Tesla · Global Supply Manager Intern · 2024
Breaking tooling quotes down to the component level
Supplier quotes for customized assembly equipment arrived at the station level, where nothing was comparable. I decomposed existing TLA lines to their lower-level components so similar equipment could be benchmarked across suppliers.
Should-costing · Supplier benchmarking · Advanced Excel
- Scope
- 42 TLA lines reviewed across existing assembly operations
- Benchmark
- 8–10 suppliers included in the cost and sourcing analysis
- Outcome
- $150K procurement savings
-
TLA line
customized per project — 42 reviewed
-
5–15 stations per line
Station
conveyors, AOI inspection, vision, robotics, dispensing, test
-
4–8 major systems per station
Equipment system
quoted as a single unit by most suppliers
-
decomposed to component level where practical
Tier 3 / Tier 4 components
where similar equipment shares enough common inputs to compare
-
standardized across similar equipment types
Cross-supplier cost benchmark
component, machining, material and labour costs compared side by side
Challenge
TLA lines were customized by project, but supplier quotations generally arrived at the complete station or equipment level.
That made direct comparison almost impossible. Two suppliers could quote materially different prices for equipment built from many of the same underlying components, and nothing in the quote showed where the difference came from.
What I did
- Reviewed all 42 existing TLA lines, breaking each down by station and documenting the major equipment used at every stage.
- Decomposed major equipment into lower-level components, working down to Tier 3 and Tier 4 where practical.
- Standardized comparable components across similar equipment types, despite differences in how individual lines and stations were configured.
- Worked with contract manufacturers and Tier 1 and Tier 2 suppliers to obtain more granular pricing, below the station-level quotation they normally provide.
- Benchmarked component, machining, material and labour costs across 8–10 suppliers, which surfaced significant differences in standard-component pricing and unusually high machining charges in some quotations.
Decision
Customized tooling could not be compared reliably as a complete unit. I moved the benchmark down to the component level, where similar equipment shared enough common inputs to support a real comparison.
Outcome
The component-level benchmark gave the sourcing team evidence to challenge quotations line by line and to compare alternative sourcing options on the same basis. The work contributed to $150K in procurement savings.
I also produced a supplier information and due-diligence deck identifying additional suppliers, for senior GSMs to take through their formal vetting and site-visit process.