{"id":4356,"date":"2021-02-09T10:30:18","date_gmt":"2021-02-09T15:30:18","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/a2globalelectronics.com\/?p=4356"},"modified":"2021-02-09T10:29:31","modified_gmt":"2021-02-09T15:29:31","slug":"end-of-life-management-the-reactive-vs-proactive-approach","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/a2globalelectronics.com\/ja\/obsolescence-management\/end-of-life-management-the-reactive-vs-proactive-approach\/","title":{"rendered":"End-of-Life Management: The Reactive VS. Proactive Approach"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Electronics manufacturers have typically adopted a reactive approach to component end-of-life management. But it pays to be more proactive. Here are the pros and cons of some obsolescence strategies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

No single approach to end-of-life management<\/a> of components fits every situation. It falls upon each original equipment manufacturer (OEM) to tailor a strategy that ensures the supply of components throughout the product\u2019s natural lifecycle.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The mismanagement of component obsolescence inevitably leads to maintenance and production problems. In a best-case scenario, original component manufacturers (OCMs) plan well ahead and communicate component status with customers, giving them plenty of time to react. But relying on the forecasts of OCMs can, paradoxically, make OEMs prone to dealing with EOL situations in a reactive manner when a more proactive approach is called for.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

End-of-life management: Today\u2019s reality <\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Component shortages have plagued the electronics industry for many quarters, making a reactive stance on component buys much riskier. The past year of pandemic shutdowns have exacerbated the challenges, and the coming year will likely bring the same litany of shortages.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Last month, for example, The New York Times<\/em>, reported<\/a> on the battle between automakers and the makers of consumer electronics, all vying for the same limited supply of semiconductor chips.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cConsumer electronics exploded [during the pandemic],\u201d Dan Hearsch, a managing director at the consulting firm AlixPartners, told the Times. \u201cEverybody and their brother wanted to buy an Xbox and PlayStation and laptops, while automotive shut down. Then automotive came back faster than expected, and that\u2019s where you get into this problem.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This situation is just one of many that has electronics buyers eyeing their obsolescence strategies, well aware of the headache that sudden component shortfalls can cause.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The reality of being reactive  <\/h2>\n\n\n\n

An EOL\/LTB notice typically gives users about 180 days to figure out their ongoing needs and put in last orders. But that\u2019s a best-case scenario \u2014 there\u2019s often much less notice. In its 2018 Product Change Notification <\/a>(PCN) report, Silicon Expert found 28% of product change notices were for part numbers with last-time-buy dates of \u201cimmediately.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Unfortunately, most companies don\u2019t have the tools to see years into the future, making a one-time buy that will last the remainder of the end-product\u2019s lifecycle a hard calculation to make.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And stockpiling components comes with a number of drawbacks<\/a>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n