WINTER 2020

156
THE DISTRIBUTOR’S LINK
LAURENCE CLAUS VALUE ENGINEERING ON NEW PARTS from page 102
I recall an instance a number of years ago where
I received a call out of the blue from a new, potential
customer. He described what he wanted, which
included the parts being made of a material known as
MP35N. MP35N is a nickel super alloy with astonishing
and remarkable performance characteristics. Such
performance, however, comes with a price. This material
is very expensive relative to standard fastener materials
such as steel. I was not familiar with this material at the
time, so I dutifully took notes and agreed to get back to
this gentleman as soon as possible. I learned quickly
the cost of this material and concluded that the part
was not in our best interests to pursue. I communicated
this to this potential customer and recommended some
actions he might want to take. In this instance, I believe
that I did no harm at all to a potential customer supplier
relationship. However, as I have reflected on this
over the years, I could see how overpromising on our
capabilities regarding this part and the ultimate failure
that would have followed such a decision to pursue the
project could have been detrimental to both us and our
customer.
Just as the customer may say no to proposed or
recommended changes on existing parts for a variety
of reasons, it is not unheard of that they would do the
same with a new part. Their reasons for saying no may
be varied but the result is the same. This likely happens
more often as they get closer to production or a design
lock, but is possible at any time.
In a related idea to the previous one, a customer
may be unable to realize any advantages from value
engineering because of unrealistic perceptions or ideas
about what the price should be, faulty information,
past experience that isn’t transferable, or their own
inexperience with their new part or design. I was working
a project with a customer a few years back on localizing
the mechanical component for a battery post connector.
This mechanical connector was combined with a special
electronic to provide the automobile control systems
with the battery status. This is a critical feature for
automobiles equipped with start/stop features since it
would be traumatic to the operator of the car to have it
stop and not be able to restart again.
The customer I was working with was developing the
product internationally and was much further ahead in
its development cycle in Europe. It was new, however, to
the North American marketplace. The mechanical clamp
part was a complicated, compact assembly that included
a copper forging, cold formed fasteners, insert molding,
and a sophisticated assembly process. At the time red
metals such as copper were near their peak all-time
price high, so that the all copper forging had significant
raw material cost content. In fact, the raw material alone
was more than what they had targeted for the entire
assembly. That probably should have conveyed a clear
message at the time to not take this project further, but
I spent many months working on new processes and
quotes. On one or two occasions I proposed cost savings
proposals in the $1.75-2.00 each range, only to be shot
down because they could not deviate from what was
happening in Europe. Needless to say, we never made
any significant headway and I learned that a customer
may say no during the design cycle even if the idea is a
good one.
Case Study
A number of years ago I would have the opportunity
to work with a brake manufacturer on a caliper pin for
their new brake caliper design. We experienced multiple
different challenges along the development cycle. One
of those challenges that also represents a very good
example of how value engineering on new parts came
into play occurred very late in the development cycle.
One of the tests that the brake manufacturer had to
pass to satisfy their OEM customer was a durability test
that simulated a fully loaded vehicle coming down a
prolonged steep grade with the brake being applied on
and off many times. This test was very severe and put an
undue amount of stress on the caliper bracket, resulting
in reverse bending on the two caliper pins and fatigue
failure prior to reaching the minimum number of duty
cycles to pass the test. It was clear to all that the root
cause of the failure was a caliper bracket that was not
stiff enough. However to re-engineer, re-tool, and validate
a new bracket was both time and cost prohibitive.
Therefore, both our customer and the OEM approached
us and implored us to find a way to strengthen the
caliper bolts to pass the test.
CONTINUED ON PAGE 157