Case Study

The Challenge

When most people think about the semiconductor shortage that swept through the automotive industry from 2020 onward, they think about vehicles sitting incomplete on assembly lines, waiting for chips. That problem was real. But for our client, a major automotive OEM, a second and less visible crisis was unfolding at the same time.

Semiconductors are not only inside vehicles. They are inside the manufacturing equipment that builds them. And when equipment contractors cannot source the components they need, they cannot deliver the machinery on time. If a production line cannot be commissioned, the vehicles it was designed to produce cannot be built.

Our client was caught directly in this bind. Existing production lines could be kept running on existing inventory. But a portfolio of globally planned equipment projects, covering entirely new production lines required for upcoming vehicle launches, was at risk. Several of these projects were directly tied to the transition from combustion engines to electric vehicles, a strategic commitment with immovable timelines. Moving launch dates was not an option. The pressure to act was total.

The Approach

When the project began, the client was already deep in a major phase of line shutdowns in which technologies across multiple facilities were being upgraded, replaced, or rebuilt from scratch. The first task was not to solve the shortage — it was to restore control and give decision makers the information they needed to act.

Creating Real-Time Data Transparency

The foundation of the entire response was visibility. We designed and implemented a centralized database that aggregated data from a wide range of sources simultaneously: supplier delivery commitments, contractor project timelines, technology project progress across facilities, and available component stock. This data was surfaced through PowerBI dashboards, giving the client's decision makers a near real-time picture of where critical components stood at any moment.

What sounds straightforward is in practice one of the most demanding challenges in any large-scale data project. Bringing together information from different companies, different systems, and different data formats, in a way that is consistent, interpretable, and actually useful under time pressure, requires intensive work on interface management, format harmonization, and data validation. Building that foundation correctly was what made everything else possible.

Establishing a Control Center

With data flowing, we established a dedicated Control Center that served as the operational nerve center for the entire supply network. The Control Center tracked the status of critical components, monitored technology project schedules, and identified emerging issues before they could escalate into crises. When disruptions occurred, it enabled rapid coordination across all stakeholders — the OEM, general contractors, and individual suppliers — ensuring that decisions were made quickly and with full situational awareness. In cases of critical undersupply, escalation paths reached all the way to board level.

Identifying Alternative Sources and Options

Overreliance on any single supplier in a global shortage requires a deliberate search for alternatives. We put every available option on the table: sourcing from alternative suppliers, reusing obsolete or decommissioned parts, redirecting maintenance inventory, and in the most difficult scenarios, reprioritizing which projects would receive components first.

One option that appeared obvious turned out to be the least practical: simply switching to alternative suppliers for standard components. Integrating new components into a complex, certified production setup requires extensive testing and approval processes. Under the time constraints of this project, that path was rarely viable. The solutions that actually worked were more creative and more operationally demanding — and required close coordination across all parties.

Building Prioritization Frameworks for Technology Projects

As a contingency measure, we facilitated a structured cross-functional process to prepare for the scenario no one wanted: project reprioritization. Representatives from engineering, procurement, and vehicle launch management came together within a structured working group to develop clear criteria for which projects should be protected and which could be deferred if component availability forced a choice. This framework ensured that if trade-offs became necessary, the decisions would be made rationally and with shared ownership across all stakeholders rather than under panic.

As it turned out, no vehicle launch had to be postponed and all strategically relevant projects were completed as planned.

Setting Up an External Warehouse for Critical Components

To create a physical buffer against supply disruptions, we established a dedicated external warehouse for critical parts. Whenever components became available on the market, they were procured proactively and held in stock, decoupling the project timelines from the volatility of day-to-day supply availability. This strategic stockpiling proved essential to maintaining project momentum throughout the most acute phase of the shortage.

The Results

The combined effect of these measures was decisive. The supply of semiconductors and critical components for all equipment projects was secured. Every vehicle launch proceeded as planned. No strategically relevant project was postponed or cancelled.

Beyond the immediate crisis response, the client emerged from the project structurally stronger. The data infrastructure, governance processes, and cross-functional coordination mechanisms built during the project significantly increased the organization's resilience against future supply disruptions. The neutral moderating role change2target held as an external partner was itself a key enabler: bringing together stakeholders with strongly divergent interests — OEM divisions, general contractors, and competing suppliers — and aligning them around shared priorities required independence that an internal team could not have provided.

The work does not stop there. The next phase involves developing a forward-looking information system capable of forecasting operational trends and flagging emerging supply risks before they become crises. That is what sustainable resilience in the supply chain looks like.

Key Takeaway

The semiconductor shortage exposed a vulnerability that few manufacturing leaders had fully mapped: critical supply risk does not only live in the bill of materials for the product. It lives in the equipment needed to manufacture it.

For any organization managing complex, capital-intensive production environments, the ability to act in a supply crisis depends entirely on the quality of information available and the governance structures in place to use it. When those foundations are absent, the crisis drives the decisions. When they are in place, the organization drives them.

Building transparency, coordination, and contingency capability before a crisis hits is no longer optional. For companies in the middle of technology transitions, where launch timelines carry strategic weight and cannot simply be moved, it is a core operational requirement.