Établir une relation de fournisseur profonde (document en anglais)

1. Briefly make a comparison between the supplier management approach of Toyota/Honda and Big 3:

Two Japanese automakers have had stunning success building relationships with North American suppliers-often the same companies that have had contentious dealings with Detroit's Big Three. What are Toyota and Honda doing right?

From a Supplier perceptions and as one quote reads, “In my opinion, [Ford] seems to send its people to ‘hate school’ so that they can learn to hate suppliers. The company is extremely confrontational.” I believe that this quote sums up the negative mindset that top U.S. auto manufacturers have towards the supplier/buyer relationship and typifies traditional adversarial relations present in the industry. However, while these American companies created supply chains that superficially resembled those of their Japanese competitors, they didn't alter the fundamental nature of their relationships with suppliers. It wasn't long into the partnering movement before manufacturers and suppliers were fighting bitterly over the implementation of best practices like continuous quality improvement and annual price reductions. These two additional factors made cost, again, the main criterion in supplier selection. First, companies were more easily able to source globally, notably from China. They jumped to the conclusion that the immediate benefits of low wage costs outweighed the long-term benefits of investing in relationships. Second, the development and spread of Internet-based technologies allowed companies to get suppliers to compete on cost more efficiently-and more brutally-than they used to. Consequently, manufacturer supplier relations in America have deteriorated so much that they're worse now than before the quality revolution began. In the U.S. automobile industry, for instance, Ford uses online reverse auctions to get the lowest prices for components. GM writes contracts that allow it to shift to a less expensive supplier at a moment's notice. Chrysler tried to build a keiretsu, but the process unraveled after Daimler took over the company in 1998. Not surprisingly, “the Big Three have been more or less at war with their suppliers”. Having witnessed the American automakers’ abject failure to create keiretsu, most Western companies doubt they can replicate the model outside the culture and Society of Japan. In examples such as these, suppliers can see that the goals of the manufacturers are to reduce costs by any means necessary, and know that if they cannot perform to the expectations, they will simply be wiped out and replaced. These adversarial relationships have no trust and certain no loyalty. Without these qualities, there is no value creation. Instead it is just a means to an end.

Suppliers don’t want to have these adversarial relationships with suppliers, but sometimes they have to conduct business with them to stay profitable. It is reasons such as this that for the auto industry at least, the Japanese approach used by Toyota/Honda based on keiretsu is growing in popularity. Keiretsu creates a close-knit group of vendors that learn, improve, and ultimately profit from doing business with a manufacturer. This type of relationship is focused not on costs and the bottom line, but instead on growing together and investing in the partnership, creating value through trust and synergy. The positive impact of this type of

...