Manufacturing Leads the Way to Recovery

Hi Sharkles,

I hope we get back to a normal manufacturing life in North-America. We have the customers to SELL! We are able to DESIGN and/or SOLVE problems! We have the know-how and the equipment to be capable to BUILD what those customers want to buy!

I would like to modify without correcting your words: "Better managers."

We have to stop to run businesses by BEAN-COUNTERS who tell everyone to make more for cheaper at less time, and GURUS who missdirect business people of how to start, develop, and nourish a profitable venture but making money by selling books and teaching erroneous ways to operate for success. Also, schools must return as they did to put on the world of business Stewhart, Deming, Juran, and other Crosby mainly for our competition.

We must teach to existing and future business people, CEOs, managers to SELL, DESIGN, and PRODUCE and only in that order. First, we need a customer, design something to satisfy its needs and wants or solve its problem, and supply a satisfactory and quality manufactured solution to who pays the bills.

Let me know if I am out of the line or need to modify to get better, Gil.

I would take a small exception, or maybe clarification, to your statement that the correct sequence is "sell-design-produce", real selling only comes after a product is developed sufficiently to offer it to the public. The initiating event is recognition of a broad need by someone or some entity that is capable of developing a product to satisfy that need. That is the essence of innovation. Henry Ford recognized that there was a need for something better than horses to carry people where they wanted to go. His answer was an automobile. Likewise Orville Wright, Thomas Edison, Elias Howe, Alexander Bell, and all the others that provided important products that launched USA manufacturing industries like Ford Motors, GE, Singer, Bell Telephone, and many, many others. The company where I worked for many years, Polaroid Corporation was such a company. Dr. Land recognized that if a camera and film could be made that would give the customer a picture in just one minute, instead of after days of delay from a Kodak processor, there would be millions of people that would want that product. He was right, and a great manufacturing company came from it.

Our present situation in the USA is that too much of this innovative skill is being directed at fad types of activities, i.e. social networking web sites, popularity contests based on fashion and style qualities, and one-ups-manship in gadgetry such as WII's and Playstation nock-offs. Most of our "inventions" today are really just up-grades to something already out there, not real innovations. Many of our "modern" products had their Mark-1 versions as musch as 50 to 100 years ago. I think some of that comes from curent business philosophy that selling comes first, i.e. an established, known market must justify the financial investment before money will be spent to develop the product and put it into the market. That strategy is doomed to destroy real innovaton.

The great inventors of the past, most of them actually were from the very late 19th to the earliest years of the 20th century, were extraordinary individuals. They were not necessarily brilliant people, although some were. They were all extremely dedicated to their goal of developing a product (usually a machine of some type) that would change the way people live, i.e. ease the way they travel, communicate, maintain their homes or businesses, or mitigate some problem in communities from trash collection to provision of clean water and abundant electric service. Where are the counterparts of these people today?

Admittedly it is more difficult to do this today, especially in the USA. We are already inundated with machines that make our life easier and almost effortless in terms of the physical exertion needed to do just about anything. But, that only means we must be even more innovative. We need to find those niche situations where people's lives can be further eased or made more enjoyable by some kind of apparatus that is affordable and acceptable to them. Then produce those products. In the process the making the products will expand our manufacturing industries, and that will in turn produce a citizenry that has the jobs and incomes needed to buy those new products. The cycle is self perpetuating. It is the story of the USA in the 19th and 20th centuries.

It starts with innovative product development, not marketing hype or sales presentation. I suggest it also demands that it focus on producing physical products, not just supply of an intellectual/financial service product.

Hi Jo,

Really? So, you are ready to make something that you are not sure to sell? I don't contest your way to do things but I maintain that SELL, DESIGN, and BUILD and only in that order is the unique way to success.

Just see what is on the market and sold by successful companies. Without customer there is no business! So, find one and this is the SELL. Now, you can return home, and study the problem, wants and needs of this eventual customer, and DESIGN something satisfactory, and BUILD or MAKE that quality product to your buyer.

We have full of examples with dreamers who created beautiful things but never sold one. GM made car following the desires of GMs' people. Other carmakers asked eventual customers and GM car buyers: What they would like to see in a car? They listened and made the customer wants and needs. Finally, we have to bailout GM from bankruptcy, isn't it? You want other examples? It's enough! OK!

Concerning your explanation about Wrights, Edison, and Bell! It's simple to explain what's happened with them. They filled what was not existed in that time! You have it?

Again, Today, when you look around and see what is not filled by the industry, you have a sale. Also, when the industry does bad products, someone else can replace this bag guy by making quality products. Again, the SELL is present! You arrive to see it? You explain my view and understanding of starting, developing, and nourishing a business venture by "Dr Land". Thanks for this description! Excellent and thanks again.

Again, owners, CEOs, and managers are responsible to run businesses, isn't it? How come we have so many lost manufacturing products to another countries? It's easier to pay only for the finished product without any responsibility for expenses as for the land, building, heating, salaries for workers, insurance, and many other things manufacturers need to pay.

You talk about strategy to build a business. I already mentioned the Biro brothers who invented the ballpoint pen before WWII but they don't have any customers and finally they sold for peanuts to a French who became rich by selling BIC ballpoints pens. Many other inventors never reach the status of innovators as did the Wright brothers, Edison, and other Bell. Sometime timing is a decisive criteria about success or failure. Inventors stay poor until they turn their invention into innovative products or ideas that can be sold to someone. Again, we found the customer first!

Concerning clean water, less pollution, stopping extention of certain species, and other important consequences of our modern life, there are people having the perfect solution but they cannot influence the society, power, and other forces that maintains status quo.

Thanks for some good words: "Admittedly it is more difficult to do this today, especially in the USA. We are already inundated with machines that make our life easier and almost effortless in terms of the physical exertion needed to do just about anything. But, that only means we must be even more innovative."

Don't mix invention and innovation. One is pleasure and genuine thinking! The other is making money with ideas! I think, we must review the dictionary. Please, do it!

We have everything but we let do by others. You don't tell me the full story of business.

Your last sentences describe that SELL is the most important thing for many with aggressive marketing. Thanks again for this clarification. Yes,we need to innovate and not only invent. Again, don't forget the FINANCIAL aspect of a business as you tell us in your last words, Gil.

Gil:

Of course the ultimate objective is to make a product that sells. Business is about making money, not "art for art's sake".

The essential moral of my comment text was that there must be more long term thinking in industry and not the overarching motivation to make a quick buck. In many ways my comment tracks with your appeal to have less influence of "bean counters" in business policy.

I maintain that a strict policy of only developing products after identified (and presumably paying) customers have been brought on board will stifle innovation. It will also inhibit growth of large new industries. There is a fairly well understood principle that the greatest reward goes to the greatest risk takers. All innovation involves risk taking, some much greater than others. Your comment reminds all that great risk takers often have the greatest losses, which is equally true. But those who never try anything new, never accomplish anything new.

It goes without saying that prudent risk taking is essential. For example, I would not put in a production order for the full production intended market as the first manufacturing plan then blindly expect to sell it. There are such things as test marketing, prototyping, pilot production, demonstraton projects, etc. that are part of the development process.

Innovation in product development is a creative and evolutionary process. It takes time and patient management. Answering the requested requirement of a prospective customer is simply providing a contractual service. It is an easier path, but it has some very bad consequences. It ultimately follows a path where the project award goes to the lowest qualifying bidder. There is another subtle, debilitating result. The creative juices of the technical work force dry up and too many talented scientists and engineers end up being technicians performing routine tasks.

I agree with you that customers are essential, indeed they are the "sine qua non" of business. But, a business that can create and hold a monopoly by virtue of its unique and useful products is certainly the epitome of success. Such businesses have a customer base that is "following, and buying-in", not "directing" the preferred product development and marketing programs for their business. Think Microsoft, DuPont, MMM, P&G, GE, Boeing, Intel, and others like them who have achieved that status on many of their innovations.

Regarding your comment on innovation vs invention, I would characterize them as different in this way. Innovation is a creative response to some percieved need. Invention is the process of supplying a suitable technical solution to a defined problem. They are highly related, but innovation is the higher order process. For really important and life changing products the innovation comes first, then a number of inventions are introduced to realize the innovation in practical ways.

Hi Jo,

Interesting conversation that can be criticized by many. However, just to explain my version, there is an example: Wozniack worked on computers at IBM and he discover that the big box is not good for an individual. Job, another Steve, his neighbour, see that there was an opportunity to supply small size computers to individuals, people in general. Gestetner did not accepted the reality but Marculla did, and the three small men succeeded where big companies cannot. Again, the process was that people in general will use the computers, idea of SELL, they did the DESIGN, and produced to create Apple as a company.

You put your finger on BEAN-COUNTERS who are the thinkers and initiators in many businesses today. I think, this is the reason we lost to third world countries the production of many innovations from here. Still we buy them without producing them!

Customers don't know what to do. Manufacturing people creating everything to sell. About cars, early, we have plain rubber tires. Later on pneumatics came to change our bien-etre in an automobile. Again, someone see an advantage about a solution but we already have customers for the old and new. This is what I tell about SELL is the first step. The DESIGN came and many time made some modifications and improvements, and all was PRODUCED to satisfy people want to pay for better or higher quality.

I started my business because I have a potential customer who will pay for my survival. So, the process was the same, SELL, DESIGN, and PRODUCE. I cannot see a start-up company initiating business by another ways or money leaking out from everywhere. Still, I wish them good luck because only money is not the solution. Money helps businesses.

In my theory, start a business by SELLING, DESIGNING, and PRODUCING is not mine, I learned by understanding what and how to do to realize a dream successfully. I still in business after more than 5 years. I am sure there are many others thinking that way. Concerning risks, I would like to forget risks because new business start with sales, and when you have enough sales, the business survive.

I am not believing in test marketing and other studies. I prefer to open my eyes and see what is not done, what is done badly, and see unsatisfied customers in areas of my knowledge and my capabilities.

Why happens: "The creative juices of the technical work force dry up and too many talented scientists and engineers end up being technicians performing routine tasks." this reality to too many good people? Because they are working as others and they don't want to do things differently in the industry involved. I was in the paint industry for over 50 years and after a few years doing what was made by others (imitation), I changed to do everything differently. Finally, I was able to run alone in the lab and in the production, making paints, and was satisfactory if not excellent. Because of different abilities and actions, I replaced over 1,000,000 gallon/year of paint supply from big company by producing my formulations with my choice of raw materials, and using my designs for many equipment, all with success to 1,5 million gallons a year.

Invention is a NEW idea and is not a solution. Innovation is a NEW proposal to the public and solve a problem.

Jo, ythanks for your comments and I would like to tell you that many people reading our conversation they learn what to do without paying a penny. It's a big satisfaction for me, and I think same for you, to supply help for others.

Tell me if you have a company around you that want to help start-ups or other businesses, Gil.

Over here in the UK they made over one million jobs available in the last twelve months, the problem being is that two thirds of the jobs went to foreign workers, these accept a lower wage that the average white working class Englishman/woman, and it is nearly imposible for an Englishman/woman to get work!

If it carries on this way, I can see a revolution coming this way in the near future?

Xanasax

I think manufacturing in the United States is fighting a losing battle if we try to compete with lower cost developing nations in the mass production of non-perishable commodity products with a limited life. Most people I know are willing to pay a higher price for a product if they know it will last a lifetime, but the product must also be affordable. I think small companies manufacturing multiple high quality products will lead the way. Shorter production runs with equipment capable of being changed over to a manufacture a different product will need to evolve. Marketing and shipping will be essential. These are just observations from my thirty years in manufacturing. I have been laid off from three Fortune 500 companies with two of the layoffs resulting from foriegn competition. The longest of these jobs lasted 5 years. I have spent the last 17 years working for a small company where I have had to make existing production machinery run product it was not designed to run and do it on a duct tape and baling wire budget and it has to be done quick because the order is due out yesterday. We are survivors and make a profit, the pay and health insurance is on scale with the big boy companies, and the 401K is better than most. There is no telling what may be thrown at me tomorrow, but versatility is the key, and a couple of shots of tequila after the job is done helps. I am a technician, not an engineer, but there's a lot of good engineers in the US capable of designing multi-use production machinery which could enable small companies to produce high quality products with short runs and enable us to have a better standard of living than we have now instead of getting into a race to the bottom with low wage mass producers.