Suzanne DeffreeWhat's happening in the electronics supply chain that will change the way business is done? News Editor Suzanne Deffree looks at environmental regulations, RFID, inventory levels, globalization, distribution, and a host of other issues that influence the electronics supply chain.


Profile

RSS Feed

  • Add this blog to your RSS newsreader!

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Most Commented On

Archives

By Category

Electronics Supply Chain Articles

Blog

Friday, August 17, 2007

What Mattel has to do with the electronics supply chain

Aug 17 2007 9:45AM | Permalink | Email this | Comments (15) |
Blog This! using:  Blogger.com | LiveJournal |
Digg This | Slashdot This | add to Del.icio.us


Toy maker Mattel has forced discussion among many members of the supply chain this week as to the risk of working with and in China.

Mattel, which recalled 250,000 Chinese-made toy cars in the United States because of unacceptable levels of lead-based paint this week, is hardly the first company to be slammed with recalls and bad press because of consumer product from China and it won’t be the last.

While the issues with China-made electronics span the entire supply chain gamut – from design, to manufacturing, to assuring against counterfeiting and IP theft (perhaps the biggest issues), to shipping truly RoHS -  compliant end product – it’s a market that can’t be ignored as it has been a source of huge financial gain and expansion for many companies in the supply chain in recent years. Arrow Electronics alone has more than 20 locations in China and nearly quadrupled its Asia-Pacific revenues  between  2002  and 2006.

Arrow CEO Bill Mitchell this week shared his thoughts on lessening the supply chain risk in China and avoiding potential pitfalls in sourcing product from the region. The 10 steps he offered are below. In reading Arrow’s release, I was taken back to a story I did for the mainstream press about 10 years ago when a sudden increase of college dorm rooms invasions occurred. Identity theft was common among the victims. In speaking to campus security and local police, I asked for their tips on how students could ward against this type of assault. Their responses were simple -- lock your doors, don’t lend your campus IDs out, only order deliveries from campus approved stores, etc. -- but effective. Mitchell’s points for the electronics supply chain are also simple, but effective, and they are the same points often made by NEDA (National Electronic Distributors Association), the not-for-profit trade organization that firmly pushes use of supplier- authorized distribution of components, parts and electronics.

In the case of the campus invasions and as is the case with Mattel and must be the case with the electronics supply chain, the end solution is practicing common sense, whether that means locking a dorm room door or qualifying suppliers, and taking responsibility, just as Mattel did by enacting a costly recall as it gears up for the holiday shopping season. In Mattel’s case, when it took responsibility for product, it spurred the China government into action, which this week vowed to step up its inspection process.

Electronic News has published another blog on issues with China this week: “China is not the problem,” a post contributed by Editor-in-Chief Ed Sperling. Check them out and, as always, your comments on this topic are welcomed below.


Mitchell’s 10 steps for strengthen quality assurance measures:

1. Source from reputable, well-established companies with tight internal controls.
2. Conduct comprehensive background checks, including checking trade references and past business history, of supply chain partners before conducting business with them.
3. Implement site inspections of supply chain partners and find out what systems have been put in place to track quality.
4. Conduct ongoing performance reviews of supply chain partners and engage in ongoing communications with them to benchmark against preset goals and define improvement plans.
5. Only source from companies that are willing to provide a guarantee for products in writing.
6. Be cautious of buying from companies that do not have franchised relationships with distribution partners to avoid a greater potential risk of counterfeit product.
7. Beware of unusually low pricing. While pricing is certainly important, it should not be the only determining factor in business relationships.
8. Look for International Organization for Standardization (ISO) or other equivalent, globally recognized certifications in a supply chain partner's operations.
9. Establish relationships with third-party organizations.
10. Translate quality into measurable and clearly defined targets with supply chain partners and ensure these metrics are communicated regularly with employees


Reader Comments


at 8/20/2007 9:10:18 AM, Frank said:
I bet Mattel followed all of these & still got burned. Couldn't be happier! Serves 'em & anybody doing biz in China right where respecting IP, safety or basic human rights are essentially ignored to undercut American workforce in search ever higher corporate profit margin. Rule #8, relying on ISO, is a joke! Any outfit can feign nebulous bureaucratic processes on paper which auditors are usually to ignorant to question in detail. This article just sounds like so much management gobblygoop from someone who's never had to get a real project out the door.

at 8/21/2007 10:31:36 AM, Made in USA said:
Bottom line is that the rules are simply different in China, and elsewhere. Reagan said 'trust, but verify' - though he was talking about the USSR at the time. Could anyone (hopefully the OEM and not the goverment)afford to test everything coming into the country? There have been many articles that talk about the 'hidden costs' of offshore outsourcing. I wonder what this no-longer-hidden cost is going to do to Mattel's unit price savings? Especially once the lawsuits start. How much will be pushed back to the Chinese supplier? A bit of conspiracy theory for you: A 'letter to the editor' in our local paper questioned whether this is simply the latest in a series of subtle, though intentional, 'attacks' on the US. Bad pet food, bad toothpaste, bad tires, bad batteries, bad toys.... Hummm.

at 8/24/2007 1:54:55 PM, lightning rod said:
These people are communists. They have slave-labor. They are not our friends. The whole nasty country is run by about 80 people. Americans are fools to buy anything made in China if they have a choice. Cut them off hard until there is real change. The Chinese people are wonderful folks, but their leaders stink.

at 8/28/2007 12:21:16 PM, Frank said:
Amen to Lightning Rod. The only reason we're so in bed with them to this extent is our overly-greedy corporate biz sector has corrupted our leadership so much & shoved this 'Most Favorite Nation trade partner' situation down our throats without any discussions... so much for democracy!

at 8/30/2007 10:47:49 AM, William said:
An overly-greedy corporate sector is only partially to blame. Part of the reason that youre new shiny DVD player costs $59.95 and not $279 is that it's not made here by assemblers with high school educations earning $35 an hour with lifetime pensions and health benefits because they are in unions. Somewhere in between the low overseas wages and what we pay domestically for the same skills is a reasonable rate that supplies workers here a nice lifestyle while making the outsourcing route less attractive. Will movement toward this happen anytime soon? I doubt it.

at 8/31/2007 4:23:11 AM, manix said:
Although there are stories like this, there are many other success stories and I have first hand experience of a successful and mutually beneficial relationship with a Chinese company. The world is now truely global. Stop whining about how much you've been hurt by the competition and COMPETE!

at 9/4/2007 6:22:26 AM, Frank said:
To manix; OK, answer us this: HOW are we supposed to 'compete' when anything you make here can eventually be made over there for a fraction of what it'll cost here simply because of the lower living standards? And suggest something real & practical other than the standard 'move up the food chaing' rhetoric from MBA school. Not everybody can just 'move up the food chain' or 're-invent themselves'. Also specifically with Communist China, we'll see a good portion of our Big Box widget spenditures come back at us in tips of missiles. Right now Iran gets weapons materials from Communist China which in turn is used in IEDs in Iraq used to kill our guys & Iraqi civilians. The screams from Washington should be high pitched & loud,... IF we had honest leadership.

at 9/4/2007 8:49:38 AM, G said:
I agree with Frank. I had one of those poisoned dogs. I couldn't even find an AMERICAN FLAG that wasn't made in China. They must be truly laughing at us Americans!!!! I say CLOSE THOSE DOORS until China can wake up and offer reliable and safe products!

at 9/4/2007 1:35:25 PM, Vinay G said:
When it is known that China has not banned lead in paint in its own country, then why has there been no inspection point? in the Quality control plan. A control plan (like the one used in Automotive indusry should be widely used. But it is not in other industries due. It is expensive, probably not, but because business do no see value in reducing losses to socirty. Business CEOs only want to meet the numbers so that they will be sought after in the Wall street. Vinay G.

at 9/18/2007 6:58:33 AM, Jack said:
William's comments are valid but the answer is not as simple as close the ports to Chineese products. The reason there are $59 DVD players and consumer electronics companies don't makes $279 DVDs is because the stores won't stock it and the consumers won't buy it. The US has an insatiable demand for ever lower cost products. The genie is out of the bottle. If US companies stop using lower cost labor to manufacture products. The shelves will just be filled with products made by non US companies. The solution is to make sure that we only do business with Chineese companies that have fair employment and decient wages.

at 1/24/2008 11:23:58 AM, William said:
Jack: You said the US has an insatiable demand for ever lower cost products. I''m not sure what''s wrong with that, as long as the quality is maintained, and that''s what the rest of the world has been catching up to us in. You also mention doing only business with Chinese companies that have fair employment and decent wages. Well, what a decent wage is varies from country to country. Also, who decides what "fair" employment means? Just what is it?

at 2/4/2008 2:16:51 PM, Clarence said:
It all boils down to the consumer. If people would only buy products from countries that observe human rights, follow rule of law, honour fair trade practices and are democracies, then we would not be having this discussion. Unfortunately, our society is too materialistic to do this and thus we become our own worst enemies. Until then we will be supporting child labour, communism and god knows what else. Don''t be so niave as to expect our governments or big business to do anything about it.

at 9/26/2008 6:40:58 AM, bill said:
It all boils down to GREED. Greed on the part of big business CEO''s to make an even more staggering amount of dollars, and the Greed of american consumers, so materialistic, they want everything for nothing. The "change" that needs to happen may affect big business in the longer term, but it needs to start with YOU. Take a look at yourself...your spnding habits....your lifestyle. I''ll bet the majority of you sitting there writing these blogs have nice, big TV''s, DVD''s, CD''s MP3''s, the latest COMPUTER technology, oversize houses, newer cars, boats, 4 wheelers.....the list goes on. YOU are the problem....we as an American society are the problem. You want big business to change, stop "wanting it all". Big business is only responding to the greedy American consumer demand, and only making more money because WE BUY THERE STUFF!!!

at 10/13/2008 2:38:29 PM, hnrbnd said:
I''m reminded of Says Law (no demand can be had without supply). I keep observing this recurring "American Consumer is greedy" theme. Here''s a little observation from the fence: Americans just have (or had) the supply (money). THAT brought out a demand to produce "marketable" products. Simplest manufacturer solution: make luxury so cheap that it becomes a nessesity. We "Americans" (in quotes because this is not just occuring here) have, for a long time, lived without. However, we are only human. Like Maslo indicated, we only want better. Now personally I don''t own a lot. And I don''t want a lot either. Here''s the rub. I can''t go to a store that is NOT selling something dirt cheap that provides a service or function that otherwise should cost a fortune. If it''s there, the average person WILL buy it- AS A BARGAIN. The fault does not rest with the sheep. It rests with the dog in charge of protecting the sheep. We use to have trade tarrifs that accounted for unfair practices. Not any more. I DO blame the sheep for not yelping louder, but not for eating the apple.

at 10/13/2008 2:56:05 PM, hnrbnd said:
I also take issue with the notion that this is natural free market competition. This is not (as many of you already have indicated). The line we were fed is that by opening up these markets (China and the like) those performing the manufacturing would rise up to meet our standards thereby stabilizing trade disparities. In theory it may work. However, it is predicated on the notion that those performing the manufacturing become a part of the market themselves. This is clearly not the case in China. Therefore, inbalance remains and "fair" market players continue to strain. This will continue until fracture of either the "Fair market" competition or the sustaining government.

Post a comment


Display Name

Before submitting this form, please type the characters displayed above:


ADVERTISEMENT

©1997-2009 Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Use of this Web site is subject to its Terms of Use | Privacy Policy

Please visit these other Reed Business sites

ADVERTISEMENT
You will be redirected to your destination in few seconds.