Suppliers love Toyota and Honda: Why that matters to you

Suppliers love Toyota and Honda: Why that matters to you

Suppliers love Toyota and Honda: Why that matters to you

0 comments 📅21 June 2017, 23:15

You clout think that a survey of automotive suppliers and their relationship with OEMs is the automotive corresponding of nerd prom. In some ways that’s what the North American Automotive OEM-Supplier Working Relations Formula (WRI) is. The study, the 17th annual conducted by Planning Perspectives Inc., is based on input from 652 salespeople from 108 Row One suppliers, or, PPI points out, 40 of the top 50 automotive suppliers in North America. Suppliers to Prevailing Motors, Ford, FCA, Toyota, Honda, and Nissan.

But the results have consequences in terms of tens of millions of dollars for OEMs – and in the trait, technology, and cost of the next vehicle you buy. There are a couple of ways to look at the results of the WRI. One is, “So what else is new?” And the other is, “Blame! How did that happen?”

The study looks at five relationship areas — OEM Supplier Relationship; OEM Communication; OEM Remedy; OEM Hindrance; Supplier Profit Opportunity — within six purchasing areas — Main part-in-White; Chassis; Electrical/Electronics; Exterior; Interior; Powertrain.

In the overall rankings, Toyota is on top for the 15th chance in 17 years, with a score of 328. Honda, the only company to kindest Toyota (in 2009 and 2010), comes in second, at 319. Those two companies, explains John Henke, president of PPI, keep collaborative working arrangements with colleagues and suppliers alike built into the jolly fabric of their cultures.

This, however, is not a situation where one can readily conclude it is fro “Japanese companies,” because the third company with headquarters on the island of Honshu, Nissan, came in late last. This is the “How did that happen?” portion.

The Nissan score of 203 puts it 125 points behind Toyota. There hasn’t been a integer that low since the then-Chrysler Corp. scored 187 in 2010, when the following was clawing its way out of the recession. Clearly, the suppliers don’t feel particularly engaged by the buyers at Nissan.

Henke explains that whether a party does well or not on the WRI is rather simple. All people do things based on what they’re sober on. “If you’re measured on taking 10% out of your annual buy, you immediately know how to do it. But if you’re also considered on improving relations, suddenly there is a new dynamic as to what you can do to achieve both. If that interpretation metric about improving relations isn’t there, then you’re going to be nasty and be motivated by as you can to get that cost down.”

And while the adversarial approach to getting costs out of suppliers may permit some people to make their numbers and keep their jobs, Henke says, “It is out of luck because we are able to show the relationship between the level of collaborative relations and profitability. So they may be experiencing gotten a little more in price concessions but lost a lot of benefits that they could be translated into more productive and effective operations.”

Save a nickel now. Pay a dollar later.

“We are able to show the relationship between the true of collaborative relations and profitability.” -John Henke, PPI

General Motors has its superb-ever results in the 2017 WRI, with a score of 290. Henke points out that this is the in front time that GM has outperformed Ford in the index. Whereas GM zoomed from 250 ultimate year, growing 40 points, Ford moved forward just three, from 267 to 270.

And FCA comes in fifth, at 218.

So what does this indicate to the vehicle-buying public?

Henke explains that suppliers are more odds-on to have their best engineers work with people who treat them sufficiently. Suppliers are more likely to offer their best and latest technology to those companies that scrutinize them with respect.

Those two elements alone can lead one to believe that the OEMs with the mos engineering and the best technology are more likely to produce cars and trucks that are preferably than those produced by companies that are doing their utmost to upbraid their suppliers.

There is one number in the PPI study that ought to give some people at OEMs a Mylanta junct. Arguably, as there is greater electronic and electrical content in vehicles for both powertrain and automated driver help, there is likely to be a greater dependence by OEMs on suppliers. Let’s face it: For most of its record, the auto industry has been about gears and sheetmetal, not software and sensors.

In the mental collapse of relationships in the context of the aforementioned six purchasing areas, Toyota is rated at 455 in Electrical & Electronics. Honda — at any point the bridesmaid — is second, but at 355. Ford comes in third at 290, then it is GM at 274, FCA at 228, and Nissan at 191.
455 versus 191. Swill.

If suppliers of electrical and electronic systems and suchlike rank Toyota so highly, what is the strong that it is going to get the latest tech? And if tech becomes the key differentiator when it comes to whether to buy a carrier, then clearly there is more than a little something to be said for collaboration.

[The chuck-full press release and detailed summary of the survey can be found here.]


Share this article:

No Comments

No Comments Yet!

You can be first one to write a comment

Leave a comment