Tag Archives: strategy

Find Ways to Improve Manufacturing Company Profits

In trying to understand business issues, case studies can serve as a useful tool to show us what we may not see at first glance in our own businesses. When I was doing the research that led to the founding of the Turnaround Management Association a number of years ago, I had the “opportunity” to compile, read, and review over 900 case studies on attempted turnarounds. As I read about companies from a variety of industries, geographies, and backgrounds, I was able to decipher certain trends and best practices. While I obviously don’t have the space (or your attention span) to delve into that level of detail in a blog post, I wanted to recount a case study and point out some lessons to be learned.

better resultsA $100+ million company lost 25% of its revenue during the period 2005 – 2010. Simultaneously, EBIT declined by 91%, dropping to 0.9% of  2010 sales numbers. A turnaround firm was retained to restore revenues and achieve at least 10% EBIT by the end of 2012. The results of the project were that 2011 revenue improved by 20.20% over 2010 and 2011 EBIT was 5.5% of 2011 revenue, an increase of 470% over that of 2010.

How the Results Were Achieved

Strategic Alignment

By analyzing the markets served, rates of growth, and trends, the turnaround firm was able to highlight the very best opportunities for high growth. Historical analysis yielded insights into top customers and products, with breakout information by plant location. As insights were gleaned from the data, brainstorming sessions were held with the executive team to modify strategic and tactical plans.

Product Pricing

As with many companies who suffered a decline in fortunes, this company had begun to compete on price rather than more strategic competitive advantages. As their products and services became commoditized, considerable price variability had snuck into the company based on local market conditions. With considerable (40%+) market share in its primary markets, the company in crisis had very few price comparables available from competitive intelligence by which new pricing could be developed. The consultants helped the company do the following:

  1. Make product groups by cost and technical specs,
  2. (For each product group) establish minimum, mean, and max prices,
  3. Determine products that were priced outside of guideline rages, and
  4. Identify customers who were not profitable to serve.

Margins were terrible, so the company implemented the following procedures recommended by the turnaround firm: 

  • Pricing for non-strategic customers was immediately increased,
  • Held meetings with strategic customers to explain the fair price increases, and
  • Future price increases were planned in unison with strategic customers.

Product Costing & Standardization

The old product costing model was jettisoned in favor of a more accurate, easier to maintain one. Product Standardization was accomplished by analyzing SKUs across key product groupings. A small list of products were designated as standard offerings. Everything else was labeled “custom,” with appropriate cost and pricing decisions.

Operations Improvement

Process improvements were instituted after plant visits. Highlighted items included:

  • Supply chain improvements through TQM and JIT were achieved
  • Minimum order quantity guidelines streamlined production runs and enhanced scheduling efficiency
  • Setup and preventive maintenance routines were sharpened
  • Paperwork and scrap reduction and recycling were instituted

The culmination of 2011 efforts was that higher contribution margin at the plant level. Production scheduling and materials requirement procedures were highlighted as areas for additional improvement. 

When an outside team is brought in to focus on profitability and the executive team cooperates fully, great things can happen in a turnaround. Clear communications, improved decision-making, unified focus all lead to enhanced morale and the profitability becomes an outgrowth of good management.

 

New Small Business: Economic Development Catalyst

Small businesses are the backbone of the U.S. economy. This is a statement that is tossed out for public consumption on a fairly regular basis. What data backs it up? What might it mean for job creation and other key indicators of economic health that matter to the general population? In the November 2012 Business Dynamics Statistics monthly report from the Census Bureau, it was noted that hiring and job creation in small businesses (19 employees or less) with two years or less of operations was stronger than in larger companies that had been around longer.

While older firms only hire 25-33% of new employees for newly created jobs, young firms average about two in five (40%)! A substantial fraction of the job creation for young firms is due to the job creation that occurs in the quarter of starting up. However, there is substantial subsequent job creation as well as job destruction in the succeeding quarters in the first two years. The overall net job creation (the difference between job creation and destruction) is much higher for young firms than for older firms.

Small Business strengthThe other area in which startups excel is in worker churning (hiring in excess of job creation and the separations in excess of job destruction.) Job creation measures the employment gains from the expansion of existing establishments and the creation of new establishments. Job destruction measures the employment losses from contracting and closing establishments. The Department of Labor maintains that churning helps the matching of workers to jobs. Hiring and separation rates at young firms are seen as being unusually high. There is also a trend of a marked improvement in hiring and job creation in young firms since 2008 in comparison to established firms. 

The report, entitled “Job Creation, Worker Churning, and Wages at Young Businesses,” draws its conclusions from the U.S. Census Bureau’s Quarterly Workforce Indicators, which use federal and state administrative data on employers and employees combined with core Census Bureau data. On a less rosy note for employees in small companies, the study also showed that their earnings per worker are lower than at more mature firms. Since the wage premium for workers who choose to work for large companies has persisted, earnings growth–even during the most recent recession–is largely attributable to wages paid by larger companies. Some of this decline is accounted for by changes in the industry  composition of startups over the last decade, but the overall trend is downward.

Just before the 2001 recession, workers at new firms earned about 85 percent as much as workers at mature firms. By 2011, this earnings ratio had dropped to 70 percent. The earnings premium associated with working for a large employer versus a smaller employer also grew during this time period: Average real monthly earnings in small firms fell from a high of 78 percent in 2001 to a low of 66 percent in 2011. 

Churning rates are said to be “procyclical,” dropping during recessions as firms become cautious about hiring, and employees, with fewer jobs available, stay where they are. In both the 2001 and, especially, 2007-2009 recessions, worker turnover rates declined, but failed to recover to their previous peak after the recession ended. Churn rates for the youngest businesses recovered modestly after the most recent recession, but dropped slightly after first quarter 2011, perhaps reflecting eroding worker and business confidence, the study said.

What does this all mean? Here are the key takeaways:

  • Small businesses create more new jobs than large businesses
  • Pay at small companies tends to be less than at larger ones
  • Turnover is higher at smaller firms than at larger ones
  • Small business bounces back faster than big business after a recession
  • Startups are paying less now than they were a decade ago

 

 

 

Put Sharks & Jets to Work in Strategic Design Thinking

When we think of design, we think of products. Industrial design as a field is scarcely 10o years old. However, technology tools such as CAD (Computer Aided Design), 3-D modeling, and stereolithography catapulted design into a rapid prototyping process towards the end of the 20th century. Companies like Apple rode the crest of this wave–to an extent–but really took design to a new frontier. Rather than simply looking at features and benefits as expressions of design and product marketing, what emerged was a new way to view business problems. Many business schools have incorporated not only courses on innovation, but specific foci on “design thinking.”

Kevin Budelmann penned an article for Metropolis magazine last month discussing design thinking as a modern motif. Budelmann credits Bill Moggridge, cofounder of the pioneering design firm IDEO with contributing significantly to thought leadership in this domain. Moggridge is said to have been the genius who reengineered IDEO from a product design practice to strategic design thinking powerhouse. Budelmann notes that part of the transformation occurred as a result of asking staff from divergent disciplines to work together, requiring that they become humble in the process. 

Budelmann’s firm, Peopledesign, has amassed a team of talented contributors who may not have worked for design firms years ago. A clear distinction is made, however, in hiring MBAs who understand design and designers who understand business.  The inevitable difference of opinions pits “sharks” (MBAs) against “jets” (designers) in true West Side Story musical terminology. Here’s Budelmann’s take on the natural interaction between the two employee types in his design firm:

It’s not even clear anymore which neighborhoods are Sharks’ turf and which belong to the Jets. Maybe that isn’t such a bad thing. The gym is neutral territory, and we might be able to work something out at the dance. Clearly, we Jets could learn a few new moves from the Sharks. The Sharks need to cool their jets anyway, so to speak.

When it’s show time, it isn’t us against them. In truth, we’ve made great strides. We’re learning every day. A colleague once mentioned that when people talk about collaboration, they usually mean cooperation. True collaboration is hard. Real communication is hard. It’s not about holding ground; it’s about ceding turf.

Two decades ago I was in school at Carnegie Mellon, where everyone is a geek in their respective discipline.The least geeky and (excuse the perception) least interesting people got a business degree. General management, which we assumed was to generally manage something general. It left us scratching our heads.

Now that I own my own business, I value management greatly. Business is an engine, and we don’t go very far without it. Besides, what do designers really do anyway? How do they do it? Is it describable to a non-designer, or do you have to be part of the gang?

Today we operate in a post Sharks vs. Jets world. Our team looks different. Our projects look different. Our sketches, books, and processes look different. As for the star-crossed lovers, our children have certainly taken the best of both of us. It’s the same for our ensemble at work. This is clear: Our hybrid future is stronger than our disconnected past.

Designers focus on asking questions, but often don’t like to answer them. Business people focus on answers, but often don’t ask the right questions. The combination can be powerful. The future of business and design lies in our ability to overcome our small worlds to make room for a bigger one.

The phenomenal power of strategic design thinking is unveiled in that final paradox–designers must become better at answering questions and business folks must become better at asking the right questions. Seek to apply this principle to your own business. Challenge your concrete thinkers to think more divergently; your creatives to think more convergently. In doing so, you will experience some transformation and create a new language of productivity.

 

Are You Doing it “To” or “For” a Prospect?

Many who aspire to increase the top line (revenues) of a business know that sales can seemingly cure a multitude of other problems. With enough money to spread around for paying bills and employees, plus some for marketing, customer service or maintenance, your company can improve morale and your ability to retain top talent as well as existing customers. However, in an effort to develop new business, our sales teams often do a very poor job. Conversion rates are low, so more leads are needed than would otherwise be necessary. In turn, more time is required, more overhead expenses thereby generated, and profits eroded. If we were able to improve the way we secure new clients, our organizations would be vastly more successful!

The biggest challenge a sales (interchangeable with “business development” or “client development” in settings wherein the word is anathema) professional faces is the distrust of the person on the other side of the table. Buyers are often afraid that something is being done to them, and dig in their heels or tune out their minds. Against this type of resistance, it can be extremely difficult to secure new accounts. The conversation must, therefore, disarm the buyer (in a genuine, sincere way) so that the perception changes to one of feeling like the salesperson is doing (well) for the buyer or her organization.

With the  combination of easily accessible information via the Internet and increased competition via globalization, it is incumbent on sales teams to keep their products and services from becoming commodities whereby the only means of competition is price. This objective can best be accomplished through consultative conversations. One of the leading minds on the topic of consultative selling is Mahan Khalsa, author of Let’s Get Real or Let’s Not Play (aka Helping Clients Succeed.) Helping (prospective) clients succeed should be the goal of every sales effort, but rarely is. In fact, hard line sales methods don’t seem to to take the client success into consideration as all, so long as the selling organization’s goals are met. 

Khalsa writes often about two key concepts: “getting real,” and developing an “exact solution.” To be real is to be authentic, truthful, expressing clear intent, and speaking from values. It is a paradigm wherein the seller doesn’t accept the first response without asking clarifying questions–the purpose is to break down false pretenses, move past fears, and to get to core issues as comfortably as possible for all parties concerned. While no solution is perfect unto itself, the goal of creating an exact one is to have a strong urge to leave few stones unturned in order to reduce ambiguity and partner on both identifying problems and the methods of resolving them.

With the right mindset, a salesperson can overcome the following (* taken from Let’s Get Real, chapter entitled “We Both Want the Same Thing”)  inhibitors of client success:

Our issues:

  • we don’t listen
  • we make assumptions
  • we have preconceived solutions
  • we need to make the sale
  • it takes too much time
  • we don’t understand their business
  • we know what they need better than they do, and
  • we don’t talk to the right people.

Client issues:

  • they don’t know what they need
  • the can’t articulate what they need
  • they don’t agree on what they need
  • they won’t give us good information
  • they don’t let us talk to the right people
  • they are unrealistic about time, money, and people needed
  • politics count more than business sense
  • they procrastinate, and
  • they can’t make decisions.

Taking time up front to either determine (jointly with client) that a solution does not exist or create a solid business case is critical for better sales success. When we match client expectations to those of our organization with regards to the people, time, and money needed to achieve success with regards to a given opportunity, we demonstrate shared interests and feasibility. Knowing how decisions are made, by whom, and the timetable removes guesswork and allows us to offer a solution that exactly meets the client’s needs.

Don’t Business Plan Before Test Marketing

 

Take a look at the programs available to start-up businesses and you will certainly find that many offerings are based on a business plan. Governmental and educational agencies in particular are often enamored with curricula that present a template for plans that is easily administered and a breeze to teach. The emphasis is usually on the various business disciplines that can be found in a larger business, but applied to a small business. Instructors generally come from corporate or academic careers and are most comfortable with this approach. Yet, most entrepreneurs, when “equipped” with the suggested program, are unable to reach the five years in business anniversary–a full 50%+ fail according to the U.S. Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Observe the chart below, used by EntreDot to illustrate how an idea should become a commercially viable business:

 

Business planning is an outgrowth of three prior steps: ideation, conceptualization, and creation. What occurs in each of those steps that better prepares the entrepreneur to actually write a business plan? “Ideation is the process for structuring an idea into a well explained business idea that has enough information for the entrepreneur to decide whether it has commercial potential and whether or not it should be pursued any further. Conceptualization is focused on developing an understanding of the market the entrepreneur intends to pursue, and gathering enough information about it to be able to decide if there is commercial value in the business idea. Creation provides the details of the products and services from the point of view of what capabilities the customer will have and how they will see quantifiable benefit. The focus is on what it provides the buyer and the description has to be from the customer’s point of view and what will be delivered to them.” (courtesy, EntreDot)

Every viable business needs to address the following five issues:

o What is the opportunity (premise)?
o What are you offering (solution)?
o Who will buy it (market)?
o Why will I win (Advantage)?
o How do I make money (Business)?

Ideation is the step in which the issues are raised–not Evaluation (Step 4, where business planning occurs). By wrestling with these questions early, the entrepreneur hones a business idea into an elevator pitch that can be “test marketed” to potential buyers. The key advantage to having a story to tell and people to whom it can be told is the opportunity to collect key data during Conceptualization. The feedback is incorporated into the Creation step. As a result of this improved process, entrepreneurs are able to refine the product offering and message to become a more powerful resonator with a specific target audience. 

The other process, the more prevalent one described in the first paragraph, is faulty by comparison–and not just because it is being carried out by people who have next to no small business experience (launching their own enterprises.) By beginning with a business planning process, the typical entrepreneur is making a series of assumptions. The vast number of assumptions that have to be made to construct a business model from which a plan can be developed is likely to be the proverbial “house of cards.” Assumptions built upon assumptions that lead to projections about assumptions is a presumptuous risk, the outcome of which is likely to be business failure in one out of every two businesses started by the five year mark.

It is way better to eliminate as much of the guesswork as possible so that, when we arrive at Evaluation (Step 4, including the business plan), the planning is focused. The discipline of determining buyer needs–rather than simply looking at internal capabilities and developing products in an isolated manner–yields a recipe for improved business success as risk is eliminated through data verification. 

Do your homework before business planning and your ideas will meet with greater implementation success!