Blog
Comment
karophi
Manufacturing is really a very important part of any business. A great example ...
C VanDorne
Chipmonk, what's your source for your last few senances? I ask because it ...
Why manufacturing matters and where best to do it
Bolaji Ojo
1/18/2013 3:06 PM EST
Five segments of global manufacturing
McKinsey identified what it described as five segments of global manufacturing: Local markets; Regional processing; Energy/resource-intensive commodities; Technologies/innovators; and Labor-intensive tradables. In order to determine whether or not to participate in any of these manufacturing segments, a country or region must first identify the resources that can help determine success in each of these activity sectors. The next step would be to honestly determine whether it has enough of these resources to be competitive in the chosen manufacturing segment.
The "success" factors to be considered include the following -- broken down by manufacturing segment:
These classifications seem to make sense, and company executives as well as economic planners should consider them when deciding where to establish manufacturing plants or build support infrastructure. As with everything, though, this looks good on paper, but companies and nations may still have other reasons for investing in manufacturing segments they are least prepared for due to various factors such as the desire to satisfy local political demands.
The McKinsey report also didn't discuss the potential impact of other geo-political issues such as regional turbulence, war, etc. Those may be quite as important as the logical items outlined above.
Bojaji Ojo is editor in chief of EBN, an EE Times sister site. This article originally appeared on EBN.
Related stories:
McKinsey identified what it described as five segments of global manufacturing: Local markets; Regional processing; Energy/resource-intensive commodities; Technologies/innovators; and Labor-intensive tradables. In order to determine whether or not to participate in any of these manufacturing segments, a country or region must first identify the resources that can help determine success in each of these activity sectors. The next step would be to honestly determine whether it has enough of these resources to be competitive in the chosen manufacturing segment.
The "success" factors to be considered include the following -- broken down by manufacturing segment:
- Local Markets
- Proximity to demand
- Government regulation and intervention policies
- Ability to innovate
- Access to supply chains
- Regional Processing
- Access to raw materials and suppliers
- Transport costs and infrastructure
- Proximity to demand
- Energy-resource Intensive Commodities
- Access to raw materials
- Proximity to demand
- Transport cost and infrastructure
- Cost and availability of energy
- Global Technologies/Innovators
- Ability to innovate
- Low labor costs
- Access to supply chains
- Labor-intensive Tradables
- Low labor costs
- Short lead times to market
These classifications seem to make sense, and company executives as well as economic planners should consider them when deciding where to establish manufacturing plants or build support infrastructure. As with everything, though, this looks good on paper, but companies and nations may still have other reasons for investing in manufacturing segments they are least prepared for due to various factors such as the desire to satisfy local political demands.
The McKinsey report also didn't discuss the potential impact of other geo-political issues such as regional turbulence, war, etc. Those may be quite as important as the logical items outlined above.
Bojaji Ojo is editor in chief of EBN, an EE Times sister site. This article originally appeared on EBN.
Related stories:
Navigate to related information


daleste
1/18/2013 9:32 PM EST
I'm glad you read the 184 pages and I only had to read your summary. I hope the US will see the value in bringing some of the manufacturing back home. Our economy could use the help.
Sign in to Reply
Cowan LRA Model
1/19/2013 9:22 AM EST
Hi Bolaji - not quite sure that Mckinsey would agree with your characterization in the lead-in sentence to your article (see below) that they are a market research firm!
Manufacturing, says "market research firm" McKinsey, is essential to a nation or region and its presence or absence can have some significant impact on an economic area.
In reality they "bill" themselves as - "McKinsey & Company is a global management consulting firm. We are the trusted advisor to the world's leading businesses, governments, and institutions."
Regards, Mike Cowan
Sign in to Reply
EREBUS
1/19/2013 3:53 PM EST
It is much more complicated than just "bringing manufacturing back." We need to take a hard look at restructuring society so that we have people do things that they can reasonably do with their skill set and intelligence. Then we can establish tiers of occupations that better suit human temperment and true needs rather than try to rush everyone into the 21st century against their will/desires or capabilities.
In many ways, we have allowed progress to race ahead before we are prepared to assimilate the changes. That speed leaves almost everyone lost and confused, hence the difficulties we have in finding a balance.
Just my opinion.
Sign in to Reply
Jack.L
1/21/2013 11:56 AM EST
What a well put point. Something that I often have had difficulty properly communicating. This started with the push away from trades (what a mistake) and continues today with the overwhelming desire to have things at less than their societal value.
Sign in to Reply
przemek
1/23/2013 9:44 AM EST
"rather than try to rush everyone into the 21st century against their will/desires or capabilities."
That is the problem, isn't it---we already are in the 21st century, and we can't pretend otherwise. Real knowledge and skills on all levels, from trades, through engineering, to R&D and science are essential--and education has to step up to it. I agree with you that it has to be a tiered system, but we better get on it or we'll be left behind.
Look at the successful countries like Germany: they put resources in their educational system and demand participation and results. Their reward is competence at all tiers, and a resilient economy that may grow a little slower during boom but keeps chugging in the downturns.
Sign in to Reply
chipmonk
1/21/2013 10:38 AM EST
So now the economy of the US has to dance to the perodic mood shifts of the arrogant MBAs at McKinsey and their ilk ? For the snake of sourcin that they peddled for 2 decades and caused such havoc, these white collar CRIMINALS deserve to be flogged in public.
And while at it, shut down Harvard and other top B schools too - they are the leading breeding ground for these sociopaths with College degrees ( the MBAs ) who have been busy outdoing even "Gordon Gecko".
Sign in to Reply
chipmonk
1/21/2013 10:40 AM EST
Para 1 line 2 should read : for the snake oil of Outsourcing that they have been peddling for ..
Sign in to Reply
escher
1/21/2013 9:43 PM EST
History always repeats itself - countries which neglected production of real goods in the past in favor of financialization and speculation (Holland, Spain, UK) paid for it once their self-created bubbles burst.
Sign in to Reply
JacekDebowski
1/22/2013 5:48 AM EST
Very interesting article. I am glad the need for keeping manufacturing in US and Europe is gaining more attention in recent times. Take a look at a case of Germany - this country has a strong tradition of manufacturing and it's really helping them right now.
Sign in to Reply
Mike.Alterman
1/22/2013 11:43 AM EST
The link to the McKinsey report is broken, it should be updated to:
http://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/McKinsey/dotcom/Insights%20and%20pubs/MGI/Research/Productivity%20Competitiveness%20and%20Growth/The%20Future%20of%20Manufacturing/MGI%20Manufacturing%20the%20future_Full%20report_Nov%202012.ashx
Sign in to Reply
mna41
1/22/2013 5:40 PM EST
For many many years, mainstream American business "experts" and pundits have intoned that manufacturing belonged to the 20th century (not the 21st), that it didn't comport with the so-called information economy, and that -- in any event -- the US can't compete and catch up with low-cost producers abroad. Even President Obama has parroted his variation on this theme -- that jobs that are lost aren't going to come back.
Well, Japan was once "behind" the US. So were Korea, Taiwan, China, and others. Evidently, their business leaders didn't moan that they couldn't catch up with the leaders. They started essentially from scratch, and more than caught up.
American business and opinion "leaders" have been made of different stuff. Why? And why should they not lose their halos as people before whose opinions we should genuflect?
Sign in to Reply
any1
1/23/2013 1:15 PM EST
But, by most acounts, even if manufacturing comes back (and in fact many reports I read say the manufacturing sector is healthier than most people think) "those jobs" are not coming back. Meaning most of the middle class jobs that manufacturing used to have are gone forever. Replaced by automation, and better IT, along with more efficient and smarter business practices.
Sign in to Reply
chipmonk
1/23/2013 10:36 AM EST
Nearly 70 % of the US economy is for consumer items. Even after discounting for 10 - 15 % savings to the Consumer, every dollar of trade deficit with China due to Outsourced Mfg. ends up costing the US economy $ 3 ! At $ 350 billion per year for the last 15 years thats simply too much. So Outsourcing mfg. of consumer items to China and Low Cost Mfr. regions is bound to impact the economy sooner than later - actually it has already happened. The answer is Robotic assembly of high end items ( appliances, consumer electronics,.. ) that had been outsourced. Won't increase employment much but would stop the loss of tax revenue and technology. Even in China they are investing in robots to assemble consumer electronics. To care of surges in demand, Hon Hai / Fox Conn the co. that assembles for Apple has been installing robots that cost just $ 35 k per unit.
Sign in to Reply
C VanDorne
1/23/2013 6:15 PM EST
Chipmonk, what's your source for your last few senances? I ask because it conflict with what we were told by Steve Jobs and the like is so great about FoxConn and other human intensive Chinese manufacturing plants like them - that the real value is incredible flexibility (paraphrasing). That's somthing a line of robots can't compete with. Curious.
Sign in to Reply
karophi
5/19/2013 1:36 PM EDT
Manufacturing is really a very important part of any business. A great example can be http://bocaratonurologydoc.com of this issue. They are doing great business as a result of their manufacturing process.
Sign in to Reply