OM in the News: Will “Reshoring” Fix Supply Chain Woes?

Efforts by the U.S. and other countries to fix supply-chain problems by boosting domestic production aren’t likely to be effective, according to a report from the International Monetary Fund, which says diversifying sourcing is a better solution. “Policy proposals to reduce dependence on foreign suppliers, especially in strategic sectors, have gained prominence, including in major markets such as Europe and the U.S.” reports The Wall Street Journal (April 13, 2022).

Such policies “are likely misguided,” IMF economists said, and “supply chain resilience to shocks is better built by increasing diversification away from domestic sourcing of inputs. The resilience of trade through the pandemic suggests that such proposals may be premature, if not misguided.” The IMF noted that trade has bounced back remarkably quickly, and that countries unaffected by shutdowns were often able to quickly increase their capacity to supply other regions.

The Biden administration wants to boost domestic production and encourage the reshoring of industries that have moved overseas, saying it will both create U.S. jobs and better insulate the nation against shortages from goods imported from other countries, such as semiconductors.

The IMF suggests a severe crisis in a single large global supplier (one roughly the size of China) would cause the average country’s economy to shrink by 0.8%. However, if that country had diverse supply chains running through a large number of countries, the economic damage would only be half as large.

Even the country at the heart of such a crisis would be better off with diverse supply chains, they said. By doubling down on domestic production, the country’s factories may have their own domestic suppliers disappear in a crisis, whereas if they had diverse international suppliers they would have a fallback option. Also important, the IMF said, is making sure that supplies in one country can be quickly substituted for another.

Some companies have already begun undertaking such efforts, like GM, which is seeking to reduce the number of different types of semiconductors that it uses so supplies that are disrupted from one factory can more easily be substituted by production elsewhere, or Toyota, which has sought to make more of the components of its cars easily substituted across different models.

Classroom discussion questions:

  1. Why does the IMF say that reshoring is not a perfect solution?
  2. What difficulties does the U.S. face in reshoring attempts?

Teaching Tip: Why Supply Chain Management Matters

When we discuss supply chains in Figure 11.1 in Chapter 11, we take note of not only first tier suppliers, but 2nd and 3rd as well. Sometimes manufacturers do not pay as close attention as needed down the line, but recent disruptions from tsunamis (Japan) and floods (Thailand) have raised awareness greatly. Ford discovered this all too well when its 2nd tier paint supplier (which made the pigment Xirallic used to produce the metallic look in red and black F-150s, Lincolns, Tauruses, and Explorers) was destroyed in the Japanese earthquake.

That is why this graphic is a useful teaching tool. It was developed by Prof. Andreas Wieland at the Copenhagen Business School (Supply Chain Management Research, Oct. 12, 2014).why-scm-matters

OM in the News: Apple’s Move to Multiple Suppliers for the New iPad

The scene at Apple stores around the world last Friday resembled a rock concert, with large crowds, barricades, food, and cheering  as the company introduced its 3rd generation iPad. But when covering Supply Chain Management in Chapter 11, you and your students may be more interested in what’s going on under the hood of the new iPad tablets. The Wall Street Journal (March 17-18, 2012) writes that Apple “heavily hedged its bets on suppliers of key components, a strategy aimed at holding down costs and risks. The strategy allows a customer to play one supplier off another for lower prices, and minimize disruption if a single factory runs into production problems.”

How do we know the contents and supplier names?  The research firm UBM TechInsights, it turns out, bought and took apart several iPads on Friday, and found components with the same functions made by at least 3 manufacturers in different tablets. Some teardowns revealed memory devices from Micron Technology, some from Hynix Semiconductor, as well as others with chips  from Toshiba. The distinctive high-resolution displays came from  Samsung, LG Display, and Sharp.

The desire to diversify supply sources has taken on added importance with recent natural disasters, including the 2011 earthquake in Japan and  flooding in Thailand. “The multiple suppliers in the iPad suggest Apple is more actively trying to mitigate such risks,” says a UBM executive,  adding that  the strategy is credited to Apple CEO Tim Cook who “made his name at the beginning as the master of the supply chain.”

After opening the new device, UBM estimated that Apple paid $309 for the components in the iPad (that sells for $629). This compares to a current cost of $248 for the iPad 2, which was released last year. Here is the link to a 3 min. video on the iPad teardown.

Discussion questions:

1. Why do many electronics industry companies seek multiple suppliers?

2. Why did component costs increase in this new iPad?