The Dangerous Dichotomy—Part 3

[Continued]

The conclusion of the preceding article was that, without doubt, reducing out-of-stock occurrences will tend to increase revenues. Increasing revenues will certainly satisfy the sales and marketing team, who have been mandated by the firm’s executives with doing that very thing. But, the question remains, can actions be taken to reduce out-of-stock occurrences in such a way that will satisfy what should be everyone’s goal of helping the business make more money tomorrow than it is making today?

We believe it can.

Consider a distributor that buys products from Pacific rim suppliers. One line of products produces gross profits of about 80 percent. Of the costs associated with this product line, about 15 percent are the actual product cost (including any taxes and duties). The remaining five percent are the costs per unit of shipping the product by ship from its source to the firm’s distribution centers.

Like the product in the example provided in the preceding article (see “The Dangerous Dichotomy—Part 2”), this line comes in an array of styles (or color or sizes). Some of these variants sell better than others, naturally. However, because the distributor (wrongly) believe that they are stuck with a three-month or longer lead-time to get these products, they feel that they must forecast demand well in advance and place their orders based solely on this forecast.

The three-month lead time consists of the time it takes to produce enough product to fill a container (or meet some other policy-based “cost-saving” arrangement), plus the time for ocean-going transportation, and the time to get it takes to get the items through customs and provide land transportation to the destination distribution centers. But, because the forecast is always wrong, the firm inevitably finds itself in the situation we described in “The Dangerous Dichotomy—Part 2”; that is, they experience out-of-stocks on several of the variants while being overstocked on several other varieties of the product.

The firm is aware that they can ship these items by air—in much smaller quantities, of course. However, doing so doubles the per-unit cost of shipping these products.

When managers hear that simple phrase: “Shipping by air doubles our freight costs,” that is usually all they need to hear. They think of those “slashed margins” and “higher costs” and that is where the conversation ends.

But, consider this: Doubling the per-unit cost of shipping on this product line reduces the margin from 80 percent to 75 percent. Sure, that is, in fact, a reduction in profit margins on this product line.

Now, consider this: Shipping by air forces shipment in smaller batches. The smaller batches in the shipments mean that the manufacturer can produce the batches for shipment in less time—perhaps as short a time as a few days. Shorter lead times mean the original forecast and the original order need only cover the starter stock—the stock to be sold while the firm figures out what styles or colors are going to be the “big-sellers.”

When the “big-sellers” are known, replenishment stock can be ordered and shipped by air, but the firm is likely to actually make more money than they did when they were paying lower shipping costs.

Why?

The reason is simple: At a 75 percent gross margin and a five percent increase in shipping costs—between multi-mode sea-land transportation and air transportation—every additional sale (resulting from reduced out-of-stocks on the popular models) covers the difference in shipping costs for 15 units (i.e., 75 percent gross margin divided by the five percent increase in shipping costs).

Besides the obvious advantage found in the extremely high likelihood of increased profits—despite “doubling your shipping costs” and suffering “reduced margins”—this thoughtful approach has all of the following advantages, as well:

1. Happier and more satisfied customers
2. Less likelihood of customers being lost to competitive sources
3. Fewer lost customers means the firm is more likely to be able to sustain revenues with lower marketing costs
4. A happier and more productive sales and marketing staff—able to spend their time capturing new customers and markets instead of appeasing disgruntled customers who could not buy the product they wanted
5. A happier and more productive organization overall—with less in-fighting and a real sense of success and accomplishment
6. More satisfied management and executive team
7. A far greater opportunity for success in the future

All of these benefits accrue to an organization that discovers “system thinking” (i.e., seeing their organization as a whole, rather than as disconnected pieces and departments). Meanwhile, the firm still caught in “the dangerous dichotomy” is still fighting fires day-by-day and trying to keep the smoldering animosity between the factions from breaking out into open warfare.

Makes you want to give “system thinking” a try, doesn’t it?

Business Processes and Real Management – Part 1

I had a conversation with one of my daughters on the way to the airport today. She was telling me about something that went on with regard to management decision-making at her work. (She works in the field of education, but the principle I wish to discuss applies everywhere, in every type of organization.)

The scenario is something like this: An executive (and here I use the term “executive” in the broadest sense, meaning any manager in a position to not only choose, but also to execute upon the decision made) states that he or she is going to make a management decision based upon a process (or, in this academic environment, a rubric – a process for scoring an otherwise subjective decision). However, upon further discovery and discussion, it becomes apparent to all involved that whatever “process” or “rubric” is ostensibly being applied is purely subjective and intuitive to the manager alone. That is to say, what is pretended to reduce an otherwise purely subject and intuitive decision to a “process” – a “rubric” – is merely that, a pretense. The decisions being made remain purely subjective and intuitive and are not correlated to a “process,” at all.

Now, let me be clear. I am a free-market guy. I believe that business owners and their executive agents should be able to hire, fire and make other management decisions at will. I am fully committed to the fact that they may do as they please so long as their actions do not include coercion or deceit. In this scenario, it is not the executives decision with which I take issue – which is why the decision itself is not discussed herein.

What I wish to discuss is how many times executives and managers are themselves deceived as to the presence of a “business process” or any kind of rubric by which they manage. From my experience, if I spent time cogitating, I’m certain that I could come up with a large number of examples. However, for brevity’s sake, let me just toss out a couple.

1. Foremost in my mind are the numerous discussions I have had with executives over the years regarding so-called “sales management.” I say, “so-called,” because I have too many times been faced with one of two variations on the same theme in this regard. The first is where the owner of the small-to-mid-sized business (SMB) was the companies first salesperson (which is quite natural, as the organization was likely an outgrowth of some entrepreneurial venture) and remains today as the firm’s sales manager. He or she has, over the years, created a sales team of hand-selected folks, and the executive is convinced that each of these salespeople is unique and each requires special handling – a sort of prima donna approach.
   

(To be continued)

©2010 Richard D. Cushing

Getting more of what you want - Part 3

Last time we talked about how a growing and expanding entrepreneurial organization can all too easily lose sight of a singular goal -- making more money tomorrow than its making today. When they do so, they also lose sight of the fact that, in serving its customers, the organization is a "system" -- not a collection of loosely connected departments or functions.

So, what are the symptoms exhibited by an organization that is not being measured and managed as a "system"?

• Lower than desired overall performance
  
• Challenges in achieving or maintaining a strategic advantage in the marketplace
  
• Ongoing or recurring financial difficulties
• Almost constant "fire-fighting"
• Frequent failure to meet customers' expectations
• "Bottlenecks" in the organization that move frequently from function to function or department to department
• An ongoing state of conflict between parties representing various functions or departments within the organization

If you can nod your head "Yes" to three or more of these symptoms being present in your firm, then chances are you need help getting a handle on once again seeing your organization as a "system" and turning the corner to measure and manage it in a proper way.

But what really keeps owners, executives and managers from tearing down these roadblocks to success? They aren't stupid. They've known for (perhaps) years about the constant "fire-fighting," the company politics, and conflicts between departments or functions.

What is blocking executives and owners from taking effective action against those things, of which they are well aware, that are keeping their firm from making more money tomorrow than they are making today?

[To be continued...]

Contact me!