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?

ERP Vendors and Customers: The Blind Leading the Blind

Writing in CIO UK magazine online, David Henderson’s article entitled “Why IT vendors must raise their game” makes several salient points. Not least among the points raised is the fact that “too many IT vendor sales personnel don’t really understand my underlying business processes and investment criteria….”

For me, however, the issue is somewhat stood on its head. Far too many business enterprises with which I have been involved have precisely the same problem internally. CEOs, CFOs and CIOs in many businesses buy new technologies without understanding their own underlying business processes and by what criteria they should invest.

What executives and managers should know

Executives and managers seeking ways to improve their business enterprises (read: make more money tomorrow than they are making today) too often buy new technologies out of “hope” or “desperation,” rather than with a clear and concise understanding of

1. WHAT needs to change in order for the business to begin making more money tomorrow than it is making today;
   
2. What the change should LOOK LIKE; or
   
3. HOW to effect the change (including what role any new or upgraded technologies might play in delivering the improvement).

Since they do not have the tools to concisely analyze what needs to change in order to make more money tomorrow, then they cannot know what the change should look like or how to bring about the change effectively. So, in the absence of clarity, they grope about in their darkness hoping that some change – any change – will bring them their desired end of higher profits.

Blind leading the blind

Like the blind leading the blind, the technology vendors and resellers who do not fully understand their prospects’ underlying business processes or appropriate criteria for investment (in fact, they understand them less clearly than the executives and managers, in many cases), console the yearning executives with platitudes and “rules of thumb” about how their latest and greatest “gee-whiz” technology will “reduce costs by X percent” and “improve sales by Y percent.”

Of course, this is precisely what the executives want to hear. Like the Sirens of old, the vendors and resellers lead many to spend. Even if they don’t fully believe what they are hearing from the vendors and VARs, the executives and managers frequently do not take time to calculate with any precision just how or why the new technology should, could, or would produce a return on investment (ROI) in their particular organization and circumstances. Instead, they close their eyes and ears to any negative thinking and, In the absence of any better ideas, these executives take out their checkbook to purchase the latest and greatest of new technologies. Of course, the correct general ledger account to which this “investment” should be charged is “Hope and Earnest Expectation.”

Serendipity

Sometimes good things come of this method. According to the industry literature, we can say that about one out of three such “investments” lead to noticeable improvement. Many times, however, the measure of improvement cannot be known with certainty. A growing company that shows improvement after some implementation cannot know which results may have occurred even in the absence of the new technology. A far greater share of SMBs (small-to-mid-sized businesses) simply assume they are “better off” if they are not clearly “worse off” following the deployment of some new technology. Some merely breathe a sigh of relief after some trying implementation period and, like a good Calvinist, say, “I’m glad that’s over,” without ever looking back to measure their return on investment.

My argument, however, is that “hope” and “serendipity” are not strategies and, while a few companies come to excel and even to dominate some markets for a short period of time based on little more than serendipity, it is not a sound strategy for long-term growth in any enterprise. For executives and managers return on investment should be seen as a primary responsibility. This responsibility should not be handed over to the technology vendor or VAR (value-added reseller). Neither should it be left to chance.

As W. Edwards Deming said so clearly: “It is management’s job to know.”

It is management’s job to figure out WHAT needs to change in order to start making more money tomorrow than the firm is making today. It is management’s job to come to a clear understanding as what that change should look like when it occurs. And, it is management’s job to define an unambiguous roadmap to effecting the necessary change. Then, it should be management’s job to measure and report on the return on investment yielded by their own keen insight.

Need help with this? Contact me at rcushing(at)GeeWhiz2ROI(dot)com and let’s talk.

©2010 Richard D. Cushing

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

The Right Cost-Cutting Formula

The formula above is the only real formula that should be considered by companies considering cost-cutting during this recession.

Here is what the formula means.

The upper-case Greek letter delta (the triangle-shaped character) is used in mathematics as a symbol meaning “the change” or “difference.” Therefore, we read this formula as follows:

The change in P = the change in T minus the change in OE,

where P = Profit, T = Throughput and OE = Operating Expenses.

Throughput (T) is defined as Revenue (R) less Truly Variable Costs (TVCs), and TVCs are further clarified as only those costs that vary directly with incremental changes in Revenues. For example, raw materials probably vary directly with changes in unit sales of a manufactured item. However, production payrolls do not vary directly with changes in Revenues. If your firm produces 1,000 widgets this week and only 850 next week, but 1,200 last week; chances are the production payroll was substantially the same for each of these weeks.  Therefore, production payroll cannot be classified as a TVC.

Substituting for T

Since T = R – OE, we can substitute into our formula and make it read like this:

The change in P = the change in R minus the change in TVC minus the change in OE

Thinking about cost-cutting

Based on this formula, we can safely state the following:

• An increase in R will result in an increase in P, provided there is no change in TVC or OE
• A decrease in TVC will result in an increase in P, provided there is no change in R or OE
• A decrease in OE will result in an increase in P, provided there is no change in R or TVC

Where executives get into trouble during recessions

Pay attention to the “no change” clauses in the three statement above. These are critical, but all too frequently overlooked by executives and managers in making cost-cutting decisions. We just saw a terrific example of this with Toyota.

Some executives at Toyota thought that they could increase P (profits) by reducing TVCs through the purchase of lower-priced components for their automobiles. For a while, it probably worked. However, in February 2010, Toyota’s year-over-year sales for the month were down 43%, and for the first time in several decades, Ford Motor Company sold more units than Toyota in a calendar month. This is not to mention the fact that some billions of dollars will be expensed by Toyota over the coming months and years due to the recall.

So, what were the affects of Toyota management’s decision to reduce TVCs in order to increase Profits?

1. Revenues down 43% year-over-year
2. Several billion dollars added to Operating Expenses (OE) due to recall effort
3. Lost customers, which will require additional expenditures in OE (marketing) to reclaim
4. Additional expenditures in OE (public relations, legal, etc.) for damage control

Think it through

It is a simple thing for executives in a firm facing recessionary pressures think, “We will cut our operating expenses (OE) by laying off some people,” without considering the long-term affects that the move may have on customer satisfaction, for example. How many customers will be lost due to the cut-back in staffing? How much more will need to be spent in OE (sales and marketing, for example) to maintain the same levels of revenue as a result?

Use the formula

If, as an executive, you are considering cost-cutting, then consider the whole formula. Go over it with your management team. Carefully consider any short-term and long-term impact on Revenues and Operating Expenses. Do not simply assume that you can change one factor and the others will remain unchanged.

Contact me!

©2010 Richard D. Cushing

The New ERP - Part 2

So, what's wrong with traditional approaches to ERP? Why do so many ERP implementations lead to disappointing results? Why do so many companies spend so much money on new technologies and then end up reaping so little return on their investment?

Failure No. 1: Not achieving the planned return on investment (ROI)
It remains today a regrettable fact that many small to mid-sized companies considering new technologies have only the vaguest of notions about the ROI that their new investment should deliver. This is not to say that executives and managers haven't thought out ROI, or even that they may not have already "pinned a number" on the ROI that they'd like to see from the expenditure of their time, energy and money.

What they do not know -- far too frequently -- is precisely how the new technology will deliver results. They have not tied the expected results to specific improvements in Throughput, specific reductions in Investment, or specific savings in Operating Expenses. Rather, there appears to be a general consensus among executives and managers -- despite considerable evidence to the contrary -- that investments in information technologies (IT) sort of auto-magically deliver a return on investment (ROI). That, somehow, IT and automation investments bear an inherent capacity to make the company better and more profitable.

Over the more than 25 years that I have been working with IT from both sides of the desk -- as an executive and as a consultant -- there have been fewer than a handful of companies with which I have worked that actually calculated an ROI for their investment in technology. Fewer still had any measurable objectives for specific IT investments beyond some number clearly picked from the air like "increase revenues by 5%" or "cut manufacturing costs by 7%." Almost none of these firms could tie specific technology functional deployments to the expected ROI.

Given these facts, it is no wonder that traditional ERP (Everything Replacement Project) fails to deliver ROI. The executives and managers deploying the new ERP have not based their ROI expectations on much more than "gut feelings" and some vague sense that having more data will make them better managers.

Failure No. 2: "Go-live" delayed inordinately
Substantial delays to "go-live" in Everything Replacement Projects (traditional ERP) are generally attributable to one or more of the following factors:

• Poor decisions related to customizations or modifications -- when they are selected; how the program code is designed, developed and managed; and the methods chosen for testing and deployment
  
  
• Executive management's improper view of the goals and objectives of a valid ERP project -- thus leading to out-of-control scope creep, usually with absolutely no correlation to project ROI
  
  
• The organization being overwhelmed by an Everything Replacement Project -- rather than being focused on leveraging specific technologies for the benefit of the "system" (i.e., the organization) as a whole

[To be continued]

Contact me!

...

The danger of "We know!" - Part 3

In this portion of our series, we're going to talk about how to put a "framework" or "theory" around what you already know about your business enterprise. This is not an exercise in "business theory." This is a real and practical approach to gaining effective control of your enterprise after (perhaps) years of "muddling through" with more or less mediocre results.

One of the reasons executives and managers are not able to really "understand" what they "know" about their own organizations is that, since they are unaware of a "tool set" to aid them, they never actually put what management "knows" (we call it "tribal knowledge") about how their organization works -- or doesn't work -- on paper. Therefore, in the absence of such a written document, the managers themselves cannot read and re-read their own logic about cause-and-effect relationships that flow throughout their enterprise.

Our mind makes thousands of assumptions about what we think we know. Our mind processes these assumptions and incoming information so rapidly, we are unable to filter out our incorrect thinking or invalid assumptions adequately. Putting our thoughts down on paper helps us step through the logic that is leading us to certain conclusions.

Equally important, however, is that fact that, if we never get our reasoning down on paper, it is nearly impossible for us to invite others to truly analyze our logic -- to critically review our logic -- in an effort to help us bring about lasting improvement. As a result, not only do we not realize that we have flaws in our thinking about what's happening in our organization, others who might bring beneficial insights to our aid cannot do so because they, too, cannot help us find the flaws in our rationale. This inevitably leads to the fact that these undiscovered flaws in our thinking about how our organization really works -- or does not work -- remain embedded in our decision-making processes.

The good news is that there is an outstanding set of tools that are readily accessible, easily understood, and relatively simple to apply that will help executives and managers lay hold of "tribal knowledge" and reduce it to an understandable framework (or "theory") about how their organizations function in a real and practical way. Others that have applied that tool set have said things like:

• "I have never seen my business so clearly before."
  
  
• "We truly understand our business for the first time."
  
  
• "This process has helped us regain a sense of control over our enterprise."
  
  
• "For the first time in a long time, we are empowered to move proactively toward real, lasting improvement."
  
  
• "We now have a consistent framework for diagnosing problems and planning for improvement."
  

What is this simple, yet amazing, tool set for executives and managers?

It is simply the TOC (Theory of Constraints) Thinking Processes as developed by Eliyahu Goldratt, a suite of logic trees that provide a simple, yet effective, road map for diagnosis and change.

So, continue to say, "We know!" and miss out on the opportunity for real, practical and sustainable improvements to your enterprise, or discover a whole new, easy-to-use and effective tool set for starting down the road to ongoing improvement.

************
Contact me!
************

The danger of "We know!" - Part 2

In Part 1 of this series, I discussed how many executives and managers fail to reap benefits from new methods and ideas -- especially if these new methods and ideas arrive in the form of a "consultant" -- simply because these executives and managers believe that the already know what can be known about their organizations and their industries. This prevents many organizations from growing to their full potential.

W. Edwards Deming put it bluntly: "Information is not knowledge. Knowledge comes from theory."

Unfortunately, what far to many executives and managers have is a lot of information about their businesses and their industries. What they desperately lack is "theory" by which to interpret and understand the information at their disposal.

G. K. Chesterton put it this way in Tremendous Trifles (Beaconsfield, Britain: Darwen Finlayson, 1968): "One of the four or five paradoxes which should be taught to every infant prattling on his mother's knee is the following: that the more a man looks at a thing the less he can see it, and the more a man learns a thing the less he knows it. The Fabian argument of the expert, that the man who is trained should be the man who is trusted would be absolutely unanswerable if it were really true that the man who studied a thing and practised it every day went on seeing more and more of its significance. But he does not. He goes on seeing less and less of its significance."

Think of Sir Isaac Newton and the story of his having begun his development of the theory of gravity because he had seen an apple falling from a tree. Surely there had been tens of thousands of individuals that had witnessed objects falling to the ground under the influence of gravity for several millennia prior to Sir Newton's experience. Yet, no one understood "gravity."

It has only been since Isaac Newton put a "theory" around gravity that men could take what they had experienced with gravity and put it into a framework -- a theoretical context -- that made the experience understandable to them. Furthermore, the framework (the "theory") gave men the opportunity to predict outcomes of certain actions relative to the gravitational affects. This meant that men could plan and execute with some real certainty as to the results they would obtain under "gravity."

Precisely the same is true of business.

Executives and managers have all manner of data in their hands relative to the performance of their enterprises. What they lack is a "theory" by which that data may be abstracted and understood for the purposes of effective management. A framework that will help them bring simplicity out of the complexity before them.

In all too many cases, the missing "data" for beginning the process of ongoing improvement is to be found within the organization at all. The missing component for executives and managers is quite often this simple point: there is a simple method available to help organizational leadership logically analyze what they already know internally.

In the absence of a "tool set" that helps management bring forth "knowledge" from their "information," executives and managers tend to continue "tinkering" with their businesses. They make changes here or there to see if the change helps.

Sometimes such change seems to help, other times the change actually makes things go worse than before. Still other times, the change is made and their is no perceptible affect on the organization at all.

This is no way to run a business -- or any other kind of organization!

Executives and managers are yearning -- sometimes without even recognizing what is lacking -- for a simple, effective tool to help them gain control of their enterprises once again.

[Next time: Gaining Control]

Contact me!

...

Getting more of what you want - Part 6

So, what is this "tool set" that can help the entrepreneur and his management team decode the complexity of the growing enterprise in order to extract simplicity out of its seemingly endless layers of complexity?

The answer is: The TOC (Theory of Constraints) Thinking Processes.

As Victoria Mabin of the School of Business and Public Management of the Victoria University of Wellington states: "[T]he TOC Thinking Processes... are a suite of logical trees that provide a roadmap for change, by addressing the three basic questions of What to change, What to change to, and How to cause the change. They guide the user through the decision making process of problem structuring, problem identification, solution building, identification of barriers to be overcome, and implementation of the solution." [Emphasis added.]

This tool set is not new, as Mabin makes clear: "The TOC has evolved over [more than] 20 years.... [and] is now used worldwide by companies of all sizes.... [M]any managers who routinely use TOC believe they understand their businesses for the first time.... [T]hey gain a sense of control and of being able to act proactively.... TOC empowers managers by providing a consistent framework for diagnosing problems." [Emphasis added.]

Now, even though I'm a consultant and I get paid for helping companies make effective decisions by applying the TOC Thinking Processes, let me say up front: You don't need me to apply the TOC Thinking Processes. You could attend a workshop or do self-study in order to learn how to apply these tools in your business.

The workshops will likely cost you $5,000 to upwards of $10,000. Self-study and trial-and-error might take you some months -- or even years. There are, however, a good number of books available to guide you through this process.

So, while you don't need me to leverage these tools, connecting with me might be the fastest and lowest-cost method of getting to solutions you need in the very near future. If you'd like to connect with me, email me at rcushing(at)ceoexpress(dot)com.

In our next post, we'll talk about what kinds of results are typical with the application of TOC principles.

[To be continued...]

Contact me!

...

Three Basic Rules for Business Suvival

Here are the Three Basic Rules for Business Survival in hard times (or any time):

1. Never run out of cash.
   
2. Never ever run out of cash.
3. Never, never ever run out of cash.

If you and your management team are not presently calculating and tracking important factors like:

• Your Throughput Cash Velocity
• Your Cash Consumption Rate
• Your Net Cash Rate

Then you just might run out of cash.

If you don't know how to calculate any of the following metrics:

• Cash-to-Cash Cycle
• Throughput Cash Velocity
• Cash Consumption Rate
• Net Cash Rate

Then contact me at for more information.

(c)2008, 2009 Richard D. Cushing

World Class Manufacturing -- Really?

I found this quote on a Web site which will remain unidentified in this article:

World Class Manufacturing - A definition
World Class Manufacturers are those that demonstrate industry best practice. To achieve this companies should attempt to be best in the field at each of the competitive priorities (quality, price, delivery speed, delivery reliability, flexibility and innovation). Organisations should therefore aim to maximise performance in these areas in order to maximise competitiveness. However, as resources are unlikely to allow improvement in all areas, organisations should concentrate on maintaining performance in 'qualifying' factors and improving 'competitive edge' factors.... The priorities will change over time and must therefore be reviewed.

The author here identifies six "priorities":

1. Quality
2. Price
3. Delivery speed
4. Delivery reliability
5. Flexibility
6. Innovation

I would contend, however, that none of these 6 priorities may be achieved without setting the organization's primary focus on making money -- making money both today and in the future. Without making profit the first priority, there is no money to spend on improving quality; there is no money to spend on improving the speed or reliability of delivery; and there is no money to spend on improving flexibility or innovation.

One might say, "Well, if we improve quality, we will make more money." But unless the framework for the planning and focus of the organization has demonstrated by a rational method that improving quality will lead to improved profits, then that statement remains only a "hope" and not a plan or a true "goal." The same may be said for the other five "focus" points in the article.

If the manufacturer has no sound framework by which to determine precisely what steps it must take beginning today to increase its profitability -- to make it more effective at making money -- there is a chance it may not survive long enough to work on any of the six "priorities" listed above.

"Without theory there is no knowing." -- W. Edwards Deming

Having a valid theory -- a consistent "framework" -- by which to evaluate all that transpires within your business is critical to constancy of purpose and effective leadership by management.

Contact me!

(c)2008 Richard D. Cushing

Extending the Power of Your Information Technologies

In today’s exceedingly challenging business environment, it is becoming increasingly important for executive management to establish corporate strategies that include extending the reach and power of the organization's information technologies beyond the four walls of the firm. If your company is not building "communities" of customers or con-necting with your vendors and customers in real time up and down your supply chain, then it is likely that you are falling behind your competition.

No Technology for Technology's Sake

I am not advocating new "gee-whiz" connections beyond your enterprise just so the CEO can brag about them on the golf course or in the steam room at the club. Before embarking on a spending spree to extend your IT systems beyond the walls of your enterprise, it is important that you determine what you want to accomplish by moving forward with such efforts. Generally speaking, the valid reasons for investing in the extended enter-prise may be reduced to three fundamental categories:

1. Increasing throughput,

2. Reducing inventories or the need for new investment, and

3. Slashing or holding the line on operating expenses.


Let's consider some of the thinking that might go into such an analysis.

Increasing Throughput

When considering increasing throughput, your team should ask questions like these: Could a CRM (customer relationship management) system, a corporate blog or forum, or other enterprise extensions improve our ability to connect with our customers? Could such efforts improve our comprehension of our customers' needs enough that fresh new insights would result from understanding them better? Could the new insights lead to improved products, enhanced market segmentation, and the ability to create superior win-win offers?

If the answers to any or all of these questions are affirmative, then the next step would be to quantify the estimated impact and to set specific goals for any investments in new technologies. Each individual part of the IT investment plan should be directly correlated to expected quantifiable results. How many new customers will be added? How many additional sales to existing customers are to be expected? What additional market share are we likely to gain as a result of these efforts and investments?

Reducing Inventories or the Need for New Investment

The questions that should arise regarding inventories or investments should be along these lines: Will improved supply chain visibility with our customers allow us to better manage and reduce the volume of inventory lying between our manufacturing plants and our products' end users? Will linking our inventory systems with those of our suppliers allow us to reduce lead times and, as a result, reduce the amount of inventory we keep on-hand? Will improved end-to-end supply chain linkages reduce losses due to obsolescence and shrinkage?Again, if asking these questions leads to some "yes" answers, then the organization should take steps to quantify the benefits that are likely to accrue to the organization from reduced carrying costs, managing and handling less inventory, and (if true) the reduction in a potential investment in additional warehouse or production space, for example.

Slashing or Holding the Line on Operating Expenses

Generally, this area faces a two-fold battle: First, most organizations today have already done all the cost-cutting that they really can (or should) do. This is no longer the 1980’s – the heyday of cost-cutting as U.S. industry was struggling against the onslaught of Japanese products. Second, when you are talking about implementing new technologies, it is really difficult to get buy-in from your organization if the move is likely to lead to a significant reduction in the workforce.
However, results stemming from efforts to increase throughput (revenues) and reduce inventories are likely to drive growth, on the one hand, and internal improvements, on the other. Normally, then, a case can be made on the basis of these combined factors (i.e., growth and internal improvements) that your organization can support 30%, 60% or even 100% growth in the near future with little or no growth in operating expenses. The net result is often estimated and stated as savings in FTEs (full-time equivalents, i.e., the average cost of a full-time employee). In this way, the effect of “holding the line on operating expenses” may be properly factored in to the benefits accruing from investments in new technologies.

Conclusion

There is no longer a place for business as usual. In today’s highly competitive markets – driven to a significant degree by the international reach of the Internet and other technologies – every business owner, CEO, and CFO should be considering how extending their information technologies beyond the four walls of their enterprise might lead to in-creasing throughput and reducing inventories, while holding the line on operating expenses. However, every investment in technology should be carefully planned, be geared to achieving measurable goals, and fully aligned with the enterprise’s strategic and tactical objectives.

©2008 Richard D. Cushing

Getting IT right!

Writing in InfoWorld magazine (6 Jan 2003), Ephraim Schwartz said:

"The goal of IT, since its inception, has been the timely (a relative term) delivery of information to those who need it. Behind this goal is an unspoken belief in technology: If IT could deliver to its internal enterprise customers all of the information all of the time, it would be impossible for them to make a mistake."

Understanding the difference between data and information

More likely than not, many of the folks working in your organization's IT department don't actually know the difference between data and information. To be fair, they are not alone: Many people working as supervisors, managers, and executives probably don't recognize the difference between data and information either.

• Data are the bits of information your various systems store. The system may be any kind of system -- not necessarily and IT-related system. Those old metal filing cabinets still found around many offices store data, just like that 160 gigabyte hard-drive on your desktop computer stores data.

• Information is data transformed (e.g., gathered, analyzed, collated, sorted, coded) to allow the user to rapidly digest and comprehend the implications of the underlying data for timely, accurate, and effective decision-making.

For example, a 300-page report printed on green-bar paper, like an old mainframe computer used to spit out for us at a firm I worked at years ago, is data. Make no mistake, the data -- in the 300-page report -- contained everything we needed to know to make an effective decision. However, it its form as a report, it was not readily digested and comprehended for effective decision-making.

At another firm for which I consulted a few years ago, one of the firm's key production managers would take home several reports from their existing system almost every night. Working at home in the evenings, he would comb through these various reports and, using an assortment of colored highlighters, would mark up the reports with various colors to guide his production decisions the following day.

What was he doing? He was transforming data into information.

The data contained in the aforementioned 300-page report could have been more easily digested and decision-making could have been faster and more effective if the data had been presented, perhaps, in a chart, a graph, or even reduced to some form of exception list.

Placing the information in its context

Data content may typically be broken down into three general classes for most organizations:

• Operational data such as orders, purchases, inventory, and so forth;
• Process data such as schedules, routings, bills of material, logistics, and similar; and
• Administrative data including accounting, customer lists, vendor lists, employee lists and more.

The data context, however, must be understood before effective decision-making may be done for any particular organization. The context of the data give the data meaning within the framework where it is to be applied. The context includes such elements as:

• The organization's purpose,
• The organization's strategy,
• The organization's vision and mission,
• The organization's execution model,
• The organization's capabilities and competencies,
• The organization's structure,
• The organization's policies and procedures, and
• The organization's values and culture.

Clearly, depending on an organization's purpose or strategy or production model (for example), essentially the same data may drive two different organizations to make equally effective but totally different decisions.
It should be part of every organization's IT strategy to mandate the transformation of the huge volumes of data being collected into information by their IT systems. This transformation, in itself, should be flexible, timely, and subject to ad hoc transformation, as well.

That's what business intelligence is all about. In today's world, this is all about survival, not just improvement or excellence.

"Business, we know, is now so complex and difficult, the survival of firms so hazardous in an environment increasingly unpredictable, competitive, and fraught with danger, that their continued existence depends on the day-to-day mobilization of every ounce of intelligence."
-- Konosuke Matsushita, founder of Matsushita Electric (Panasonic) as quoted in Managing on the Edge: How Successful Companies Use Conflict for Competitive Advantage by Richard Pascale (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1990), p. 51.

Information Is Not Knowledge

"Information is not knowledge. Knowledge comes from theory."
-- W. Edwards Deming

When Sir Isaac Newton was conked on his head by the falling apple (as the story goes), he had information. The information was, "apples fall from trees" or, put more generically, "things fall to the earth."

However, Newton still had no "knowledge."

Newton's comprehension of the facts did not provide "knowledge" that would be useful in any significant way. After all, people had known for centuries that things fall to the earth and, if one didn't want them falling to the earth, one must be certain that the objects are held securely in their present location.

Once, however, Newton began to construct "theory" around the fact that things fell to the earth, valuable "knowledge" began to spring from the "information" at hand.

For example, based on the "theory" that gravity was a force that always acted in precisely the same way, experiments could be set up to measure just how gravity functioned. From these experiments and calculations, we now know that the gravity of the earth accelerates objects at ~ 32.2 feet per second-squared.

This principle applies in business as well.

Having worked in the world of business management and computers since the time of the introduction of the personal computer (PC) in the early 1980s, I have found that many, many business people -- from owners, to CEOs, to CFOs, to middle managers, and on down the line -- confuse "information" with "knowledge". In fact, a very common fallacy is the belief that more "information" will lead to better management which will, in its turn, lead to better results.

Therefore, organization spend a considerable amount of some very limited resources (namely, time, energy, and money) acquiring or creating systems to give them more "information."

When all is said and done, however, these business folks often are not significantly better off than they were before they spent their precious time, energy and money, simply because, like the world before Newton, they have no "theory" by which to interpret the information they have. Without this theoretical "framework" in which to fit their body of information, many of their management actions are not much more than flailing at the wind. Some of their efforts work and some do not, but they generally cannot tell you (specifically or accurately) why one initiative worked and another similar one failed.

There are three required steps to gathering what one needs to take timely and effective action:

1. One must take the data (the raw, undigested facts -- perhaps line upon line of numbers) and convert the data into "information."

2. "Information" is data "digested" and put into a form (i.e., a chart, a graph, summed, analyzed statistically) that allows the user to quickly assess the essential implications of the underlying data.

3. The resulting "information" must be placed into a theoretical context -- a "framework" -- whereby the potential outcomes of any actions that might be indicated by the information may be fully comprehended.

Without these three steps, your organization may drown in data or become infatuated with "information" and, yet, never be able to move effectively when times are the most challenging.

©2008 Richard D. Cushing