Recently, ON Semiconductor made the decision to consolidate the manufacturing of several of their products in to one underutilized facility, known as COM1. The reasoning seemed to be sound: ON was using facilities at other companies such as IBM and Texas Instruments to manufacture most of the high-performance silicon devices in their catalog. Why not migrate the production of these products to the COM1 facility, which is owned by ON Semiconductor and running at only about 25% capacity? .
Stakeholder A sees COM1 as the perfect solution to the problem. She has been concerned with the high overhead of the facility compared to the low production numbers. Also, she likes the idea of taking back control of the production of these critical, high profit-margin products. There have been grumblings of dissent from IBM in particular. They have used the ON Semiconductor product learning curve to iron out some long standing process problems. Now it is rumored that IBM is itching to come out with its own products using the ON Semiconductor process. .
Stakeholder A is creative in her perspective. She tries to use a Gestalt approach, considering what would be best for the company as a whole. Her style of problem solving is unique and refreshing. Here are some of the questions she asks: What are the strategic goals of ON Semiconductor? How do the various production facilities fit in to those goals? Where does the company plan to be in five years? As for the companies that are currently producing products for ON, what are their strategic goals for the next few years? Do their goals mesh with those of ON, or are they in opposition? What are the benefits and potential downside to bringing the products to COM1? While Stakeholder A is concerned with immediate costs, she is more interested in the long term growth of the company. She is relatively young, and she has grown up in Phoenix near the ON Semiconductor headquarters.
