CFO Magazine’s 2011 Conference on Corporate Performance Management (CPM)

I am pleased to announce that I have been selected by CFO publishing to officially blog on their Corporate Performance Management Conference to be held in Dallas, Texas, September 11-13, 2011. The focus of the conference will be improving business analysis and bottom-line performance. As you know, both topics are near and dear to my heart, so I look forward to hearing what the great line-up of speakers will have to say on the topic.

Speakers will include:

• Thomas Davenport, President’s Distinguished Professor of Information Technology, Babson College; author, Competing on Analytics and Analytics at Work
• Wayne Eckerson, Founder and President, BI Leadership Forum; author, Performance Dashboards: Measuring, Monitoring, and Managing Your Business
• Eric Lundberg, SVP & CFO, ALM
• Steve Player, North America Program Director, Beyond Budgeting Round Table (BBRT)
• Robin Washington, SVP & CFO, Gilead Sciences Inc.

If your business could benefit from better understanding the processes, structures, tools and people required to achieve the kinds of changes necessary to make you more profitable tomorrow than you are today, then this conference could be just the ticket for you or some members of your management team. By clicking here, on the picture above, or the CPM icon in the column to the right of this post you can register now. Better yet, by entering the code “BLOG” along with your registration, you can save $400 off the normal registration price! Don’t delay your registration. Do it today.

This is your opportunity to learn from real movers-and-shakers about how to leverage dashboards, budgeting, planning, and forecasting toward improving your firm’s bottom-line. Even assessing the performance of  your supply chain and the inherent risks you might face are covered.

See you there!

Simpler is better: Dynamic Buffer Management (DBM)

Somehow, in the dark recesses of the past, someone came up with the idea that we should (at least in our minds) segregate our regular stock (inventory quantities) from our “safety stock” as if there were some difference between the two. “Safety stock,” APICS and others suggest, is to cover “variations” in lead-time or demand, while our “regular stock” is to cover “normal demand”—whatever that is. But for most businesses today, variation in demand is the rule, and not the exception. Furthermore, isn’t it true that our whole stock quantity is really what we want to manage—not some isolated portion of our stock that we describe logically as “safety stock.”

Simpler is better. Our whole stock quantity should buffer the system (read: the whole enterprise) from losses in throughput (read: profits).

For years I have worked with small-to midsized enterprises (SMEs), many of which I first touched when they were in transition from entrepreneurial to enterprise in nature. When I found them, they generally knew very little about their inventory. Oh, sure: they knew in a general sense which items were profitable and which were not. They also had a general handle on which items in their inventory were the “fast movers” and which were “the dogs.” Nevertheless, when it came to managing their inventory quantities they almost all struggled with the all too common problem of being sold-out of some items (and thus incurring losses of potential sales and profits) while, at the same time finding that they were overstocked on dozens of other items (so that they were simultaneously incurring high carrying costs and lower cash flows as a result). The problem was, from month to month, it was almost never the same items that were sold-out versus over-stocked. They could never predict what quantities were going to sell, so they couldn’t predict what quantities to stock.

Constraints management (Theory of Constraints) suggests—as I said above—that our whole stock of any item (taken in total) should serve one purpose: to buffer the system from losses to throughput. Now, it is not the purpose of this present writing cover all of the various details of a full Dynamic Buffer Management solution. The simplicity of Dynamic Buffer Management (DBM) is what makes it so appealing. The following is a real-life application of DBM in action.

The raw data we have on our example SKU looks like this:

We have just two months of data from 2007, full years’ data from 2008 and 2009, and a partial year for 2010. Note that demand in 2008 was fairly stable, ranging between 72 and 220 units per day. However, demand is 2009 become wildly erratic—ranging from just 1 unit per day to 389 units per day. Over the entire recorded history for this SKU, we find the following statistics:

If we graph these data, the results look like this:

Now, it’s nice to know that a third-order polynomial curve fits pretty nicely with a six-period moving average of these data, but most SMEs do not have a staff statistician available to them to help analyze all their inventory history in order to determine how to set parameters like stock levels, safety stock, reorder points, line points and more. Nor, do they have confidence that statistics will necessarily serve them better than their intuition has in the past.

What they are looking for is something SIMPLE, RELIABLE, EASY TO UNDERSTAND and EFFECTIVE. Dynamic buffer management is all of that.

Let’s imagine that we are at the end of year 2008 and we want to set up DBM for year 2009. We’re going to do so based on our 2008 history.

The first thing we need to know is: how big should our starting buffer be for this item?

Well, it ain’t rocket science! Establishing a starting buffer quantity requires the knowledge of a few facts because it is more important to be “approximately right” than to be “precisely wrong.” No matter how much precision (read: time, energy and money) is put into calculating a “precise number” for the size of the buffer (or any other business ‘forecast’ number) that number will end up being “precisely wrong” 99.999 percent of the time.

So, to find an “approximately right” number for the starting buffer is more important than finding a “precisely wrong” one. In our example, we used the following formula:

Starting Buffer Size = average period consumption over the Last 12 months + (safe replenishment time in days * average consumption/day * 2 * paranoia factor)

Some of these numbers are arbitrary:

1. “Safe Replenishment Time” is nothing more than a “safe” estimate of the time it would take to replenish the item under normal circumstances. Almost anyone working in purchasing or replenishment or manufacturing can pick that number for items with which they work day-in and day-out. If one says, “Five,” and another says, “Eight,” then use eight. It’s that simple.
2. The number “2” used in the formula is also arbitrary. It is nothing more than an additional safety factor to cover unusually high demand or unusually slow delivery. In a moment you’ll see why it is not terribly important in the long run.
3. “Paranoia Factor” is our third arbitrary number. This value is used to cover management’s concern about things like:
1. “Our inventory will skyrocket” – so let management set a paranoia factor of less than 1.0 on some items
2. “If we run out of this item, we lose sales on other things, too! – so increase the paranoia factor
3. “This is a high-margin item and we don’t want to lose a single sale” – so make the paranoia factor larger

For our example, we calculated a starting buffer size of 11,954 base on a paranoia factor of 1.000. Let’s watch what happens using the actual consumption figures from year 2009.

Now, let’s see how DBM helps us out:

• Period 1: We just stocked up to almost 12,000 units and in period one we had the worst month ever! We sold only 23 units! Have we done the right thing here?!?
  Even though it seems like we have plenty of stock, we follow our basic rule: Whatever we consume, we replenish. So, we place a replenishment order for 23 units.
  
  At the end of the period, our “Buffer Status” = 99.81 percent. We have almost a full buffer.
• Period 2: Things return to normal now. We consume 3,315 units, we get our replenishment supply of 23 units, and we end the period with a buffer status of 72.27 percent. That’s okay. We really don’t get concerned as long as the buffer remains in the green zone—that is, above two-thirds.
  
  We dutifully place our replenishment order for your consumed quantity—3,315 units.
• Period 3: We consume 2,153 units and get our 3,315 units from our replenishment order. True to form, we order replenishment for the 2,153 units, and we end with the buffer solidly in the green at 81.99 percent.
• Period 4: Wow! We consume 7,903 units; get our replenishment of 2,153 units and our buffer status ends up in the red zone. The red zone is a buffer below 33.33 percent full. [NOTE: Here I’m going to play along with some anomaly in Excel’s failure to calculate and apply conditional formatting correctly. We’re at 33.89 percent and this should be “Yellow,” but it’s not. Excel says it’s “Red,” so we’re going to call it “red.” Close enough!] We take no immediate action other than to note that this is the FIRST PERIOD in which our buffer has fallen into the red zone.
  
  We place our standard order to replenish period consumption.
• Period 5: We have another great period for this item. We consume 8.476 units; get our replenishment order for 7,903 units, and end the period for the SECOND PERIOD IN SUCCESSION in the red zone. The buffer reached 29.09 percent.
  
  Other than placing our replenishment order, we take no specific action.
• Period 6: We’re hit with record sales and move 11,666 units. Even after replenishment order arrives, we still are sitting near the bottom of the red zone at 2.41 percent.
  
  Since this is the THIRD SUCCESSIVE PERIOD where we have ended up in the red zone for this buffer, we take action to INCREASE THE BUFFER SIZE BY ONE-THIRD. Our replenishment order is now for the 11,666 units consumed PLUS the buffer increase of 3,985 units.
• Periods 7 and beyond: We will continue to monitor and manage the buffer dynamically applying these simple rules…
• THREE CONSECUTIVE PERIODS IN THE RED ZONE, then INCREASE the BUFFER by ONE-THIRD
• FOUR CONSECUTIVE PERIODS IN THE GREEN ZONE, then DECREASE the BUFFER by ONE-THIRD

As you can see, this is a very SIMPLE, YET EFFECTIVE, way to facilitate stock management. There are some other principles that should be understood—such as the fact that the BUFFER actually contains both the stock in the warehouse and what is in-transit (or, in manufacturing, if a make-item) and is due within one “Safe Replenishment Time” period.

This is so simple!

Most inventory systems could do this with relatively minor tweaks. It is really just managing inventory by “max stock level”—when quantities fall below the maximum stock level, replenish back to the maximum stock level—with some kind of data view (perhaps even using Microsoft Excel™) to display the buffer status with action signals.

Let me know what you think.

[Cross-posted at Kinaxis Supply Chain Community.]

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?

The Dangerous Dichotomy—Part 2

[Continued]

In the preceding article we discussed how—all too frequently—management inadvertently creates a schizophrenic organization by assigning responsibility for increasing revenues to one part of the organization while assigning cost-cutting to another part of the organization. Usually the other part of the organization is everyone else—everyone not assigned to the task of increasing revenues.

What happens in such cases, is that the business is driven to a dichotomy that tends to pull the organization apart.

Of course, this effect of pulling the organization apart is entirely unintentional. Management wants to move the business toward greater profits and profitability. Sales and marketing—those generally commissioned with increasing revenues want the organization to succeed and grow. And, all the others, whose marching orders are to cut costs also really want the company to find success. So they are doing their best to keep costs down.

Nevertheless, seeming unreasonable demands made by sales and marketing are a nearly constant irritation to inventory and production managers. And what appears to be the simple inability of folks in purchasing, production, scheduling, warehouse and shipping to get their house in order so that sales and marketing can achieve their goals of increasing revenues is a cause of very real frustrations.

So, even though everyone in the organization really wants to move the organization toward success, it is clear that no one in it has a view of what it takes to make the whole organization—the whole “system”—move in the desired direction. Those who are instructed to “increase revenues” have no real view or interest in holding the line on costs or operating expenses. But, what is worse, those who have been instruction to “cut costs” generally have no visibility into what it might take to increase revenues. They are not privy to the “levers” that might affect increasing sales. Plus, the various departments involved in “cost cutting” are quite often, themselves, fragmented in their view of what it takes to be effective.

A simple example

Let’s take one simple example relative to supply chain thinking.

Most businesses vastly underestimate their losses from what they too frequently believe is a good thing. When they say, “Folks, we sold out of product X!” they are frequently thinking: “This is great! ‘Sold-out’ means we have lower inventories! It means we sold more than we expected to sell!” or similar thoughts.

But look at the results of out-of-stock conditions in the example above.

First, everyone needs to recognize that the things that “sell-out” are the most popular items. Second, because these are the most popular items, there is no reliable way to know how many more units the firm might have sold if they had had more units in stock. Certainly extrapolating from “average sales” is insufficient.

In our example (above), a product comes in five styles (‘A’ through ‘E’). The firm chose to stock 280 of each of these five styles and the quantities actually sold are found in the “Qty Sold” column.

In our scenario we are supplying what cannot actually be known—that is, the actual market potential (“Mkt Potential”) for each style. In this case, the firm ended up selling-out of two styles (‘C’ and ‘D’), while being overstocked on Styles ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘E’. Extrapolating from “Average Sales” one might believe that the firm lost $5,400 in revenues. However, when calculated from “market potential” for each style, the actual amount surrendered in lost revenues due to being sold-out calculates to $12,900—more than double the estimated losses from averages.

Of course, this lost-sales number is a guess—since there is no reliable way to know the actual market demand for a sold-out item. But, what is not a guess is that when a business is out-of-stock on a popular item, it is almost certainly also losing sales on other items when customers go elsewhere for the items they are seeking. Plus, every time a customers goes shopping somewhere else, the “out-of-stock” business stands a good chance of losing the customer to another supplier.

Doubtless, reducing out-of-stock occurrences will increase revenues. That will help satisfy the sales and marketing team in our troubling dichotomy above. But, the question remains, can that be done in such a way that will satisfy what should be everyone’s goal: helping the business make more money tomorrow than it is making today?

[To be continued]

The Dangerous Dichotomy - Part 1

Far too many business executives have created an artificial dichotomy within their own organization that is potentially dangerous to their firm's survival and almost certainly destructive of profits. What is that artificial dichotomy, I hear you ask?

The answer is simple: Businesses all too frequently put the responsibility for increasing revenues into the hands of one part of their organization, while putting an entirely different group--usually most of the rest of the organization--in charge of reducing costs.

While, on the surface, this may seem to make sense; it really does not.

Here's why.

The Revenue-Increasing Group
The folks in the organization put in charge of increasing revenues--usually the sales and marketing departments--generally are measured only on the things pertaining to revenues. Because it is not a part of their reward metric, the folks in sales and marketing are, therefore, wont to make decisions that may:

1. Increase the costs of production
2. Drive inventories up
3. Increase operating expenses
4. Reduce output

Now, they don't do these things intentionally. They are just trying to do what they have been mandated to do by management and senior executives.

But, if increases in revenue are stymied or shrunken by, say...

1. Failures to meet delivery-time promises
2. Out-of-stock conditions on finished goods or components
3. Lay-offs or cut-backs in production, warehousing or elsewhere

Then, the revenue-increasing group has an "out" for not performing up to expectations or forecasts. Their excuses are generally based on the performance of the other part of the organization.

The Cost-Cutting Group
The other part of the organization is, as I said, usually all the rest of the organization. These folks have all been instructed and, frequently, are being measured based on "keeping costs down." There interest is in doing everything they can to...

1. Keep the costs of production down
2. Holding inventory levels as low as possible
3. Making sure that operating expenses are minimized

These parts of the organization's management also want the organization to succeed. But they are not being measured based on the organization's (the "system's") success. They are being measure on their performance against budgets for costs and expenses.

The folks working in these other departments have no malice of intent, but when sales and marketing brings a request to engineering or production that is going to increase the costs of production, they are not likely to look too kindly upon the idea. When sales tells these folks that they could sell more if they just had more inventory, they may nod their heads in affirmation, but the are not likely to take affirmative action because they aren't rewarded for that effort. To the contrary, they are more likely to be rewarded for holding inventory levels down and increasing inventory turns.

So, the battle rages
And, of course, the battle does not end there. When cost-cutting fails to make the firm more profitable, this group is just as willing and able to point fingers at the "sales guys," and point out how their frequent interventions, their calls to change production or shipping priorities, and their demands that end-of-period orders "get out the door" prevent serious cost-cutting by...

1. Driving overtime expenses up
2. Increasing requirements for both raw material and finish goods inventories
3. Reducing production by breaking up shop floor production runs with new priorities on a daily basis

 Hence, these two separate factions--who should be working toward a single end--are first formed by management and then each becomes the excuse for the other for non-performance. Meanwhile, the firm as a whole suffers reduced profits, higher operating expenses, and--generally speaking--too much inventory (made even more unbearable by having too little of the things that the customers want when they want them).

To be continued...
If your organization is not presently experiencing this warfare--even if subtle or boiling just beneath the surface of a "mask" of "team work"--then you are a fortunate one and, more likely than not, you know a firm or have worked in a firm where this is or was true.

This internal conflict is evidence of the lack of "system thinking." When executives give different directives to different parts of the organization--in the hope of squeezing some profit out of "local optima," rather than global metrics that encompass the goal of the whole system--the whole organization--this is what one must expect.

There is an answer.

[Continued next post....]

Considering Project Accounting for Increased Profit

Many folks confuse the terms “project management” with “project accounting.” These terms are not synonymous. As might be inferred from their distinctions, project accounting is all about tracking the monies associated with projects. Project management is related to managing project tasks, time and resources.

While there are some software applications that handle both the project accounting (PA) and the project management (PM) aspects, most common applications handle only one side or the other. For example, Microsoft® Project™ is a very commonly used application for project management. It is worthless, however, for anything related to project accounting.

Why aren’t project management and project accounting found in the same application?

In most organizations, the fact that project management recording and project accounting transactions do not occur in the same application typically poses few hurdles to operational effectiveness. The reason for this is simple: typically the personnel intimately involved in managing tasks, time and resources (i.e., the project managers) are not the same folks who are intimately involved with handling the accounting aspects of the project (e.g., calculating, printing and sending the project invoices, making payments to project vendors, or assuring that expense or payroll transactions are processed on time). Therefore, the ability to share data via simple integrations or even via ad hoc queries or reports is quite frequently sufficient.

In fact, not infrequently, organizations actually prefer to have project managers and their activities kept separate from project accounting and its related activities. Doing so functions as a double-check and adds control in itself.

“We don’t do projects?” we hear you saying

You don’t think you’re in a “project”-type industry? Well, maybe you’re right. But consider these possibilities:

• Internal projects – Does your organization do internal projects for which you’d like to track costs accurately, even if you never bill anyone for the services? Do you do advertising campaigns? IT projects? Opening new locations? If so, then it is possible that your business could benefit from the additional controls provided by a project accounting solution.
  
• Engineer-to-Order – If you are a manufacturer in an engineer-to-order (ETO) industry, then project accounting might be applied to track your costs leading up to the manufacturing. Professional services and related costs and expenses can be tracked and managed using project accounting’s capabilities.
  
• Installation or After-Market Service – If your manufacturing or distribution operations extend themselves into the fields of installation, configuration or after-market service, then chances are project accounting is not the right solution for you. In such cases, you should read the section on Service Management.

What can Project Accounting do for you?

There many time-saving functions brought to you through the project accounting capabilities that dramatically reduce the time, energy and effort that would otherwise be required. Here is a sampling:

Profit Recognition

Projects may recognize profit/(loss) in several different ways. Most PA solutions allow users to assign the profit recognition method by project. The typical profit recognition methods include:

1. Manual
2. Cost-to-cost percent
3. Percent of revenues
4. Non-WIP
5. Project completion
6. Percent of elapsed time

“Percent of elapsed time” is a profit-recognition method commonly used with prepaid date-limited service contracts. If this is a common method in your firm, be sure to investigate Service Management solutions as well. In some circumstances, service management may be the more appropriate solution to apply.

Project Billing Methods

Project accounting software typically offers several options for billing and projects may be of different billing types:

1. Time and materials
2. Fixed price
3. Fixed price plus

When a project is designated a “time and materials” billing type, most project accounting systems allow the materials items to be passed through at cost to the customer, or billed with a mark-up add to designated materials and other non-labor charges.

Billing for Employee Time

Businesses that bill their clients for employee time spent on various projects often face the daunting task of keeping the billing correct based on agreements with their various clients. Not infrequently such agreements may involve complexities that would require considerable time and care if attempted without the support of a project accounting system.

For example, clients may negotiate different rates for different specific employees when working their projects. Indeed, they may end up negotiating different rates for the same specific employee on different projects—several of which projects may be underway at any one time with the same client. As you can imagine, assuring that project billings are assigned the right rate for the right resource on a project by project basis could become a difficult task. Project accounting systems handle such billings effectively and simply with little effort.

Add to the potential complexity described above the ability to also bill different rates to different projects or different customers based on the employees’ titles in their assignments to different projects and you can readily see that manually tracking all of the potential combinations could become a nearly impossible task. Here, for example, employee Jim Smith might bear the title “Project Manager” on one project for one client and, as the Project Manager be billed at $225 per hour. However, due to Jim’s lack of experience in another type of project, he may bear the title “Developer” on that project and be billed to the same client (or a different client) at a rate of only $150 per hour.

Increasing throughput and profits

Now, you might say, “I don’t need all that complexity in my projects. We’re content with billing just one rate per project, one rate per client, or one rate per employee across all projects and clients.

Our question in response is this: “Why wouldn’t you want to make more money tomorrow than you are making today if you could do so without adding significantly to your operating expenses by doing so?”

We ask this because this is precisely what a project accounting solution could do for you and your firm.

Chances are your client’s aren’t stupid. They know that a good and effective project manager is more valuable to them than a heads-down programmer or a project secretary or, perhaps, a QA staffer. Right now, you are likely charging the same for each of these, which mean you must be using an “averaged” rate.

By adding project accounting’s flexibility, you are also adding the low-cost option of further segmenting your market and closing more deals. You can charge clients more or less based on how your crack sales team identifies the prospect’s or client’s view of “value.” Two projects that are virtually identical in their execution may have two significantly different values to two distinctly different clients. Consider the following chart:

Project ID	Est. Project Cost	Est. Project Revenues	Est. Project Profit
A	$ 165,000	$ 260,000	$ 95,000
B	$ 165,000	$ 220,000	$ 55,000
C	$ 165,000	$ 200,000	$ 35,000

Here we see virtually identical projects on the “cost” side. However, three different clients perceive the “value” of the efforts differently in their businesses. One is willing to pay $260,000 for the work; another is willing to pay $220,000 for it; and third sees only $200,000 in value and won’t pay a cent more.

If your PA system only allows you to charge these clients one rate—or if you don’t want to burden your accounting department with manually managing different billing rates per client—you may be tempted to turn down Projects ‘B’ and ‘C’.

Why give up the profits?

But, if your firm has the capacity to do projects ‘B’ and ‘C’, and no more profitable project prospects stand in your way, why would you turn down an extra $90,000 ($55,000 plus $35,000) in project profits simply because your accounting system makes it too difficult to manage. (Actually, that is not the reason such profits are all too frequently passed by. Instead, it is because executives and the sales team—hemmed in by preconceptions about their accounting limitations—never think of making these offers. Instead, they offer their ‘bids’ using the firm’s standard costs and markups and end up losing the deals for Projects ‘B’ and ‘C’.)

Leveraging new capabilities for new profits

In short, leveraging the new flexibilities delivered by a project accounting solution may allow your firm to dramatically increase revenues and profits through market segmentation. However, doing so means bringing to your firm new ways of thinking (as seen above) and an understanding how newly delivered capabilities can, in fact, be applied to create new markets or extend existing ones. This means finding the right implementation partner is essential.

It is imperative that you not make the common mistake made by some many executives and managers when considering the purchase and implementation of project accounting software. Typically they spend more than 90 percent of their time and effort in what the process of “software selection,” carefully considering a long list of features and functions. Then, when this is all done, they simply take whatever consulting firm and consultants come along with the software. We believe this is a wrong-headed approach and many firms to make investments in software with little return on their investment.

There are three critical aspects necessary for a project accounting implementation leading to rapid and high return-on-investment:

• The ability to unlock “tribal knowledge”
  
• The ability to reduce complex problems to simple solutions
  
• The ability to help your organization “design” new ways to leverage new capabilities for increasing throughput and profit

If the software reseller cannot bring to your firm these critical elements, perhaps you should look elsewhere.

Warnings for SMEs Seeking Manufacturing “Solutions”

Many small to mid-sized manufacturing enterprises (SMEs) come to us seeking manufacturing software. Not infrequently, when asked about their goals in applying manufacturing software, executives in the firms are seeking “to get a better handle on manufacturing costs,” or something similar.

Two warnings

In such circumstances we offer a two-fold warning: First, we tell them, if you implement software to support your manufacturing operations, it will be capable of producing mountains of reports. Enough raw data is collected by advanced manufacturing solutions to bury the typical SME in reports—reports that they don’t have today and, to a great extent, they will never have time to thoroughly analyze when they become available to them.

Second, we warn them—and this is the critical warning—when you start getting reports and data coming out of your manufacturing software, you are going to start believing what is on the reports!

And, “What’s wrong with that?” we hear you ask.

Where does it all start?

Well, to understand that warning, we have to take a step back to look at what goes into “bootstrapping” a manufacturing solution in an SME. Here is a short list of some of the data elements:

1. Routings/Bills of Materials

1.1. Quantity per Cycle

1.2. Economic Cycle Quantity

1.3. Materials

1.3.1. Quantity Required per Production Unit (including waste)

1.4. Labor

1.4.1. Move Time

1.4.2. Queue Time

1.4.3. Setup Time

1.4.4. Re-Setup Time

1.4.5. Quantity per Reset

1.4.6. Scrap Quantity / Scrap Rate

1.4.7. Production Effective Rate

1.5. Material Requirements Planning (MRP) by Routing

1.5.1. Planning Window Size

1.5.2. Planning Batch Size

1.5.3. Planning Maximum Quantity

1.5.4. Planning Minimum Quantity

1.5.5. Planning Percent Over

2. Operational Parameters

2.1. Work Schedules

2.1.1. Holiday Schedules

2.1.2. Planned Downtime Schedules

2.1.3. Planned Maintenance Schedules

2.2. Work Centers

2.2.1. Fixed Overhead (Allocation) Rates (dollars)

2.2.1.1. Run-time Rates

2.2.1.2. Setup Time Rates

2.2.2. Production Cost Rates (dollars)

2.2.2.1. Run-time Rates

2.2.2.2. Setup Time Rates

3. Material Requirements Planning (MRP) Parameters

3.1. Days in Planning Period

3.2. Planning Fence Days

 

That short-list includes more than 20 parameters, the majority of which will have some affect how the system calculates the firm’s “cost of manufacturing” for any given item in its SKU-list. Not only so but, if the SME implements SFC (Shop Floor Control) to capture so-called “actual” production time, the system will calculate new costs based on the variations in actual production times—and they will vary—adding to the confusion over what is profitable and what is not.

Beginning with guesses

Most SMEs interested in implementing manufacturing software will have (quite literally) no idea what values should be used for a great many of the parameters their new manufacturing software will require from them. And, with limited time to get the system implemented, they will be forced to make guesses and use these values for their parameters. The biggest of all the guesses—by our experience—will be in the dollar-amounts assigned to the various Work Centers for the costs of production and overhead allocations.

Now, consider this: Let us assume that a firm has 3,000 manufactured SKUs (Routings with five factors affecting cost on each Routing) running through eight Work Centers (each with 4 factors affecting cost). That works out to be:

3,000 Routings * 5 factors/Routing * 8 Work Centers * 4 factors/Work Center = 480,000

Such an SME has nearly half-a-million combinations of variables from the manufacturing system alone affecting reports that will be used by management to try to guide the firm to greater profitability. Now, consider that a good many of the factors involved—and now buried deeply in the processing—were guesses to begin with, and you may begin to see why we offer the warnings: the manufacturing software will produce lots of data and reports and—what is worse—management will believe the reports!

What is an SME to do then?

The sheer complexity of the problem means that an SME must be careful not to invest poorly in their manufacturing solution. Very expensive manufacturing software that is poorly implemented is probably more damaging to the SME than less expensive software that is properly implemented and practically applied.

Where should an SME look to find the skills?

Some SMEs seek to hire employees who have had previous experience at other firms in working with or implementing manufacturing software. At times this works out. However, there are two potential dangers in taking this approach. The first is that the employee comes to the new SME with the intention of implementing exactly the same software he had at his old employer’s firm and he or she intends to implement it in exactly the same way it was implemented at the other firm.

This is dangerous because no one knows for sure whether the other firm’s software is the right fit for the new SME’s deployment and, worse, no one knows if the previous firm’s implementation was done properly and effectively.

The second danger in taking this approach is that the employee is likely to bring with him or her preconceptions about how manufacturing or other business processes work together with the manufacturing solution. However, the new SME’s business processes and manufacturing flows may be significantly—or wholly—different from the other firm’s processes. The preconceptions may be entirely out of place in the new manufacturing environment.

The right implementation partner

Everything we have discussed up to this point emphasizes the importance to the SME of finding the right implementation partner for the manufacturing solution.

What should a good manufacturing solution partner look like?

It is rightly said that no consulting organization will ever understand the SME’s business as well as the folks in the SME organization itself do. It is also clear that it is highly unlikely that any business enterprise will ever come understand the software it uses as well as the consulting organizations that specialize in its application across multiple enterprises. So, the best implementation partner for any SMEs manufacturing solution should meet the following qualifications:

Able to unlock “tribal knowledge”

New manufacturing software will not help you:

Create new manufacturing capacity

Sell more products

Reduce inventories

Ship more orders on-time

Increase customer satisfaction levels

However, an implementation partner with the skills and experience necessary to unlock what your people know—the “tribal knowledge” carried about in the heads of your employees and managers who get things done day-after-day despite the difficulties—is one who may also be able to help you do all of these things while implementing your new manufacturing solution.

Unlocking “tribal knowledge” requires tools and skills built through years of experience. It requires a deep and thorough understanding of businesses from customer acquisition to cash collections and financial reporting. Any “implementation specialist” that only looks at—or only has the skills to see—what’s happening on the manufacturing floor may implement the software but will not help your firm reap the most return for your investment.

Able to reduce complex problems to simple solutions

The more complex a problem appears to be, the simpler the solution must be if it is to be manageable, reliable and sustainable. Consider the following simple illustration of two systems:

Many executives, managers and consultants view their organizations much like “System 1.” They see A, B, C, D and E as just so many departments and functions, each to be considered, managed and optimized separately. This leads to “complex” solutions that frequently do not produce predictable—or even, desirable—results. The solution must be “complex,” because the system appears to be complex. In order to affect areas A through E, we must touch each of these areas individually.

However, through the process of unlocking “tribal knowledge,” it is possible to get a view of an organization that looks like “System 2.” Now we find a “simple” solution. We understand that if we affect just function A in a certain way, doing so will a predictable affect on all of the other areas. We have, thus, reduced apparent complexity to find a simple, yet elegant, solution.

Able to help your organization “design” its own solution

Something you won’t hear from too many software resellers is this truth: the software is not “the solution.” The solution is to be found in the context of your SME organization. The solution is the blending of people, technology and processes with a holistic view of what it will take to help your organization make more money tomorrow than it is making today.

Getting to that end does not mean—as some software resellers would like you to believe—simply “buying the right software” and “implementing” what you bought. Rather, it means getting the whole organization involved in creating a new “solution” by reshaping the way people see and believe in the operation of the whole enterprise—and, in particular, their role in that “big picture.” We believe it is essential for your organization to be involved in creating the solution—creating the blend of people, processes and technologies—because in guiding them in the creation of the solution, we are automatically helping them create success.

Success becomes virtually automatic result because people don’t fight against their own invention. They may fight against what is thrust upon them from management on-high, but they will never struggle against nor undermine the solution that is the invention of their own thought processes.

Don’t put the emphasis in the wrong place

Far too many SMEs considering the purchase and implementation of manufacturing software spend some 90 percent of their efforts in what they call “software selection,” and then end up taking whatever consulting firm comes along with the software. We believe this is a wrong-headed approach and has led to many of the horror stories with which the ERP (enterprise resource planning) software industry is rife.

Remember these three critical aspects necessary for a manufacturing implementation with high return-on-investment:

The ability to unlock “tribal knowledge”

The ability to reduce complex problems to simple solutions

The ability to help your organization “design” its own solution

If the software reseller cannot bring to your SME firm these three critical elements, perhaps you should look elsewhere.