STRENUOUS OBJECTION
Dear RER:
The November issue of RER featured an article “Wrestling for Balance” in which it is implied that Komatsu has submitted to pressure from national accounts to sell new equipment through rental outlets. Contextually, it states on the third column on page 55, that Komatsu or “a number of manufacturers report…” this.
Please be aware that Komatsu corporate headquarters was not interviewed or asked for a statement. The source of the inaccurate information came from a random sample that does not represent Komatsu. In their words, how would a rental counter clerk or sales representative know the intentions of Komatsu's distribution strategy?
Komatsu strenuously objects to the implications that the Komatsu distributor channel will be by-passed in favor of dealing directly with national account type purchasers on rental outlets. Komatsu depends on the trust and partnership of its distributors, and will stay governed by sound business practices to continue to achieve their goal together with their distributors.
Rod Schrader
President, Komatsu Utility
Vernon Hills, Ill.
Editor's note: RER acknowledges and regrets the error.
NOT NECESSARILY SO E-FFICIENT
Dear RER:
I have some added thoughts to your November cover story “Creating E-fficiencies.” As the “largest listing support center” for the aerial lift industry, we maintain 27 Web sites. Our company has given serious thought to providing “e-commerce” service to our customers. However, we have realized that unless you maintain a serious “knowledge level,” both on the consumer side as well as the OEM level, all you do is generate a huge intellectual void. While dissecting your article from the standpoint of supporting the aerial lift industry, my thoughts expanded to include industrial and construction forklifts, cranes and other consumer-related products. I was pleased to see that your article reflected the thought that “e-commerce” will not solve all the support problems, nor automatically make meeting customer service needs easier.
The section on “where's my order” brings up a most intriguing question. Why is it that I can inquire “on-line” about my order's status, and while being informed by an OEM that my order was placed on “back order,” it magically appears at my location the same day? Understandably, this is a new technology and flaws exist. However, if OEMs wish to tout e-commerce as their new way of cutting costs and inspiring new thinking, shouldn't inventory control issues be of concern? Although Web-based ordering does have its value, unless drastic changes are made, the Web will become nothing more than a research tool.
You state that, “many rental companies welcome the opportunity to order items electronically” and you quote a rental executive that “it's easy to figure out what we want to order or to resurrect past orders.” This is true if you are ordering for products manufactured today. If you manufacture a product that has 10 parts, it's very easy to list 10 items on an “on-line” order form. Many manufacturers now offer extended warranties on new products, some up to five years. Replacement parts are offered free or at a limited, predetermined cost to the dealers. Reviewing trade-in data, most new products seem to be returned to the factories or traded in within those five years. Therefore, the dealer/distributor incurs no cost to maintain the equipment as both labor and parts are covered by total warranty packages. On the other hand, when repairs are necessary on older equipment, there seems to be a total breakdown in communications.
Referring to the section “parts of the whole” you state that “rental companies often seek out other ‘after market’ sources rather than the original OEM. They don't only use alternate sources because of price — they are often motivated by convenience factors.” What do you mean by the term “convenience factors?” Is it the fact that 2/3 of the lift industry manufacturers no longer exist, creating a situation where repair information and product knowledge is lacking or is it the fact that there is no knowledge base left to support the lift industry in general?
You state that, “rental companies … face great time pressures when repairing machines that are being utilized on job sites.” I could not agree more. However, I can relate many “horror stories” of rental companies ordering needed parts from us after dealing with OEM's and receiving incorrect parts from them!
The key factor is a lack of product knowledge. In this day of factory buyouts and company closures, it appears that a tremendous amount of key information is being forever lost. While product information may remain on paper in archives somewhere, it must at some point be compiled and made available to the general public by trained, qualified individuals with an industry background. For whatever reason, these trained, qualified individuals are being terminated in droves.
You state: “recognizing that they have lost a lot of parts business, providing current parts catalogs on-line has been a major e-commerce priority for many manufacturers.” While I find “e-commerce” to be an intriguing concept, unless both consumer as well as the OEM maintain a serious knowledge level, all that will happen is the creation of a huge number of Return Goods Authorizations (RGA), thereby subsidizing freight companies. As with the Bible, War and Peace, and other respected publications, unless you understand their contents and put these concepts to practical use, they serve no value. In short, unless the consumer understands the knowledge, coupled with and not limited to the OEM preserving the knowledge, “e-commerce” will have no value.
Last, we have “e-training.” This may create a whole new set of problems! What credentials should trainers maintain for providing “e-training”? Who will police this area so that charlatans, expressing knowledge and having none, do not taint this new area of support? I have asked, both by phone and by e-mail, various training centers for the credentials of their instructors only to be ignored. If a company is asked to pay $500 per person to attend and receive training on products, don't they have the right to ask for the instructor's credentials? In order for the instructor to field questions either by e-mail or in person, he or she must possess knowledge of the products discussed. Basic generalities such as “don't drive in a hole” and “don't touch electrical wiring” are fine for basic training but how does this relate to unit specific operations? There must be “hands-on,” product specific knowledge coupled with basic common sense training.
Niche markets abound in the “e-commerce” industry. However, it will be up to the consumer to be the final judge and jury as to the “value of the product provided.” The jury is still out.
Craig A. Ihde
President/CEO Aerial Specialists-USA
Racine, Wis.
Send a letter to the editor or Guest Forum article to:
Michael Roth
23805 Stuart Ranch Road, Suite 235
Malibu, CA 90265
e-mail:
[email protected]
