We can make more (money) by making less (product).

Arthur C. Clarke once said, “Before you become too entranced with gorgeous gadgets and mesmerizing video displays, let me remind you that information is not knowledge, knowledge is not wisdom, and wisdom is not foresight. Each grows out of the other, and we need them all.”

Today, we’re all familiar with gorgeous gadgets, and not only those we carry in our pockets, wear on our wrists or help us drive our cars. The factories we work in are dripping with sensors and automation, which is increasingly robotized, bringing a level of dexterity, efficiency, and reprogrammable flexibility that previous generations could only dream of.

We are fortunate to live in this period we now call the fourth industrial revolution, although we should recognize our predecessors have been working toward this for generations. It’s simply human nature. Since the beginning of industrialization, people have been making analyses – of processes, end-products, and how things are done – to achieve some improvement. Often, the goal is to increase productivity and quality but also to ensure safety and reduce environmental impacts. Recently, of course, reducing pollution and energy consumption, while addressing issues like recyclability, has become increasingly important.

To continue reading, please log in or register using the link in the upper right corner of the page.

The wrong attitude can send customers shopping for a new EMS provider.

I frequently say program management is the most difficult job in the electronics manufacturing services (EMS) industry. Program managers play a dual role of their customers’ champions within their organization and their employer’s enforcer to ensure each account hits its revenue and profit targets. I see great similarities between PMs and airline gate agents, for whom getting customers where they need to go is often impeded by forces outside an agent’s control.

If we use that gate agent analogy to describe the program manager’s dilemma in today’s chaotic materials situation, the plane is running four hours late; the passengers who were loaded an hour ago now need to be told the crew needs to deplane because they’ve exceeded their legal flight time limits, and there are no alternate flights because a bad storm has shut down the entire East Coast. The state of imbalance between supply and demand in today’s materials market is so bad, the issue isn’t whether customers will be disappointed but how badly they will be disappointed. Program managers are the point people in delivering that bad news.

To continue reading, please log in or register using the link in the upper right corner of the page.

Today’s builders have data analytics skills that match their manual dexterity.

Sometimes you see things a hundred times or more before it hits you the image presented does not match the message it intended to convey.

Case in point: A common television ad of late for a fairly high-tech product. The message was about the quality that goes into “making” these devices. So far, so good. But the ad fades to a man decked in a flannel shirt, blue jeans and the obligatory well-groomed beard, eyeing with pride some woodworking project. I get it: Pride in workmanship. The skilled craftsman produces a fine item. The message and imagery are ageless. One problem, though: That’s not how it goes!

It’s been decades since I purchased an item that is not the result of vigorous, data-driven engineering, followed by a slew of process, manufacturing, quality, and even finance folks obsessed with the analyses, measurement, inspection and costing of every piece of anything that gets even close to the product. While I’d like to think some flannel-shirted woodworker hand-built a device, the reality is data, and more data, and a little data on top of that, are what it takes to turn a concept into a successful product.

To continue reading, please log in or register using the link in the upper right corner of the page.

I once heard the actor Tom Hanks – probably the first time he’s been referenced in these pages – describe a brain game he plays with friends. The challenge, he explained, is to define a concept in as few words as possible. The example he offered was “time,” which he characterized as “progress.”

Now, it’s easy to find physical and historical examples that disprove Mr. Hanks’ conceptualization.

More than a few readers probably studied physics in high school or college. Einstein’s relativity theory of time, of course, states that time changes depending on your frame of reference, and that the faster you travel the slower time moves.

And the ecologist and author Jared Diamond argues that there’s evidence some populations such as Austronesians began to use metal tools – an obvious improvement over rocks and bare hands – only to later shed them.

Much, much earlier, the Greek philosopher Aristotle surmised that change is distinct from time because change occurs at different rates, whereas time does not.

Where these ideas converge, however, is around the notion that progress means change.

To continue reading, please log in or register using the link in the upper right corner of the page.