The Future of U.S. Manufacturing: A Change Manifesto

The Future of U.S. Manufacturing: A Change ManifestoSeveral factors are conspiring to create potentially ideal conditions for a mini-renaissance of domestic manufacturing, including the emergence of additive manufacturing, the forces of social, mobile, analytics and cloud, and ever-rising energy costs.

| FUTURE OF WORK

2 FUTURE OF WORK May 2013

Executive Summary

U.S. manufacturing is better positioned today for revival than

anytime since its slow and painful decline some 30 years ago.

A big reason for its new-found strength stems from changes in

China. Rising wages, concerns over IP protection and increases

in digital automation globally have conspired to undermine the

economic advantages that China has enjoyed for years.

We believe the following additional factors will contribute

to positioning the U.S. manufacturing industry for renewal:

The U.S. is best positioned to lead manufacturing into the

digital age because of its significant scale, consistently high

productivity levels, unparalleled ability to innovate and

receding unit labor cost. It also offers some of the lowest

wages in the developed world.

Fast-rising wages and variable quality has dulled the sheen

of China’s low-cost manufacturing.

Total cost of manufacturing is the most important metric

guiding manufacturing sourcing decisions. With elevated

Chinese wages and volatile commodity prices spiking input

and shipping cost, the cost differential between China

and other markets is rapidly narrowing and has reached

or is projected to reach a tipping point in many industries

where economics do not favor a low-cost factory model.

Amplifying the problem is the weak IP regime in China and

regional geo-political uncertainty, resulting in supply chain

delays and disruptions. Therefore, production for domestic

markets may relocate to home shores or shores nearby.

Manufacturers are questioning the current wisdom of divorc-

ing R&D from production and locating it in a cost-effective

geography thousands of miles away. Early experiences

indicate that production and research feed off each other,

resulting in a virtuous cycle of innovation.

THE FUTURE OF U.S. MANUFACTURING: A CHANGE MANIFESTO 3

The future of manufacturing will be underpinned by

digital-age social and mobile technologies, as well as analytics.

Winning manufacturing companies must get the basics right,

and policy makers must create an enabling environment to

usher in the digital manufacturing age.

Companies must:

Rein in costs, get access to the right skills and boost produc-

tivity and innovation to create an enabling environment for

the switch to the digital age.

Streamline processes to fix the wide variation in productivity

across companies within each of manufacturing’s 28 sectors:

» Higher productivity generates higher net income margins

and drives greater return on equity.

» Manufacturing sectors with high net income margins and

return on equity are growing and adding jobs. Growing

sectors with high return on equity alone will get capital

for future investments; it is, therefore, imperative that

manufacturers invest in digital-age technologies to fuel

the next phase of growth.

Invest in supply chain analytics to optimize their global

sourcing strategy.

Drive productivity and return on equity to attract capital

investments for social and mobile technologies, as well as

analytics.

Policy makers must:

Help remove the structural rigidities – corporate tax rates,

regulatory compliance costs, tort laws and employee

benefits – that are blunting the competitive edge of U.S.

manufacturers.

Address the skills gaps that are holding back the manufac-

turing revival.


U.S. Manufacturing: All the Right IngredientsThe U.S. manufacturing industry is well positioned for the digital age, with its size, relentless drive for productivity, competitive unit labor cost and superior innovation track record.

Size

Today, U.S. manufacturing supports more than one in seven private sector jobs. The sector employs an estimated 17.5 million people domestically – 11.7 million in direct manufacturing jobs and 5.8 million in the services sector.1 To put this in context, from a peak of 19.5 million direct manufacturing jobs in 1979, manufacturing’s current share represents a 40% loss. This reflects the changed character and composition of the broader services-led U.S. economy (see Figure 1). Despite the contraction, if U.S. manufacturing were an economy, its 2012 output (in absolute terms) of $2 trillion would make it the tenth largest economy in the world.2

Figure 1 shows total U.S. employment in the manufacturing and private services sectors. While employment in services has more or less risen (with periods of contraction mostly coinciding with recessionary trends in the economy), manufac-turing employment showed an upward trend through the late 1970s before begin-ning to shrink. The largest decline was recorded in the 2000-2010 period, when employment in manufacturing fell by almost 4% annually and by 33% over the decade. However, in the past two years, manufacturing employment has witnessed a resurgence. One possible explanation is that the eroding competitiveness of China as a manufacturing hub is leading to “reshoring” of manufacturing to the U.S.

Productivity Juggernaut

The relentless productivity march of the post-war U.S. economy can be directly attributed to the manufacturing sector. Manufacturing productivity has led all other sectors of the domestic economy throughout the past 65 years (see Figure 2, next page). Between 1997-2007, overall manufacturing productivity recorded an average annual growth of 5.4%.3 Manufacturing’s real productivity grew 2.3% compared with the 1.8% growth for all other private businesses, adjusting for three key new sources of this productivity spike: a strong positive bias exerted by computers and the electronics industry, whose productivity grew at 26.8% in this

Total Employment in Manufacturing and Private Services

Figure 1

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, The National Bureau of Economic Research

Em

plo

ymen

t (i

n t

ho

usa

nd

s):

Pri

vate

Ser

vice

sE

mp

loym

ent (in

tho

usan

ds):

Man

ufactu

ring

Year

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

1939 1947 1955 1963 1971 1979 1987 1995 2003 2011

Recession Years Private Service-Providing Manufacturing


period;4 the offshoring bias in manufacturing productivity;5 and increased use of temporary staff employed by manufacturers.6

As Figure 2 shows, other than 1960-65, labor productivity in manufacturing has exceeded that in the nonfarm sector. Overall, from 1950 to 2010, manufacturing productivity mostly grew at an increasing rate (the trend line primarily ascends), while the private nonfarm business sector’s productivity increased at a marginally constant or declining rate over time.

Falling Unit Labor Costs

In the third quarter of 2012, U.S. manufacturing workers were paid an average $33.30 per hour in wages and benefits. This represents an 8% premium over workers in other sectors, who were paid an average $30.80 per hour.7 The reason for the wage differential is that manufacturers tend to pay for benefits such as family insurance and vacations. Between 2000-2012, while real wages and salary cost increased at a rate of 0.96% per year, the unit labor cost (the real cost to produce one unit of good) decreased at an average annual rate of 2% due to rising productivity8 (see Figure 3, next page). This is because the rise in real productivity outpaced the increase in wages, making U.S. manufacturing more cost-competitive.

As Figure 3 shows, real output per hour (or labor productivity) rose continuously during 1987-2011, while real unit labor costs fell during the same period.

Pursuit of Innovation

When measured in terms of R&D intensity – R&D spend as a percentage of sales and number of patents — domestic manufacturing outstrips other sectors by a wide margin. Manufacturing accounts for just 12% of U.S. GDP, but manufacturers’ R&D outlays account for 69% of total domestic R&D spend. While total U.S. industry domestic R&D spend was 3.7% of net sales in 2009, the ratio for manufacturing was 4.4% of revenue, well above the 2.8% average for nonmanufacturing industries.9 According to the National Science Foundation, U.S. manufacturers accounted for 69% of the total patents filed and 72% of the total patents granted in 2008, the latest year for which data is available.

Growth of Labor Productivity: Manufacturing and Private Nonfarm Business

Manufacturing Sector Private Nonfarm Business Sector

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

195

0-1

95

5

195

5-1

96

0

196

0-1

96

5

196

5-1

97

0

197

0-1

97

5

197

5-1

98

0

198

0-1

98

5

198

5-1

99

0

199

0-1

99

5

199

5-2

00

0

20

00

-20

05

20

05

-20

10

Lab

or

pro

du

ctiv

ity

gro

wth

Figure 2

Note: CAGR

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics


Still a Major Contributor to Overall Trade

Between 2000 and 2012, the share of products manufactured in the U.S. shrank from 58% to 47%, ending the U.S.’s number-one exporter rank to China. However with a 47% weight in the overall trade, manufacturing remains a critical component to managing the soaring trade deficit.10

China Losing its SheenChina’s status as the leader of low-cost offshore manufacturing, built so carefully over the past 25 years, seems to be in peril.

Even as late as 2001, China’s labor cost, at 58 cents per hour, was a fraction of the U.S.’s cost, and that was when the price of oil was below $10 per barrel. The eco-nomics were compelling enough to locate production in China to address the needs of U.S. consumers. However, between 2005 and 2010, hourly manufacturing wages in China rose 19% per year and are projected to reach $6 per hour by 2015. In 2000, China’s labor cost was just 3% of U.S. rates, but by 2010, it was 9% and is projected to reach 17% by 2015. Although 17% may still look inexpensive, labor cost is just a fraction (one-fourth) of total manufacturing costs. In less labor-intensive industries, it can be less than 10%.11

Compounding the wage rise is China’s subpar manufacturing productivity compared with that of the U.S. As of 2010, Chinese manufacturing productivity was just 30% of U.S. levels.

The commodity boom of the past decade has caused the prices of oil, gas and other industrial commodities to spike, materially raising the key input costs for manufac-turing. In light of higher shipping costs, inventory carry costs and various taxes, the economics of manufacturing in China and shipping it overseas have become less attractive. Other factors have additionally contributed to elongated product deliv-ery cycles, such as intellectual property risks, poor quality, sudden and protracted supply chain disruptions due to socio-political activities and labor unrest.

The cost shield that masked the structural handicaps of the Chinese system is developing cracks. Therefore, when it comes to China, we expect sourcing decisions to be tempered with a balanced assessment of risks and returns.

Productivity Outpaces Labor Costs

Real Output Per Hour Real Unit Labor Cost

0

40

80

120

160

180

198

7

198

8

198

9

199

0

199

1

199

2

199

3

199

4

199

5

199

6

199

7

199

8

199

9

20

00

20

01

20

02

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

20

08

20

09

20

10

20

11

20

12

Ind

ex (

20

05

=10

0)

Figure 3

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics


As China loses its cost advantage, the trend of “reshoring” manufacturing for domestic consumption (production shifted back home or closer to home) seems here to stay. However, we expect more U.S. companies to focus manufacturing in China and other fast-growing emerging economies to serve soaring demand in overseas markets.

Innovation and Production: Conjoined Twins? Emerging evidence is upending the hypothetical business benefit of sep-arating production from R&D. Manufacturers are beginning to ques-tion the wisdom of basing production lines in low-cost locations thousands of miles away from R&D labs.

Growing evidence shows that co-locating production and R&D cre-ates a positive feedback loop, as scientists and engineers gain direct exposure to and first-hand knowledge of production processes and assembly line practices. Such exposure helps improve processes, rewire underlying technologies and rejuvenate innovative practices, resulting in a virtuous cycle of continuous improvement.

Take the case of batteries. U.S. companies offshored their production to Japan over 30 years ago. Today, Japan, Korea and China are the leaders in designing electric batteries that can replace oil to power clean cars.12 Similarly, when semiconductor production moved to Asia, the production of thin film deposi-tion (used in semiconductors) declined in the U.S. Today, thin-film deposition is a critical component for manufacturing solar panels, and the lack of skills in the U.S. has caused the country to lag behind in the solar power race.

Similarly, U.S. manufacturers capture just one-third of the value of Amazon’s Kindle e-reader, while Asian manufacturers claim the bulk of value, even though Kindle’s key innovation, electronic ink, was invented in the U.S. The main concern: the U.S. will permanently lose its e-paper display technology edge for driving related innovations.13

Clearly, manufacturing and innovation are tightly intertwined, and decoupling the two can sap the ability to capture higher economic value. We believe that as more evidence emerges across industries, the trend of co-locating production and R&D for sustained competitive advantage will gain ground.

Reshoring: Lessons to be LearnedOver the past two to three years, hundreds if not thousands of manufacturing jobs have returned to the U.S. This is only a trickle compared with the 28% of total manufacturing jobs lost during 2000 through 2010.14 However, this small uptick in U.S. manufacturing employment, combined with the reshoring trend, has generated significant interest in the potential revival of domestic manufacturing. While these early green shoots are encouraging, a closer look at U.S. manufacturing offers important lessons.

Our analysis of 500 U.S. manufacturing companies spanning 28 sectors clearly shows a positive correlation among high productivity, job growth, net income margins and return on equity. To succeed in the long term, manufacturers must adopt innovative technologies to rewire manufacturing and accelerate productiv-ity and, more importantly, fix the wide variation in productivity levels within U.S. manufacturing sectors.

Growing evidence shows that co-locating production and R&D creates a positive feedback loop, as scientists and engineers gain direct exposure to and first-hand knowledge of production processes and assembly line practices.


We are seeing the following trends unfold:

Economics will continue to drive global sourcing decisions. A 2012 study15 confirms that when it comes to global sourcing decisions, the only metric that matters to manufacturers is “total landed cost,” which includes raw material cost, manufacturing cost, transportation cost, inventory carry cost and other taxes. In fact, 85% of respondents across manufacturing industries rated this as a very important criterion, above product quality, intellectual property risk and supply chain risk.

Volatile global commodity prices, buoyant Chinese wages and fast-changing geo-political risks have injected a new level of dynamism into sourcing strategies. With too many macro- and micro-economic, financial and risk variables to analyze and monitor, it is imperative that manufacturers develop sophisticated analytical models and systems to sharpen their manufacturing sourcing decision methods.

Highly productive sectors with higher wages are growing. While all manufac-turing sectors experienced job losses from 2000 through 2009, an analysis of the decline reveals an interesting relationship among productivity, high wages and job growth.

During the downturn, low-wage industries with lower productivity, such as wood products, primary metals and plastics, experienced the heaviest job losses. Meanwhile, higher wage industries with greater productivity, such as chemicals and pharmaceuticals, machinery and motor vehicles, lost fewer jobs (see Figure 4).

Manufacturing Sectors with Higher Productivity and Weekly Wages Lost Fewer Jobs

MotorVehicles: -29.7%

Apparel: -55.7%

Beverages:-9.7%

Electrical Equipment & Appliances:

-32.70%

Food:-6.7%

Machinery: -24.9%

Petroleum& Coal Products:

-5.3% Chemicals:-16%

Plastics:-30.1%

Primary Metals: -36.2%

Publishing& Printing:

-31.8%

Textiles: -50.25%

$3

$5

$7Ho

url

y W

ages

Productivity

$9

$11

$13

$15

-1.0% 0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0% 6.0%

Wood Products:

-37.1%

Source: Cognizant Research Center analysis. Productivity and wage data sourced from “Why Does Manufacturing Matter? Which Manufacturing Matters? A Policy Framework,” February 2012 (see footnotes for full citation).

Figure 4

Note: Bubble size indicates job losses. Smaller bubble size correlates with lower job losses.

Note: Timeframe measured: 1997 - 2007


Again during the 2009 to 2011 revival, high-wage and highly productive industries added more jobs compared with low-wage industries, which also struggled with low productivity (see Figure 5).

Material variation in productivity exists across manufacturing sectors. While overall average manufacturing productivity leads services and farm productivity, material variation exists across manufacturing sectors (see Figure 6, next page). Clearly, there is plenty of room for improvement.

Manufacturers with higher productivity and high net income report higher return on equity. Our analysis shows that across manufacturing, sectors with higher productivity and higher net income margins tend to have higher return on equity. Also, manufacturing sectors with higher productivity and return on equity tend to lose fewer jobs or add more positions than sectors with lower productivity and return on equity. Thus, productivity becomes the common factor that differentiates winning manufacturing sectors and companies (see Figure 7, page 11).

Across U.S. manufacturers, there is tremendous scope to boost productivity, raise net income and increase return on equity. While inter- and intra-sector variation in productivity is understandable, our 2012 return on equity analysis of 500 U.S.-based manufacturing companies across 28 sectors shows significant variation in profit margin within each of the 28 sectors (see Figure 8, page 12), a critical driver of return on equity. Clearly, there is significant scope for individual firms to improve productivity and consequently close the net income margin variation gaps, which, in turn, will drive better return on equity and enhance growth prospects.

Manufacturing Sectors with Higher Productivity and Wages Added More Jobs During Economic Recovery

Aerospace & Defense:

5.50%

Apparel: 2.75%

Beverages: 3.20%

Chemicals: -1.1%

Electrical Equipment & Appliances:

4.70%

Food: -0.70%

Machinery: 8.40%

Petroleum & Coal Products:

0.70%

Plastics: 3.50%

Primary Metals: 12.50%

Publishing & Printing:

-6.70%

Textiles: -2.60%

Wood Products:

-3.80%

-1.0% 0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0% 6.0%$3

$5

$7

Ho

url

y W

ages

Productivity

$9

$11

$13

$15

Note: Bubble size indicates job losses. Smaller bubble size correlates with lower job losses.

Note: Timeframe measured: 2009 – 2011

Source: Cognizant Research Center analysis. Productivity and wage data sourced from “Why Does Manufacturing Matter? Which Manufacturing Matters? A Policy Framework,” February 2012 (see footnotes for full citation).

Figure 5


The Digital, Social, Mobile, Analytics RevolutionManufacturing Goes Additive and Digital

Industrial-age “subtractive” manufacturing processes are not unlike Michaelange-lo’s postulate that the sculptor’s task is simply to chip away at the stone so as to

reveal the ideal form. Just as the sculptor cuts stone, the dominant approach for machining processes is to remove material through cut-ting and drilling. However, subtractive industrial-age processes will soon be complemented by additive digital-age manufacturing pro-cesses, possibly ushering in a manufacturing renaissance.

Additive manufacturing is the process of making a three-dimensional solid object of virtually any shape directly from a computer model. Three-dimensional printing uses an additive process, in which succes-sive layers of material are laid down in different shapes vs. subtractive machining techniques of cutting and drilling. While the application of 3-D printing in industrial manufacturing and design is well known, its application in areas where traditional manufacturing methods have not gone, or cannot go, has caught the imagination of the world. Examples include Cornell University, where researchers in February demonstrated how to create a replacement ear using a 3-D printer and living cells, and surgeon Anthony Atala, who last year created a transplantable kidney using a 3-D printer.

Manufacturing Sectors with Higher Productivity and Net Income Margins Have Higher Return on Equity

Aerospace & Defense: 6.91%

Apparel: 6.24%

Beverages: 12.23%

Chemicals: 6.32%

Electrical Equipment

& Appliances: 5.51%

Food: 5.15%

Machinery: 6.48%

Petroleum & Coal Products:

6.75% Pharmaceuticals: 11.67%

Plastics: 4.33%

Primary Metals: 4.30%

Publishing & Printing:

8.70%

Textiles: 0.85%

Wood Products:

4.67%

(20%)

(10%)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

-2.0% -1.0% 0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0% 6.0%

Note: Bubble size indicates net income margin. Smaller bubble size correlates with higher net income margin.

Note: Timeframe measured: 2012

Source: Cognizant Research Center analysis. Return on equity and net income margins data based on the 2012 IndustryWeek U.S. 500 ranking of America's largest public manufacturers. Productivity data sourced from “Why Does Manufacturing Matter? Which Manufacturing Matters? A Policy Framework,” February 2012 (see footnotes for full citation).

Figure 6

Additive manufacturing has the potential to

rewire traditional manufacturing, as it

enables connectivity and imparts exceptional

agility to the manufacturing and

design process.


The ability to design and modify designs online to create a kidney or an ear without wasteful casting demonstrates the efficiency of additive manufacturing. Whether for a single item or small batches (and in the future, mass-customized items), addi-tive manufacturing has the potential to rewire traditional manufacturing. Its poten-tial to accelerate innovation stems from its digital moorings, which enable con-nectivity and impart exceptional agility to the manufacturing and design process.

Social, Mobile and Advanced Analytics Unleash a New Productivity Wave

New technologies – including social and mobile technologies, as well as advanced analytics – are leading the manufacturing sector into the digital age.

In the analogous manufacturing world, industrial assets and the people and processes involved with them are isolated from each other and operate in silos. Exponential benefits can result if these machines are connected with advanced sensors and software, as well as the people working with these assets. Outcomes include better design, operations, quality and safety, and a better understanding of man/machine interaction, leading to more predictable outcomes.

Manufacturing Productivity Growth Rates Adjusted for Increased Offshoring

IndustryAnnual productivity

growth rate (%)

Computer and electronic products 24.24

Motor vehicles and parts 5.49

All manufacturing 4.82

Miscellaneous manufacturing 4.77

Apparel and leather and allied products 4.72

Textile mills and textile product mills 4.20

Chemicals* 4.20

Machinery 4.00

Electrical equipment/appliances/components 3.94

Other transportation equipment** 3.32

Printing and related support activities 3.09

All manufacturing without computer and electronic products 2.80

Wood products 2.48

Furniture and related products 2.20

Primary metals 2.09

Fabricated metal products 1.51

Paper 1.29

Plastics and rubber products 1.25

Food, beverage, and tobacco products 0.82

Nonmetallic mineral products 0.53

Petroleum and coal products -0.29

*Includes pharmaceuticals and medicines.**Includes aerospace products and parts.

Note: It is not possible to adjust productivity growth rates in individual manufacturing industries for the increased use of temporary help services.

Note: Timeframe measured: 1997 - 2007

Source: “Why Does Manufacturing Matter? Which Manufacturing Matters? A Policy Framework,” February 2012 (see footnotes for full citation).

Figure 7


An example of this kind of connection is Ford’s new hybrid car, which can automatically connect to the service center and seek necessary maintenance. The MyFord Mobile application equips the owner with instant information pertaining to the vehicle; monitors the battery’s charge level and sends alerts on charge status; virtually sets or changes the program setting; and downloads vehicle data for analysis.16 Additionally, GE’s next-generation turbines are embedded with sensors that can gather information to assess the servicing required before the aircraft lands. As these connected devices become more mainstream, their ability to gene-rate data will grow exponentially, necessitating investments in advanced analytical tools to derive additional business value.

The Coefficient of Variation of Net Income Margin (%), 2008-2012

<0% 0-100% 100-1,000% >1,000%

Industry 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Communications equipment 5,320 1,874 154 166 181

Primary metals 737 464 174 138 188

Electrical equipment & appliances -3,037 123 114 164 116

Petroleum & coal products 319 -1,651 141 111 266

Furniture & fixtures -1,507 -2,118 695 299 136

Computers & other electronic products 663 2,050 86 116 155

Fabricated metal products 705 482 100 86 115

Motor vehicles -369 534 742 60 473

Stone, clay, glass & concrete products -354 -381 941 -272 3,286

Medical instruments & equipment 100 124 68 65 190

Miscellaneous 150 947 81 96 132

Plastics 273 54 20 32 2,445

Paper -1,253 144 201 121 79

Publishing & printing -878 327 148 630 93

Wood products -343 316 91 213 84

Food 150 74 62 146 72

Apparel 190 167 106 100 79

Rubber products 888 141 121 44 46

Instruments 2,759 -610 320 77 81

Motor vehicle parts -261 -151 108 73 89

Chemicals 221 133 97 80 72

Machinery 74 556 80 68 54

Railcars, ships, other transportation equipment -1,299 273 62 83 79

Textiles -133 116 19 32 9

Aerospace & defense 102 75 59 42 59

Beverages 167 75 63 41 24

Pharmaceuticals -1,688 51 57 43 53

Tobacco 61 61 56 67 69

Note: Coefficient of variation has been calculated as the ratio of standard deviation to mean (i.e., Cv= σ/µ). Distributions with a coefficient of

variation to be less than 100 are considered to be low-variance, whereas those with a CV higher than 100 are considered to be high variance.

Source: Cognizant Research Center analysis. Data sourced from 2012 IndustryWeek U.S. 500 ranking of America’s largest public manufacturers, based on revenue data sets.

Figure 8


Applying social and mobile technologies, as well as advanced analytics, to industrial-age manufacturing is expected to transform global industries, from aviation to power generation to healthcare delivery. With better healthcare at lower cost and material savings in energy cost, the global efficiency gains will be enormous. If efficiency gains translate to a modest 1% productivity boost, it would add $10 trillion to $15 trillion to the global economy over the next 15 years.17

Policy and Strategic Imperatives Key to Manufacturing’s Mini-Renaissance The policy choices that the government, manufacturers and suppliers make today will determine U.S. manufacturing’s trajectory. It is crucial to get the basics right and for all stakeholders to seize the emerging opportunities to thrive in the digital manufacturing age.

In our assessment, successful companies and policy makers will do the following:

Fix the structural rigidity plaguing U.S. manufacturers. A study by the Manufacturing Institute and The Manufacturers Alliance For Productivity and Innovation found that structural rigidity and bottlenecks add at least 20% additional costs to domestic manufacturing.18 When compared with its top nine trading partners, the U.S. lags behind on all parameters except energy costs, including corporate tax rates, employee benefits, tort litigation and regulatory compliance. These drags on U.S. manufacturing’s productivity gains limit the country’s competitive advantage.

Arrest the hemorrhage caused by deep skills gaps. Roughly 5% of manufac-turing jobs – 600,000 jobs – go unfilled because of a lack of skilled personnel. Manufacturers struggle to find employees with skills that enhance a plant’s effectiveness and efficiency and fuel innovation and future growth. In economic terms, the opportunity loss equals an additional 400,000-odd direct jobs in the larger economy and potential GDP growth loss of at least 1%.19

Focus on productivity to boost net income margin and return on equity. U.S. manufacturing must focus on closing the wide variation in productiv-ity levels across sectors and become a dominant productivity leader. Without superior productivity, higher net income margin and return on equity, it will be impossible to attract capital for future investments. With higher productivity and better cash flow, manufacturers will gain confidence to make investment bets in additive manufacturing and the new technologies, such as social, mobile and advanced analytics, that underpin it.

Optimize global sourcing strategy. U.S. manufacturers must gain a thorough understanding of global sourcing strategy in the context of the changing economic, financial and risk variables underpinning such decisions. They must invest in and develop supply chain analytics capabilities to enable a systematic, forward-looking process for sourcing decisions. The transition from a supply ori-entation to a demand-driven forward planning strategy will be fueled by connec-tivity and analytics.

Invest in social and mobile technologies, as well as advanced analytics, for long-term competitive advantage. As smart devices proliferate, greater con-nectivity between devices and people working with those devices can enable manufacturers to harness the benefits of big data and analytics. Winning manu-facturers must invest in social and mobile technologies, as well as analytics, to generate tangible business value.


Footnotes1 Estimate from The Manufacturing Institute’s “U.S. Benchmark Input-Output

Accounts,” U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis.

2 The Manufacturing Institute; estimates based on International Monetary Fund, U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis and MAPI.

3 Susan Helper, Timothy Krueger and Howard Wial, “Why Does Manufacturing Mat-ter? Which Manufacturing Matters? A Policy Framework,” Metropolitan Policy Program at Brookings, February 2012.

4 Ibid

5 Susan Houseman, Christopher Kurz, Paul Lengermann and Benjamin Mandel, “Offshoring Bias in U.S. Manufacturing,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 25, No. 2, Spring 2011, pp 111–132.

6 Matthew Dey, Susan Houseman and Anne Polivka, “Manufacturers’ Outsourcing to Employment Services,” Upjohn Institute, Working Paper No. 07-132, 2006.

7 The Manufacturing Institute; estimates based on U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis.

8 The Manufacturing Institute; estimates based on U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.


10 The Manufacturing Institute; based on Manufacturers Association for Productiv-ity and Innovation calculations.


12 Steve Levine, “The Great Battery Race,” Foreign Policy, November 2010.

13 Willy C. Shih, “The U.S. Can’t Manufacture the Kindle and That’s a Problem,” HBR Blog Network, Oct. 13, 2009.

14 Susan Helper, Timothy Krueger and Howard Wial, “Why Does Manufacturing Matter? Which Manufacturing Matters? A Policy Framework,” Metropolitan Pol-icy Program at Brookings, February 2012.

15 “Reshoring Global Manufacturing: Myths and Realities,” The Hackett Group, 2012.

16 “New MyFord Mobile App Keeps Focus Electric Owner Engaged and In Control of Electric Car Experience,” Ford.

17 Peter C. Evans and Marco Annunziata, “Industrial Internet: Pushing the Boundar-ies of Minds and Machines,” GE, Nov. 26, 2012.

18 “2011 Report on the Structural Cost of U.S. Manufacturing,” The Manufac-turing Institute and Manufacturers Alliance for Productivity and Innovation, October 2011.

19 “2011 Skill Gaps Report,” Deloitte and The Manufacturing Institute, Oct. 17, 2011.

About Cognizant

Cognizant (NASDAQ: CTSH) is a leading provider of information technology, consulting, and business process out sourcing services, dedicated to helping the world’s leading companies build stronger businesses. Headquartered in Teaneck, New Jersey (U.S.), Cognizant combines a passion for client satisfaction, technology innovation, deep industry and business process expertise, and a global, collaborative workforce that embodies the future of work. With over 50 delivery centers worldwide and approximately 162,700 employees as of March 31, 2013, Cognizant is a member of the NASDAQ-100, the S&P 500, the Forbes Global 2000, and the Fortune 500 and is ranked among the top performing and fastest growing companies in the world.

Visit us online at www.cognizant.com or follow us on Twitter: @Cognizant.

CreditsAuthorAnand Chandramouli, Director, Cognizant Research Center

AnalystsKoyal Roy, Cognizant Research CenterNeha Gupta, Cognizant Research CenterPushpanjali Mikkilineni, Cognizant Research CenterAndal Vedanarayanan, Cognizant Research Center

Subject Matter ExpertDeepak Mavatoor, Cognizant Business Consulting

Design

Harleen Bhatia, Creative DirectorSuresh Sambandhan, Designer

ReferencesMichael Ettlinger and Kate Gordon, “The Importance and Promise of American Manufacturing,” Center for American Progress, April 2011.

Susan Helper, “The U.S. Auto Supply Chain at a Crossroads,” Case Western Reserve University.

Stephen J. Ezell and Robert D. Atkinson, “The Case for a National Manufacturing Strategy,” ITIF, April 2011.

Robert E. Scott, “Costly Trade with China,” Economic Policy Institute, Oct. 9, 2007.

www.cognizant.com

© Copyright 2013, Cognizant. All rights reserved. No part of this document may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the express written permission from Cognizant. The information contained herein is subject to change without notice. All other trademarks mentioned herein are the property of their respective owners.

World Headquarters

500 Frank W. Burr Blvd.Teaneck, NJ 07666 USAPhone: +1 201 801 0233

Fax: +1 201 801 0243Toll Free: +1 888 937 3277

[email protected]

India Operations Headquarters

#5/535, Old Mahabalipuram RoadOkkiyam Pettai, Thoraipakkam

Chennai, 600 096 IndiaPhone: +91 (0) 44 4209 6000

Fax: +91 (0) 44 4209 [email protected]

Australia

Cognizant Technology SolutionsAustralia Pty Ltd

Level 1514 Martin Place

Sydney, NSW, 2000Australia

Phone: +61 2 9223 3988Fax: +61 2 9233 5315

[email protected]

Hong Kong

62/F, Suite 6201, The Center99 Queen’s Road

Central, Hong KongPhone: (852) 2273 5393

(852) 2273 5395Fax: (852) 3965 3222

[email protected]

Singapore

Cognizant Technology SolutionsAsia Pacific Pte Ltd

80 Anson Road#27-02/03 Fuji Xerox Towers

Singapore, 079907Phone: +65 6324 6672

Fax: +65 6324 [email protected]

The Future of U.S. Manufacturing: A Change Manifesto

Documents

Transcript of The Future of U.S. Manufacturing: A Change Manifesto