CASE: US car industry
What happens when we forget delivering what our customers really want?
The car business dominated American industry in the post-war boom years. By the late 1950s the car industry hosted the largest private employers in the world and contributed significantly to America's economy – the biggest consumer market in the world. It was the engine of US industry; everybody knew that 'Americans buy American'.
And then from 1960 something happened. Customers started buying Japanese. The pattern continued through the 1970s and 1980s leading to bankruptcies and the demise of household names like Cadillac, Chevy, Pontiac and Buick.
The customer dynamic changed, but the companies didn't
Management teams in car companies kept operating as if normal rules of the free market were suspended. The quality of the product lost importance, innovation was resisted and, most importantly, attention to changing customer wants and needs were ignored. They lost touch with their customers.
Instead, consumers chose a better way. Once companies like Toyota broke out of the traditional auto playbook offering consumers a better product and better service, customers flocked like bees to honey.
Is shipping different?
The containerisation of world trade has over time served players in our industry and our customers very well, but aren't we also faced with changed needs among our customers? Are we listening enough to their wants and ideas to improve their supply chains? If we had a more dedicated focus on what our customers want – plus what they didn't even think of yet – then imagine the potential for our industry.
a ship with a non existent crew is lost.
aND mr kolding is a lost cause.worse he doen"t even care.
there"s too much of eho in maersk.and not enough common sense.
a bit OF HUMILITY PLEASE.."
"
Through simple skills and knowledge - without jeopardizing safety procedures - I was able to speed up port operations and outpaced the MSK vessel to the pilot boarding ground by approx. 4 hours. While my ship was being attended to in port, MSK Santana waited outside for 3 days. Definitely not on time customer satisfaction.
Lesson no. 1: It is worth investing in professional crew who identify themselves with their companies - and the customers their companies work for.
Lesson no. 2: Check with your chartered vessels what crew they have, and what quality and performance they bring.
Lesson no. 3: STCW 95 and total globalized crewing messed up the terms corporate identity and corporate values
Lesson no. 4: Not only Maersk - but also the entire shipping world - should treat their core production units much better: The crew on board.
- Filipinos and other nationalities are still working continously for 8 months on board on many ships in the world fleet. Many wish to join earlier after a short vacation - not because of the job, but because the money is not enough to stay longer ashore.
- Many decades ago, officers and ratings were away from home for over a year. And now, we have better conditions: 4 months away from home. You want to do change? 2 months should be max. - Worldwide, irregardless of nationality. Basta.
- More pay. Oh yes! How much is an E-Class vessel in South Korea? 150 Million USD is a good guess. Plus bunkers, spare parts, cargo and empty containers and the risks connected to it and, yes, the crew. We are not far away from 1 billion USD. A Ukrainian Master is paid 8000 USD/month, a German 6300 EUR - all before taxes. To manage this asset in Switzerland, how much would a financial manager get? Mr. Kolding, a revolution requires the truth on the table. Even if it hurts. Make shipping more transparent, make it more socially accepted and acceptable.
Human resources (knowledge) are resources that also deserve to be treated with sustainability. It is interesting that Mr. Kolding did not add this factor in his 3 issues that require change. Adding the human factor would be a true revolution in shipping."