Entries Tagged as 'Global trends'

Impact of Global Crisis on EMS/ODM

Based on projections of a zero-growth year for the global Electronics Industry, it is estimated that CY2009 revenue in the EMS sector will be flat to up less than 1%, but as this projection includes both CMs (forecast to be flat to down 3%) and ODMs (forecast to be flat to up ~3%) it is also predictive of a continuation in the transfer of market share from the CM to the ODM solution. Therefore 2009 is expected to be a very challenging year for CMs (at all tier levels/across all industrial segments) that could be further exacerbated should the projections for the overall electronics industry prove to be overly optimistic. This now seems likely given the recent International Monetary Fund’s (IMF) prediction of “particularly weak” economic growth in all G7 countries and the daily reports of lay-offs and shut-downs by OEMs around the world.

A potential bright spot: given that OEMs tend to expand their fixed-to-variable based cost initiatives during periods of downturn and that Japanese manufacturers (who account for approximately 1/3 of the global TAM but less than 1/8 of the global outsourcing spend) are experiencing unprecedented levels of competition from significantly lower-cost producers in China and India, a significant “up-tick” in outsourcing from Japan, which would be extremely favorable to both CMs & ODMs, now seems at least plausible.

Is That Opportunity Knocking?

Excerpts from the Leading Indicators monthly reports…

June 2008
* Mexico – Almost unchanged over the past 2-3 years but increasing utilization for both PCBA & BOX should begin to yield reductions in rates. Geography remains an attractive on-shore solution for its’ NAFTA partners…
* China – 38% increase in PCBA over the past 5 years, 90% derivative of increases in underlying DL & OH with remaining 10% attributable to Yuan/$USD conversion.  During same period BOX increased 200% as consequence of very high demand vs. expansion-rate for “usable” BOX capacity. Trend is expected to continue…

July 2008
* Mexico – The burdened labor rate for PCBA dropped 6.4% and 9.2% for box build…
* China – The burdened labor rate for PCBA increased 1.3% and 3.3% for box build. This trend of is expected to continue throughout the balance of 2008…

August 2008
* Mexico – The burdened labor rate for PCBA was unchanged but the Box Build number dropped 4.8%. This was the second month in a row that the Box Build labor rate has dropped in Mexico…
* China – No new data for PCBA, which seems extremely questionable (the first time in the 5-year history of the ONS that no PCBA data was collected?).  The burdened labor rate for Box Build increased 7.6%…

September 2008
* Mexico – The burdened labor rate for PCBA and Box Build was unchanged on considerable case-analysis, which confirms the drop we noted in burdened Box Build rates in August. This trend is expected to continue into 2009 as load continues to increase…
* China – The burdened labor rate for PCBA was up slightly on increased wage rate in considerable case-analysis. Based on this data it is expected, net of a reversal in the currency exchange trend between the Yuan and USD$, that PCBA labor in China will exceed $10/hour in Q4CY08. No new data on Box Build…

October 2008
* Mexico – Burdened DL for PCBA and Box was down sharply, on considerable case-analysis, as a consequence of currency translation and improving OH absorption as a result of increasing load. Net of the Peso strengthening against the USD$, average labor costs are expected to be lower in CY2009 as ADDING additional DL will lower the average rate within most of the facilities in this geography…
* China – Burdened DL for PCBA and Box was up as a consequence of currency translation.  Costs are expected to continue to increase during the balance of Q4CY2008 as the full impact of China’s new labor laws have yet to be fully actualized…

November 2008

Knock, Knock… In the vast majority of cases, Mexico is now the lowest net-cost EMS solution for North American OEMs.

Charlie

Join the conversation about the quality of US labor

We’ve been following the conversation on an Industry Week forum.

 

I felt I had to weigh in on this topic, because I believe there’s a lot of misinformation, especially as it applies to electronics manufacturing.

 

I’ve managed and trained workers from every level of business (factory floor through the board room) for over 30 years and have found Americans to be the hardest working, most dedicated and flexible work force anywhere in the world. By contrast, the major problem I’ve seen since the early 1990s with US manufacturing has been the lack of a consistent, unambiguous and clear vision of where companies are trying to go and how they’d like to get there. Tell the American worker what’s expected and provide them the tools, resources and training to make it happen and they’ll deliver! What doesn’t work is treating them (either the hourly direct or salaried indirect) as an expendable burden who do nothing but drag the enterprise down and make the executive staff look bad.

 

I’d be interested in what others think. Please post a comment and let me know!

 

Is China’s Cheap Labor Supply Really Unlimited?

A lot has been written recently about the dwindling availability of cheap labor in China. ( See 9/6 issue of The Economist, “Reserve army of underemployed”) Some propose that the good times (for Western electronics OEMs) will soon be drawing to a close – some claim there is plenty of runway remaining for at least the next decade. In our opinion what all these reports are missing is that the operant term in the preceding sentence is ‘cheap’, which from a business perspective is measured by an OEM’s Total Cost of Ownership – not just what they pay for labor.

Here are the facts as we’ve measured them from actual electronics industry data:

1. The cost of labor in China has increased faster than the currency adjusted local inflationary index for at least the past 6 quarters (the raising cost of labor is not news at this point it is history).
2. China as a low cost labor source has now been eclipsed by both India and Vietnam whose labor costs are lower on a fully burdened basis for both PCBA and Product build.
3. The concentration of manufacturing in China’s River Deltas has reached the point of functional saturation, as determined by the industry versus the speculation of academics and journalists.
4. On a Total Cost of Ownership basis (for most Western OEMs) Mexico & Eastern Europe are now at parity with China for all but the smallest, lightest and high volume consumer product solutions.
5. Given the increasing cost of oil over time (and the global green movement) it is inevitable that cross-hemispheric solutions will ultimately lose ground to within-region (called ‘near-shoring’) solutions.

None of which means that the billions and billions of USD$ spent every year on electronics manufacturing services in China will suddenly evaporate in a puff of smoke. But times are changing… which may be the ultimate ‘So what?’ When has this industry (or much of anything else) ever operated in a quiescent state? Someone once said ‘change is inevitable’… so check your historic basis at the door and go do your homework, as I also remember someone else saying ‘Outsourcing is not a one-size-fits-all activity and never will be.’

To save you from having to Google ‘Outsourcing is not a one-size….’  that auspicious observation comes from last month’s EMS Industry, LEADING INDICATORS report that is available from Charlie Barnhart & Associates LLC through www.charliebarnhart.com at the ridiculously low price of $595 per year.

Dramatic Shifts in Labor Prices and Usable Capacity

Cost of Labor:

According to the most recent edition of The Charlie Barnhart Leading Indicators Monthly Report, the average cost of labor for Electronic Manufacturing Services in most global geographies continues to rise at a rate equal to or slightly above the currency adjusted local inflationary index, the exceptions being the United States, Mexico and India where the fully burdened cost of labor for both PCBA and Box Build was down marginally on improved absorption. The largest increases in the cost of EMS value-added services occurred in Western Europe and China. Both of these trends are expected to continue in 2008, net of significant strengthening of the UDS$ against the Euro & Yuan or its weakening against the Peso & Rupee.

Usable Capacity:

The majority of outsourcing continues to chase a diminishing available capacity principally located in the river deltas of China and the non-euro based countries of Central & Eastern Europe. While the industry continues to add capacity, these regions are approaching operational limits due to shortages in qualified human and infrastructural resources.

Risk factors:

The composite business risk (CBR) indicator* for all of North America, the euro-based countries of Eastern Europe, Thailand and Australia went down this reporting period (decreasing risk) and went up (increasing risk) in Malaysia, India and China. All of this means that Mexico (for North America), Thailand (for Asia) and the euro-based countries of Eastern Europe (for Western Europe) as the best value, lowest risk solution for high volume requirements.

Lastly, the overall situation in China continues to deteriorate and given the high concentration of Outsourcing in this single geography we have begun advising our clients to accelerate analysis and integration of alternative solutions.

*The CBR indicator which is called the Geographic Constant in the Global Outsourcing Tool of the Outsourcing Navigator Series includes (as a minimum) assessment of current case-studies, monetary exchange, economic forecasts, infrastructure scalability, cost & availability of resources (including energy), outstanding regulatory/geo-political issues, status of down-slope supply-chain, availability of up-slope services, cost & availability of capital, fixed asset utilization rates, book-to-bill ratios, current delivery trends, lead-time projections and a quality performance rating for each major EMS geography.

Baseless assumptions led us astray from regional strategy

POSTED BY CHARLIE BARNHART ON TECHNOLOGY FORECASTERS BLOG

For many reasons, Technology Forecasters has been predicting a return to the regional sourcing strategy that was the hallmark of electronics manufacturing before Y2K and the rush to build anything and everything in China.

(For example, see the May article by Bruce Rayner, TFI vice president and director of consulting and research, in Manufacturing Business Technology, or the conclusions from my presentation at the Spring Quarterly Forum last month: “Recalibrating the Cost of Outsourcing/The Changing Landscape of Outsourcing.”)

In this context, it is useful to review the assumptions - unfounded it turns out — that led the industry away from the regional strategy. I offered this view at the Spring Quarterly Forum last month. These unfounded assumptions, which became rationalizations to justify the move to China, have mistakenly become imbedded in the industry’s collective perception. A mindset correction is needed.

Here are the ones I encounter repeatedly.

Assumption
: Systemic quality problems in Mexico and/or Eastern Europe, or products manufactured in Mexico or Eastern Europe are of poor quality. Fact: No statistically significant data has ever been found to support this assertion.

Assumption
: It is always cheaper to manufacture products in China and ship them to their point-of-sale than it is to build them in a higher-cost labor region. Fact: Our Outsourcing Navigator Series modeling has consistently shown that on a TCO basis this isn’t true in all cases — and almost never true if materials are sourced at their point of lowest cost and assembly is done regionally.

Assumption: It is necessary to build in China to penetrate the huge potential market in China. Fact:  A review of publicly traded global OEMs financial statements clearly indicate this approach has not come to fruition.

Assumption
: Cross-hemispheric strategies (i.e., using emerging, remote lower-cost labor to build electronics) provide social and economic benefit to all parties involved. Fact: Given the state of the environment, the global electronics industry and most of the associated economies this presumption seems questionable at best.

Just because everyone else is doing something (like jumping off a bridge) doesn’t mean it is a good idea. Isn’t that something our mothers taught us?

You might know of other baseless assumptions - or you might disagree with these. Either way, let us hear from you.

 

 

 

Slapped by the Invisible Hand?

NOTE: This article appeared in the May 2008 issue of Circuits Assembly magazine.

It’s no secret that US-based electronics manufacturing companies are facing challenges of historic proportions as they struggle to compete in the global electronics economy. Some analysts speculate that the falling value of the US dollar will make these companies acquisition targets for foreign-owned corporations, which may see this situation as an opportunity to buy capacity to build electronics for the US market. A quick look at the Industry News section of this publication illustrates this trend.

According to the Federal government-hosted, ‘www.buyusa.gov’ website, foreign direct investment (FDI) benefits the US economy by creating new jobs, boosting wages, helping US companies penetrate international markets, and strengthening US manufacturing. In addition, according to the website, FDI brings in new research, technology and skills, contributes to rising US productivity as well as US tax revenue. Each of these benefit bullet points is followed by statistics that support these statements.

Is this a bad thing?

Some of these statements seem questionable when you examine the domestic economy. The starting hourly wage for auto workers under the most recently negotiated Detroit contract for General Motors is half what it was 10 years ago, which must surely be attributed to the effect of Japanese auto makers’ US manufacturing operations. Motorola’s PCS division seemingly did everything right by capturing a large share of the Asian cell phone market as an early entrant. They’ve been doing business in mainland China for decades. Yet that once proud company’s stock just fell 39% on the latest management restructure and the company is considering selling off the PCS division.

If FDI helps US companies penetrate international markets, why is our trade deficit so high?

The US has been shifting to a services-based economy for 40 years. The question then is: can a services economy create real wealth for its citizens? What kind of services are we talking about? Well, banking and finance, for one. At this writing, Bear Stearns was just acquired for $2.00/ share by rival JP Morgan and the Fed acquired billions of dollars of bad loans. Much of the wealth created in that industry seems to be evaporating.

Another area of our new services economy is insurance underwriting, including health insurance. I have a law degree, but dealing with health insurance has become such a formidable task – with so many third parties offering ‘value-added services’ — that I typically don’t get all the benefits I’m entitled to because I just don’t have time to fill out all the forms. However, we have created a lot of jobs for the people who read and file these forms. Yet in discussions with doctors and nurses and other care providers – the people who actually determine the quality of health care – their job satisfaction is at an all-time low and many doctors are leaving the profession.

So are we going to be happy living in a services economy? I’m not sure.

A manufacturing and engineering-based economy contributes real, foundational value to an economy. There just is no way around that reality. We need to quit thinking that because a multinational is based in the US, that means the value of its overseas operations benefits our economy. It is misleading to count the products manufactured outside of the US by a US-based multinational as contributing to US GDP. This accounting masks the erosion of US manufacturing and materials technology competitiveness. Let’s get more realistic:

“Economic theory assumes that capitalists pursuing their individual interests are led to benefit the general welfare of their society by an invisible hand. But offshoring, or the pursuit of absolute advantage, breaks the connection between the profit motive and the general welfare. The beneficiaries of offshoring are the corporations’ shareholders and top executives and the foreign country, the GDP of which rises when its labor is substituted for the corporations’ home labor. Every time a corporation offshores its production, it converts domestic GDP into imports. The home economy loses GDP to the foreign country which gains it.” Paul Craig Roberts, former assistant US Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy

Innovation in marketing and software alone will not sustain the electronics industry. The Department of Defense is waking up to the unintended consequences surrounding the offshoring of electronics manufacturing. Small US manufacturers are not able to invest in new materials research and development, and in the manufacturing technologies necessary for advanced printed circuit board assemblies, leading to a recent DoD decision to extend a program designed for integrated circuits to assemblies. A task force report to Congress requested in July 2006 explains, “Ensuring a supply of trusted integrated circuits is necessary, but it is not sufficient to remove risks and vulnerabilities associated with populated printed circuit assemblies.Extending the Defense Trusted Integrated Circuit Strategy to include printed circuit boards (and possibly printed circuit board mounted components) could mitigate the risks posed by tampering and counterfeiting….While the DoD has not experienced specific disruptions to date, the globalization trend beginning in the 1990’s has increased this vulnerability,” the report concludes.

Global Manufacturing for Low-Volume, High Mix Electronics

The next wave of electronics outsourcing is now upon us, as medical device manufacturers, and aerospace, industrial and security electronics OEMs consider the make or buy decision. Many are considering their global manufacturing strategy as we speak, and are succumbing to the lure of low labor cost geographies. Let’s take a closer look at the financial fundamentals of these low-volume, high mix boards and replace the knee-jerk chase for low labor rates with a more rational, data-driven approach that considers the total costs.

According to Charlie Barnhart and Associates (CBA) research, these products are not good candidates for low cost labor regions because, among other reasons, the labor rate is such a small percentage of the total cost of manufacturing. Yet in spite of the irrationality of many of the decisions, some of these programs are slated for low labor cost geographies, including China. Companies are sourcing components in one geography, populating boards in another geography, assembling them in yet another geography for final destination in yet another region.

CBA research demonstrates conclusively that on a fully-burdened basis, the overall total costs of doing business this way far exceed any savings. For OEMs in the medical, industrial, and aerospace industries especially, where complicated high mix products in low to medium volume create high up-front costs, the internal costs to manage these outsourcing programs exceed the cost of the program itself (sans of material). CBA research demonstrates in the vast majority of cases it is cheaper to employ a regional strategy to keep manufacturing in the same geography as the end customer.

CBA has reviewed hundreds of quotations, including those from low-labor cost regions. In some instances, these quote comes in very low for artificial reasons, including government subsidy of the industry. In these instances, the normal principles of free market economics do not apply. Does it make sense from a risk management standpoint for an OEM company to take advantage of these probably temporary, and at the very least highly unpredictable, short term price advantages? It has been our experience that the risks far outweigh the benefits, and those companies that do attempt to exploit these prices regret the decision in the long run.

In addition to these risks, the well-documented and publicized issues involving counterfeiting should be taken seriously. There are multiple levels of vulnerability here. The components themselves may be counterfeit, and/or the materials used to make them. In addition, for the OEMs, there is also the greater risk that the manufacturer will overrun production and then re-label and sell the product to the domestic market. These are not isolated incidents and are very difficult to police from outside the country. It can’t be emphasized enough that the laws and assumptions we have about intellectual property are simply not shared in some low-labor cost geographies.

CBA recommends a different approach founded in more traditional and comprehensive principles of business accounting and encourages both OEMs and their Electronic Manufacturing Service (EMS) providers to take a second look at the strategies they are pursuing – if for no other reason than to avoid a sudden slap by an invisible hand.

Get a Second Opinion for Medical Outsourcing

Even the best medical doctors consult other experts. Shouldn’t electronics OEMs that spend millions of dollars on outsourcing do likewise? The following illustrates some of the risks of the insular approach.

I recently conducted a review for a large medical electronics OEM on their request-for-quotation (RFQ) and the resultant pricing they received.

The outsourcing job was a product (about the size of a breadbox) that had been re-designed and reduced in cost. As medical gear goes the anticipated volumes were relatively high, so it made for an attractive piece of business for any EMS or ODM seeking new medical business.

Nine companies bid. Based on my recent update to the Outsourcing Navigator I knew prices were rising but was still surprised by the quotes. The three suppliers who would talk to me (one of which was the OEM’s preferred source) had quoted almost twice as much for value-added services than I would have anticipated.

When asked about this they admitted padding their numbers by more than 5 percent (I made it more like 8 percent to 12 percent) as they felt the geography requested was the wrong solution and would result in problems. What a concept though: An EMS company actually priced a job to make some money!

Despite the fact that everyone talks about collaboration these days, none of the suppliers had offered an alternate suggestions to the OEM. When asked why they hadn’t, they all informed me it was “crystal clear” (from comments made by the OEM’s sourcing team) that the solution had already been decided and that the OEM’s main criterion was a contractor that would “keep its mouth shut and do what it was told.”

When I shared this information with the OEM manager working with me on the case study, he was furious and stopped the analysis –he didn’t even ask what was wrong with the geography they’d selected or what a better alternative might have been. Go figure.

The outsourcing landscape looks a lot different than it did last year, much less compared to three, four or five-years ago, and the rate of change accelerates. Given this reality, seeking alternative ideas and approaches is no longer a luxury – do yourself a favor and get a second opinion.

Getting Beyond Price

One of the hardest-to-explain aspects of outsourcing is that pricing has remained a top concern of OEMs, even as EMS providers have dramatically reduced their operating margins and increased their service offering. The pressure to cut costs is so pervasive it has come to define the contentious EMS/OEM relationship.

Why the emphasis on price? During the past two decades, OEMs have shifted manufacturing from in-source to out-source. As a result, the EMS industry enjoyed substantial growth, which yielded massive economies of scale. As a result, they were able to lower costs, which were generally but not always shared with their OEM customers. As the proportion of product costs derived from buying rather than building rose, OEMs focused on driving EMS costs as low as possible.

This course of action first strained then soured the relationship. The OEM’s constant push for the lowest possible price and best available deal fostered an irreconcilable level of contention. This in turn made OEMs increasingly dubious of their EMS providers. As a result, they began demanding significantly more detailed cost information, which led to the practice of “granulizing” every element of their EMS supplier’s pricing and “cherry picking” line items across multiple supplier quotations to justify questionable pricing expectations.

In an attempt to preserve a sliver of their shrinking margins, EMS companies came to view this process as “death by a thousand nicks” and responded by inventing creative ways to cloud the issue. Needless to say, this resulted in the OEM losing “visibility” because they had to rely on second-hand information provided by their EMS providers. Some cynics went so far as to call it “disinformation.”

And for good reason. In the vast majority of quotations provided by EMS companies, “material mark-up” – or some such addition by another name – is typically added to the cost of materials. Usually this is explained as the cost of procurement or procurement-related functions, such as supply-chain management, component engineering or quality assurance.

OEMs rightly question this practice. Examine any EMS provider’s income statement and search for the “material mark-up” line item. It doesn’t exist. In fact, all of these mark-up costs are already accounted for and included in the overhead element of cost-of-goods, which is applied as a burden to direct labor. It doesn’t matter where in the world the transaction takes place, or whether workers get paid 10 cents- or 10 dollars-per-hour, the accounting is done the same way: operating overhead is absorbed by burdening direct labor. And by coupling these costs with the actual cost of material, the three elements of direct labor, overhead, and materials define cost-of-goods.

Simply put, there is no such thing as “materials mark-up.” It is a creation of the outsourcing industry designed to circumvent the unpleasantness of discussing actual margins when negotiating pricing with OEMs. Sad but true.

Clearly the EMS outsourcing model is seriously flawed, if not actually broken. So what should an OEM do? Demand suppliers to be more forthcoming with data, even though they know it will be used against them? Hire more people to further scrutinize and harass their already disillusioned EMS suppliers? Abandon EMS and embrace ODM solutions? Perhaps OEMs should just give-up on outsourcing and start shifting production back in-house?

These are impossibly hard questions to answer as every solution will be unique to each OEM’s circumstances. There is no silver-bullet. The outsourcing landscape is a complex, opportunity-rich environment where the proactive flourish and the timid become consumed by circumstances of their own making – not a pretty picture, but at least an honest one.

Comparison: EMS vs. ODM

The following is excerpted from a paper written for Technology Forecasters’ Quarterly Forum:

As the name implies, Original Design Manufacturers (or ODMs) are companies who provide not only manufacturing services but also product designs or design services and may (or may not) sell their own branded products. While this definition does not fit every ODM, as some do not provide manufacturing service but only designed products, it does describe the vast majority of the companies involved in this activity and is a reasonable starting point from which to launch our analysis and discussion. Additionally, while it’s generally held that the ODM industry is an Asian based activity there are in fact ODMs located in all the major industrial geographies; including North America, Europe, the near East and other Asian locations.

With that said, it’s undeniably true that the vast majority of this activity (certainly over 80%) takes place in Asia and primarily from within very few key geography; including Taiwan, Hong Kong and to a lesser degree Korea. Further, while the use of ODMs has dramatically increased over the past five years, and the trend is expected to continue, less than a majority of OEMs have either incorporated or yet gained significant experience in this approach.

Therefore, in this writing we will use a “comparative methodology” leveraging the high level of experience most OEMs have with EMS (or Contract Manufacturing) in identifying and reviewing the distinct business practices of ODMs.

Approach:

To highlight the primary differences between ODMs and EMS companies we will focus on these five key issues:

  1. Business Form
  2. Value Proposition
  3. Cost Structure
  4. Pricing Practices
  5. Operating Characteristics

A review the potential windfalls and pitfalls of the ODM option will also be included.

MIXING BUSINESS MODELS

In response to the high growth rate of the ODM industry, a mixing of models is occurring with EMS companies acquiring (or developing) product design capabilities and ODMs competing for contract manufacturing business.
Complicating matters however is the uncertainty created by OEMs shifting their manufacturing to China and embracing less than innovative products from ODMs. It is no secret that the electronics industry has a long and checkered history of chasing low-cost labor around the world and that many leading OEMs are already searching-out the next ‘hot spot’ be it in India, Russia, Viet Nam or somewhere else. Relative to ODMs, one cannot help but question the plausibility of an OEM marketing strategy who’s only branding point is the familiarity of the logo that gets pasted to the product.

This ‘convergence’ could reasonably be expected to continue until the two alternatives effectively merge into a melded composite that combines the advantages contained in each. In the meantime, and not unexpectedly, the EMS and ODMs continue to expand and fine-tune their value propositions and jockey for position in this shifting landscape.

As a sideline to this activity, the industries have also begun using convergence to ‘balance’ their account portfolios to better position themselves to take advantage of potential margin variations between sectors and mitigate risk (or over dependency) on any individual market segment.

EMS/ODM COMPARISONS

1. Business Form

The ODM industry is like the EMS industry in these ways:

A highly fragmented environment that is made up of dozens of players, none of whom control the overall market.

Dominated by ‘several’ large publicly traded players who dominate the industry, but who individually hold far less than a majority of the market share. The largest ODM in CY2003 was Quanta with a 20% share.

CAPEX intensive (especially in the areas of Plant, Property, and Equipment) and has high ROIC goals.

Only ‘lightly’ differentiated by its manufacturing investment.

The ODM industry is unlike the EMS industry in these ways:

Concentrated in low-cost geographies, principally Taiwan and Hong Kong for design and Mainland China for manufacturing.

Segmented by “product” based intellectual property (IP) or product-specific expertise.

Operates (to some extent) in the OEM space, especially in the areas of consumer, low-end computing, telecommunications, and network products.

Invests in product-based Research and Development versus manufacturing technology.

Has developed either a captive or subordinate supply chain for a broad range of both active and passive materials, primarily but not exclusively in China.

2. Value Proposition

Like the EMS industry, the ODM industry offers its customers:

Access to a well-developed manufacturing capacity that is capable of matching the Tier I Contract Manufacturing service offering.

A fairly robust manufacturing capability that is typically multi-facility based and posses sufficient redundancy (except for the element of geographic concentration) to be considered a workable alternative.

A ‘fixed’ price relationship with reasonable flexibility.

The ability to access the supply chain with a greater degree of leverage and influence than the typical OEM might be able to achieve on its own, especially in the area of industry standard components and fabricated material.

Unlike the EMS industry (with some exceptions), the ODM industry offers its customers:

Product-specific IP at a very low cost, as measured against what the OEMs typically spend for their equivalent developed internally.

A means to accelerate their time-to-market by virtue of elimination of most of the product development and validation process.

Line-card expansion with minimal investment as compared to internal development.

Access to Product Roadmaps and Life-cycle Management alternatives.

Access to new Geographic Markets principally within the Asian region.

A way to minimize off-balance-sheet Material liability.

3. Cost Structure

Like the EMS industry, the ODM industry incurs:

All four of the major cost elements of any for-profit enterprise, including: Material, Labor and Overhead costs (COGS), Sales, General and Administrative costs (SG&A), Cost-of-Money related expenses (CoM) and Tax and regulatory expenses.

In the area of Taxes and Taxation, however, the rules both inside and outside of Mainland China are considerably different than those encountered in most other major manufacturing geographies, and generally they create a competitive advantage for Chinese producers.

Non-recurring and Extraordinary Expenses that ultimately must be recovered as they are expensed versus depreciable items.

Risk liability (both on and off balance sheet) such as warranty exposure.

Unlike the EMS industry (again with some exceptions) the ODM industry enjoys:

  • Access to capital markets that are less regulated, more flexible, and less expectant, including both governmental and non-governmental sources.
  • A lower cost of capital (by virtue of above.)
  • A means to (legally) avoid paying most taxes.
  • Less exposure from regulatory/judicial functions particularly in the areas of product liability, occupational health and safety, employee relations, and environmental compliance and administration.
  • A lower administrative burden in their customer relationship due to lower expectation levels. Noteworthy however is that this situation may be rapidly unraveling as OEMs that have met their lower pricing objects are now pushing for enhanced levels of service, support, and organizational development in “reward” for their business.
  • A lower cost of both direct and indirect labor by a factor of 5 to 6 times.

4. Pricing Practices

Like the EMS industry, the ODM industry generally:

Uses a cost-plus mark-up formulation.

Integrates volume discounting into their prices.

Uses a system of standards and variances to measure operational results and define profits.

Applies ‘significant’ judgment, based on both market positioning and strategic business issues in establishing prices.

Is expected to be profitable by its investors on both an operating and net basis.

Unlike the EMS industry, the ODM industry generally:

Uses IP vs. Cost (or Service) as their primary sales differentiator, especially in relation to its experience in particular market segments.

Will ‘give away’ design IP to secure manufacturing opportunities of sufficient size and value.

Are willing to execute business at break-even to acquire market-share and/or to penetrate selected market segments. This difference seems to be related to a “perspective variation” between the Asian and Western investment community.

Doesn’t use pricing as a means to avoid business, which is a typical strategy deployed by EMS companies who are “reluctant” to tell either current or potential customer they do not wish to quote a particular piece of business.

Is far less open about pricing practices and far less likely to disclose information publicly or privately.

5. Operating Characteristics

Like the EMS industry, the ODM industry generally:

Uses a business model that recognizes the value of top-line growth as the driver of economies of scale and is willing to incur debt to accomplish this growth if a reasonable return on investment can be achieved.

Is focused on asset management and uses ROIC-based goals to measure success at approximately the same level of expectation as Tier 1 EMS companies.

Has a relatively long sales cycle as compared to its product life cycle.

Services a highly “mobile” customer base that has minimal capital investment in the relationship and often seeks out new suppliers as a means to drive cost reductions on new products.

Operates in an environment of rapidly shifting and continually escalating expectations.

Unlike the EMS industry, the ODM industry generally:

Is provided more “insight” into their customer’s objectives, product strategies, and market situations and can leverage this information to formulate its business and strategic planning.

Benefits from a broader-base of participation in the sub-tier supplier selection process and wields much more influence in that relationship.

Is (generally) believed to provide more value to the relationship than is provided by the EMS industry so is better positioned to avoid “incremental costs” related to new customer expectations, demands, and desires.

Has far more flexibility in managing the supply-chain and in retaining the benefit that may be derived from these activities.

While there are clearly differences between EMS and ODM companies there are also many similarities and common approaches practiced by these industries. Not surprisingly, as they are both for-profit enterprises, they are most alike in areas related to their financial management, methodologies, and objectives.

What may surprise the reader is the area of greatest difference between the EMS and ODM industries is found in their Operating Characteristics — not their Value Propositions! Further, as these industries draw closer together in both service offering and overall cost structure (i.e., on a macro basis ODMs are getting more expensive and EMS is getting cheaper) one could reasonably expect Operating Characteristics to ultimate become the only major differentiator between the industries.

WINDFALLS AND PITFALLS WITH ODMs

The ODM option offers OEMs these potential benefits:

Can provide speed, cost, and access advantages in those areas that an OEM determines to be non-core to their primary business.

Simplest strategy for growth and brand expansion, especially in product arenas that be new or unfamiliar to an OEM.

Development of strategic market inter-dependencies as exampled by an OEM that otherwise would not have the engineering expertise to independently develop a complementary product that could be “bundled” with an existing product to enhance sales. Such as a printer company that ODMs a digital camera.

Provides a means of addressing competitive weaknesses or attacking a competitor’s weaknesses, such as filling in a line-card void or being able to offer customers complete systems solutions when competitors are not.

Expanded integration of the “virtual” business model especially in the areas of product development, support, and test engineering.

Leveragability of the resource due to fragmentation within the ODM industry and the convergence that is taking place with EMS adding ODM service.

Means of mitigation for off-balance-sheet liabilities especially for Materials.

Ease of disposability by virtue of the ODMs non-core contribution and the minimum level of investment made by the OEM.

However, ODMs can also pose the following problems for OEMs:

Loss of internal expertise and competencies in design. The PWB fabrication and PCB assembly and test analogy may be a good one in projecting the probability of this risk.

Unrecoverable loss of IP and/or market opportunity. Unfortunately, this issue should probably be stated as a “certainty” versus a “potentiality” as more examples of this already occur than could possibly be quoted.

Diminishes institutional understanding of IP value with employees of the OEM as they begin to see IP as something you “buy” versus something that you “create.”

Dilution of Brand and/or differentiation, which is “inherent” in the ODM business model.

May shift organizational focus from bottom-line to top-line as more “filler” products are introduced and more heavily relied upon for revenue generation.

Unintentional creation of enterprise momentum in elimination of a capability or resource that spills over into an element core to a businesses’ success. (For example, how do you maintain an environment that assures the retention of engineers you want to keep when laying-off/eliminating their associates in wholesale numbers?)

Simultaneously increases supply and geographic exposure, i.e., not only are your ODM, but all of your ODMs’ suppliers, and all of their suppliers’ suppliers are located in China, and this entire structure is subject to the same infrastructural, monetary, and geopolitical risk factors.

Cost/complexity of maintaining adequate surveillance is many times more expensive than in other geographies and with alternative Outsourcing strategies.

The “kinetic energy risk” to the business (i.e., v2 factor, meaning that when an object, or process, is accelerated to twice its velocity it strikes with not twice but four-times the impact force.)

SUMMARY

In conclusion, the ODM alternative represents a viable methodology to address many of today’s electronic industry challenges by providing OEMs with a low-cost, high velocity means of expanding product offerings, fulfilling market opportunities and further leveraging their business models. Yet, the use of ODMs is not without risk as like in all industrial segments they operate with a distinct group of business practice. And while many of these practices may appear to be similar to those of EMS companies they are not identical and therefore require an investment in understanding, consideration and planning for the approach to be fully utilized and ultimately successful.