An Avoidable Manufacturing Failure?

Google announced in May that it has decided to close its Motorola MotoX smartphone plant. The Texas plant has been in operation for one year. Its smartphones will be manufactured in China and Brazil.  

One goal for this plant was to “challenge conventional wisdom that manufacturing in the U.S. is too expensive.” But unit quarterly sales were so low that economies of scale could not be realized.

Keeping manufacturing operations in this country depends on several criteria:

• Quality management down through the 3rd organization tier;
• Disciplined strategic focus – with an honest and periodically updated Situation Analysis;
• Superior culture with the absence of hubris and politics;
• Best Cost Producer – utilizing Lean, Kanban and Kaizen protocols;
• Productive, lean salaried employee organization – not just lean for hourly manufacturing employees;
• Regular Competitive Benchmarking and Value Analysis of the product lines;
• Effective application of capital spending – which is essential.

The photographs of Motorola’s Texas plant show an unusually large number of hourly direct labor employees assembling product. This seems excessive.

This raises questions of how effectively “Best Cost Producer” and capital spending protocols were applied to create a low cost, high thru-put operation normally found in this type of technical product. Did Google Motorola have an engineering and manufacturing team capable of putting together an equipment plan to reduce direct labor headcount and increase thru-put resulting in a profitable USA plant? Was the equipment plan supported by the correct level of capital expenditures? Advanced manufacturing technology such as robotics is fairly easy to do.

Is the Moto X smartphone competitive in features, performance and price point? CNET’s review concludes that it is a good quality and relatively competitive smartphone. Not perfect. But if the price points were set correctly and its manufacturing costs yielded positive profit margins, profitable unit sales should have been realized.

While Motorola has struggled, Google appears to be well-run. It is hard to believe that Google did not put top people and resources behind making its Texas smartphone facility successful. But did they?

Google’s failure does not bode poorly for manufacturing operations being successful in this country. It is certainly possible that the USA’s manufacturing base can be increased if the criteria for successful operations are in-place – particularly for technical products.

Warren Buffett and Corporate Governance

Coca-Cola’s $13 billion management equity compensation plan was recently assessed as excessive by Warren Buffett and investment advisors, according to a NY Times article, “Buffett Punts on Pay”. Buffett is Coca-Cola's largest shareholder, owning 400 million shares.

Apparently Mr. Buffett disagreed with the equity compensation plan, believing it to be excessive, counter to the best interests of the shareholders. Yet, he did not vote against. Oddly, he abstained.

Mr. Buffett provided his reasoning via CNBC: “…I love the management. I love the directors. So I didn’t want to vote no…But we did disapprove of the plan.”

Ironically, in 2009, on the subject of excessive executive compensation, he said, “The way to get big shots to change their behavior is to embarrass them.” Investors should,  “speak out…”.

The NY Times concluded regarding the Coke vote: “The need for collegiality trumped good corporate governance.”

The National Association of Corporate Directors and the Corporate Governance Center at the University of Delaware once provided me with guidance on how to participate as a member of a Board of Directors.

--> Their advice seems applicable to a major shareholder.

They advised: Board members should be assertive, pleasant and straightforward. When they disagree with a subject before the Board they must 'push' to make sure everyone understands the pro and con prior to a Board vote. If Board members do not do this, they are not acting responsibly, may even be considered 'legally out of whack'. A member of a Board of Directors has a fiduciary obligation to operate in a manner that assures shareholders that they are providing the best representation possible.  Boards can lose liability lawsuits if it’s discovered that they do not function in this manner.

Warren Buffett did not need to go to the extreme of embarrassing or offending anyone. Would a presentation of the facts by one of this country's most respected businessmen have resulted in Coke's Board rejecting or modifying the equity compensation plan? Would Mr. Buffett's 'no' vote have sent an important leadership and corporate governance message to the Board and this country's business community?

Warren Buffett’s follow-up interview on CNBC: “Buffett: Coke will listen to shareholders on equity plan”

Mr. Buffett responds again - he seems embarrassed: “Buffett Bites Back”