Spotlight On...
An Evolving Aerospace & Defence Sector
SPOTLIGHT ON... Randy Starr, Strategy&
Since the mid-90’s the defense industry has been dominated by legacy prime contractors, many of which emerged from the last spending downturn as consolidated entities. But, recent spending trends suggest that some of this dominance has eroded with the military
customers becoming more reliant on less exquisite, commercially-derived solutions that can be fielded more affordably.
T
he downward trend in the procurement of high-end, exquisite weapon platforms—and the increased timespan between new platform designs —is attributed to increasingly complex technology requirements and unaffordable costs of new systems. For industry, this puts business volumes at risk as some companies face the possibility of entering a spiral of declining volume and rising costs, and the need to restructure their operating models and the attendant economics. But, unlike the 1990’s, solely relying on reducing overhead costs through consolidation may neither be feasible nor sufficient in some sectors.
The downward trend in complex system procurement has led to a gradual decline in industrial capacity as the industry has faced numerous plant closures over the past two decades. The impact of rising program costs and greater technical complexity have also altered the competitive playing field with the emergence of newer, commercially-oriented entrants that have successfully fulfilled mission requirements with less exquisite, more affordable, and highly innovative systems derived from existing product lines, often with internal investment.
Many defense businesses in the 1990’s were actually part of larger commercial conglomerates with capability systems that could be readily exploited in the defense market. Few still exist today. But, this does not mean that large defense contractors should evolve into commercial companies, or venture into adjacent commercial marketsas many defense players attempted unsuccessfully during the last downturn. But, they—and their customers—ought
74
www.finance-monthly.com
to consider investing in the type of commercial industrial capabilities
that are needed to respond
more effectively to procurement trends , and to help establish a more productive and efficient acquisition environment.
In core markets, where the focus is on building, integrating and maintaining sophisticated platforms, OEMs need to control unit costs in the face of declining volume—and understand how programs are effected by cost-volume trade-offs. In other sectors that have adopted commercially-derived solutions, many large OEMs face a different set of challenges: vulnerability to less exquisite providers exploiting global and
commercial scale; quicker product
development cycles, and competition from a diverse and inherently agile industrial base.
As requirements evolve, and defense customers strive to increase the value of procurement spending – some industrial capabilities can realize a more efficient and a more affordable acquisition environment.
the end of their production cycles, is maintaining unit costs as overhead is applied to a lower base. Failing to do so creates the risk of falling behind the curve and making it increasingly difficult to reduce costs as production volume declines and labor rates increase. The third tenant is having a Fit-for-Purpose Design Philosophy that challenges product complexity and understands when and how complexity pays off. This requires working closely with customers to make difficult design trades involving requirements, performance, and lifecycle cost in order to maximize the value of what is spent on new systems. Design- cost trade-off analysis across system requirements, and operator-influenced requirements-shaping can help avoid designing unnecessary complexity into new systems.
Industry would serve itself and its customers more effectively by embracing affordability proactively— not when it has no other choice. Industry can achieve this by reducing cost structures in
anticipation This
begins with approaching affordability as a mindset to doing business. And there are three important tenants that underpin a “culture of affordability”: first, Delivery at Minimal Cost Growth, which requires should-cost capabilities and a more diligent supply base approach to producing the most affordable products possible. As many OEMs have shifted their focus to systems integration and outsourcing, they have overlooked the criticality of maintaining should-cost capabilities within lower tiers of the supply base. With the increasing complexity of sub-systems requirements, this isn‘t surprising. A second important tenant is migrating affordably and profitably to low-rate production by maintaining a Scale-able Low-rate Infrastructure. The challenge for programs facing declining volumes, or approaching
of declining volume, and by creating the ability to exploit advantaged cost positions. And as the customer community strives to increase the value of its procurement spending, it is equally important to recognize the role defense procurement agencies plays in realizing efficient and affordable procurement—by incentivizing the desired behaviours, maintaining the benefits of competition across a diverse industrial base, and developing internal capabilities to support a more productive acquisition environment.
Contact Randy Starr
Partner - Global and US Aerospace and Defense Practice Leader
Email:
Randy.Starr@
strategyand.pwc.com Web:
www.strategyand.pwc.com
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90