Deprecated: Function jetpack_form_register_pattern is deprecated since version jetpack-13.4! Use Automattic\Jetpack\Forms\ContactForm\Util::register_pattern instead. in /home4/arobbo/public_html/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6078
Does Wright’s Law work in reverse? | StrategyAudit

 

 

Volume, flow, and capacity utilisation are drivers of each other, a symbiotic relationship articulated by Wrights Law.

A product with significant volume that is easy to schedule through a factory, and because of those volumes, has ‘well-oiled’ and efficient operational processes, generally delivers profit.

Years ago, I did a product profitability exercise on a range of products that were marketed by the company for which I worked at the time, Dairy Farmers Ltd. The parameters I used were based on the gross contribution to fixed overhead after promotional costs. These I calculated from the standard costing model being used at the time. Also weighted into the calculations were the complexity of the operational scheduling imposed by the products, and the ratio of gross contribution to the calculated capacity of the individual production lines, including downtime measures like machine availability.

The most profitable product in the range in both dollars and percentage was 300gm sour cream in cartons. It was a product that had significant and easily forecast volumes, so raw material procurement was simplified, predictable, the operational processes were ‘well-oiled’, and we had some pricing power in the supermarkets. There was very little wasted capacity or product failure in the manufacturing processes. Wrights law at work, and after a bit of thought, it made absolute sense that it would be the most profitable.

The second most profitable product in the range in percentage terms was a surprise to everyone, including me.  A relatively small volume product, ‘Buttermilk’ in 600ml cartons. At the time there was no competitive product, so we had considerable pricing power, the volumes were highly predictable albeit modest, the ingredients simple and always available, and we could run the product immediately after sour cream with just a change in carton size which we could do ‘on the run’, the first few cartons acting as the ‘clean-up’ after the sour cream. There was effectively no downtime, no ‘start-up waste’ product, no added labour, few inventory costs, and no promotional costs. The capacity utilisation of buttermilk was virtually 100% of the capacity allocated by the arithmetic that combined volumes required and theoretical throughput rate and delivered margin.

Sadly for Dairy Farmers profitability, the supermarkets realised there was a profit pool they were not accessing. They introduced house brand products manufactured by a competitor who had idle capacity and took a marginal cost approach to the price at which they were prepared to sell the product to use that capacity. The volumes of both sour cream and buttermilk products fell quite quickly, while the operational costs per unit increased markedly.

Wright’s Law works in reverse as well.

The header is of Theodore Paul Wright 1895 – 1970