Revalue, and remanufacturing in particular, is really a company level strategy, and so its success can weigh a lot on the buy-in and leadership from the top of an organisation, and the subsequent collaboration between the different departments. Without the leadership from the top, the next place to look for leadership maybe within the Marketing or R&D departments; however, if there is no leadership from the top, revalue can go against the typical short-term objectives of these departments (particularly R&D) to continue to reduce costs (which can also be linked to short-term bonuses systems). So, if there is no access to the top, and Marketing and R&D are not motivated, is there somewhere else revalue activities could start?

Many manufacturing companies, wherever they are in the supply chain, have an After-Sales-Service department. This department is already involved in revalue activities, and so this is a logical place to start a transition into more advanced revalue activities. For example, some companies already repair some products under warranty, either on-site or at the customers site, or through exchanging the faulty product like-for-like and then repairing the faulty back at the factory. In this last case, the company is already actually quiet advanced in reverse engineering. The motivation for the After-Sales-Sevice department is, if it’s well managed, that these new activities can create jobs, create new income streams, and bring the department more in a leadership position for change within the company. Now, which After-sales-service manager wouldn’t like the sound of that?

Any company already in the reverse-engineering, or thinking to enter into reverse-engineering activities, should look at them as a spectrum of possibilities, and that strategies can be made either towards remanufacturing or towards maintenance. For instance, it may make sense for a company that is already working in refurbishment, to actually start developing activities to the 'left' of the spectrum - in maintenance - rather than looking to moving 'right,' to recondition or remanufacturing for example. A Remanufacturer, in many cases, has the ability to choose the most appropriate process they want to follow for each end-of-cycle product that enters their facility, whereas, a Refurbisher does not often have this same luxury. And so, a remanufacturer can also add more activities to the left - and they often do so naturally, as reconditioning frequently makes a lot of sense for many of the recaptured products.

“…don’t repair what is not broken, don’t remanufacture what can be repaired, don’t recycle what can be remanufactured.” [1]

When looking at a regional strategy for revalue, a reflection on chronological development maybe helpful.

Starting with this question: What’s the difference between a pioneer or a follower, when looking at development strategies for ‘revalue’?

Firstly, this question needs to be broken into (A) the micro-economic view - the view of the firm and its’ value chain, and (B) the macro-economic view - the view of the region, including its’ soft and hard infrastructure and institutions.

A) Looking at a pioneer company, economical historian David S. Landes (2003), suggests that a pioneer company carries the highest economic burden, in two ways:

“…a pioneer in any field incurs additional expense owing to ignorance and inexperience; and in theory those who follow may profit by his mistakes.” [1]

This is also known as the ‘economics of backwardness’, and focuses on the costs of breaking the new path. However, Landes follows with an important tranquilliser for the followers:

“Yet this assumes on the part of the imitators a wisdom that historical experience belies. If the pioneer often sins on the side of excessive modesty, the follower often suffers from excessive ambition; if the one does not quite know where he is going, the other knows too well and undoes himself by his eagerness. There is such a thing… as machines that are too big, engines too powerful, plants that are too capital-intensive.” [1]

Landes, however, goes on to suggest that this reason for the higher economic burden carried by the pioneer is over-cited, and is a lesser factor when compared to the second, which is the adjustments to subsequent changes - known as ‘related costs.’

“…the burdens imposed by interrelatedness, that is, the technical linkage between the component parts of the industrial plant of an enterprise or economy.” [1]

No machine in a factory rests in a vacuum: “…the engine, the machine it drives, and the means by which it transmits power are all built to fit.” [1]

And so, it is rare that the upgrading, removal or addition for example, of machines or processes can be considered in isolation. Changes to machines can also often be influenced (or obliged) by outside actors (i.e., clients, supply chain partners, regulators).

This issue of interrelatedness goes beyond the walls of the factory, and this is even more true when talking about process changes along value chains. An example was Britain in the mid-to-late nineteenth century, who's pioneering steel factories were hemmed into cities that were not designed for them. Integrating backwards, which often requires more space, was not an option, and this prevented many innovations that proceeded from ‘follower’ countries, that had the advantage of foresight to develop in areas with more space.

“The very sight of the spacious arrangements of the Homestead plant in the United States made Windsor Richard wish he ‘could pull down the whole works at Bolckow’s and start afresh.'” [1]

And so, taking in mind that the development gap between the pioneer and the follow must not be too large, then at the micro-economic level the advantage may lie with the latecomer.