Lean Supply Chain Management Principles and Practices

Transcription

1 Lean Supply Chain Management Principles and Practices 1 - Bozdogan -Lean Supplier Networks, September Massachusetts Institute of Technology

2 Lean Supply Chain Management Basics Learning Points Lean supply chain management represents a new way of thinking about supplier networks Lean principles require cooperative supplier relationships while balancing cooperation and competition Cooperation involves a spectrum of collaborative relationships & coordination mechanisms Supplier partnerships & strategic alliances represent a key feature of lean supply chain management 2 - Bozdogan -Lean Supplier Networks, September Massachusetts Institute of Technology

3 Theory: Lean Represents a Hybrid Approach to Organizing Interfirm Relationships Markets (Arm s Length): Lower production costs, higher coordination costs Firm buys (all) inputs from outside specialized suppliers Inputs are highly standardized; no transaction-specific assets Prices serve as sole coordination mechanism Hierarchies (Vertical Integration): Higher production costs, lower coordination costs Firm produces required inputs in-house (in the extreme, all inputs) Inputs are highly customized, involve high transaction costs or dedicated investments, and require close coordination Lean (Hybrid): Lowest production and coordination costs; economically most efficient choice-- new model Firm buys both customized & standardized inputs Customized inputs often involve dedicated investments Partnerships & strategic alliances provide collaborative advantage Dominant conventional approach: Vertical integration, arm s length relationships with suppliers 3 - Bozdogan -Lean Supplier Networks, September Massachusetts Institute of Technology

4 Lean Supply Chain Management Differs Sharply from Conventional Practices ILLUSTRATIVE CHARACTERISTICS CONVENTIONAL MODEL LEAN MODEL Number & structure Many; vertical Fewer; clustered Procurement personnel Large Limited Outsourcing Cost-based Strategic Nature of interactions Adversarial; zero-sum Cooperative; positive-sum Relationship focus Transaction-focused Mutually-beneficial Selection criteria Lowest price Performance Contract length Short-term Long-term Pricing practices Competitive bids Target costing Price changes Upward Downward Quality Inspection-intensive Designed-in Delivery Large quantities Smaller quantities (JIT) Inventory buffers Large Minimized; eliminated Communication Limited; task-related Extensive; multi-level Information flow Directive; one-way Collaborative; two-way Role in development Limited; build-to-print Substantial Production flexibility Low High Technology sharing Very limited; nonexistent Extensive Dedicated investments Minimal-to-some Substantial Mutual commitment Very limited; nonexistent High Governance Market-driven Self-governing Future expectations No guarantee Considerable 4 - Bozdogan -Lean Supplier Networks, September Massachusetts Institute of Technology

5 Lean Supply Chain Management Principles Derive from Basic Lean Principles Focus on the supplier network value stream Eliminate waste Synchronize flow Minimize both transaction and production costs Establish collaborative relationships while balancing cooperation and competition Ensure visibility and transparency Develop quick response capability Manage uncertainty and risk Align core competencies and complementary capabilities Foster innovation and knowledge-sharing 5 - Bozdogan -Lean Supplier Networks, September Massachusetts Institute of Technology

6 A Set of Mutually-Reinforcing Lean Practices Translate these Principles into Action Design supplier network architecture Develop complementary supplier capabilities Create flow and pull throughout supplier network Establish cooperative relationships & effective coordination mechanisms Maximize flexibility & responsiveness Optimize product development through early supplier integration Integrate knowledge and foster innovation Design of supplier network driven by strategic thrust Fewer suppliers; clustered control Supplier selection based on performance Ensured process capability (certification) Targeted supplier development (SPC, Kaizen) Greater responsibilities delegated to suppliers Linked business processes, IT/IS infrastructure Two-way information exchange & visibility Synchronized production and delivery (JIT) Joint problem-solving; mutual assistance Partnerships & strategic alliances Open and timely communications Increased interdependence & shared destiny Seamless information flow Flexible contracting Rapid response capability Integrate suppliers early into design & development IPTs Collaborative design; architectural innovation Open communications and information sharing Target costing; design-to-cost Knowledge-sharing; technology transfer Aligned technology roadmaps This lecture highlights key enablers & practices by focusing on: Synchronized production and delivery Partnerships and strategic alliances Early supplier integration into design and development IPTs 6 - Bozdogan -Lean Supplier Networks, September Massachusetts Institute of Technology

7 Synchronized Production and Delivery Throughout the Supplier Network is a Central Lean Concept Integrated supplier lead times and delivery schedules Flows from suppliers pulled by customer demand (using takt time, load leveling, line balancing, single piece flow) Minimized inventory through all tiers of the supply chain On-time supplier delivery to point of use Minimal source or incoming inspection Effective two-way communication links to coordinate production & delivery schedules Striving for zero quality defects essential to success Greater efficiency and profitability throughout the supplier network 7 - Bozdogan -Lean Supplier Networks, September Massachusetts Institute of Technology

8 Aerospace Firms Have Faced an Uphill Challenge in Synchronizing Flow with Suppliers PERCENT OF SUPPLIER SHIPMENTS TO STOCKROOM/FACTO W/O INCOMING OR PRIOR INSPECTIONS Defense/Commercial : More than 75% of sales to defen or commercial markets 0.00 Defense (25) Commercial (9) (Year: 1993; N= Number of responding business units/c 8 - Bozdogan -Lean Supplier Networks, September Massachusetts Institute of Technology

9 Supplier Certification has been an Important Early Enabler of Achieving Synchronized Flow in Aerospace PERCENT OF DIRECT PRODUCTION SUPPLIERS OF A TYPICAL AEROSPACE ENTERPRISE THAT ARE CERTIFIED (1991, 1993, 1995) Industry (48) Airframe (13) Electronics (20) Engines and Other (15) (N=Number of respondents answering this question for all three years) 9 - Bozdogan -Lean Supplier Networks, September Massachusetts Institute of Technology

10 Closer Communication Links with Suppliers Paved the Way for Synchronizing Flow TYPES OF INFORMATION PROVIDED TO RESPONDING BUSINESS UNITS BY THEIR MOST IMPORTANT SUPPLIERS ON A FORMAL BASIS, 1989 vs Production Cost Data SPC Data Performance Improvement Actions Longer-term Business Strategies & Plans Financial Information not Publicly Available Feedback on Purc/Supplier Mgmts Operations (38,14,32,15,16,14) 1993 (55,65,69,55,41,54) (N=78: Total number of responding business units) 10 - Bozdogan -Lean Supplier Networks, September Massachusetts Institute of Technology

11 Concrete Example: Engine Parts Casting Supplier Worked with Customer Company to Achieve Synchronized Flow 11 - Bozdogan -Lean Supplier Networks, September Massachusetts Institute of Technology

12 Mastering & Integrating Lean Basics with Prime was Necessary for Achieving Synchronized Flow 6S -- Visual factory Total productive maintenance Quality control Process certification Mistake proofing Setup reduction Standard work Kaizen 12 - Bozdogan -Lean Supplier Networks, September Massachusetts Institute of Technology

13 Supplier Partnerships & Strategic Alliances Ensure Substantial Performance Improvements Long-term relationships and mutual commitments Intensive and regular sharing of technical and cost information Mutual assistance and joint problem-solving Customized (relationship-specific) investments Risk-sharing, cost-sharing, benefit-sharing arrangements Trust-building practices -- one team mindset; collocation of technical staff; open kimono Progressively increasing mutual dependence -- shared fate discouraging opportunistic behavior Self-enforcing contracting driving continuous improvement 13 - Bozdogan -Lean Supplier Networks, September Massachusetts Institute of Technology

14 Supplier Partnerships & Strategic Alliances Bring Important Mutual Benefits Reduced transaction costs (cost of information gathering, negotiation, contracting, billing) Improved resource planning & investment decisions Greater production predictability & efficiency Improved deployment of complementary capabilities Greater knowledge integration and R&D effectiveness Incentives for increased innovation (through costsharing, risk-sharing, knowledge-sharing) Increased mutual commitment to improving joint longterm competitive performance 14 - Bozdogan -Lean Supplier Networks, September Massachusetts Institute of Technology

15 Major Lean Lessons for Aerospace Industry Supply chain design linked to corporate strategic thrust Fewer first-tier suppliers Greater supplier share of product content Strategic supplier partnerships with selected suppliers Trust-based relationships; long-term mutual commitment Close communications; knowledge-sharing Multiple functional interfaces Early supplier integration into design Early and major supplier role in design Up-front design-process integration Leveraging supplier technology base for innovative solutions Self-enforcing agreements for continuous improvement Target costing Sharing of cost savings 15 - Bozdogan -Lean Supplier Networks, September Massachusetts Institute of Technology

16 234 Weeks 232 Weeks Chrysler: Supplier Partnerships Speed Development 183 Weeks 180 Weeks 184 Weeks Length of Product Development Cycle 160 Weeks* K-Car (81) Minivan (84) Shadow (87) Dakota Truck (87) * Estimated LH Cars (93) 16 - Bozdogan -Lean Supplier Networks, September Massachusetts Institute of Technology Neon (94) Source: Dyer (1998) JA; Cirrus/ Stratus (95) LH Cars (98E)

17 Aerospace: Early Supplier Involvement in IPTs Impacts Producibility and Cost EARLY SUPPLIER INVOLVEMENT IN IPTS IN U.S. MILITARY AEROSPACE PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS: IMPACTS ON PRODUCIBILITY AND COST Firms facing producibility and cost problems % of responding firms in Group A(4/20) % of responding firms in Group B(7/9) WITH: With early supplier involvement in IPTs WITHOUT: Without early supplier involvement in IPTs EARLY: Before Milestone 0.0 Group A (With) Group B (Without) Numerator(s): N=4,7: Number of affirmative responses to this question (i.e., faced producibility and cost problem) in each group (i.e., Group A and Group B) Denominator(s):R=20,9: Total number of respondents to this question in each group Sample Size: S=29: Maximum possible number of respondents to any question in the survey (Group A:20 ; Group B:9) SOURCE: Lean Aerospace Initiative Product Development Survey (1994) 17 - Bozdogan -Lean Supplier Networks, September Massachusetts Institute of Technology

18 Early Supplier Involvement: Key Success Factors FIRMS WITH EARLY SUPPLIER INVOLVEMENT IN IPTS IN U.S. MILITARY AEROSPACE PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS: KEY SUCCESS FACTORS EARLY SUPPLIER INVOLVEMENT IN IPTS Established co-located IPTsincluding suppliers Used commercial parts GroupA (With) GroupB (Without) Numerator(s): N=11,8 (Group A) ;1,2 ( Group B): Number of affirmative responses to this question in each group, by category of practice/implementation ( i.e., co-located IPTs, use of commercial parts) Denominator(s): R=20,9: Total number of respondents to this question in each group Sample Size:S=29: Maximum possible mumber of respondents to any question in the survey (Group A:20 ; Group B:9) NOTES Early: Before Milestone 1 With / Without: Early supplier involvement in IPTs (before Milestone 1) 18 - Bozdogan -Lean Supplier Networks, September Massachusetts Institute of Technology

19 Old Approach Evolution of Early Supplier Integration in the Aerospace Industry Current Lean Emerging Lean Prime Rigid vertical FFF interfaces and control Prime Collaborative with rigid organizational interfaces Virtual Team w/o boundaries Key Suppliers Subtiers Key Suppliers Prime Subtiers Key Suppliers Subtiers Arm s length; interfaces totally defined and controlled Collaborative; but constrained by prior workshare arrangements Collaborative and seamlessly integrated, enabling architectural innovation ARCHITECTURAL INNOVATION: Major modification of how components in a system/product are linked together Significant improvement in system/product architecture through changes in form/structure, functional interfaces or system configuration Knowledge integration over the supplier network (value stream perspective ; prime-key suppliers-subtiers; tapping supplier technology base)

20 Summary: Architectural Innovation Yields Significant Benefits Case Studies Key Characteristics MAKE-BUY; DESIGN RESPONSIBILITY Case Study A (SMART MUNITION SYSTEM) Early supplier integration into IPT Teaming with key suppliers to optimize design Case Study B (ENGINE NOZZLE) New joint design and engineering approach based on make-buy Prime retains design control SUPPLIER ROLE Collaborative design Suppliers given design responsibility and configuration control Part of joint design team Component design responsibility Joint configuration control SUPPLIER SELECTION; AGREEMENT PROCESS; RELATIONSHIPS Competitive pre-sourcing Commercial pricing Long-term commitments Long-term warranty Collocated teams Open communications; knowledge-sharing Worksharing Electronic linkages Gov t part of team Supplier downselect after joint preliminary design period CPFF Not-to-compete agreements Collocated teams Concurrent engineering Knowledge-sharing Electronic linkages Government involvement MAJOR DRIVERS Cost Performance ARCHITECTURAL INNOVATION Guidance control unit redesigned from modular to integrated system architecture Riveting, rather than welding, resulted in redesign of interfaces and how components are linked together MAJOR BENEFITS Over 60% reduction in unit cost Cycle time: 64 mo. down to 48 mo. (down by 25%) Win-win for value stream Five-fold reduction in unit cost Cycle time reduction not as important Substantial risk reduction Win-win for value stream 20 - Bozdogan -Lean Supplier Networks, September Massachusetts Institute of Technology

21 Summary of Key Practices Enabling Architectural Innovation Pre-sourcing; long-term commitment Early supplier integration into IPTs; IPPD; co-location; joint design & configuration control Leveraging technology base of suppliers (key suppliers; tooling suppliers; subtiers) Workshare arrangements optimizing supplier core competencies Retaining flexibility in defining system configuration Open communications; informal links; knowledge-sharing Target costing; design to cost Supplier-capability-enhancing investments Incentive mechanisms (not to compete agreements; long-term warranty); maintaining trade secrets Government part of the team; relief from military standards and specifications 21 - Bozdogan -Lean Supplier Networks, September Massachusetts Institute of Technology

22 Electronic Integration of Supplier Networks: Early Results Challenge: Electronic integration of supplier networks for technical data exchange as well as for synchronization of business processes Important success factors include: Clear business vision & strategy Early stakeholder participation (e.g., top management support; internal process owners; suppliers ; joint configuration control) Migration/integration of specific functionality benefits of legacy systems into evolving new IT/IS infrastructure Great care and thought in scaling-up experimental IT/IS projects into fully-functional operational systems Electronic integration of suppliers requires a process of positive reinforcement -- greater mutual information exchange helps build increased trust, which in turn enables a closer collaborative relationship and longer-term strategic partnership Close communication links with overseas suppliers pose a serious security risk and complex policy challenge 22 - Bozdogan -Lean Supplier Networks, September Massachusetts Institute of Technology

23 Fostering Innovation across Supplier Networks Ensures Continuous Delivery of to all Stakeholders Research: Case studies on F-22 Raptor avionics subsystems -- what incentives, practices & tools foster innovation across suppliers? Major finding: Innovation by suppliers is hampered by many factors. This seriously undermines weapon system affordability. Excessive performance and testing requirements that do not add value One-way communication flows; concern for secrecy; keyhole visibility by suppliers into product system architecture Little incentive to invest in process improvements due to program uncertainty; limited internal supplier resources; often narrow business case Major subcontractors switching rather than developing subtier suppliers Yearly contract renegotiations wasteful & impede longer-term solutions Recommendations: Use multiyear incentive contracting & sharing of cost savings Improve communications with suppliers; share technology roadmaps Make shared investments in selected opportunity areas to reduce costs Provide government funding for technology transfer to subtiers 23 - Bozdogan -Lean Supplier Networks, September Massachusetts Institute of Technology

24 Quick Review of Aerospace Progress Aerospace industry has made important strides in supplier integration, but this is only the beginning of the road Production: Supplier certification and long-term supplier partnerships -- process control & parts synchronization Development: Early supplier integration into product development critical Strategic supply chain design is a meta core competency Implementation efforts have required new approaches Re-examination of basic assumptions (e.g., make-buy) New roles and responsibilities between primes and suppliers Communication and trust fundamental to implementation Aerospace community faces new challenges and opportunities Imperative to take value stream view of supplier networks Focus on delivering best lifecycle value to customer Need to evolve information-technology-mediated new organizational structures for managing extended enterprises in a globalized market environment 24 - Bozdogan -Lean Supplier Networks, September Massachusetts Institute of Technology

25 Lean Supplier Networks Offer Significant Competitive Advantages Exhibit superior performance system-wide -- greater efficiency, lower cycle time, higher quality Not an accident of history but result of a dynamic evolutionary process Not culture dependent but are transportable worldwide Can be built through a proactive, well-defined, process of change in supply chain management 25 - Bozdogan -Lean Supplier Networks, September Massachusetts Institute of Technology

26 Key Questions for Aerospace Management Does the size, structure and composition of the supplier network reflect your enterprise s strategic vision? Has your enterprise created partnerships and strategic alliances with key suppliers to strengthen its long-term competitive advantage? Are major suppliers as well as lower-tier suppliers integrated into your enterprise s product, process and business development efforts? Has your enterprise established mutually-beneficial arrangements with suppliers to ensure flexibility and responsiveness to unforeseen external shifts? Does your enterprise have in place formal processes and metrics for achieving continuous improvement throughout the extended enterprise? 26 - Bozdogan -Lean Supplier Networks, September Massachusetts Institute of Technology

27 Emergence of Strategic Supplier Partnerships has been a Central Feature of Aerospace Industry s Transformation in the 1990s* Survey: 85% of firms established production-focused supplier partnerships involving long-term agreements (LTAs) with key suppliers Major reasons: Reduce costs 97% Minimize future price uncertainty 85% Mutual performance improvement 85% Chief characteristics: One or more products, 3+ years 97% Multi-year design/build 49% On-going (evergreen) 24% *Responding firms with LTAs; based on an MIT Survey ( ) 27 - Bozdogan -Lean Supplier Networks, September Massachusetts Institute of Technology

28 Case Study Results Show Significant Performance Improvements by Building Integrated Supplier Networks through Supplier Partnerships Case study: Major producer of complex airframe structures REDUCED CYCLE TIME (Main Product Order-to-Shipment, months) IMPROVED SUPPLIER DELIVERY (Dock-to-Stock, w/o prior inspection) REDUCED SUPPLIER DEFECTS (Defects found at factory floor) 20.00% Months Percent of all supplier shipments 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 75% Rejections as % of all incoming supplier shipments 18.00% 16.00% 14.00% 12.00% 10.00% 8.00% 6.00% 7.10% 10 20% 4.00% 2.90% % 0% 0% 2.00% 0.00% Bozdogan -Lean Supplier Networks, September Massachusetts Institute of Technology

29 Supplier Partnerships Driven by Strategic Corporate Thrust to Develop Integrated Supplier Networks KEY PRACTICES Reduced and streamlined supplier base Number of direct production suppliers Improved procurement efficiency Procurement personnel as % of total employment (%) Subcontracting cycle time (days) Improved supplier quality and schedule Procurement (dollars) from certified suppliers (%) Supplier on-time performance (% of all shipments) Established strategic supplier partnerships Procurement dollars under long-term agreements(%) Best value subcontracts as % all awards BEFORE * AFTER BEFORE: 1989 AFTER: 1997 *Refers to Bozdogan -Lean Supplier Networks, September Massachusetts Institute of Technology

30 Focus on Early Supplier Integration Historic opportunity for achieving BEST LIFECYCLE VALUE in aerospace weapon system acquisition through early supplier integration into design and development process Nearly 80% of life cycle cost committed in early design phase Design and development of complex aerospace systems calls on core capabilities of numerous suppliers, providing as much as 60%-70% of end product value Supplier network represents an enormous beehive of distributed technological knowledge & source of cost savings What are better ways of leveraging this capability for more efficient product development in aerospace sector? Worldwide auto industry experience provides critical lessons 30 - Bozdogan -Lean Supplier Networks, September Massachusetts Institute of Technology

31 Lean Difference: Auto Industry Lean Difference: Significantly lower development cost and shorter cycle time Average engineering hours per new car (millions of hours) US Japan % Average development cycle time per new car (months) US Japan % Prototype lead time (months to first engineering protoype) US Japan % Source: Clark, Ellison, Fujimoto and Hyun (1995); data refer to Bozdogan -Lean Supplier Networks, September Massachusetts Institute of Technology

32 1980 s ( ) Lean Difference: Auto Industry Supplier Role in Design Lean difference starts with significant supplier role in design and development 81% US 3% 16% 30% Japan 8% 62% 1990 s ( ) 12% 58% 30% 39% 6% 55% Supplier Proprietary Parts Source: Clark, Ellison, Fujimoto and Hyun (1995) 32 - Bozdogan -Lean Supplier Networks, September Massachusetts Institute of Technology Assembler Designed Detail-Controlled Parts Percent of total cost of parts purchased from suppliers Supplier Designed Black Box Parts