Executive Interview with Jerry McCabe, Vice President, Communications & Marketing Services, Affinia - aftermarketNews

Executive Interview with Jerry McCabe, Vice President, Communications & Marketing Services, Affinia

Every other week, aftermarketNews.com offers an interview with high-profile individuals in the automotive aftermarket. We give executives free rein to express their views on anything from the state of their corporations to recent legislative news to future trends in their niche markets. Here you see what matters to the newsmakers themselves. Our latest Executive Interview features Jerry McCabe, vice president, communications & marketing services, Affinia. McCabe shares his thoughts of the use of technology and standards in the industry.

ANN ARBOR, MI — Every other week, aftermarketNews.com offers an interview with high-profile individuals in the automotive aftermarket. We give executives free rein to express their views on anything from the state of their corporations to recent legislative news to future trends in their niche markets. Here you see what matters to the newsmakers themselves.
Our latest Executive Interview features Jerry McCabe, vice president, communications & marketing services, Affinia. McCabe shares his thoughts of the use of technology and standards in the industry.

In years past, the industry’s hesitance to embrace technology has been a serious issue. Your own boss, in fact, John Washbish, was a self-admitted ‘technophobe.’ In your opinion has this issue gotten better or worse?

If you are asking me if my boss has gotten better or worse, I’m proud to report that John R. Washbish is no longer a technophobe; but he still suffers with cibophobia. At the risk of being overly optimistic, it appears that our industry’s reticence toward technology is diminishing. But like so many other things in life, there is a lot of distance between getting past the fear of something and moving all the way to embracing it. We should all be pleased with the amount of dialogue that is taking place relevant to data standards, system-to-system connectivity and the implementation of shared solutions. We should be equally displeased with the level of adoption; three years ago, there was barely a conversation about this stuff. Today it’s getting lip service. Perhaps soon we will see broader adoption.

One of your battle cries has been “It’s all about the data.” Industry-wide, how bad is the data management situation? Are aftermarket companies today starting to take this more seriously? Are they accepting a more active role in data management?

Yeah, my wife claims that she’s already purchased my tombstone and had it fully engraved, including those words. She says she did leave the year off…she wants to make sure the data on the stone is accurate. But the fact is that clean, robust, standardized and synchronized data is the starting point for any company that wants to use technology to reduce its cost and improve its efficiency. I think back on our experiences when we were struggling to understand how to apply this new technology. We implemented more than one new application that failed solely because of bad or insufficient data. It was truly an epiphany for me the day I realized just how simple it is…it really is all about the data. Unless you make cleaning up and normalizing your data a top priority, there is no point in chasing automation solutions. If we can get everyone in the industry to understand that and act on it, my wife can add the words “He died happy” on my stone.
I certainly think that many aftermarket companies have awakened to the need for standards and data normalization. A lot of progress is being made. Very recently, I think there has been significant acceptance of the ACES standard for catalog data. When the acceptance turns to adoption, we’ll be poised for substantial gains as an industry.

What role has PIES played in this struggle? At last year’s Aftermarket eForum, AAIA’s Scott Luckett provided some startling statistics on how much data errors are costing this industry. What kind of progress can be seen with the help of PIES?

ACES application data is the address book for product attribute data…, which we call, PIES, an acronym coined a few years back by my good friend Ed Heon of Comergent. I think our collective problem with PIES stems from the fact that our industry is application driven. For the majority of what we sell, it is absolutely necessary to correctly match specific parts with vehicles of a specific make, model, year and configuration. If you’re selling a refrigerator, the only thing you have to match it with is a consumer who wants it. In fact, in most other industrial business segments, application data doesn’t matter, product attribute data matters. Take the electrical industry as an example. A counterman at an electrical wholesaler trying to fill an order for a light bulb doesn’t need to ask his customer what brand or model of light fixture it’s for. The data he needs is more likely to be some attribute of the product itself…wattage, type of light, size of the base, etc.
Product attribute data is equally as important in the aftermarket, but application data is indispensable! Without it, our business would be a study in chaos, most likely driven by visual comparisons, trial and error, and an 80-90 percent return rate. But if app data were the only information available to the counterman, his whole sales pitch would be, “It will fit.” If he has access to product attribute data, he can provide much more information to actually steer a sale. So someone walks into a store looking for a set of brake pads. If all the counterperson has available is application data, all they can tell the customer is that they have two sets that will fit, and one costs twice as much as the other. Add product attribute data to that mix and he can say that the premium pad, at twice the price, will last twice as long, eliminate noise and dust, and comes complete with shims and a toll free number for technical help. We believe that much of the overall migration of sales from premium lines to “fit for use” lines can be attributed to this very issue.
But PIES product attribute data is no more important at the point of sale than it is to trading partners upstream in the supply channel. The study you spoke of that Scott Luckett presented at the eForum a couple of years back underscored the shameful waste in this aftermarket that results from corrupt and unsynchronized data between trading partners.
PIES is a great opportunity that way too many aftermarket practitioners are missing out on. I cannot imagine any sound, logical argument against its universal adoption, with the possible exception of, “But I’d have to buy a computer!”

Clearly, counterpeople can’t sell what they can’t identify and/or can’t find. With the multi-format playing field that exists today, the industry continues to have problems in getting catalog data synchronized. From what we understand, less than 25 percent of all catalog data is in the ACES format. Why is this such a small number? What’s keeping aftermarket companies from adopting and using ACES to format their catalog information?

There are several issues tied up in your series of questions, let me try to address them separately.
On your observation of the low level of adoption of ACES data, you might be painting a picture that is bleaker than reality. If you look a little deeper you see that many of the proprietary catalog data formats of the past are beginning to melt away. A multitude of companies are sending their data to the major eCats in the AAIA legacy standard, and are in the process of moving toward ACES. I think the acceptance of the ACES standard by major third party eCat providers will foreshadow the industry’s transition to full compliance within a relatively short period of time. And an AAIA survey conducted earlier this year indicated that 50 percent of the industry plans to begin adopting ACES this year.
The momentum we’re seeing is being aided by commercial software providers that have embraced both the ACES and PIES standards. It’s my understanding that a growing number of entrenched vendors are offering software built round the ACES and/or the PIES standards. Additionally, there are a couple of portal services that are adopting PARTnerShip Network as their communication utility of choice. I think these developments validate our standards and endorse their adoption.

Another project that you have been vocal about is the PARTnerShip Network. Can you give us a simple ‘laymen’s’ explanation of what this is and how many businesses and/or trading partners are involved?

If you’re looking for simple, you’ve found the wellhead. I don’t think of the term “simple” as describing a level of complexity, but as a lifestyle. So, speaking simply, the PARTnerShip Network is a means for aftermarket trading partners to securely exchange any type of information they choose, across the Internet, at incredibly low cost, and to do so on a completely secure basis. If you’re the kind of person who takes things on faith, that’s all you need to know, but let me expand the explanation just a little for the faithless.
When you hear the PARTnerShip Network referred to as “a way to exchange information over the Internet,” that pretty well describes what it is…simply a communications link. It is a network in the sense that a “subscriber” can only send a data package to another subscriber. Once two trading partners have installed the PARTnerShip Network software on their systems, they are equipped to send any kind of electronic document to one another, or to any other company whom also has the PARTnerShip Network installed on their system.
Let’s say a distributor wants to send a document to one of his vendors, and they both are subscribers. The document could be anything: a PO (in any format from a standard EDI document to an Excel spreadsheet) a request for a co-op claim, a real-time stock check query, or even a Word document.
The PARTnerShip Network software literally “wraps” whatever document is being sent in a secure XML “envelope” that allows only the party for whom it is intended to receive and open it. Once “wrapped,” the secured document travels across the Internet to the designated trading partner. When it is received, the PARTnerShip Network software confirms that it was indeed sent by the designated partner by sending back a confirmation request. When validated, the recipient’s PARTnerShip Network software “unwraps” the document and drops it on the recipient’s system. Elegantly simple.
Put another way, once installed it allows trading partners to have real-time, secure communications between their computer systems at no charge except for an annual maintenance fee of about $4,000 or so. That is a huge advantage in time and money vs. the fee-based infrastructure we have today. Its speed opens up all sorts of possibilities; like real-time stock checks or rush orders. The fact there are no transaction or per- character charges, regardless of the amount of data exchanged, along with the high level of security, makes it simply the best way to communicate.
Anyone…big, little or virtual…who is spending over $5,000 a year with a VAN or dedicated lines or whatever, absolutely must get the facts on PARTnerShip Network.

We’ve also heard you talk about the importance of broadband for the future of the industry, technologically speaking. According to Babcox Research, we know that more than 83 percent of all shops and parts stores today have Internet access. However, of those that have Internet access, some 56 percent still rely on a dial-up connection. It’s a big jump to broadband. How do we convince those people working at the ‘street level’ – the parts stores and repair shops that are slow to adopt technology it is – to embrace broadband?

I’m glad you mentioned this, because it is an issue that hasn’t gotten much play and it really needs to be on the industry’s radar screen.
The detail and richness of the information technicians require to service today’s vehicle is growing. Access to hi-res images and multi-meg product materials will become essential in the years ahead. Internet delivery of this sort of information is not just the sensible way to do it on a timely basis…it is the only way! Let me tell you why I believe this.
Many aftermarket companies, like ours, run field-training operations. Let’s look at a “best case” scenario for this activity. Let’s say you can afford to run five training units (a tech rep and a van) 50 weeks a year. Assuming each unit can conduct five training seminars per week (yeah, right), each at a different shop. Five units, times five seminars, times 50 weeks…heck, we could hit 1,250 shops in a year! Okay, let’s say there are three brake suppliers that can afford such an effort…we could hit 3,750 shops in a year. Now, let’s see…the best information we have tells us there are between 120,000 and 150,000 independent repair shops doing brake work in North America. In only 40 years we can put them all through a single seminar! Wonder what the technology will be then?
If someone has a better plan than interactive broadband distribution for training, I hope they present it soon. Otherwise, let’s get going on putting a broadband connection in every licensed independent shop in North America. Our stiffest competition, the OE dealers, are hooked up. Many of the chains are hooked up. Our independents will soon be seriously disadvantaged if we don’t do something. Of course, there is still an issue with availability in many areas. I was talking with a distributor who sees the value of broadband availability in its own stores, but literally can’t get it at nearly 40 percent of their locations. Well, it’s time to look at the satellite services that are becoming more affordable and more dependable. As an industry, we need to be looking for ways to make affordable high-speed Internet connectivity available to all techs, because that is tantamount to making our increasingly important information available.

Where is the industry in terms of upper management buy-in when it comes to embracing ACES, PIES and/or the concept of standardized information technology tools?

It’s hard to say specifically. But you have identified the key issue, the involvement of top management. From my own experiences at Dana and now Affinia, and from observing other companies, it is apparent that no enterprise will make any significant progress without appropriate leadership. At Affinia, I am blessed with a boss and an executive committee that fully supports all of the industry standards. That has worked its way down to the core of our organization.
I’m not sure exactly where the aftermarket stands in terms of upper management buy-in on the standards, but given the less than stellar adoption level, it can’t be as pervasive as it should be. Maybe more bonuses should be based on standards adoption.

In general, should communication technology such as PARTnerShip Network or even Enhanced Line Review data be seen as a way to differentiate and seek a competitive advantage? Or, should this information exchange be seen as a standard that all entities must adopt to drive industry efficiency, thus forcing market competitors to differentiate in other ways, other areas?

Your question cuts to the very core of a dilemma many of us face nearly every day. How do you balance your support of industry based standards and initiatives with responsibilities to your company of maintaining a competitive edge? It helps me to think of the standards as electricity. Appliances must have electricity to operate, in the same way that software applications must have data to operate. Imagine what a mess we would have if every appliance manufacturer built their gear to use a proprietary variety of electricity, with voltage ratings and cycles all over the board. In that metaphor, we should all feel an obligation to support standardization of the fuel…electricity. When the fuel situation is stabilized, we then can create and maintain competitive advantages with the appliances we build or buy. It may not be a great answer to your question, but it helps me keep things sorted.

Is there anything else the AAIA Technology and Standards Committee is working on that you would like to talk about?

While it is not something that is specifically being spearheaded by the AAIA Standards and Solutions Committee, I think the Aftermarket Data Trust (ADT) is something everyone should be talking about.
The ADT is an industry-wide initiative being spearheaded by individuals, not technology providers or trade associations or manufacturers or distributors. Their mission is to create a method for expediting syndication of standardized application and product attribute data for all participating North American aftermarket practitioners. They have earned the endorsements of SEMA, AAIA and MEMA and are in the process of doing an initial project scope study.
It takes many months and a lot of dollars to accomplish what our OEM competitors can do in weeks or days – get the data from the supplier to the point of sale. The Aftermarket Data Trust initiative is undertaken with the modest goal of reducing cost and increasing the efficiency of data distribution in the industry. If we can realize near real-time data distribution and offer industry-wide visibility to product data from all segments of the aftermarket, I think our customers will sell more products and grow. It is a project that I believe is essential, and Affinia will support it fully.

_______________________________________

Click here to view the rest of today’s headlines.

You May Also Like

Meckseper: Software-Defined Vehicles are the Future

Continental’s Rosa Meckseper, head of smart mobility for North America, explains the future of software-defined vehicles.

Rosa Mecksepper

As vehicles add more sensors, electronics and connected systems, the car parc is moving to more complicated, software-defined vehicles. One company at the forefront of technology in these vehicles of today--and the future--is Continental, which has at least one part on four our of five vehicles on the road today globally.

MEMA’s Brucato: ‘Have a Vision for Mobility, Not Hard Parts’

MEMA Aftermarket Suppliers’ Ben Brucato shares how the industry— through the Top Suppliers List— has evolved.

Ben Brucato MEMA Aftermarket Suppliers
AMN Executive Interview: Aubry Baugh, Lumileds

Baugh shares with us how Lumileds is innovating to serve its customers’ needs.

Aubry Baugh Lumileds North America
MAHLE CEO: Thermal Management to Be Big Aftermarket Business

CEO Arnd Franz shares how thermal management will be a boon for the aftermarket.

Arnd Franz MAHLE CEO
Q&A With Transtar President and CEO Neil Sethi 

Neil Sethi, president & CEO of Transtar Holding Co., talks with AMN about becoming a member of The Pronto Network and more.

Other Posts

Q&A with Josh Gordon, Spectra Premium’s President & CEO

Gordon brings us up-to-speed on the company’s transformation.

AMN Q&A With Continental’s Dan Caciolo

Caciolo is head of NA IAM Product Management & Catalog, Smart Mobility (SMY), North America Automotive, Continental.

Q&A with Lumileds’ Chris McPhedran

Chris McPhedran is the director of sales North America, Aftermarket, at Lumileds.

Q&A with Autel’s Michael Flink

Flink is director of Sales and Training, Diagnostics, Battery Testing, Immobilizer Tools for Autel North America.