To Manufacture in China or in the United States? Get Beyond Cost to Strategic Sourcing and Manufacturing of Products

By GSS on August 28, 2009 | Category: Product Sourcing and Strategy | Comments Off

When to source manufacturing offshore in a country like China, India, or Mexico?  When to keep manufacturing at home in the U.S.?  Don't start with cost:  start with strategy.

Lowering costs has been the most common and highly publicized impetus for companies to source and establish manufacturing operations offshore in a low-cost country like China.  But there are myriad reasons why a company might expand operations to an offshore country, or on the flipside, choose to maintain manufacturing at home.  Many of them have nothing to do with cost, but can be far more significant to a company's health than the cost of goods.

For many consumer product industries, seeking the cost-savings is a given.  To be competitive on the retail shelf, offshore manufacturing operations in low cost country sources is necessary.  But the strategic planning for sourcing and manufacturing often does not go beyond this perspective of thinking, a practice which often lands companies in trouble by sacrificing the most valuable aspects of their organization, or results in them missing a chance to maximize the value of their supply chain.  

First, consider a company's competitive advantage.  What aspects of the company are most important to the company's competitive position in the market?  Innovation and launch of new products?  Delivery of a consistent, high-quality customer experience with the company's products and services?  Lowest prices on the market?  There are many ways a company can differentiate itself and flourish in the market.  The question is–how will sourcing an offshore supplier in a country like China detract from or augment this competitive niche? 

Business case studies have shown that companies which have sought offshore suppliers to lower costs, at the expense of other important aspects of their company (such expenses were not clearly understood at the time), have ended up losing market share and value.  For example, companies which are leaders in innovation and technology often become so because they have nurtured a culture of strong, horizontal communication within.  Ideas, knowledge, and relationships are built across functional boudaries (meaning engineers eat lunch with marketing folk) which all contribute to the cross pollination of ideas  and the development of new, innovative products.  However, when a VP of operations decides to begin contracting out manufacturing an ocean away, without paying specific attention to developing the proper communication channels, the core strength of the company is sacrificed over time in the pursuit of short-term cost reductions.

A way in which the above technology company may have gone about this in a better way?  Keeping manufacturing operations at home may or may not have been the answer.  But they clearly could have prepared for their move offshore more effectively.  They could have sourced lower cost manufacturing suppliers and developed close partnerships to foster open dialogue.  Perhaps the company makes sure its design team goes over to visit their suppliers several times per year to visit manufacturing facilities, and vice versa.  A company seeking to optimize its supply chain in this fashion, by attaining a lower cost of goods, IN ADDITION to investing the resources to support its competitive advantages with outsourced service providers, can truly maximize value.  Apple computer could be considered a company that has done this very effectively.  Apple knows where to spend and where to save.  For more insight into how Apple does this on a product basis, check out Manufacturing the Ipod Shuffle: How Apple Produces Great Products at Great Prices.

As Dan Harris of ChinaLawBlog points out in his post Manufacturing in China.  Because There Are 1.3 Billion People There, gaining access to China's consumer market is now becoming a significant reason cited by companies for expansion of operations in China.  Following customers to support them in foreign countries might be another reason.  The fact is, there are numerous ways to drive value beyond lower cost goods.

Why keep manufacturing at home?  Some companies may find it more valuable in the long term to keep manufacturing operations at home, despite the opportunities for cost reduction elsewhere.  These companies know that paying more in the short-term to maintain whatever edge their domestic operations gives them, offers greater rewards in the long-term.  An example of this may be a fashion oriented company that creates new product lines several times annually, and has difficulty accurately forecasting which items will sell.  Thus, they may find that the cost of holding inventory for long periods of time and not being able to respond quickly to market trends is more expensive over the long haul than manufacturing their products domestically and gaining very short lead times.  An analysis of the supply chain at the product level may motivate a company like this to choose a hybrid model in which some of its products are manufactured abroad and some at home.  A fashion company like Zara, which can go from product concept to market in 18 days, is a great example of this.  It starts with strategy.

The bottomline is that companies, particularly smaller companies, that are now sourcing contract manufacturers in places like China, India, Vietnam, and elsewhere because of cost pressures, should consider how else manufacturing in these areas will impact their business.  They have the opportunity to advance to a higher level of strategic planning.  In a country like China, they may gain greater access to materials suppliers, they may be able to take advantage of low cost engineering and design talent, they may find an opportunity to sell into China as well.  If their competitive advantage rests upon delivering high quality product, or innovating products on the cutting-edge, they would do well to ensure that they source suppliers that can support these functions and invest the necessary level of resources to optimize them.  Some may find that not outsourcing, and staying at home, serves their purposes better in the long run.  Companies may find that smaller minimum quantities and faster turnaround are the key drivers in their business.  The point is to assess the strategic sourcing circumstances, make an educated decision, and execute it accordingly.

Global Economy on the Rebound? Yet History Predicts a Flattening Out of Economic Growth – And This is OK.

By GSS on August 19, 2009 | Category: International Trade and Political Economy | Comments Off

Reason for Optimism: Panjiva's trade data reports a 7% increase in July 2009 over June 2009 in the number of global manufacturers shipping to the United States. 

July-trade-data-reason-for-optimism-panjiva

However, before we hail the end of the decline, it should be noted that in July 2008, we experienced a similar uptick of 6% in global trade to the United States.  Thus–a suspicion of a seasonal impact is warranted. 

To compliment this in larger global economic terms, Paul Kedrosky's Infectious Greed has posted a familiar graph of the Four Bear Markets, in which the economic declines and recoveries of the major market fallouts of the last 100 yeras are depicted.  Kedrosky notes that the typical pattern after the "We're back!" bounce is a relative flattening out (except for the Great Depression) of economic growth. 

Road-to-recovery-large

I tend to think this is not bad news.  We may not be rocketing back to the bull market of 2006, but flat means steady and stable.  Steady and stable means a return of investor and consumer confidence that conditions will be safe again, or at least more predictable, to…invest and consume.   Manufacturers can begin to create operating plans and hire on workers with relative confidence that they won't have to slash slash slash again in the immediate future.  They may even invest in new manufacturing equipment at good prices.  Investors can begin putting money into further product innovation and growth.  Retailers can begin taking chances on new product lines as excess inventory is finally depleted or liquidated.  Consumers can begin to spend their dollars on some of the latest innovations that will undoubtedly come out of this economic shake-up. 

Selling to Mass Market through Big Box Retailers and Department Stores

By GSS on August 14, 2009 | Category: Product Marketing | Comments Off

Kathleen at the Fashion-Incubator blog has written a great post on selling to retail chains and department stores for new product developers, and created a list of issues and tasks that will be involved in selling to these companies. 

What might you need to know about before considering the mass market channel?

  1. Vendor compliance standards
  2. EDI -electronic data interchange
  3. Getting paid -Factoring needed.
  4. Discounts and returns
  5. Penalties for non-compliance (chargebacks)

Check out the fashion incubator blog for a discussion of each of these.  Whether your product is in the fashion apparel category or not, your company will address all of them at some point in the process (although factoring may not be relevant to other categories, financing may be). 

These issues also remind me of some topics I covered with Barbara Carey, a friend and mentor of mine who has turned her own successful method of developing and marketing products in the mass channel into a formula for others to follow.  Check out the 3 parts of the interview: Interview With Barbara Carey, Part III: Working with Buyers, Team Members, and Other Third Parties, Interview With Barbara Carey, Part II: Pricing Your Product, Interview With Barbara Carey: A Woman With Something To Teach You About Successful Products and Business

7 (not 5 or 6) keys to Quality When Working with Chinese Manufacturers: Sourcing

By GSS on August 12, 2009 | Category: Product Sourcing and Strategy | 2 Comments

Easy Bake

Is this your factory?

An article by Andrew Reich from ChinaSuccessStories (h/t Dan Harris of Chinalawblog) highlights five straightforward but oft missed steps in assuring the quality of product from your China manufacturer.  Dan Harris, added a sixth point, and Global Sourcing Specialists is chiming in to add a seventh key to quality when when working with chinese factories: Source a quality manufacturer

First, it should be noted that these steps need to be taken together.  Accomplishing one or a few of them will not suffice to assure your product quality, and will likely only delude you into a false a security about what is coming off the production line and potentially making its way into the hands of your customers. 

ChinaSuccessStories's first five points:

  1. Detailed documents: The number one key to quality when working with factories in China
    is documentation. Having bi-lingual, detailed, factory agreed upon
    checklists in place that document an item’s specifications and the
    criteria for inspecting the product before shipment, is essential to
    controlling product quality. One can not say for sure, but I would be
    willing to bet that the factories responsible for products recently
    recalled for lead paint did not have bi-lingual documentation on hand
    from their customer stating the type of paints that could and could not
    be used. Sure, this type of documentation takes time and hard work to
    create, but putting such processes in place is the first and most
    important step in avoiding quality issues. QC Checklists should describe in detail:

    a)     Item Packaging

    b)    Item Defect Classification (what is considered an defect and at what 
            severity)

    c)    Item Size and Other Specifications

    d)    Item Functionality and How it is Checked

  2. Factory Presence:  Having a presence at the factory ensures that both factory staff and
    management really know who you are. Either through a 3rd party QC
    company or your own staff, ensure that you are being represented at the
    factory in person on a regular basis, and that the factory clearly
    connects your presence there with your production. Success in China is
    all about relationship (Guanxi), and dealing with quality is no
    different. Work towards a state where the factory has a personal
    commitment to you and your products.
  3. Inspection:  Perform regular product inspections (either with your staff or a via
    3rd party), not only on the final product shipment, but also during
    production (otherwise knows as DUPRO). Ensure these inspections are
    consistent and based on clear inspection criteria. Always review the
    inspection results with factory management and their own QC team.
  4. Keep Approved Samples:  Some say that a picture is worth a thousand words. I say that a sample
    is worth a thousand headaches! Items often get revised and modified
    several times in the sourcing process, and then again after production
    begins. Keeping an approved sample in your office, and also one in the
    factory that can be used to verify the production product by the QC
    team, is essential in seeing eye to eye with your Chinese suppliers.
  5. Take Responsibility:  Nothing will alienate your Chinese suppliers more than a mistake on
    your side for which you take no responsibility, and blame their
    misunderstanding. I’ve seen hard-headed buyers make this mistake more
    than once, to the demise of their hard earned factory relationships.
    So, make sure you have all the facts before you start to blame.
    Recognize when it’s possible that a mistake or production issue may
    have been caused by your own fault, or your own team’s
    mis-communication. Take responsibility when this happens, even if it
    means a financial loss. If you are working with the factory on a long
    term basis, the credibility you will gain will outweigh what you have
    given up.

    The message here is don’t take anything for granted. You and your
    suppliers most likely come from two vastly different cultures, have
    different values, and see quality differently. By making sure quality
    standards and procedures are in place and clear to all parties you will
    definitely avoid costly production issues.

Dan Harris' 6th Point: Legal Contracts

I agree with all of this, but I also vehemently believe that a well
crafted contract is also key. My own experience and that of
manufacturers with whom I speak tell me that a good contract can itself
help to maintain quality. How? Simple. Chinese companies, like
companies everywhere, do not relish being sued. A good contract means
incorporates the key quality requirements and also sets up the Chinese
company for liability for failing to meet those requirements.

Our 7th Point:  Sourcing of Quality China Manufacturers

Really, this point might be placed first, only because the sourcing process takes place before any of these other steps are taken, AND, if you work with the wrong China factory, or any factory for that matter, these other steps may be very difficult to accomplish and/or ineffective.  It's similar to following all of the cooking instructions with great meticulousness to bake a world-class cake, and then baking your cake in the Easy Bake Oven.

Thus, to ensure supplier sourcing sets the other 6 steps up for success, one would do well to locate several potential sources, receive manufacturing and cost feedback from each of them, and select one or two that seem best able to support the project's and company's needs based on qualifications, engineering and QC support, product lines, and customer service.  Assessing a supplier for these qualities will likely, and should, involve auditing the factory production line, as well as meeting with management and key personnel.  Do this–and the rest will be much easier.

DripTech: Solving Some of the World’s Water Challenges Through Product Development for Extreme Affordability

By GSS on July 21, 2009 | Category: Product Development | Comments Off

Waterdrip Watering plants may be as easy as filling a glass or turning on a hose for Americans, but for 600 million small farmers in developing countries, it's not so easy.  If they can't simply turn on a faucet or a spigot to get water to their crops, how could it be done in a way that they can realistically use?  And, who is going to develop a product that might change the way they irrigate their plants?

The San Francisco Chronicle has covered the story of DripTech, a company that is developing an affordable drip irrigation system for farmers in developing countries.  According to the International Water Management Institute, 600 million small farmers lack irrigation water and are therefore mired in poverty.  

Conceived in the Stanford graduate class, Entrepreneurial Design for Extreme Affordability, Driptech founder, Peter Frykman, began tinkering with off-the-shelf water timers and tube components from stores like Home Depot, to see if he could develop a system that solved irrigation challenges for farmers who were not able to grow crops during long dry seasons.  Of course, given the target market, cost was a major constraint to work within.  Not only did Peter need to solve the challenge of creating a system that would achieve crop irrigation in a simple fashion, but he needed to develop a product that could be manufactured easily and sold cheaply, to spur widespread adoption. International Development Enterprises had already developed a system over the last ten years that provided an irrigation system for poor, developing country farmers, and had successfully sold their system to 85,000 farmers in India.  However, an added layer of complexity in IDE's system has hindered them from reaching a wider consumer base.  

DripTech's technological breakthroughs have resulted in a reduction of total parts and installation time by over 80%.  Given their improvements, they are now setting their sights on the 100 million poor, rural farmers in India, as well as other possible customers in other countries and contienents.  DripTech's product development success is also helping them to gain media attention and investors are beginning to take notice.  The company has been featured in BusinessWeek, Forbes, and Red Herring, and they have advanced to the finals of the Draper Fisher Jurveston & Cisco Global Business Plan Competition.  

DripTech is a great example of how working within extreme constraints to develop products can result in simple, elegant solutions, that could help to solve major, world challenges.

Want to see how others are creatively solving water challenges?  Check out PlayPumps International to see adevice that combines play on a merry-go-round and water pumps.  Also, Charity: Water is another interesting organization that uses it's PR and marketing prowess to connect companies and people in developed countries with communities in Africa that need water solutions.

Innovating Innovation: Old Metrics Failing to Capture New Curves?

By GSS on June 5, 2009 | Category: Product Innovation | Comments Off

Time Mag Picked up a great blog post on A VC, Fred Wilson (highly regarded VC and principal of Union Square Ventures) about Steven Johnson's Time Magazine cover story on How Twitter Will Change the Way We Live.  Fred's exuberance for the article stems from the article's final few paragraphs.  In his words:

It's the finish of Steven's piece where he talks about "end user innovation" that is so brilliant. He makes this "larger point about modern innovation":

When we talk about innovation and global competitiveness, we tend to fall back on the easy metric of patents and Ph.D.s. It turns out the U.S. share of both has been in steady decline since peaking in the early '70s. (In 1970, more than 50% of the world's graduate degrees in science and engineering were issued by U.S. universities.) Since the mid-'80s, a long progression of doomsayers have warned that our declining market share in the patents-and-Ph.D.s business augurs dark times for American innovation. The specific threats have changed. It was the Japanese who would destroy us in the '80s; now it's China and India.

But what actually happened to American innovation during that period? We came up with America Online, Netscape, Amazon, Google, Blogger, Wikipedia, Craigslist, TiVo, Netflix, eBay, the iPod and iPhone, Xbox, Facebook and Twitter itself. Sure, we didn't build the Prius or the Wii, but if you measure global innovation in terms of actual lifestyle-changing hit products and not just grad students, the U.S. has been lapping the field for the past 20 years.

That's the thing that gets me so excited to get up and get going every day. Technology has reached a point where anyone can get involved with innovation. Patents and degrees matter a lot less. Imagining something and then coding it up is what its all about these days.

We are engaged in what Eric von Hippel calls "end user innovation" and it is a fundamental shift in the way society innovates. The Twitter founders are a perfect example. They built a simple tool to share short messages and it has become something entirely different.

The tools we are creating are allowing a much greater population to participate in the innovation process.  Opensource.  Crowdsource.  All new terms that describe an interconnectedness and an intellectual leverage unprecedented in history.  This should make for much more rapid, powerful, and unpredictable sources of new growth.  Google came alive about 10 years ago, captured a space, and quickly rose to become a goliath.  But just as quickly as Google rose to predominance, another rival could come and beat them at their own game, invent a new model, change the rules of the game, or the playing field altogether. 

I very much agree with the point that those decrying the U.S.' falling stature as the center of world innovation, are pointing towards metrics that described previous generations' sources of and success in innovation.  PhD's and patents are no doubt important, but perhaps new metrics describing the interconnectedness of a society, or the mass, quality, and rate of information transferred between members of a society at any given point, will better describe innovation power.  Of course, because this new curve has only just begun, we're far from being able to fully understand it and thus, measure appropriately. 

Stanford University’s Responsible Supply Chains Conference Recap

By GSS on May 27, 2009 | Category: Product Sourcing and Strategy | Comments Off

I attended Stanford University's third annual conference on socially and environmentally responsible (SER) supply chains last Thursday, May 21.  The conference has doubled in size every year since 2006 and promises to be larger next year.  A full day of presentations and panels from executives at leading companies such as Cisco, Intel, Safeway, Disney, HP, Verite, and more made for a multitude of perspectives and approaches to the topic of sustainability in supply chains. 

A few general observations from the conference:

  • The realm of social and environmental responsibility in supply chains is still very nascent.  It seems each company, industry, and the business world as a whole is still establishing definitions for what it means to be socially and environmentally responsible.  This dialogue, of course, is very important and will likely set the stage for a future platform to act from. 
  • It seems greater success can be had when companies address issues of social and environmental responsibility in their supply chains from an industry approach.  This leads to a greater probability of standardization and leverage in the supply chain, which in turn, based upon presenters' comments, seems to foster faster and more widespread change in the supply chain as a whole.  Some critical factors for success gleaned from many of the presentations, despite the industry of a given company, are the following:
    • The involvement and commitment of top, C-level, management
    • The combination of efforts across companies within a given company
    • Honest and free communication within companies and with competitors (a very scary and challenging proposition for many companies)
    • A sharing of best practices and communication amongst shared suppliers within the industry (meaning–get your suppliers to talk and share with each other to benefit everyone as a whole)
    • Outside and independent verification to create transparency and accountability

A few other interesting takeaways:

  • Cooperation amongst several companies within an industry to acheive industrywide social and environmental responsibility seemed to be easier to accomplish in B2B industries, and industries that did not generally "face" consumers or receive consumer and/or watchdog scrutiny.  Those companies that had more of a B2C orientation viewed supply chain SER as more of a competitive differentiator, and thus were less inclined to share information and resources with others. 
  • I expect the conference will double in size and notoriety next year.  This is an issue the business world has only begun to explore.  I found myself wanting more nitty gritty dialogue from the conference, but as companies move down the path from the general questions of definition and the surface levels of implementation, I am sure the dialogue and topic will become much more comprehensive, heated, and fruitful.

 By Ashton Udall

Video of Ashton Udall’s Guest Lecture at Stanford University and Upcoming Inventors Alliance – Silicon Valley, Seminar Annoucement

By GSS on May 26, 2009 | Category: News | 1 Comment

Here is a link to a video of a guest lecture GSS partner, Ashton Udall, made to Stanford University's Design and Manufacturing Forum last Friday.  The topic was Offshore Manufacturing for Start-ups and topics of discussion included basic steps in the process of offshore manufacturing and key factors for success.  Just click on View ME396 Seminars Online, and the video is Lecture 8. 

Ashton Udall will be giving a similar talk this upcoming Saturday on May 30th, at 10:30am, for the Inventors Alliance of Silicon Valley.  Event details can be found here

Consumerism Rebounding? But a Different Direction?

By GSS on May 14, 2009 | Category: Product Marketing | 1 Comment

There has been much discussion in the media regarding the downturn's longer term impacts on consumerism, a topic I covered in this post.  Essentially, I discussed the changing of consumer habits as the downturn unfolds and what we may come away with as the consumer market as emerges.  Check out this NY Times article on the topic.  The articles conclusion on the impact of this experience on consumers and the changing job of marketers very much agreed with my own.  Looking for evidence of new consumers?

Richard Florida, of Creative Class fame, has written two interesting blog posts (here and here) looking at signs of change in consumers.  He cites a recent Pew Research Center study, which notes changing consumer perceptions towards common household items considered to be part of a core bundle of items consumers could be depended on to purchase. 

For example, the study cites consumers changing regard for microwaves–an item previously considered a necessity and now more a luxury (the product manager for microwaves at XYZ Inc. just tensed up).

Pew-chart

Next, Florida tackles an article in Esquire by Nate Silver, which inquires about the decline of car culture in American society.  Silver ran some statistics, and his words:

To sort this out, I built a regression model that accounts for both
gas prices and the unemployment rate in a given month and attempts to
predict from this data how much the typical American will drive… [The
results of the model are shown for the month of January in each year
since 1980 in the graph above.]…

Americans should have driven
slightly more in January 2009 than they had a year earlier. But
instead, as we’ve described, they drove somewhat less. In fact, they
drove about 8 percent less than the model predicted.

Esq-american-driving-stats-0609-lg

Just as product marketers, economists, and just about everyone, is desperate for signs of the bottom and subsequent upturn, so too Florida and Silver might be stretching for signs of major societal change.  But the data is compelling if not eyebrow raising. 

Panjiva, Sinosure, and Historic Futures – From Knowing Your Manufacturers to Knowing Where Your Products Are, These Firms Can Tell You

By GSS on May 7, 2009 | Category: Sustainability & Transparency | 1 Comment

Supply chain information coming from all angles?  Information is power and these third party service and software providers are emerging to offer companies greater information about who their suppliers are and the location of their goods within them.

Three firms founded in the last 8 years are working to crack open global supply chains further to bring greater transparency.  One data mines customs records.  One issues credit reports on Chinese manufacturers.  One traces products through the chain of custody at the batch level.  When I prognosticate the statement of a supply chain executive in the near future:

I know the identities of all of the factories and suppliers
involved in the production of every product I make, from final assembly
and packaging to the materials suppliers 4 tiers deep. 

I
know what customers they are all working with.  I know their capacity
and exportation quantities at any given time.  I know their financial
health.

…these companies are working to make it possible.

  • Panjiva. Founded in 2006.  USA.  Panjiva data mines information on manufacturers using a variety of sources, including the US Dept. of Homeland Security (Customs), General Administration of Customs of the Peoples' Republic of China, fifty-five ISO 9001 auditing firms, forty-six ISO 14001 auditing firms, and several others, to offer companies reports containing information on which products a given supplier has shipped, which customers a supplier has shipped to, the quantity a supplier is shipping, and the frequency with which they ship.  The reports are designed to offer companies new methods of tracking the health and activity of their contract manufacturer base. 
  • Sinosure.  Founded in 2001.  China.  As described by Jason Busch at SpendMatters: "Sinosure, was set up in 2001 as the monopoly provider for export
    insurance (essentially receivables insurance) for Chinese suppliers.
    Run by the Chinese government, Sinosure conducts supplier financial
    assessments of suppliers as part of the receivables insurance
    underwriting process. They base this assessment on government data
    sources as well as standard credit rating approaches (e.g., on-time
    payment for phone bills)"  In his posts on the topic here and here, Jason raises questions with good reason about the accuracy of information upon which Sinosure bases its credit ratings.  Josh Green, founder of Panjiva, which recently announced a partnership offering with Sinosure, responded that Sinosure simply presents another source of information to cross-check supplier information they already have, and that the agency itself bases its own insurance policies on the credit information they develop. 
  • Historic Futures.  Founded in 2003.  UK.  Historic Futures has developed a trusted third party product traceability
    system, known as MyString, to allow consumers, retailers and brands to
    trace product through multiple companies in the supply chain back to
    source.  Historic Futures software and services allow companies much greater efficiency in the management and reporting of COO for raw materials used in their products, collection and analysis of KPIs throughout all tiers of the supply chain, such as "product miles", water use and energy consumed, and visualization/management of compliance and certification status beyond the first tier of the supply base.  Walmart's LoveEarth jewelry line, launched in summer of 2008, is one of their biggest and most notable projects.  Consumers can now go to Walmart's LoveEarth website, enter a batch number for a jewelry piece they purchased, and track the companies in the chain of custody from mine to retail.  

The reservoir of information in global supply chains is beginning to be tapped for greater internal management, as well as social responsibility, and marketing initiatives.  This is likely only the beginning. 

What we do

  • Design & Engineering
  • Factory Sourcing
  • Manufacturer Development
  • Contract Negotiation
  • Manufacturing Management
  • Assembly & Packaging
  • Quality Assurance
  • Freight Forwarding

Testimonials

“GSS worked closely with us every step of the way to ensure that we received top-quality product according to our specifications and at better-than-projected costs.”
by Gretchen Frankenstein COO, Paceasy, Inc.