Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2009/09/18
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Hi Dennis, We are on the same page indeed. One last point, I promise! The conundrum Leica faces concerning the decision to bring a technology in-house versus sub-contracting is a common strategic one. Bringing an unfamiliar technology in-house immediately makes the firm a potential competitor with the other firms who are practicing and developing that art, instantly shutting off access to, visibility into, and cooperation with them concerning that technology. And going it alone in a new technology requires a major investment in order to build a capability in that technology rapidly and successfully. Buying a sub-contractor seems like a good idea to some but that has significant downsides too. Those are major reasons to partner or sub-contract with a supplier, on an intelligent-buyer basis and with adequate controls, such as aircraft makers do with engines. I realize that Leica has in-house capability in specialty optical glasses, making some for their own use and buying some, and I don't know if they compete with their glass on the open market but I doubt it. They probably do the same thing successfully with complex, tight- tolerance machine parts too, making some and buying some. All that is well and good (blah, blah, blah...) but it brings me to the meta-problem: how can Leica enlist the services of the best and the brightest, the most skilled and experienced, in the technologies in which it need expertise to meet its current and future needs? Dr. K et al have their hands full. Sensors and electronics? I don't know... very tough decision. All the best, Bill On Sep 18, 2009, at 1:35 AM, Dennis wrote: > I hear you on all your points. Once a bill of materials is released > for production nothing can be changed without going all the way back > to engineering. > > Anyway, I think we are all on the same page here