GE Brings Manufacturing Back to the US

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Hobbes

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
8,737
Reaction score
749
Location
The Nations
September 21, 2012
When General Electric Co. (GE) decided to move the bulk of its U.S. appliance manufacturing to outside sources in Asia in the 1980s, it made fiscal sense at the time. Thirty years later, GE Appliances is moving production back in-house—and into the United States—due, in part, to unseen costs in that original decision.
“The problem is that you can see now in looking back, once you move your manufacturing offshore, you’re training your supplier to become your competitor,” said Lou Lenzi, general manager of design for GE Appliances.
The firm has now launched an $800 million investment to revamp its massive Appliance Park in Louisville, KY, which includes new capabilities in plastics and metal fabrication, new assembly lines, 500 new jobs, and a design and manufacturing outlook with a new focus on lean production. The money makes up the bulk of a $1 billion investment by GE in the appliance business.
“It’s not just about the product, but the process to make the product,” Lenzi said during a discussion on GE’s new manufacturing outlook at the Industrial Designers Society of America annual conference last month in Boston.

Here and back again
When Appliance Park opened in 1950, it was a prime example of vertical manufacturing. It comprised 900 acres with five manufacturing buildings and a warehouse space covering 47 acres on its own. A specially built railroad spur brought in raw material and took out finished appliances. It was so big, Lenzi said, it had its own zip code.
But 30 years later, in the 1980s, Fairfield, CT-based GE determined it cost 33% more to make its own appliances than to buy them from another manufacturer offshore. “The thinking at the time was that, given our brand recognition, it wouldn’t matter if it was made in the U.S. or in Korea,” Lenzi said.
So production of appliances moved overseas, U.S. jobs were cut, and buildings were shuttered. Then, in 2008, the housing bubble burst, and with it a prime market for home appliance sales. The appliance division found itself on the market and scrambling to prove its value to stockholders.
At the same time, production costs were increasing overseas, while shipping issues and the supply chain grew more complicated. Material costs also were on the rise globally, reducing the benefits of low-cost molding lines.

urning to Toyota
GE took a look—again—at all the manufacturing capability already in-house, and the company decided it was time to come back home, with the assistance of automaker Toyota Motor Corp.’s Toyota Production System (TPS), which already was widely used in a variety of industries and is sometimes referred to as lean manufacturing.
Using TPS, Lenzi said, the company believed it could develop a new and more efficient way to make appliances. To that end, the company created what it calls a true “cross-functional” team to look at its manufacturing and built a full-scale model of a production line to determine the best layout for manufacturing and assembly.
But for GE, Lenzi said, TPS not only means making manufacturing changes on the shop floor, but also means bringing together every element of product development. Industrial designers need to know how the decisions they make will impact production, he added.
For example, a tweak to a door for aesthetic reasons that unnecessarily complicates assembly or adds costs by requiring additional steps in production does not help GE’s cause. “It’s looking at product specifications and features that mean something to the customers,” he said.

New staff
As part of its new investment, GE’s Louisville plant began adding positions in design, engineering, manufacturing and support services.
The first product to come back to Appliance Park was a dishwasher. In August, GE announced it plans to make more than 90 additional plastic parts for the dishwasher in-house at Louisville. The company claims its in-house injection molding unit will become the biggest injection molding operation in Kentucky and the fourth-largest in the United States.
Other work that has returned to the Louisville plant so far is a French-door, bottom-freezer refrigerator sold under the GE Profile line. That appliance went on sale July 4 and has performed solidly enough to give GE the confidence to add 380 more workers for a second shift in refrigerator production.
Revenue at GE Appliances is up 10% this year over the previous year, according to Lenzi, while the company has seen a 68% improvement in production time, a 60% reduction in inventory costs and a 30% improvement in labor efficiency through the use of lean manufacturing.
As part of its total $1 billion investment, GE Appliances will take its lean approach to other production sites, Lenzi noted, adding that there are five different operations within the appliance division that are still in line for updating.

http://asq.org/qualitynews/qnt/execute/displaySetup?newsID=14519

This was my favorite part:
“The problem is that you can see now in looking back, once you move your manufacturing offshore, you’re training your supplier to become your competitor,” said Lou Lenzi, general manager of design for GE Appliances.
 

Johnny

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Sep 8, 2010
Messages
5,066
Reaction score
1,194
Location
Fort Gibson
“The problem is that you can see now in looking back, once you move your manufacturing offshore, you’re training your supplier to become your competitor,” said Lou Lenzi, general manager of design for GE Appliances."

That is the best in that it is worst part. Every company that utilizes overseas manufacturing does the exact same thing. We are idiots. We can make up for 30 years of good ole American R and D with one email with attachments. We instantly make 20 to 30% more profit and cut out half our overhead. Good job management. We are some greedy SOB's. Sorry for the rant I just have a little experience with the subject.
 
Joined
Dec 9, 2008
Messages
87,562
Reaction score
69,704
Location
Ponca City Ok
The problem is, the board of directors only care about profits at the moment.

As well as the stock holders that have invested in the company.

I worked for a manufacturing company in Ponca several years ago that lost a contract to the contractor wanting to make more profit on their money by shipping manufacturing to mexico.
It took two years of losses by the company before it was shipped back to Ponca.
 

mugsy

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
May 20, 2011
Messages
4,538
Reaction score
1,112
Location
South West, OK
And who are those "greedy stockholders"? Oh yes, union retirement funds (many teachers and public sector unions included), older folks looking for "safe" investments have invested overseas in droves over the last decade. I know it is easy and frankly doesn't require much thinking to attack greedy boards of directors but all they do is, more or less perfectly, respond to the will of shareholders by seeking to produce the lowest cost product that will remain competitive. Hmmm..what have I forgotten? Ah yes, it is ultimately the consumer who drives the market which is what is driving those company bottom lines - every time a consumer votes with his wallet for a cheaper alternative he is probably helping to ship a job overseas. Lots of blame to spread around - it is just too easy to lay the blame at the foot of the group with which we have the least empathy.
 
Joined
Dec 9, 2008
Messages
87,562
Reaction score
69,704
Location
Ponca City Ok
And who are those "greedy stockholders"? Oh yes, union retirement funds (many teachers and public sector unions included), older folks looking for "safe" investments have invested overseas in droves over the last decade. I know it is easy and frankly doesn't require much thinking to attack greedy boards of directors but all they do is, more or less perfectly, respond to the will of shareholders by seeking to produce the lowest cost product that will remain competitive.

I think I had a class in economics about this. Isn't supply and demand how economics run? If a company can't produce a product that will keep them in the market, your OK with them going under and taking the stockholders with them?
 

Hobbes

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
8,737
Reaction score
749
Location
The Nations
And who are those "greedy stockholders"? Oh yes, union retirement funds (many teachers and public sector unions included), older folks looking for "safe" investments have invested overseas in droves over the last decade. I know it is easy and frankly doesn't require much thinking to attack greedy boards of directors but all they do is, more or less perfectly, respond to the will of shareholders by seeking to produce the lowest cost product that will remain competitive. Hmmm..what have I forgotten? Ah yes, it is ultimately the consumer who drives the market which is what is driving those company bottom lines - every time a consumer votes with his wallet for a cheaper alternative he is probably helping to ship a job overseas. Lots of blame to spread around - it is just too easy to lay the blame at the foot of the group with which we have the least empathy.

The problem with this line of reason is that:
Most stockholders don't have a long term interest anymore. They did 30 years ago but not anymore.

Stockholders are trading for short term gains. 1yr, 2yrs, maybe more.
The board of directors are interested in short term gains. 1yr, 2yrs, maybe 5yrs at most.
Employee bonuses are based on performance during a 12 month period.

The best interests of the company are not short term. They are long term(10 years plus).
And That is what GE has learned(learned, forgotten, learned again) as well as a few banks.
 

mugsy

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
May 20, 2011
Messages
4,538
Reaction score
1,112
Location
South West, OK
I think I had a class in economics about this. Isn't supply and demand how economics run? If a company can't produce a product that will keep them in the market, your OK with them going under and taking the stockholders with them?

No, I was pointing out to an earlier poster who was hurling blame at companies in general that it isn't just evil-minded executives seeking to nefariously screw workers but that economic "bottom lines" drive many decisions and that the executives themselves are responsible to individuals or groups that expect continued sales and profitable performance.

The part of my post that you bolded says exactly what I meant it to say, namely, companies must and investors expect them to stay competitive. That doesn't always mean relocating but sometimes it may. I'll go even further and say that government can be a direct cause of jobs leaving by creating rules willy-nilly that drive up costs. Some rules make sense for safety, health, etc. but many are simply the result of bureaucrats who make hosts of petty and costly decisions that have the force of law though they are merely rules made by unelected officials who generally do not know much about running a company.
 

mugsy

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
May 20, 2011
Messages
4,538
Reaction score
1,112
Location
South West, OK
The problem with this line of reason is that:
Most stockholders don't have a long term interest anymore. They did 30 years ago but not anymore.

Stockholders are trading for short term gains. 1yr, 2yrs, maybe more.
The board of directors are interested in short term gains. 1yr, 2yrs, maybe 5yrs at most.
Employee bonuses are based on performance during a 12 month period.

The best interests of the company are not short term. They are long term(10 years plus).
And That is what GE has learned(learned, forgotten, learned again) as well as a few banks.

That may be your view but companies and investors have the right to run their own affairs as they see fit - they are, after all, privately held enterprises. I happen to agree that what you say is sometimes true. But there is another view that says those companies dedicated to continual performance improvement will do best in the long run by continually increasing productivity and profitability. In certain industries remaining "steady" for a year can be a death sentence.
 

Hobbes

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
8,737
Reaction score
749
Location
The Nations
That may be your view but companies and investors have the right to run their own affairs as they see fit - they are, after all, privately held enterprises. I happen to agree that what you say is sometimes true. But there is another view that says those companies dedicated to continual performance improvement will do best in the long run by continually increasing productivity and profitability. In certain industries remaining "steady" for a year can be a death sentence.

General Electric disagrees. :)
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom