Incorrect assumptions put a strain on the entire supply chain.

I am continually amazed at the assumptions some people make that eventually morph into what everyone believes to be the truth. Over the years, I have seen, both in our industry as well as in others, some erroneous assumptions take root and grow into accepted facts. What really gets me is that the very people who facilitate these assumptions are the ones who benefit the least from them. They may be politically correct or traveling with the herd, but in the end they cost themselves dearly by being dead wrong. These are my three favorite misconceptions:

1. If you want high technology, you have to go to Asia. Personally, I would not want to bet on that one. North American and European companies are far from low-tech has-beens. Just attend an IPC technical conference or go to one of the many designer conferences and you will see that technology – with a capital T – is alive and well in North America and Europe.

I have been to several such meetings over the past few months, seeing first hand how North American companies that are providing cutting edge (and bleeding edge) technology for their customers.  And those customers are not just military companies (yet another unfounded misconception about who the remaining North American customers are) but also leading telecom, medical and instrumentation companies who rely on their highly focused supply base to lead them to the next generation of technology. So why do people make the assumption about where technology is or is not?  Too often, they look at only one, and usually the wrong, matrix.  For example, there may be more laser drills in China than in the US, but that has no direct correlation with the overall level of technology available. What does count is the engineering/design capability and how well and fast that capability is translated into reliable, functional and robust products.  

I would argue that the highest level is still very much alive and well in North America!  

2. Only large companies have the resources to handle tough jobs. This is one of those cross industry, cross-generational misconceptions that just will not go away.  True, large companies typically have more resources to throw at a project, however, that also means they have more resources to squander away on misguided boondoggles. I could go on for hours with stories illustrating how opportunities were lost to smaller, more focused and resource-scarce companies because management was not focused.

Because smaller companies typically have fewer resources, they are usually more focused with implementation. It’s interesting how many of the large, resource rich companies of yesterday were unable to react and to reshape themselves or to develop the needed capability to service their customers’ changing needs while smaller companies have been able to provide greater technology, better service and response.

3. Only approve companies that have the capability to produce all of the products that are needed. There is a big difference between one-stop shopping and producing all things for all people. We may enjoy the convenience of shopping at Walmart, but Walmart doesn’t make any of the products it sells, it just knows where to find the best value for its target customer.  In our industry, especially when dealing with larger Tier 1 OEM and EMS companies, the incorrect assumption is that one company exists that makes all the products that everyone wants to buy. Just imagine one circuit board company that produces all technologies, all volumes and on all materials. I can guarantee that if you found that company, it would do a mediocre job with most technologies, volumes and materials.

  
There is a big difference between one-stop shopping and one-stop manufacturing.  Buyers in our industry seem to blur the two.  Most customers would prefer that a company attempts to produce something, outside its area of expertise, in house rather than find a qualified partner who specializes in that different technology/volume/material.  Too often, large companies impose arcane and duplicate certification processes that do not insure that suppliers provide the best value. Too many companies create a death march to certification that loses all sight on capability and value.  Maybe a more realistic certification process should revolve around, regardless of company size, whether or not there is a commitment to providing the highest value as measured by service, technology and capability – regardless of whether a company produces or works with qualified partner companies.

Incorrect assumptions cost everyone in the supply chain dearly. However, the ones who usually pay most are the companies who believe and promote them. It is these buyers and engineers who miss out by not having a nimble, focused, high value supplier because they have wasted precious time trying to put square pegs in round holes.  It sure would be nice if we all stopped believing in and spreading further false assumptions.  PCD&F

Peter Bigelow is president and CEO of IMI (www.imipcb.com); This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..