Value Unchained

Current Articles | RSS Feed RSS Feed

Smart Phones Need Smart Aftermarket Value Chains

  | Share on Twitter Twitter |  Share on LinkedIn LinkedIn 
Blog   Touch Screen Smart Phones smallEarlier this month, I attended the Reverse Logistics Association (RLA) conference in Amsterdam. The event was well attended by many thought leaders in the reverse logistics/aftermarket sector.

Reverse logistics for the mobile phone industry was a key topic discussed during the event. In particular, the increase in popularity of smart phones has given OEMs major cause for concern. Key components in smart phones, such as the touch screen, can cost in excess of $100. The market is also becoming more competitive and margins are getting thinner. Higher-priced components in these devices equate to higher repair costs. And thinner margins mean that aftermarket service costs have a stronger impact on the bottom line.

The challenge to OEMs is how to give the same level of customer service that consumers are used to, while keeping costs low.

One area the OEMs are focusing on is consistency of service. A presenter from Nokia mentioned that in a survey it was found that consumers are happy to wait for up to a week for their phone to be repaired if they are guaranteed to get it back in the agreed time. This was surprising to me, but the fact that most people now have a spare mobile in a drawer at home most likely has a lot to do with this finding. Customer expectations on turnaround time may push toward more regional repair models where phones can be repaired in a few high-volume repair centers.

The largest area for saving is reducing the need to return the mobile handset to be repaired. Consider “no trouble found” (NTF) product as the low hanging fruit. Accenture estimates that 68 percent of returned product is characterized as NTF, accounting for as much as 20 percent of the total cost. The front line in reducing these returns is on the web channel. By completing diagnostics online and connecting the phone to a computer, firmware can be re-flashed immediately. In a presentation I watched at the RLA event, I learned that firmware flashing currently accounts for more than 30 percent of NTF repairs. Using the Internet to help customers update firmware can reduce repair and freight costs because the activity returns the product to working order immediately.

Online returns portals empower customers to streamline the returns process when initial diagnostics indicate the phone requires repair. The end-user gains visibility to the returns process and is able to make informed choices. Call center use is minimized and the customer feels more in control. One trend discussed at the RLA event gives customers more options in an online return portal so they have control over the speed of the process.  For example, if the product needs to be repaired, the customer can choose to pay for a faster turnaround time or the use of a borrowed phone while his handset is being repaired. Use of an online interface also enables the customer to remain informed throughout the repair process without the need to call customer service for a status check on the device.

So how will these trends affect aftermarket service providers?  First, they will need to be web-enabled so they can link the front end to back-end repairs. The website should be flexible and be able to self-diagnose problems. If the problem persists, the site must be able to create a Return Material Authorization (RMA) for the client and provide a menu of options to return the product, as well as some extra services if the customer requires faster turnaround. Aftermarket companies will also have to proactively analyze the repair yields of the phones so that they can look for fixes that can be solved online rather than returned directly. 

Does anyone have any comments or see other interesting trends in smart phone repair?

Tags: 

Comments

Note: This comment was migrated from our previous blog platform. The comment was left by Mark on Jul 1, 2010 at 8:51 AM 
 
Let's face it smart phones are here to stay. At least for the next few years. Looking at this from a front line perspective the greatest challenge to repair providers is OEM parts availability. The more the industry gets to Henry Ford approach to inter-model component compatibility the fewer the parts that will be available for out-of-warranty repairs. The current model for most handset manufactures is production is the first priority, in-warranty repairs is second and a distant third is parts allocation for out-of-warranty repairs. To combat this trend repair centers are going to have to have to be creative and start looking for component refurbishing centers to recondition touch panels and LCDs (the two highest dollar components in the handset).  
 
It is my experience that 90% of all touch panels are replaced on in-warranty repairs for cosmetic reasons and not functional defects. These units are currently being discarded or stored with no intention on ever using them again. There are however a few companies in the market that can refurbish these components at half the cost of new. TSC out of Atlanta, GA www.cellpartsnow.net)come to mind as a company that has successfully refurbished many of the more common touch screens. Using refurbished components will be one of the only ways to keep cost and lead times down.
Posted @ Thursday, August 05, 2010 6:35 PM by Mark
Note: This comment was migrated from our previous blog platform. The comment was left by Eoghan Dillon on Jul 1, 2010 at 2:01 PM  
 
Thank you for that excellent feedback, Mark. Your point on repairing screens is very valid. We also need to consider this from the environmental aspect, especially as more and more regions institute recycling and disposal regulations.
Posted @ Thursday, August 05, 2010 6:37 PM by Eoghan Dillon
Note: This comment was migrated from our previous blog platform. The comment was left by Paul Bruce on Jul 5, 2010 at 8:47 PM  
 
Great review Eoghan....I also was at the RLT show in Amsterdam and was happy to see your review. 
 
The "Unique" dynamic that is in play and always has been in the mobile handset segment is the unique situation created with the "3 Way" relationship which includes manufacturer as well as the carrier in the mix. Mobile handsets unlike most other electronics that work their way through the reverse logistics channels are both electronic appliances as well as revenue generation devices. The carriers are very motivated to keep their customers in possession of a working appliance as these are their primary source of revenue. Most other electronics (Computers, consumer electronics, cameras, MP3 players, etc...) are repaired in and out of warranty as a result of a manufacturers "Obligation" and not with the same motivation of the carriers who rely on the end user actually using the device to generate their revenue stream. 
 
This is why the reverse supply chains in this space are very unique. Most carriers want to get an end user back in business ASAP and as a result offer advanced replacement units. This very much complicates the repair and REFURBISHMENT activity as it is no longer only a question of functionality but more critically cosmetics because most repairs do not send the same unit back to the consumer but instead sends refurbished units to the next person in need of a unit. 
 
As you can imagine this adds a good deal of cost into the supply chain.......not only the cost of spares but as previously said the added cost of replacing perfectly functional components that are required to meet the strict cosmetic standards of the carriers. 
 
With time it seems that only the largest reverse logistics companies as well as those specifically specializing in the mobile marketplace have been able to meet the needs of the carriers while balancing the needs of the OEM's who are desperate to keep costs down while they live up to their obligations to both the end user as well as their real customers (the Carriers). 
 
It is always surprising to me that the consultants seem to leave this dynamic out of the equation and otherwise view the reverse logistics of mobile devices with those of other electronics and misunderstand the NDF (NFF) dynamics as simply functional and not the percentages that meet the cosmetic standards. In my experience the ready for service units not needing some level of cosmetic repair can be as low as 10% (Based individual carrier criteria) even though the functional NFF can be as high as 50 - 65% when including reflashing.
Posted @ Thursday, August 05, 2010 6:39 PM by Paul Bruce
Note: This comment was migrated from our previous blog platform. The comment was left by Eoghan Dillon on Jul 6, 2010 at 1:46 PM  
 
Thanks, Paul. The relationships between OEMs, carriers and customers in the mobile handset market are certainly unique and drive some interesting behaviors right across the value chain.  
 
For the carriers, the service costs are often secondary to the opportunity cost of the lost revenue from consumers without a device, or the potential for incremental churn of customers that do not have a satisfactory service experience. Carrier service requirements drive real costs into the OEM service organizations. These costs will ultimately need to be reflected back by the OEM in the price charged to the carrier.  
 
Some of this can certainly be alleviated by engaging with creative service partners experienced in this market.  
 
An additional question though, is whether there is enough transparency and collaboration between carriers and OEMs to drive the optimal cost and service balance for their collective interests.
Posted @ Thursday, August 05, 2010 6:40 PM by Eoghan Dillon
Note: This comment was migrated from our previous blog platform. The comment was left by Mark B on Jul 29, 2010 at 9:42 AM  
 
I think the smart device service aspects of RL are not so unique but are certainly challenging. A strong back end repair and harvesting of NFF units (both functional and cosmetic)can support the quick turn and cost metrics of the industry. With OEM support, repair of costly parts such as displays is feasible as previously noted. There are also methods to repair many cosmetic pieces when replacement becomes a challenge. The key is cooperation from the OEM and their suppliers that results in strong back end support. Understanding the length of liability for a product in the market will drive the level of support or agreesice R Engineering required for success. Not easy to execute, but not hard to understand the requirements. Great article.
Posted @ Thursday, August 05, 2010 6:42 PM by Mark B
Note: This comment was migrated from our previous blog platform. The comment was left by Eoghan Dillon on Jul 29, 2010 at 4:02 PM 
 
Mark thanks for your comments I completely agree with you, understanding product and part life cycles is indeed critical, and with the Smart Phone market becoming more competitive we may start to see even shorter life cycles so managing complexity and staying close to suppliers will be key. 
 
Regards 
 
Eoghan
Posted @ Thursday, August 05, 2010 6:45 PM by Eoghan Dillon
Note: This comment was migrated from our previous blog platform. The comment was left by Paul C on Jul 30, 2010 at 3:07 AM 
 
Eoghan, excellent article. You have very clearly captured the challenges, and more interestingly, the developing thought leadership on aftermarket supply chains.  
 
We should be careful not to limit this discussion only to smart phones. While the smart phone segment is certainly where the value is, the support challenges are across the whole segment no matter if it is a low-end or high-end device. 
 
We have all heard the usual aftermarket supply chain war cry’s before. They typically start with “you must do it faster…..”, then comes “ you must do it cheaper…..”, and then when they are not enough “you must do it faster and cheaper”. All of these of course carefully linked to the attainment of customer satisfaction euphoria. Sound familiar? Have we brain-washed our industry to only think fast and cheap will create euphoric customers because they get their device repaired in one hour? I call this 2D thinking. 
 
Unfortunately the ‘fast’ and ‘cheap’ rants have done exactly that. We have some how forgotten that maybe the best customer service comes from actually not needing to deliver customer service. As a consumer myself, I am extremely disappointed that I need to return anything for repair. Firstly I expect it to work. However when it does not work, I want to go to the internet, download a patch, find a list of FAQ’s, maybe even an online troubleshooting guide. I am very happy to be self sufficient. I get annoyed if I need to take time off work, get in my car, go find a local service agent, find a car park, wait to be served, be told there is nothing they can do and to come back in a weeks time only to repeat it all again. Archaic? 
 
The facts are a HUGE proportion of volume in repair networks does not need to be there. In my opinion, the Accenture estimate of 68% NTF is over inflated but the 20% of total costs is definitely under inflated. The costs associated with NTF are significant, probably closer to 40%. With so much NTF, just think how many customers we put through the process described above last week.  
 
The opportunity is clear - reduce NTF entering the after-market repair network in order to improve customer satisfaction and reduce costs. Wow, now we start to achieve 3D thinking. And the fringe benefit – a genuine green supply chain. By the way, during that online service encounter we also had the opportunity to bombard the customer with all the latest new products and value added services on offer. We did not need to bring them into a shop to do that. 
 
The challenge today is service providers make money through repair. It is all about volumes, hubs, logistics channels, repair locations, refurbishment, spare parts and so on. Everything is built for repair, and let’s face it, there is very little incentive to want to reduce repair volumes. 
 
So what is clear at least for me, OEM’s need to shift their focus from Repair to ‘Repair Avoidance’ and to achieve this they need to dramatically improve their ‘self-service’ capabilities. Couple this with web based RMA service for when there is no other alternative but to seek repair. Success will be directly measured through reduced field failure rates, improved customer satisfaction and reduced costs.  
 
The opportunity for a 3D thinking service supplier is how to shift their eggs out of the ‘repair’ basket and into the ‘repair avoidance’ basket and work together with OEM’s to build these ‘self-service’ capabilities OEM’s typically find extremely challenging. There is value there to be shared.
Posted @ Thursday, August 05, 2010 6:47 PM by Paul C
Note: This comment was migrated from our previous blog platform. The comment was left by Eoghan Dillon on Jul 30, 2010 at 3:49 PM  
 
Thanks Paul. Your 3D vs 2D comments and customer, OEM and service provider insights really hit the mark. As you say - the opportunity is clear and is indeed huge. What is also clear is that there is not a single 'silver bullet' approach to solve this problem. It requires a holistic change in our thinking and alignment to service the most important stakeholder in this entire mix - the customer. It is repair avoidance; it is on-line returns; it is incentive alignment between carriers, manufacturers and service providers; it reaches back into product design and includes improvements to repair and recovery. Applying 3D thinking to this eco-system has the potential to yield step function improvements to the aftermarket value chain. Thanks again for contributing - we would love to hear more comments from you and others to this discussion.  
 
Eoghan
Posted @ Thursday, August 05, 2010 6:48 PM by Eoghan Dillon
Post Comment
Name
 *
Email
 *
Website (optional)
Comment
 *

Allowed tags: <a> link, <b> bold, <i> italics