuff.  But not here.  Not now!  Here are some lame excuses to maintain waste in the production cycle:

• People need to be kept as busy as possible. That’s the only way to be efficient. (Actually, processes need to be efficient– not people)
• It works for Japanese and westerners, but for cultural reasons, Chinese can’t understand/implement/accept it. (Total bullshit.  LEAN works just fine in China)
• LEAN production looks less busy and active, and people will think they don’t have to work hard. (Not really.  People are smarter than that– especially the workers who can see first hand how productive their team has become).
• You will need to hire lots of additional people to do the clerical work required for LEAN. (Not true.  And if there were “extra work” to do, it could be done by some of the people made temporarily redundant by balancing the line).
• People want to do the same repetitive tasks over and over all day.  It makes them feel like experts. And the longer they perform that one task, the quicker and better they become.  (I doubt it.  But even if it did make them faster, it wouldn’t make production faster or any better.)
• LEAN is great if you have large production runs, or if all of your items utilize similar process steps. But our low-volume/high-mix model can’t be LEAN. (100% wrong.  LEAN is great for low-volume/high-mix production.  LEAN makes your facility flexible and agile).

LEAN is about reducing waste and adding value.  Adding value for shareholders and customers is important, but to be truly successful in the long run, an organization should strive to add value to all of its relationships, benefiting its employees, its community and, of course, its vendors.

Here’s an example of a “LEAN” organization that didn’t get this point:

The China manufacturing subsidiary of a Really Big Corporation  (we’ll call them “RBC” for short) purchases small volumes of manufactured components from it’s vendors.  In order to cut inventory costs and reduce lead-times to almost zero, it requires its vendors to stock both excessive amounts of raw materials  and also a fairly large quantity of it’s finished goods (which are the customer’s components).

The strategy is, in the narrowest sense, successful.   RBC holds almost no component or material stock, and yet, whenever RBC needs one or one thousand components for it’s manufacturing, they are always on-hand immediately.  Zero Stock!   Zero Leadtime! And if RBC has a spike in demand it’s no problem (for them)  because their vendors have been commanded to hold lots and lots  of raw material on-hand.  Just in case. (Better safe than sorry, I always say)

OK, they’ve added value for the shareholders; cash flow is improved and the risks associated with stocking is drastically reduced.  And they’ve added value for the customer, because lead times are reduced and flexibility  is enhanced.

The problem is that RBC has not really reduced waste, it has just dumped it upstream, which is as smart as pissing into the wind (or tugging on Superman’s cape).   Because the waste that RBC has driven out of its internal material flows has now shown up as liability on the balance sheets of its vendors.   And make no mistake, the waste is flowing back to them– as a result of waste dumping, RBC cannot command the  price reductions in might, because vendors are raising prices in an effort to  offset the cost of carrying  so much slow-moving inventory.  In some cases valuable vendor relationships, costly for RBC to initiate and develop, are in jeopardy, meaning that they will likely  spend time, money and “bandwidth” to find, qualify and train new vendors.

The sad part is, it doesn’t have to be this way.  RBC could have achieved a most of its objectives without unduly burdening its vendors by working with them to set up reasonable and fast-moving buffer stock procedures.  How this is done would vary from vendor to vendor, but to a certain extent, it can be accomplished.  An added benefit is that the vendors who were not versed in LEAN could have learned some valuable inventory management techniques.

Don’t worry too much– RBC will be just fine (they are, after all, Really Big).  In addition, I understand that they are open to learning, and may change their ways.   I write about it because I hate  to see otherwise respectable and forward-thinking companies giving LEAN a bad rap with this type of implimentation.

The “lean vs. China” argument presupposes a false dilemma.

In it’s most recent post, Evolving Excellence cites and agrees with a Manufacturer’s Monthly (Australia) article comparing the total costs of outsourcing to China with the total costs of purchasing from a lean local factory. The conclusion from the Manufacturer’s Monthly article is succinctly stated:

Agility is the key to beat Chinese imports and lean manufacturing the most effective tool to achieve that agility.

Lean enables suppliers to offer faster service, better quality, smaller batch sizes and a greater degree of customisation than traditional manufacturing approaches without increasing unit costs. Lean can drive down total costs for customers by reducing inventory holding and handling costs, obsolescence and the cost of poor quality.

Fair enough– lean leads to competitive and strategic  advantages in inventory costs, lead times, quality and overall operations.    But you can’t count on “lean” to be competitive against the Chinese for one simple reason… the Chinese can be as lean as you can!!

Some (corrected) excerpts from my comment on the Evolving Excellence post:

The comparison cited above (and many like it) assume that the only choices are “lean” on one side and “outsourced” on the other. This is a false dilemma. What happens when you compare “lean domestic” sourcing cost with “lean China” sourcing costs?

My experience in China tells me that the China-based factory can be operated in a lean manner, mitigating the costs of longer transportation lead times, and not incurring the prohibitive costs associated with support functions and poor quality. If that’s the case, then the cost savings associated with low-cost production will in many cases (but not always!!)  be enough to ensure profitability, even though long-distance transportation costs and transportation lead times are an offsetting factor.

By all means if you’re  a manufacturer  go lean… it’s good for you, your shareholders, your employees, your vendors and your customers.  And if you are considering outsourcing, do ensure that you are taking into account total cost when you make your decisions.   But don’t assume that going lean (or buying from lean sources) will offer you a competetive advantage against aggressive pricing in the long run, because the competition has access to the same advantages you do.

Here is a sequel to my previous post Southern China Manufacturing Strategies.

Southern China has a great opportunity to move from the bankrupt LCC (Low-Cost Country) model to what I call the “HCM” (Highly-Competitive Manufacturing) model.

When labor is not cheap, how can manufacturing in China remain competitive:

Go Local:
If the next step in the value chain is physically located in the region, then it may add value to locate manufacturing there. Obviously if the product is being sold locally, there is value there. But also if the region can offer more competitive sources of raw materials and components, there can be a good business case for locating there.

Go Green:
It makes sense to consider “green” or other emerging technologies as
a way to add value to the operations. Going from plain vanilla
products to similar products, but “branded greener” (and sold at a
higher price) with marketing and technology backing it up. Everyone
“wants” to go green, but not everyone has the know-how and capital to
do it. As Southern China has have the nexus of light-manufacturing experience, overseas
technical contacts, and educated engineers, and you could more likely do
this successfully in the here than you could in Vietnam or even some
inland Chinese region with cheaper labor and rent.

Go Flexible:
As stated before, a factory can add value by being more flexible: going after smaller orders, offering ultra-quick turnaround service, and customizations can all be viable strategies. But in order to be successful at this, the factory must move from a mass-production model to a leaner, more flexible model. Generally speaking, this would require the deployment of demand-flow technology, kanban management, and lean manufacturing strategies.