Why America’s Largest Tool Company Couldn’t Make a Wrench in America
wsj.com
wsj.com
So, in chasing the pennies lost in material cost of the billet steel, they threw away a billion dollar investment. That material could be sold as scrap, or recycled and reused.
The whole point of the forging process is to orient the grain structure of the steel to maximize strength in the desired places. It seems obvious that you're going to have to trim some material to make this happen. I've seen scrap recycled and sold in a job shop, with the volume that comes with mass production, they could probably get a far closer payback for their scrap to the original costs.
This whole thing seems more like management failure, rather than anything intrinsic to the labor or US market conditions. Had they started with a goal of turning out quality tools, then working towards production increases and cost reductions after that point, it might have worked out. The chasing of the next quarter's profit seems to always be the wild goose chase that results in failure.
I've got to wonder how much the problem is due to consolidation (see: infamous toolguyd picture of power tool brands). If there were a healthy market of competing independent companies, when SBD executives couldn't figure out how to get it up, another company would have bought the complete factory and made it work.
I find it amazing that so much VC money is (was?) slushing around trying moonshot ideas like littering sidewalks with e-scooters and hoping loose change falls into them, but there is no motivation to start new companies doing traditional things in stagnant markets. I mean a "$90M factory" is like a tenth of one Instagram [0] ? I guess it's just not exciting enough.
[0] an old arcane unit of a currency that has since become obsolete due to its small size
My impression was of a company that had invested in doing one thing really well, for a long time, and focused on continuing to deliver a quality product in lieu of expansion, and chasing profits.
This reads to me like Craftsman, in constantly chasing the dime, spread its quality competency far too thin allowing cracks to form in how the business was run. It makes sense, automation should have been a game changer for them, but became a boondoggle.
Interestingly, the main executive involved got in some trouble with the SEC: https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2023-111
"Ansell received undisclosed compensation that consisted, in part, of $280,000 in personal expenses he charged to the company."
So there may be more going on than just poor oversight...
This obviously means that if a savvy exec is putting the heat on the VP, the heat will transparently propagate to the lowest level leaf nodes worker. None of the middle layers take no responsibility ever. The managers will even go to the extent of firing the leaf nodes than admitting failure.
If the incentive structure were changed so that management gets fired first, everything will get produced automatically.
Companies regularly ignore this with enormous consequences to actual productivity
This story is more than just a bad decision by Stanley, it's of strategic national importance, moreover it's not just the US but also a problem for most Western countries. If it's not reversed soon then it'll be irreversible and the West will be fucked. A reminder of the know-how that we've lost:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_production_during_Wor...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_aircraft_product...
While I agree with you in the essence of what you’re saying, you should replace “accountants” with “MBAs” or “CFOs”. Most accountants don’t care about how the final balance sheet looks, they care about the flow of money itself. I have gained a lot of respect for that, as I’ve understood it more over the years.
Accountancy is nothing but “financial engineering”, really. They don’t decide on the budgets, they just code it in.
An accountant may be dealing with finances but they are a very different role from that of a CFO.
In general you also don’t put an accountant “in charge”, period, just as you don’t put a sysadmin “in charge”. It doesn’t make sense.
It’s also untrue that financial people “inevitably” optimise for short term gains. Of all people they’re often the ones best placed to optimise for long term. But they don’t necessarily understand the heart of the business, so they shouldn’t be in charge either if it’s the case.
This became very apparent in europe after the start of the war in ukraine. The west needs it's own manufacturing to keep its global significance. The short term greed of globalization has resulted in a massive geopolitical blunder.
Agreed, but this 'thinking' has been so ingrained as the norm since the early 1980s—the Reagan-Thatcherite era—it's almost set in concrete. Seems to me it's not going to change anytime soon, unfortunately.
So, they built a $90m factory and moved staff there for a method that wasn’t even tested?