strategy+business is published by PwC Strategy& Inc.
 
or, sign in with:
strategy and business
Published: April 9, 2002

 
 

Reinventing Scale: How to Escape the Size Trap

Value chain mapping can find hidden value in even the oldest industries.

Illustration by Bob Goldstrom
For decades, packaged seafood production was considered to be a quintessential scale business (pardon the pun). The seafood industry believed itself to be engaged in can making and canning, capital-intensive activities that require large up-front investments in manufacturing and production operations. Because they were overseeing plants with high fixed costs, owners naturally wanted to spread this burden over as many cans of fish as possible. In the language of microeconomics, they saw packaged seafood as a business with obvious economies of scale, where unit costs fell as production volumes increased.

The quest for scale required seafood producers to balance the total delivered cost of fish with efficiency in can making and canning — the act of stuffing meat into cans. Because some 60 percent of the fish (heads, tails, bones) doesn’t end up in the can at all, it makes no sense to incur costs to transport it to distant factories. This logic suggested that canning plants should be located in the middle of the fishing grounds, generally in less-developed countries and islands. However, canning and can making require relatively developed infrastructures and access to skilled labor. Ultimately, to balance the total delivered cost of raw (the industry term is “round”) fish with efficiency in canning and can making, most U.S. tuna suppliers settled on three major production locations (Thailand, American Samoa, and Puerto Rico), where they built large, fully integrated plants that processed round fish into finished, canned product.

Generation by generation, though, margins in the seafood production industry declined. The profit pressure forced major seafood packers to explore creative ways to reduce costs. To find savings opportunities, they declared everything within their operations fair game for reevaluation.

In exploring one firm’s extended value chain to see exactly where costs were spawned and how they might be dampened, we concluded that the problem clearly lay in how producers approached the logic of scale. Conventional wisdom held that when scale applied, it applied everywhere. But, although stamping out cans from sheets of rolled metal and filling them with seafood may fall neatly within anyone’s definition of a scale business, the value chain steps prior to canning are not so amenable. In fact, the activity of cleaning and preparing a fish (called loining) is painstaking, performed by hand for every fish, every time. It cannot be mechanized effectively, though many have tried to do so. Thus, there is no significant cost advantage — no real “returns to scale” — in increased production volumes.

Indeed, the mapping of the value chain made clear what had been implicit all along: The seafood packaging process was more usefully viewed as two separate and very different processes, labor-intensive loining and capital-intensive canning. The latter process could benefit from economies of scale; the former could not.

Conceptually splitting the processes apart had powerful implications for the firm’s global operations. It turns out that loining and canning didn’t have to be colocated. As a low-skilled activity requiring minimal infrastructure and operational support, loining could occur in regions unable to support a manufacturing operation, such as low-wage countries (often islands) in the middle of the fishing grounds. The processed loins could then be frozen and shipped to consolidated, large-scale canning and can-making operations. These operations would be located in more developed areas with the necessary skilled labor and supply and support networks. A network of loining operations spread across different fishing grounds offered an additional benefit. Because the price of fish tends to fluctuate widely by geography, a loining network with multiple locations allowed the company to reduce costs by shifting production to those places where the price of fish was lowest. Since the fish content represents almost half of the cost of the finished product, this flexibility was a significant bonus.

 
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8  | All | Next Last>
 
 
Follow Us 
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Google Plus YouTube RSS strategy+business Digital and Mobile products App Store

 

Resources

  1. Lawrence M. Fisher, “From Vertical to Virtual: How Nortel’s Supplier Alliances Extend the Enterprise,” s+b, First Quarter 2001 Click here.
  2. Tim Laseter, Pat Houston, Anne Chung, Silas Byrne, Martha Turner, and Anand Devendran, “The Last Mile to Nowhere: Flaws & Fallacies in Internet Home-Delivery Schemes,” s+b, Third Quarter 2000 Click here.
  3. Tim Laseter, Alex Kandybin, and Pat Houston, “Marketing and Operations: Can This Marriage Be Saved,” s+b, First Quarter 2002 Click here.
  4. Alfred D. Chandler Jr., Scale and Scope: The Dynamics of Industrial Capitalism (Harvard University Press, Belknap Press, 1990)
  5. Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations (The Modern Library, 1994)