Rajeev Khandelwal's manufacturing background and financing work meet in the spare-parts store. An unused component can appear to be unproductive capital, yet its value may lie in preventing a long interruption. The investment question is which parts justify that protection and which simply remain on shelves because nobody has revisited the original purchase decision carefully.
Start with the consequence of absence
A low-cost part can stop an expensive process, while a costly assembly may have several practical substitutes. The review should consider what fails, how the operation responds and how long a replacement takes. This shifts the discussion from inventory value alone to the service or production capability that the stock protects.
Check whether the part remains usable
Equipment modifications, storage conditions and changing models can make a spare obsolete even when it looks intact. The parts register needs to connect items with actual installed equipment and suitable maintenance knowledge. Otherwise the business may believe it has continuity protection that disappears when the component is finally taken from storage for use.
Consider shared access
Where equipment is common across sites or a supplier can hold suitable stock, pooled arrangements may reduce duplication. Those options need realistic transport times and clear availability expectations. A part held elsewhere only provides useful protection if the business can obtain it within the interruption period its operating model can reasonably absorb without serious commercial damage.
Make the protection visible
A spare-parts budget should explain the downtime exposure it addresses and be reviewed as equipment changes. That gives investors and managers a more useful account than simply labelling all slow-moving inventory inefficient. The aim is deliberate resilience: enough stock to protect critical work, with evidence that each retained item still serves an identifiable operating purpose.
