May 17, 2023 | Analytics, Management
The ‘Long tail’ is a graphic recognition of the Pareto principle, the 80/20 rule. It holds true in every situation I have ever seen. Rarely exactly 80/20, but always somewhere in the region.
We tend to accept it as a reflection of revenue and profit: ‘20% of our customers generate 80% of our revenue’.
Often, we manage our businesses, particularly the sales effort, as if this is the only place the principle works.
It applies equally to transaction costs, long term potential, management attention, geography, product class, customer type, and many other useful to know indicators.
Take for example, those customers that in 5 years’ time will be amongst your most profitable. Chances are, they are currently hiding somewhere in your long tail, denied the focus and assistance they might value that will assist them to grow in importance, simply because they are not seen. I call them ‘Strategically Important Customers.’ Unimportant now by most measures, but critically important in the long term.
Ignore these customers at your peril.
So, how do you find them?
- They meet the parameters of your ‘ideal customer.’
- They have a problem to which you have or are developing the ideal solution.
- Your share of their ‘wallet‘ is low when they meet other ‘ideal customer’ parameters.
Conversely, set your sales team to dig them out of your competitor’s long tail, deliver value to them, and convert.
An equally important task is to identify those customers who cost more to service than their current or potential profitability. The best thing you can do is send them to your competitor, so they can be saddled with the usually hidden transaction costs and low margins.
The profit and Loss statement is, or can be, a remarkably efficient way of capturing the information required to focus resources in the most optimised manner, dictated by your strategy. A P&L by customer, product, geography, market, and any other driver can be generated using readily available and relatively simple tools. The challenge is in overcoming the institutional definitions of how the data for the statements is collected, collated, and presented.
For example, what is an overhead, and how is it allocated?
In a factory, is the cost of supervisory staff allocated to individual product lines based on the actual costs, some rough ‘standard’ cost, or not allocated at all? Are those costs seen as overhead? Is the total overhead spread across total production by some magical formula devised by the accountants, or treated as a cost centre and managed proactively? What about those directly on the production line? Are their costs allocated in proportion to production volumes, customer offtake, or some mythical ‘absorption’ rate?
Take the time to ‘slice and dice’ your Profit and Loss statement. After having tackled the greater challenge of having the costs as they are actually incurred reflected in the customer P&L statement, you will be in a great position to take decisions that will have a significant impact on your overall profitability.
May 5, 2023 | Leadership, Management
Amongst all the blather about remote work, there is an aspect that has received little attention, but in a couple of my clients is beginning to make itself known.
The ‘remote work’ idea is not applicable to everyone.
Office workers of all types are able to some extent, work remotely. They are saving commute time and money, childcare is more flexible, ‘family friendly’ and potentially delivering savings to their employers and to themselves.
However, those in factories, on building sites, driving trucks, are not able to work remotely, and find these benefits.
This is starting to cause friction. Those still punching a time clock, and subjected to the disciplines of shifts are starting to resent the freedom accorded to white collar workers.
During the covid lockdowns, it was OK, they understood. However, now the lockdowns are over, and the whiteys are still workingfrom home, or are they really working at all, or just logging in from the local café or pub?.
Why are they the lucky lot?
The benefit they are getting, dropping the kids to school, lunch with friends, and all the rest being denied to the blue collars.
They are getting pissed, and management needs to start considering the impact and implications of a differing set of expectations across the breadth of their workforce.
Apr 3, 2023 | Innovation, Lean, Management
The double entry bookkeeping system we are familiar with, or should be, has been around for millennia. In the form we now know it, double entry bookkeeping was codified by Franciscan monk Luca Pacioli, a collaborator of Leonardo da Vinci in a mathematics text published in 1494.
It remained largely unchanged, just increasingly complex until the 1920’s when Alfred Sloan, the king of General Motors for 50 years developed the system of management accounts we still use, with standard product costs as a foundation.
As the ‘lean manufacturing’ movement, pioneered by Toyota, extended throughout the western world from the late 70’s onwards, the system of standard costs became increasingly problematic.
It tends to set in stone the assumptions that are built into the standard product costs, rather than using them as a basis for continuous improvement. Even worse, management KPI’s tend to be centered around functional silos that have little to do with the overall productivity of assets in delivering value to customers.
I have been subjected to ‘stalking’ variances, those that seem never to go away, but persist in defiance of management edict many times. The easiest way to get rid of them is to adjust the standard. Not very smart, but accepted practice and often the only way to achieve KPI’s in a corporate environment. It also has the effect of hiding opportunities for improvement, and ensuring reliable data is not available in real time. In parallel, we have increasingly digitised operational processes by multimillion dollar installations of MRP (Manufacturing Resource Planning) and its more expensive sibling ERP (Enterprise Resource Planning) systems. These tend to set in stone standard costs and variances down to the micro transaction level contained in work orders, which complicates and adds cost to the reporting and management processes without adding value for customers.
One of the core ideas of Lean is ‘Flow’ which is at odds with standard costing systems. Standard costing gives precedent to operational efficiency at individual stages in a process, rather than flow through a whole system, ignoring varying capacity and efficiency constraints. This results in several usually uncomfortable conflicts.
Two examples:
- Lean seeks to reduce inventory of all types, raw material, work in progress and finished goods, seeing it as a cost, tying up working capital. Traditional accounting treats inventory as an asset, and when a Lean project reduces inventory, it reduces the current assets in the balance sheet, giving a misleading perception of financial performance.
- Lean focusses on capacity utilisation and ‘Flow’ through the processes necessary to create a product. Capacity is the key operational constraint, but does not appear anywhere in the general ledger other than by inference, as a function of capital invested, the calculated value of inventory, and unit sales. Delivering capacity is only of value when that capacity is used to add value in some way, usually by producing more product from the same fixed cost base. Standard costing ignores this reality of operational management.
There are no easily GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Practice) conforming measures for calculating immediate capacity utilisation, and flow, and no sensible calculation of actual product costs on a short term basis that conforms to the standard cost model. A second set of measures, which use the same data base as GAAP accounting, but in different ways is necessary.
While it will take work to set up these alternative measures, once deployed they will reduce the reporting workload and error rates inherent in the highly transaction based standard cost models, delivering both utility and accuracy to operational reporting and analysis. Deployment is however not like installing an ERP system, it is a process of continuous improvement.
Setting out to implement a Lean accounting environment in the absence of collaboration and mutual understanding at the senior executive level, is akin to climbing Everest in a t-shirt. Success requires a complete change of mindset from that taught by most accounting institutions where the concentration is on financial and reporting compliance, rather than gathering and critically analysing the information that enables better management decision making and continuous improvement.
Header credit: Nick Katco from ‘The Lean Accounting CFO’
Mar 27, 2023 | Management, Small business
A start-up funded with a cash stake from family, friends, and fools, supplemented by available savings has in its future one of only three options.
- It runs out of cash before the end of the ‘runway’. Crash and burn.
- It extends the runway by finding more cash, usually from equity injections. This generally requires that an MVP (Minimum Viable Product) has been produced. MVP is a term usually associated with a tech start-up, but is just as applicable to a local accountant or plumber hanging out their shingle.
- It achieves ‘lift-off’ before the end of the cash runway. This makes it easier to attract the necessary second round funding to scale from further equity or loan funds based on the expected cash flow from the expanded enterprise.
Assuming the start-up succeeds at option three, it is no longer a ‘start-up’, it has become a business.
These are very different beasts.
The start-up by necessity is acting to attract further investment. This is available from funding institutions of various kinds, and from those very early adopters of a new product or service who value the buzz of being early adopters, the risk takers. Those running ‘start-ups’ need to be highly ambidextrous, as they must work on the ‘product-market fit’ as well as continually chasing the next round of finance.
Once it has become a business, ‘lift-off’ has been achieved, the focus must be wholly on serving the chosen customer set, or the pack of cards will fall, eventually.
Jan 5, 2023 | Customers, Management, Sales
In almost every situation I have ever seen, ‘Sales’ includes all sales, and salespeople are often rewarded via commissions on the total of all those sales.
In many categories of B2B sales, the only time a person does a ‘Sales’ job is to gain that first transaction, after which it is all about retention, a different set of skills.
Assuming the first transaction goes well, the product was delivered on time, in specification, and did the job promised, the chances of a repeat at the appropriate interval is higher, and may not require the ‘sales’ skills of the original salesperson. Rather, it requires the interaction of operational and logistics personnel to manage the relationship, and the transactions that occur within that relationship.
If that is the case, why do we habitually reward salespeople on the total of all sales?
Salespeople are as different as any other group of people. The archetypal ‘Always be Closing’ salesman of the past has now almost disappeared, replaced by a range of people covering differing tasks. This reflects the changed role of sales with the move of information from the hands of the seller to those of the buyer.
Almost every salesperson also sees customers as ‘their’ customers.
Again, if the hypothesis is that they are only necessary for the first transaction holds, this is a mistake.
The logistics and operations people should hold the relationship, assisted by an internal ‘customer service’ person, while the salesperson goes off ‘hunting’ for the next new customer, or indeed, sales in an adjacent product or market area of a current customer not currently serviced. This would be a far better use of the time available to a salesperson than running around at the factory trying to wrangle a preferred spot in the production schedule.
A business I ran as a contractor some years ago had a specialist sales force made up of highly trained technologists. When tracking their activity, it became obvious that most of their time was consumed by tasks other than ‘sales’. These involved interaction with the customers technologists, their operational, marketing and planning personnel. Significant time was also spent at their desks dealing with the complexity of our planning and operational processes in order to meet sometimes impossible delivery promises made under pressure from customers.
This blurred the line between the tasks best undertaken by a specialist technical salesperson, dealing directly with generating more sales, and the tasks that were better done by internal customer service people. The ambiguity of responsibility for specific tasks, and our very malleable processes was hamstringing the productivity of the investment in sales.
The communication tools we have today really mean that we are now able to direct the activities of sales personnel towards where their value lies, identifying and solving customer problems. They do not have to be in the office apart from training and progress sessions. The logistics of providing the products are best managed by those who are hands on in the factory, warehouse and admin functions.
After some changes, sales went up significantly, as did the margins, as the salespeople had more time to spend identifying and solving difficult challenges that naturally brought higher margins.
As you consider the structures necessary for success as the new year opens, you might give some thought to the priorities set for the salespeople, and their support functions in your business.
Header credit: Scott Adams via Dilbert
Dec 5, 2022 | Leadership, Management, Strategy
The current ‘argy-bargy’ around wages policy makes the mistake of assuming it is a binary equation. Pay a dollar more/hour for labour and profit is reduced by the equivalent amount.
This assumes that people working for you are only doing so for the money, and money is directly proportional to output.
We all know this is crap.
While it is clear that many, mostly female dominated jobs, are underpaid compared to the costs of living, and simple value equivalence with other jobs. It is also true that people are not rational, they make decisions on many dimensions, of which price is only one.
Price. Key word.
Why don’t we consider the cost of labour as just the price of it, and consider our labour strategies in the same way we apply pricing strategy for our products to the marketplace?
When we do this properly, which too few do, price is only one factor in the equation. Depending on the context, it can often play only a minor part in the strategies we deploy.
Price is rarely a binary choice, just take it or leave it with no other options. It is also rarely considered how unfair it is to pay people whose performance is unequal, the same amount. We usually address this with piecework pay, which often has a detrimental impact on value delivery to customers. Just look at what is happening to Qantas currently in the handling of baggage for the evidence. It is a fine line between paying for customer value delivered, and piecework payment.
What would you rather have?
Better paid people who care about quality, DIFOT performance, productive time, and all the other things that lead to superior value delivery to a customer, leading to financial performance, or more lower paid people who do not care about any of those things?
Thinking in a binary manner will deliver the latter, never the former.
In these unusual times of inflation coupled with a flat economy, you need to find the most productive people you have, and model their behaviour to others, and compensate them appropriately. You may end up with less, but better paid and more productive people.
Trends in labour cost equations can be an extremely sensitive lead indicator of performance. Labour cost/dollar of revenue or gross margin can tell you a lot about future performance. By contrast, labour cost as an absolute can tell you nothing beyond how much you spend.
The question management needs to ask itself, is not how much labour costs, but how can we make labour a driver of performance.
Header cartoon credit: My thanks again to Hugh McLeod at gapingvoid.com for putting it so accurately
