Non of the above…

Posted on 1st July 20181st July 2018 by designcontext | No Comments

Anyone that knows a little about remanufacturing has probably been told or read about the large multinational OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturer) examples of Caterpillar Inc., Xerox Inc., Rolls Royce Aircraft Engines, and Michelin…; and more recently Ricoh, and Renault.

These case-study examples are great, in showing how, in many cases through a mix of luck, being in the right place at the right time, historical, war, economical and regional contexts, and of course a persistence to go beyond the norm, these companies are clearly one of the first places to learn about concrete examples of revalue, and particularly remanufacturing, activities.

However, if you are not a multi-national, a lead manufacturing company (a company that leads it’s upstream and downstream supply chains - like Caterpillar Inc.), then you might be wondering as ‘non of the above,’ can your company even consider transitioning into this field - it already seems ‘out of our league’. And if one just focuses on the many of the typical case-study companies, and not the system and the processes, and the local opportunities in a region, then this reflection is valid - and probably quite typical.

Advanced After Sales Services

Posted on 1st July 20181st July 2018 by designcontext | No Comments

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?

A Spectrum

Posted on 1st July 20181st July 2018 by designcontext | No Comments

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]

Choosing the right intervention from the spectrum of options (reverse-engineering process and/or Inventory/Cannibalisation) for the specific end-of-cycle product, is key to economic success. But what is the right intervention? Is it the most cost efficient, or the best for the environment? Can it be both? To make it both, each and every product/component/material that enters into the revalue process needs to be screened with a efficient and effective process, that is able to identify the right course of action for revaluing each good. As Stahel highlights, 'don't repair what is not broken,' underlines the critical point that it may seem more efficient to develop bulk processes for all situations, but this may cause a lot of waste (materials and time), and so, effective systems need to be in place, whereby companies can be flexible, product-by-product, so that the right solution is made for the right problem each time; whilst connecting this to tight feed-loops that assess the screening criteria and the results of the interventions that were made.