component business modeling - ibm · component business modeling ... cycle time improvement...
Post on 20-Aug-2018
215 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
IBM Business Consulting Services
ibm.com/bcs
An IBM Institute for Business Value executive brief
Component business modelingA new lens for examining warranty administration
The IBM Institute for Business Value develops fact-based strategic insights for senior
business executives around critical industry-specific and cross-industry issues. This executive
brief is based on an in-depth study created by the IBM Institute for Business Value. This
research is a part of an ongoing commitment by IBM Business Consulting Services to provide
analysis and viewpoints that help companies realize business value. You may contact the
authors or send an e-mail to iibv@us.ibm.com for more information.
Component business modeling IBM Business Consulting Services1
IntroductionAcross the automotive industry, escalating warranty costs are consuming hard-earned revenue. What can OEMs and suppliers do to protect their bottom lines from this growing menace? Component business modeling (CBM) offers a new way to analyze the automotive business and can suggest strategic starting points for trans-forming warranty administration.
Watching warranty costs growThe North American automotive industry spends nearly three percent of its revenue on warranty claims.1 In 2003, claims at two of the largest U.S. manufacturers totaled just under $8 billion2 – an alarming rate of about US$1 million per hour, just for these two OEMs.3 And warranty costs are expected to grow another 15 percent in 2004.4 AMR Research estimates that 20 percent of warranty claims relate to suppliers,5 and OEMs are starting to shift liability to their suppliers.
Meanwhile, risk is rising. Automakers are continuing to broaden their warranty coverage to remain competitive and strengthen sales. In the U.S. for instance, Chrysler’s power train coverage now extends to 7 years and 70,000 miles.6 At the same time, increasing vehicle complexity – driven primarily by the prevalence of in-vehicle software and electronics – is creating more opportunity for failure and making problem determination more difficult. Already, the average vehicle consists of 14,000 parts.7 Shrinking design cycles that push products to market faster only compound the quality challenge.
Escalating regulatory requirements and evolving standards are also contributing to the cost of warranty administration. With its FIN 45 instruction, the Financial Accounting Standards Board is requiring U.S. manufacturers to disclose more details on product warranty costs and reserves. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability and Documentation (TREAD) Act is mandating comprehensive tracking and reporting of product issues to the U.S. government. As part of ISO/TS16949, the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) has outlined a single set of global quality system requirements for design/development, production, installation and servicing of automotive products, aligning current American, German, French and Italian standards.
Contents
1 Introduction
1 Watching warranty costs grow
3 Component business modeling: Taking a different look at the business
5 Using CBM to reexamine the warranty administration challenge
9 Spotting where warranty administration is working well (and where it is not)
12 About the authors
12 About IBM Business Consulting Services
13 References
“A tenth of a percent may not
sound like much, but each 0.1%
drop in GM’s reported claims
rate corresponds to around $46
million in additional operating
income each quarter.”8
Component business modeling IBM Business Consulting Services2
A primary factor that influences overall warranty costs is the length of time from initial problem report to root cause identification to corrective action. Currently, warranty claim resolution typically takes more than 160 days.9 Because faster reso-lution results in fewer claims for a given problem and lower overall warranty costs, cycle time improvement represents a major financial opportunity for automotive companies. Eliminating as few as five days from the warranty claim resolution cycle can reduce overall industry warranty costs by US$164 million (see Figure 1).
Figure 1. Faster corrective action leads to fewer claims and greater warranty savings.
Note: Based on an estimated 100 million transactions per year at estimated average cost per transaction of US$120. Savings calculations assume that 50 percent of all claims are resolved within the compressed cycle and that a cycle is approximately 180 days or 2 per year. Absolute number of transactions may increase with broader warranty coverage. Source: IBM Business Consulting Services and IBM Institute for Business Value.
However, warranty process and information technology inhibitors often limit data integration, constrain information sharing among OEMs and suppliers and delay problem diagnosis. Most automotive companies are painfully aware of these constraints but continue to struggle with what often seems to be insurmountable warranty administration hurdles. Automotive companies are often unsure where to start their transformation effort, which organization is accountable and which warranty administration changes will have the most impact on their businesses.
$900
$800
$700
$600
$500
$400
$300
$200
$100
$05
Indu
stry
war
rant
y sa
ving
s ($
in m
illio
ns)
10 15 20 24
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Number of days eliminated from claim cycle time processing
Perc
ent o
f tot
al
trans
actio
ns a
void
ed
Total warranty savings
Percent of total transactions avoided
Component business modeling IBM Business Consulting Services3
Component business modeling: Taking a different look at the businessAlthough process reengineering helps companies analyze and improve workflow, it focuses only on this one dimension of the business. Component business modeling (CBM), however, allows analysis from multiple perspectives – and the intersection of those views offers improved insights for decision-making. Because CBM groups like activities together without regard to organizational, geographic or process bound-aries, companies can more readily spot redundancy – similar business activities that are duplicated in other corners of the company, as well as redundant resources (people, assets and technology) used to support those activities. CBM also helps clarify a company’s focus on strategic, differentiating capabilities, enabling more straightforward prioritization of improvement plans.
A business component – the fundamental building block of a component business model – consists of a group of cohesive business activities that serve a unique purpose. It includes the resources – people, technology and know-how – necessary to accomplish that purpose. Its boundaries are defined by the services it receives as inputs and those it offers as outputs (see Figure 2). These boundaries serve as logical separation points that allow the component to be managed independently (even as a separate company) while still being integrated with the whole. Typically, a single business component can be decomposed into several layers of business activities (see Figure 3).
Figure 2. Because a business component is bounded by the services it uses and offers, it has the potential to operate autonomously, for example, as a separate company or as part of another company.
Component nameMarket segment planning
DescriptionTo analyze markets and
derive targets
Services offered
Services used
Source: IBM Business Consulting Services and IBM Institute for Business Value.
Product portfolio updates
Segment tracking models and targets
Business planning
Market event tracking
Component business modeling IBM Business Consulting Services4
Figure 3. A company’s component business model is decomposed into multiple layers of detail.
Through CBM, companies can determine each component’s contribution to the business and evaluate return on investment based on each particular component’s costs. Knowing the business value associated with each component makes it easier to set transformational priorities.
Business administration
Financial management
Product/process Production Supply chain
Marketing and sales
Services and aftersales
Direct
Control
Execute
Source: IBM Business Consulting Services and IBM Institute for Business Value.
policies
Alliance strategies
Human capital management
Legal and regulatory
Knowledge and learning
Building/facilities and equipment
IT systems and operations
Financial
Capital appropriation
planning
Risk manage-ment and
internal audit
Accounting and general
ledger
Cost management
Portfolio strategy and
planning
Research and development
Design rules and policies
Program management
Confi guration
design
Tool design and build
Process design
Product scheduling
Maintenance management
pp
Supply chain performance monitoring
management
Procurement
Relationship monitoring
management
Customer relationship
management
Warranty management
Quality
Parts
Vehicle service
End-of-life vehicle
Business competenciesA large business area with skills and capabilities
Operational levelThe scope and intent of activity and decision-making
A componentConsists of data, process, people and systems. Each component is defi ned by its contribution to business performance
Identify quality issuesMonitor/diagnose partsAnalyze early warning dataProvide feedback to enterpriseComply with regulatory requirements
Quality management
Each component expands into a hierarchy of activities
Component business modeling IBM Business Consulting Services5
CBM establishes several views of the business:
• Strategic view – distinguishes which components offer opportunity for clear competitive differentiation, which are required for competitive parity and which are basic necessities
• Financial view – highlights which components are associated with high capital investments, which carry high costs and which have both
• Transformational view – assesses the overall level of business improvement oppor-tunity present in each business component.
Using CBM to reexamine the warranty administration challengeAlthough each company’s component business model will vary somewhat, the stan-dard automotive model built by the IBM Institute for Business Value illustrates how companies can use CBM to guide their warranty administration transformation effort.
When evaluated against the standard model, the claims administration process involves 16 different business components. With such pervasive impact, it is not always obvious how or where to start making improvements.
However, through in-depth CBM analysis and its multidimensional purview, a path becomes more obvious. For instance, comparing a company’s strategic CBM view with its financial view can highlight areas that are not strategic and yet involve large capital investments. These components may be candidates for consolidation or sourcing from external providers. By combining CBM views, a company may find strategic components that indicate high potential for business improvement or carry high costs. Such combinations would suggest near-term, high-priority changes. When warranty-related components (and associated activities) are examined through these various CBM views, transformational priorities can become more evident (see Figure 4).
Component business modeling IBM Business Consulting Services6
Figure 4. Components are analyzed in increasing detail, across all views, to identify opportunities and set priorities.
Communicate warranty - transactionCommunicate warranty - notifi cation/recallMonitor, track warranty and repairsManage claimsIdentify quality issuesMonitor/diagnose partsAnalyze early warning dataProvide feedback to enterpriseRegulatory complianceDevelop/distribute service proceduresDevelop service technology, parametersTrain service providersArbitrate with dealersResolve tech issuesCollisionManage consumer contacts/call centerFollow-up on consumer delivery/salesProvide value add servicesCustomer 360Provide telematics serviceRetail/direct managementManage relationship contactsDevelop sourcing strategiesMonitor supplier performanceManage supplier relationshipsManage certifi cation/trainingManage supplier communicationsMaintain supplier informationAdvanced product quality planningAdvanced product quality trackingSupplier performance monitoringTrain suppliers
Warranty management
Quality management
Vehicle service
Consumer relationship management
Supplier relationship management
Supplier quality
management
WCP components Activity level 1 Strategic
impactFinancial impact
Transformation potential
Basic
Competitive parity
Competitive parity
Differenti-ating
Competitive parity
High cost
High cost
High cost
High cost
Limited
Limited
High potential
High potential
Medium potential
High potential
High potential
Medium potential
Differenti-ating
Source: IBM Business Consulting Services and IBM Institute for Business Value.
Component business modeling IBM Business Consulting Services7
As the components related to warranty administration are defined and decomposed into successive layers, overlaps and gaps in capabilities are discovered. A critical part of this assessment involves defining the IT requirements for each business component and mapping them to the enterprise’s existing IT architecture and appli-cation portfolio. When evaluating the business components associated with warranty administration, companies will likely identify shortcomings such as:
• Limited access channels for key participants – Manufacturing personnel often lack a comprehensive view of all warranty information, while suppliers cannot access their own particular view of warranty information because of inadequate security features.
• Duplication of application functions – Analysis and reporting mechanisms are often duplicated within and among OEM and supplier organizations, leading to conflicting views and different analytical capabilities.
• Inconsistent data capture mechanisms – Since warranty data is frequently captured by service code or subassembly part number, it may not reflect the indi-vidual part number that actually failed. In addition, when other parts are broken and replaced in the repair process, the reason may not be tracked or associated with the replacement part. Because part-related data is not captured and tracked in a consistent manner, traceability breaks down, and parts cannot be linked to the appropriate manufacturing or service data.
As part of the warranty CBM analysis performed at the IBM Institute for Business Value, specific IT capabilities emerged consistently as high-priority capabilities for adequate warranty claims management.
• Collaboration, data sharing and data privacy – To administer claims effectively, automotive companies need the ability to exchange information easily among manufacturers and suppliers and work together collaboratively to pinpoint the root cause of problems. Realtime communication among multiple teams is crucial, and capturing the collective intellectual capital produced during claim resolution allows greater re-use and faster resolution in the future. With multiple suppliers involved, data privacy is a top priority; each party should see only the information relevant to their particular role.
• Part traceability – Tracking down the root cause of a failure requires the ability to trace a particular part back through its entire life: how it performed in the vehicle (through vehicle data transmitted to the OEM); when, where and how it was serviced; and when and where it was manufactured.
Component business modeling IBM Business Consulting Services8
• Early warning system triggers – With technological support, automotive compa-nies can recognize problems earlier and systematically issue warnings to affected OEM and supplier teams such as service, quality and engineering. With quicker notification, teams can start analysis work earlier, resolve the issue sooner and reduce the overall number of claims submitted for a given problem.
• Root cause and trend analysis – To accelerate identification of a problem’s root cause, automotive companies need the ability to analyze manufacturing, service and quality information in multiple ways. Advanced analytics can also help highlight trends that point to potential problems, allowing the business to take proactive steps to avoid or reduce warranty claims.
A technologically advanced warranty management environment benefits every participant in the automotive value chain. With the appropriate collaboration and integration technology in place, OEMs can capture more information from dealers when a problem is initially reported, expand root cause analysis and automatically send early warning signals internally and to suppliers. With access to current, in-depth warranty information, dealers are more capable of resolving claims through part replacement as opposed to costly system overhauls – and they can achieve a higher first-pass repair percentage. Dealers also become a key link to improved product quality and faster claim resolution by contributing their service technicians’ observations. For their part, suppliers gain access to near realtime claim data and collaborative environments that speed root cause analysis and help parties recon-cile warranty payments. With advanced technological support throughout the claim lifecycle, suppliers and OEMs alike can more easily comply with regulatory require-ments – and extend mandated data capture activities to help improve product and service quality.
Based on the priorities defined in their own CBM analysis, companies can begin to develop a roadmap comprising short-, mid- and long-term IT solutions that system-atically move the company toward desired warranty capability levels (see Figure 5).
Component business modeling IBM Business Consulting Services9
Figure 5. Roadmaps (like this sample) plot the course toward more mature warranty administration capabilities.
Spotting where warranty administration is working well (and where it is not)Automotive companies face an overwhelming challenge during the next few years as vehicles become more complex, warranty guarantees more extensive and regula-tory oversight more intrusive. Those who can substantially mitigate warranty risk and reduce warranty costs will enjoy distinct competitive advantages – both in terms of margin and brand reputation. Here are some key questions that can help you gauge the current maturity of your own warranty administration function (see Figure 6).
Solution
Expand inter-enterprise collaborative capabilities through increased warranty data sharing (e.g., detailed claim data, part/subsystem interfaces and part interoperability)
• Portal capabilities for OEM/supplier data sharing
• Workfl ow engine with event triggers
• Optimized use of text mining tools
• Contained warranty reserves as a percent of revenues
• Improved accuracy of claim data to facility cost recovery with suppliers
• Reduced parts inventory associated with fewer claims
Orchestrate business events in an on demand fashion through full integration of business rules among OEM, supplier and dealer
• Service oriented integration of infrastructure, data management and analytical capabilities
• Grid/utility service for variable infrastructure model
• Autonomic technology to support analytical capabilities
• Improved quality management through module/system integration versus component performance
• Warranty performance integrated to supplier overall performance
• Improved customer satisfaction and brand impact
• Variable investment in warranty application management solutions
Short term
Technology evolution
Benefi ts
Mid term Long term
Through integration of disparate data, signifi cantly reduce processing and transaction cycle time throughout the enterprise and speed claim resolution
• Collaborative applications to integrate data repository (avoid duplication of data)
• Normalization of data for data interpretation
• Compressed time to process claims resulting in fewer incidents for a given problem
Source: IBM Business Consulting Services and IBM Institute for Business Value.
Component business modeling IBM Business Consulting Services10
Figure 6. Warranty administration maturity levels vary widely among automotive companies.
Governance is ad hoc; processes are not formally linked to strategy
Relatively infl exible and diffi cult to change
20 percent versus 80 percent
Information visibility is dependent on manual processes
Partnerships and outsourcing decisions are made by individual business units and not necessarily optimized enterprisewide
Only a few partners have assumed an adequate share of risk
Partial view available but infrequently updated. Extensive effort required to provide tailored views among partners
Governance is adaptive – managing and adapting to change as environment changes; measurements and management approach is consistent across enterprise and with key suppliers
Processes designed for fl exibility; skills, IT capabilities and supplier relationships evaluated and updated frequently
80 percent versus 20 percent
Realtime information is shared electronically – and often systematically – across the enterprise and with key suppliers
All capabilities, whether sourced internally or through partners, are best-in-class as demonstrated by independent benchmarks
Every partner is fully accountable and shares in warranty risk
A comprehensive view of both structured and unstructured warranty data is available any time by OEM, supplier or dealer – with security features to fi lter views as appropriate
Question Less mature More mature
How do you measure warranty success?
How adaptive is your warranty process?
What percentage of time and expense is invested in strategic issues versus reporting and transaction processing?
How automated and immediate is the process for converting dealer, OEM and supplier claims data into useful information?
How rapidly and easily can you tap into external resources to solve a particular problem?
How effectively do you distribute warranty risk among strategic partners?
How complete, up-to-date and accessible is global customer, part and supplier data to both you and your partners?
Source: IBM Business Consulting Services and IBM Institute for Business Value.
Component business modeling IBM Business Consulting Services11
As this decade unfolds, warranty administration management will become even more critical. To discuss strategies for improving warranty administration processes and technology, or to learn more about how component business modeling can help, please contact us at iibv@us.ibm.com. You can also browse through other resources for business executives by visiting our Web site:
ibm.com/bcs
About the authorPenny Koppinger is a Managing Consultant within IBM Business Consulting Services. She is a member of the Automotive Team at the IBM Institute for Business Value. She can be contacted at pkopping@us.ibm.com.
ContributorsLinda Ban, Global Industrial Sector Team Leader, IBM Institute for Business Value
Ben Stanley, Strategic Analyst, Global Automotive On Demand Team, IBM Business Consulting Services
About IBM Business Consulting ServicesWith consultants and professional staff in more than 160 countries globally, IBM Business Consulting Services is the world’s largest consulting services organiza-tion. IBM Business Consulting Services provides clients with business process and industry expertise, a deep understanding of technology solutions that address specific industry issues and the ability to design, build and run those solutions in a way that delivers bottom-line business value.
Consumer products 2010 IBM Business Consulting Services12
References1 Arnum, Eric. “Automotive Warranties.” Warranty Week. April 13, 2004.2 Ibid.3 Ibid. 4 McCluskey, Marc. “Looking for Cash: Warranty Management Is a Good Place to
Start.” AMR Research Report. August 28, 2003.5 Ibid. 6 “Warranty Coverage on 2004 Models.” Automotive News. November 3, 2003.7 Mixer, Kevin. “Early Warning: An Automotive Industry Imperative.” AMR Research
Report. November 24, 2003.8 Arnum, Eric. “GM’s Warranty Reserves.” Warranty Week. August 18, 2003.9 Arnum, Eric. “Don’t TREAD on ME.” Warranty Week. April 27, 2004.
Consumer products 2010 IBM Business Consulting Services13
© Copyright IBM Corporation 2004
IBM Global ServicesRoute 100Somers, NY 10589U.S.A.
Produced in the United States of America07-04All Rights Reserved
IBM and the IBM logo are registered trademarks of International Business Machines Corporation in the United States, other countries, or both.
Other company, product and service names may be trademarks or service marks of others.
References in this publication to IBM products and services do not imply that IBM intends to make them available in all countries in which IBM operates.
G510-3633-00
top related