| 作者 |
 ZT - 请看美国塑料注塑和模具厂商谈行业危机和中国威胁 |
 |
白丁
头衔: 海归少校
声望: 学员
加入时间: 2004/02/22
文章: 201
海归分: 13636
|
|
|
作者：白丁 在 海归商务 发贴, 来自【海归网】 http://www.haiguinet.com
Q&A: Crossroads IMMC—Crisis or opportunity
By: Carl Kirkland
PIM molder Advanced Materials Technologies, a member of Singapore Technologies, has grown out of its 4000-sq-ft plant into a brand-new 22,000-sq-ft facility in Singapore. It produces about 5 million parts/month, expects sales to reach $20 million this year, and anticipates more than 20% growth in 2004.
IMM has examined global competition and its impact on the domestic plastics injection molding industrial base this year in its Crossroads series of articles. But how is global competition affecting U.S. molders of metals and ceramics? Here are the edited comments of what some of those in the IMMC industrial base have to say.
IMM: Is the injection molding of metals and ceramics a viable means of keeping molding manufacturing jobs in the U.S.?
Animesh Bose, Materials Processing Inc. (Fort Worth, TX): For the time being IMMC can definitely be a viable means for keeping injection molding manufacturing jobs in the U.S. The complexity of the technology still makes the process difficult to copy. However, in time, some of the more conventional MIM will start moving abroad.
Matthew Bulger, Hawk Precision (Cleveland, OH): Yes, it will keep a limited number of jobs in the U.S.—limited, since the size of the total MIM market worldwide is in the $200 million range, with a 3% to 10% annual growth rate. There are not all that many dollars to divide up among us.
Randall M. German, Center for Innovative Sintered Products (CISP), Pennsylvania State University (University Park, PA): No. The largest PIM firms have all moved offshore. For example, AFT [Advanced Forming Technology, Longmont, CO] has a plant in Hungary, has started a Hitachi plant, and did a joint venture in India. In fact, the largest and most sophisticated PIM houses are largely based offshore.
Dominance and leadership by U.S. PIM companies is history. Just look at the lack of investment, for example, and the lack of R&D, patents, and construction of new facilities. Ten years ago it was much different.
We have lost our will and our work ethic to lead. Today you can buy most of the U.S. PIM firms at a discount. In retrospect, the sale of Thermat to Medsource was the high water mark. Nobody can command such a company-sale-price-to-sales ratio now.
Michael Hill, Morgan Advanced Ceramics (New Bedford, MA): In all likelihood, IMMC is not a viable means of keeping IM manufacturing jobs in the U.S. Currently, there are several companies outside the U.S. performing MIM and CIM processes.
The business will generally follow the OEM, such as moves from the U.S. to China. There are currently MIM producers in England, France, Germany, Sweden, Israel, South America, and the Far East, and this number could double over the next 10 years.
Wah Hong Industrial Corp. (Taipei, Taiwan) uses CNC taping centers at its Mg-molding facility in the PRC to offset the competitive threat of low-cost-labor countries using low-cost manual labor in such secondaries.
Phil Mitchell, Metal Injection Molds Inc. (Scottsdale, AZ): No, for the same reasons that plastic molding is leaving the country. I have been in many capable MIM and CIM shops in Asia, and we can’t compete with them.
IMM: Plastics injection molders have been hit hard by global competition, especially from China. Do you believe that molders of metals and ceramics face a similar competitive threat?
A. Bose, MPI: I believe that the same thing will eventually happen in the case of MIM and CIM. The reason this will happen is due to the diffusion of technology, which always takes place globally.
Some companies are involved in global licensing. Soon, technology will spread due to this licensing and even through joint ventures. Once a technology comes to a country and takes root, it starts to spread.
Paul F. Busch, Injectamax Corp. (Escondido, CA): MIM molders will face competition from Asia in the future, but as of today, producing a net-shape part by MIM or CIM remains a technical challenge for all of us.
Equipment is not really “turnkey.” There are many steps in MIM/CIM that require clear communication between the floor personnel and engineering that just isn’t available with the so-called “low-cost” China labor. Machinery and technology is still driving progress in MIM. I’ve built and operated a China factory. The machinery and material costs as much there as here. It is the labor, and maybe the rent, that is low cost. But the floor knowledge, where decisions must be made and carried out on the fly, is poor over there.
M. Bulger, Hawk Precision: The biggest threat is from ever-increasing capabilities from technologies like low-cost CNC machining, fine-blankers, investment castings, and so forth.
“Our business is picking up right now,” says Simon Sheng, deputy GM of Shanghai Zi Yan Alloy Application Technology Co. Ltd., a Mg molder in Shanghai, PRC. It produces housings for notebook PCs, mobile phones, portable DVD players, and power tools. Zi Yan presently runs eight JSW TXM presses, and plans a capacity expansion next year.
If considerable secondaries are involved, then low-cost-labor countries like China pose a larger threat. But MIM and CIM out of third-world countries is less of a threat than in some other, more labor-intensive businesses.
R. German, CISP: There are about 12 PIM firms in China now. Four are credible. The rest are garage outfits.
They are already up and running, and some are financed by the government. Market share is more important to them than profit for now. It is hard to compete with a communist-subsidized PIM house.
It is only a matter of time until we see them selling products here. They already have some of the lowest-priced PIM metal powders. Parts will follow.
M. Hill, Morgan Advanced Ceramics: Both MIM and CIM face the same global competition as plastic injection molders.
Stephen LeBeau, Thixomat (Ann Arbor, MI): Although the plastics injection molders have been hard hit, they are not alone. Over the past two years we have lost about 2 million manufacturing jobs in the U.S. to overseas competition and the economic downturn. The state of Michigan has taken 10% of that hit. So, [plastics] injection molders have lots of company. I really think at both a state and federal level the government has to take a hard look at our policies regarding trade. I am not advocating protectionism, but rather the idea of a “level playing field.”
Some say there are many steps in PIM, like sintering, that require expert communications between floor personnel and engineering—something that may be hard to find in places like the PRC.
I see signs of subsidized imports, with little or no regard for environmental issues or workers’ rights in some of the third-world countries. Government officials seem content to let us wander off into becoming a service economy.
P. Mitchell, Metal Injection Molds: Metal/ceramic molding is currently facing the same type of competition. Some may just not know it yet.
IMM: Will the U.S. maintain its global dominance in IMMC?
A. Bose, MPI: For the time being, but not for long. The newly evolving areas of manufacturing that are still very technology intensive—such as micromolding or multimaterial molding—will be the areas in which the U.S. will maintain its edge.
However, more conventional areas—such as conventional injection molding of Fe-Ni steels and stainless steels—will gradually migrate to countries where tools can be manufactured inexpensively and where labor costs are lower.
P. Busch, Injectamax: The U.S. vs. Europe is a real concern. Swatch proved that MIM works just fine in Europe . . . we just don’t hear much about them.
M. Bulger, Hawk Precision: The U.S. will cede some market share to other areas of the world. If parts are assembled and sourced cheaper out of places like Asia, India, and Eastern Europe, then it stands to reason that the component has a better chance of being sourced from that area. There remain enough high-end component requirements to keep a decent slice of the business and technology in the U.S., but we won’t keep it all.
R. German, CISP: The U.S. has no dominance. In ceramics we are still the leader, but margins are not good and it is dominated by the casting core business, not CIM. Let aerospace move to China and off goes our ceramics dominance.
In metals, the larger and better producers are already offshore, except for maybe one. Also, a number of these offshore firms have opened sales offices here, so they are hitting the U.S. with good pricing, and are undercutting the domestic industrial base.
Also, several U.S. firms are subcritical and will evaporate due to no R&D, no marketing, and having a generally invisible position. The trade associations have no marketing program. Furthermore, the trade associations let foreign firms participate.
There is no domestic industry that is unique, any more technologically ahead, or more cost effective. Remember the old saying, “Cost, quality, or delivery—pick two”? Well, U.S. firms have lost on two counts, and are doing a terrible job on building the future.
Mitchell Gross, FloMet LLC (DeLand, FL): The U.S. will maintain its dominance in the areas of MIM and CIM by innovative process improvements and better service in all business functions.
M. Hill, Morgan Advanced Ceramics: If the U.S. continues to manufacture a majority of the world’s automobiles, surgical instruments, computers, and so on, we should be able to maintain our status as a dominating global force in the IMMC industry.
P. Mitchell, Metal Injection Molds: Why do they think that they are dominant now?
IMM: If you serve markets that are already sourcing most of their molding services offshore, what do you feel can be done to bring those jobs back home? Or, do you think U.S. IMMC molders should follow the jobs overseas, either through strategic alliances and joint ventures with offshore molders or by building plants overseas?
A. Bose, MPI: There will obviously be companies that will try and expand or improve their profit margins by taking the molding offshore. However, the complexity of the technology and the difficulty in providing very explicit translations of what has to be done to make a successful product may keep the technology within the shores of the U.S. for some time.
However, it should be realized that the technology has now spread extensively to other countries and continents, especially to Europe and Japan. The global spread from those areas is also going to happen.
P. Busch, Injectamax: I do not see a way for a U.S. IMMC company to bring the money back home. Bigger companies—such as Boeing, Singapore Technologies, or Motorola—might trade services in a beneficial exchange. But for us little guys, we’re going to have to supply smaller quantities with a faster response to our U.S. customers than our Asian competitors.
M. Bulger, Hawk Precision: At the end of the day, it’s all about price. If you can beat the overseas competition, which may be machining or casting parts, then you can win the business. Building plants overseas is an option. A joint venture is a poorer option (but, then again, giving away technology and know-how seems to be the new “American Way”). Price, plus assumed quality, still wins out over all.
R. German, CISP: Tough call. A fool and his money are soon parted. Go to China in a joint venture and see if you ever make money. Most of the interesting stuff is coming from offshore firms and universities, so the passion seems lost here.
M. Hill, Morgan Advanced Ceramics: The most cost-effective way for the U.S. to maintain its global dominance in the MIM/CIM industry is to follow jobs overseas with joint ventures.
Building an overseas plant is a costly alternative for many companies. Current MIM/CIM molders should work closely with the OEM or tiered supplier via joint ventures and alliances, so as production moves overseas, the related suppliers can follow them.
Another option for U.S. MIM companies is to provide something that the competitors cannot, such as added-value services, to maintain or secure international business.
S. LeBeau, Thixomat: American OEMs moving to Asia are going to want some local suppliers for their products, so why not at least get a piece of the action by means of a joint venture?
Another thing to keep in mind is the tremendous domestic consumer markets that countries like China and India offer. Our licensee, Shanghai Zi Yan Alloy Application Technology, is forecasting a more than $1 billion market in China for domestic goods in magnesium. They won’t have to export products.
So why not go after these new emerging markets and get paid back for the past 20 to 30 years? China currently has 150 million mobile phones, but that number is forecast to grow to 600 million in less than five years. And Shanghai has 18 million people, but only 800,000 automobiles. Talk about growth potential.
P. Mitchell, Metal Injection Molds: Going offshore is the only option.
IMM: What do U.S. molders of metals and ceramics have to do to be globally competitive?
A. Bose, MPI: U.S. metals and ceramics molders will have to move into niche areas, which are more technology intensive. Such niches include micromolding, molding highly complex medical components, molding very high-volume automotive components, and molding more exotic materials.
Tooling innovations will also be needed, as this provides a major advantage to other countries where the labor rates are lower and where toolmaking experience is quite common.
P. Busch, Injectamax: We definitely need capital sources to compete with China’s and Japan’s government funding. And we certainly have to carefully manage our businesses. Tooling can come from overseas, but we have to make parts close to net shape here, and develop efficient processes to get customers what they want.
M. Bulger, Hawk Precision: Be the low-cost provider that customers perceive as being low risk. For the most part, survival will lie in automation, using the least expensive materials available, and providing excellent customer service. But, let me repeat, it’s all about price, price, price.
R. German, CISP: Reduce costs: Automate, innovate, reduce manufacturing steps, and increase yield. Price is about the only differentiation left now.
M. Gross, FloMet: We must improve innovation and service in all production and business functions.
S. LeBeau, Thixomat: The MIM industry is not a simple “shoot-and-ship” type of environment. I suggest to our clients they are not just supplying widgets but are offering a full-service support to their OEM customers.
If you look at the survivors, they provide upfront design assistance, expertise in design and construction of intricate tooling, and either in-house secondary operations or subassembly as a total package.
If you look at labor rates in China ($.50/hr is minimum wage in Shanghai) it is hard to ignore that stark competitive reality.
So, I would suggest molders take a hard look at maintaining or improving their core engineering competencies and continuing to invest in new technology to sustain some level of U.S. manufacturing.
M. Hill, Morgan Advanced Ceramics: The key driver that allows other countries to take business from the U.S. is reduced labor costs. Therefore, for the U.S. to remain globally competitive, companies must add value over what their global competitors offer. Deliver on time and charge appropriately.
P. Mitchell, Metal Injection Molds: Hire labor for $.80/day and get the government to subsidize them.
Source: Injection Molding
作者：白丁 在 海归商务 发贴, 来自【海归网】 http://www.haiguinet.com
|
|
|
| 返回顶端 |
|
 |
|
-
 ZT - 请看美国塑料注塑和模具厂商谈行业危机和中国威胁 -- 白丁 - (31506 Byte) 2003-11-20 周四, 19:45 (1077 reads)
|
|
|
|
您不能在本论坛发表新主题, 不能回复主题, 不能编辑自己的文章, 不能删除自己的文章, 不能发表投票, 您 不可以 发表活动帖子在本论坛, 不能添加附件不能下载文件, |
|
|
