Introduction
Ford’s presence in the global market is based on a strategy of foreign company mergers and acquisitions. Through a growth strategy of mergers and acquisitions, Ford, an American multinational corporation, has divided its activities into three regions: Europe, Latin America, and Asia Pacific. Ford Credit Company and Hertz Rental Corporation are two of the company’s diverse business ventures.
The business environment in which the Ford Motor Company operates is constantly changing, and new technology and methods can change that environment significantly (Zhao & Freeman, 2019). Henry Ford pioneered the development of “cars for the public” in his era, introducing cutting-edge techniques and systems to the auto industry (Tomac, Radonja & Bonato, 2019). The study will look at how Ford’s operations have used supply chain and logistical tactics and provide recommendations for future strategies.
Major Challenge
The Ford Motor Company faced a significant challenge in developing an integrated supply chain management strategy that kept up with the evolving trends made possible by other high-tech industries. The most logical course for Ford in terms of supply chain operations is to emulate Dell’s policy, which allowed the company to significantly reduce its working capital and eliminate the risk of inventory obsolescence through a delivered system.
Ford developed an international pool of talent to train its finest employees for overseas assignments while maintaining a shared language and culture; as a result, the corporation used the ethnocentric approach to IHRM. The fact that applicants’ skills are not up to par is one of the significant issues with hiring in less developed nations. Ford offers a safe and respected work environment in less developed countries like Western China, for instance, by providing educational training to improve job abilities.
Technological advancement and the success of the company depend on the development of new products and technologies in process designs, engineering, marketing, and research. Ford, however, quickly embraced the Japanese production system during the challenging 1980s (Chhetri, Nkhoma, Peszynski, Chhetri, & Lee, 2018). The business integrated its operations internationally more rapidly than any other auto manufacturer.
Ford makes a significant investment in R&D; they have created the Focus family of electric-powered automobiles to appreciate the environment (Dias, Hernandez & Oliveira, 2020). Ford makes use of technology in creating its vehicles, including innovative technology in cars and safety designs, including the creation of the first digital child for use in simulated crash tests (Dias, Hernandez & Oliveira, 2020). Procurement Ford completely redesigned its process for purchasing materials, consumables, and equipment to enable the proper technology to remove provisioning jobs and obtain lower-cost solutions, worker benefits, and supplier advantages.
Unlike Ford, whose supply chain includes multiple levels due to the numerous businesses that operate under its name from various places, Dell’s supplier network is far smaller. Given the facts, it is clear that Ford’s purchasing personnel had a more independent and significant role than Dell’s in comparison (DuHadway, Carnovale, & Kannan, 2018). It was difficult to determine the most practical and suitable tactics for redesigning the process because there were so many possibilities for supply chain transformation. However, it was known that Dell had performed admirably regarding shareholder values and consumer responsiveness; the critical question was whether the precise dimensions would benefit Ford.
Adopting tactics like those of Dell has enormous potential for introducing a sensible, balanced approach to implementing an effective supply chain management plan. Evidence showed that Ford and Dell had been extensively compared on several fronts. Virtual integration was possible, but it required significant adjustments to the fundamental procedures, some of which necessitated switching from proactive efforts to defensive ones (Fartaj, Kabir, Eghujovbo, Ali & Paul, 2020). However, to gain from new methods as quickly as possible, whatever needed to be done had to be done right away.
Ford and Dell’s supply chain models were compared, and it was discovered that in addition to having significantly different ownership of production facilities, Dell lacked sufficient dealer distribution channels. Interestingly, only Dell’s assembly factories are directly under its supervision; the production of all other components is overseen by its supplier network (Grünig & Morschett, 2017). The suppliers also manage their integrated sales, production, and R&D operations. However, when it comes to its principal business ambitions and ground-breaking goals, Dell’s operating principles that have contributed to its success share similarities with those of Ford.
Unlike Ford, Dell’s supply chain often has a shorter delivery system, meaning that clients ordering cars must wait longer before receiving their vehicles. The order information is communicated to the management department after a Ford customer orders a car from the dealer. From there, it is forwarded to the Bill of Materials and finally to the plant site; after completion, the plant gives the suppliers the order they like, which informs the inbound logistics. The car is subsequently delivered to outbound logistics via the appropriate route, where it is then returned to dealers for distribution to clients (Hua, Liu, Cheng, & Zhai, 2019). Compared to Dell, this is a very drawn-out process that calls for capital expenditures and outlays far more than those necessary with better policies.
In contrast, Dell’s sales department accepts customer orders and sends them to component suppliers, who then send all the components to be assembled. Finally, the finished product is shipped to the consumer, taking significantly less time and providing better customer service. Ford must put in more work on just a few specific aspects to match Dell’s supply chain tactics, as most of its other procedures are virtually identical to Dell’s.
Recommendations
Ford Motor Company has consistently performed admirably in revenues and earnings over the years. However, Ford started to notice that foreign automakers were eroding their market share, and there were indications of overcapacity as more industrialized countries began to prioritize their auto industries (Hudin, Hamid, Habidin, & Mustafa, 2019). Ford was forced to enhance quality further and cut costs as the race for supremacy in the car industry expanded globally. One such strategy was to encourage industry consolidation. The corporation discovered the possibilities of tying re-engineering with its IT departments in the supply chain area while working to achieve economies of scale in purchasing and production.
It might be configured to boost material flows and decrease inventory significantly. As a result, Ford made preparations, and the internet revolution started to show its benefits, opening up new possibilities for the interactions between its businesses. Although Ford started implementing management concepts like Just-In-Time (JIT), Statistical Process Control (SPC), and Total Quality Management (TQM) to enhance its logistics operations, these arrangements were very different from those Dell had adopted, which had led to the company experiencing exceptional growth in both revenue and stock prices (Hall & Braithwaite, 2017). To continue its profitable growth in terms of cost reduction from the standpoint of its supply chain management, Ford should implement the same principles as Dell.
Given the company’s stellar record, it will be an improvement to continue with Dell’s supply chain management procedures. Along with the company’s extraordinary success from practically all perspectives, Dell has fared relatively well as a result of its supply chain strategy (Khan & Yu, 2019). Given the fierce rivalry in the automobile industry, a well-intentioned solution would be to lower supply chain operations costs. Ford is a considerably bigger firm than Dell in terms of size and finances (Singh, Ghosh, Jayaram & Tiwari, 2019). Therefore, it has a better chance of attaining the criteria for a more proactive supply chain management approach.
The company needs to coordinate with its major distributors to make sure they have enough inventory to meet the demands of Ford consumers. The company might have backup supplies to guard against interruptions. Moving away from the supplier-focused push system and toward the consumer-oriented pull system might be another significant change Ford might make to its production process (Mohammaddust, Rezapour, Farahani, Mofidfar & Hill, 2017). Because of the rigidity of current supply chains, it is challenging to evaluate inventory before it reaches its destination. Ford would have switched to a pull system if it had changed its distribution system by building warehouses in essential markets.
Moreover, Ford should be conscious of the very different conditions that purchasers in emerging or developing countries face. Thus, it may be difficult for its distributors to make deliveries on schedule (Simchi‐Levi, Wang & Wei, 2018). There are many logistics firms in developing countries, the majority of which are small businesses; furthermore, carriers and transporters disregard the law (Moyano-Fuentes, Bruque-Cámara, & Maqueira-Marín, 2019). To get the most out of a particular journey, many of them will overload trucks. Ford must understand that consumers who import cars straight from the factories are likely to run into these issues.
The company should thus inform first-time consumers about it. Additionally, it must promote the use of its authorized distributors or partners by customers. When distributors arrive in these nations, they should set the bar high by abiding by the law (Nimeh, Abdallah & Sweis, 2018). Organizations that are based in low-cost areas occasionally fail to see the financial benefits of producing in those areas. Although it may not be visible in labor, inefficiency impacts Ford through delays and higher supply chain expenses.
Ford has to change its design strategy, shifting away from a goal of appeasing everyone and toward a focus on the client’s essential needs. To achieve economies of scale, one must maintain a small number of models rather than believe in having a considerable number (Sawik, 2019). It must establish market-driven capacity planning and a pricing strategy driven by the market rather than the budget (Prakash, Agarwal & Kumar, 2018).
Ford needs to address dealer networks so that dealer demand, rather than allocations and capacity restrictions, determines what dealers order (Sanci, Daskin, Hong, Roesch & Zhang, 2022). Charge delivery should only take roughly 15 days instead of 60 days, as with Dell (Speranza, 2018). To prevent the expenditures associated with idle capital expenses, the inventory levels must be minimal, with high turnover. Ford has to change its dealership models to control them directly rather than use independent dealers.
Conclusion
Ford has to deal with supply chain management issues involving time. The business decided to implement technological strategies, clustered-regional supply chain management, and purchasing components from productive manufacturers in Asia as a result. Additionally, it took charge of the transportation of the supply rather than delegating it to suppliers. It also has difficulties in aligning its supply networks with client demands. These issues might be resolved by switching to a pull system focused on the client. It also needs to account for the logistical difficulties that developing nations face due to inefficiency.
Ford must modify its supply chain management strategies to align with Dell in light of the emerging internet revolution and shifting fashions, especially in light of the similarities in their willingness to adopt methods that combine cutting-edge approaches. Ford has a history of taking innovative steps to adopt the newest production techniques and marketing strategies, which has helped to fuel its enormous success over the years. In its unique manner, Dell has been a trailblazer and a trendsetter in establishing itself as an incredibly successful business that has exceeded its customers’ expectations by capturing market share globally.
Ford’s production methods are consistent with their ability to adapt to altered supply arrangements and will not be negatively impacted by new practices. Ford already has several projects that aim to position the business favorably to achieve success and integration involving suppliers. Ford has a reputation for being a proactive business that will adopt the integration strategy only after determining its viability and merit.
Only in a setting where information may readily flow to all parts of the supply network can supply chains be integrated on the scale Dell does. Ford maintains a substantial separation between its incentive for cash and its marketing and production units, as described in the case documents. Suppose Ford is not committed to an open culture where logistics knowledge is vital to the company’s lifeblood. In that case, offering emphasis upstream and downstream will be impossible.
The dealer network will probably oppose Ford’s shift to direct sales because it will jeopardize their livelihood. They may reap some benefits by providing a web-based car ordering service that allows customers to select the car they want and then matches the requirement to the cars already in stock across the network. If a customer so chooses, they may order a car that will be delivered to a nearby dealer after being constructed to order. Ford will be able to understand better what customers want and deliver products they desire rather than just buying because it is convenient.
It is crucial to understand that Ford’s supply chain’s extensive network of suppliers, facilities, dealers, and customers can be described as very complicated and multi-tiered. Ford must continuously enhance its supply chain management strategy to manage this network as a system. It will be conceivable in this situation to lower supply chain expenses and streamline business operations and manufacturing procedures. As a result, logistics and freight management, which focus on developing effective routes and reducing transportation costs, are crucial components of supply chain management. In this instance, the emphasis is on optimizing the benefits and results related to the employment of carriers.
Reference List
Chhetri, P., Nkhoma, M., Peszynski, K., Chhetri, A., & Lee, P. T. W. 2018. ‘Global logistics city concept: a cluster-led strategy under the belt and road initiative.’ Maritime Policy & Management, 45(3), pp. 319-335. Web.
Dias, G. C., Hernandez, C. T., & Oliveira, U. R. D. 2020. ‘Supply chain risk management and risk ranking in the automotive industry.’ Gestão & Produção, 27. Web.
DuHadway, S., Carnovale, S., & Kannan, V. R. 2018. ‘Organizational communication and individual behavior: Implications for supply chain risk management.’ Journal of Supply Chain Management, 54(4), pp. 3-19. Web.
Fartaj, S. R., Kabir, G., Eghujovbo, V., Ali, S. M., & Paul, S. K. 2020. ‘Modeling transportation disruptions in the supply chain of automotive parts manufacturing company.’ International Journal of Production Economics, 222. Web.
Grünig, R., & Morschett, D. 2017. Developing international strategies. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Web.
Hua, S., Liu, J., Cheng, T. E., & Zhai, X. 2019. ‘Financing and ordering strategies for a supply chain under the option contract.’ International journal of production economics, 208, pp. 100-121. Web.
Hudin, N. S., Hamid, B. A., Habidin, N. F., & Mustafa, S. W. 2019. ‘Barrier analysis of supply chain risk management adoption in automotive companies.’ International Journal of Academic Research in Accounting, Finance and Management Sciences, 9(3), pp. 295-299. Web.
Hall, D., & Braithwaite, A. 2017. ‘The development of thinking in supply chain and logistics management.’ Handbook of logistics and supply-chain management. Emerald Group Publishing Limited. pp. 81-98. Web.
Khan, S. A. R., & Yu, Z. 2019. Strategic supply chain management. AG: Springer International Publishing. Web.
Mohammaddust, F., Rezapour, S., Farahani, R. Z., Mofidfar, M., & Hill, A. 2017. ‘Developing lean and responsive supply chains: A robust model for alternative risk mitigation strategies in supply chain designs.’ International Journal of Production Economics, 183, pp. 632-653. Web.
Moyano-Fuentes, J., Bruque-Cámara, S., & Maqueira-Marín, J. M. 2019. ‘Development and validation of a lean supply chain management measurement instrument.’ Production Planning & Control, 30(1), pp. 20-32. Web.
Nimeh, H. A., Abdallah, A. B., & Sweis, R. 2018. ‘Lean supply chain management practices and performance: empirical evidence from manufacturing companies.’ International Journal of Supply Chain Management, 7(1), pp. 1-15. Web.
Sawik, T. 2019. ‘Disruption mitigation and recovery in supply chains using a portfolio approach.’ Omega, 84, pp. 232-248. Web.
Sanci, E., Daskin, M. S., Hong, Y. C., Roesch, S., & Zhang, D. 2022. ‘Mitigation strategies against supply disruption risk: a case study at the Ford Motor Company.’ International Journal of Production Research, 60(19), pp. 5956-5976. Web.
Speranza, M. G. 2018. ‘Trends in transportation and logistics.’ European Journal of Operational Research, 264(3), pp. 830-836. Web.
Simchi‐Levi, D., Wang, H., & Wei, Y. 2018. ‘Increasing supply chain robustness through process flexibility and inventory.’ Production and Operations Management, 27(8), pp. 1476-1491. Web.
Singh, S., Ghosh, S., Jayaram, J., & Tiwari, M. K. 2019. ‘Enhancing supply chain resilience using the ontology-based decision support system.’ International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 32(7), pp. 642-657. Web.
Prakash, A., Agarwal, A., & Kumar, A. 2018. ‘Risk assessment in the automobile supply chain.’ Materials today: proceedings, 5(2), pp. 3571-3580. Web.
Tomac, N., Radonja, R., & Bonato, J. 2019. ‘Analysis of Henry Ford’s contribution to production and management.’ Pomorstvo, 33(1), pp. 33-45. Web.
Zhao, M., & Freeman, N. K. 2019. ‘Robust sourcing from suppliers under ambiguously correlated major disruption risks.’ Production and Operations Management, 28(2), pp. 441-456. Web.
