Aug 21, 2023 | Analytics, Management
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
Aug 14, 2023 | Communication, Customers, Marketing, Small business, Social Media
When my kids dropped a piece of toast, or bread on the floor (almost always spread side down) we used to invoke the ‘3 second test’. This was simply that the bugs took three seconds to wake up and realise there was a feed nearby, so if it was retrieved inside that time, it was OK to eat.
Same with a website, almost.
We are all busy, our attention is stretched beyond reasonable limits, and we have no time to waste. So, when your potential customer is researching, or just loitering on the web, you have perhaps 3 seconds to engage them, such that they have a closer look.
In those 3 seconds, you must communicate three things if you are to get them to pay you any of their scarce attention:
- What problem you solve.
- Who do you solve it for. In effect, a written ‘elevator speech’, what you do and why they should listen.
- Call to action. What you want them to do next.
Pretty obvious?
Give yourself 3 seconds to look at most websites, and ask yourself those three simple questions.
How does yours fare?
PS. For my readers outside Australia, ‘Vegemite’ is a spread for bread and toast we Aussies are brought up on, which the rest of the world thinks looks and tastes like old axle grease.
I bet every ‘Matilda’ has it almost every day!
Aug 9, 2023 | Change, Operations, Strategy
Almost every SME I visit or work with needs to one degree or another to be moving down the path towards ‘digitisation’.
For some, this means considering how the sudden appearance of LLM trained AI will impact on their competitive position, for others, it is still how to write a simple excel macro, and move bookkeeping from Mavis in the corner to a cloud package.
Just what does ‘digitisation’ mean?
For most of my clients it means automating some or all of the existing processes driven by bits of unconnected software and spreadsheets, liberally connected by people handing things over.
It is usually a real mess, and the evidence of incomplete solutions, misinformation, and shattered hopes lie everywhere.
The world is digitising at an accelerating rate, so keeping up is not only a competitive imperative, it is a strategic challenge. To survive you must evolve at least the same rate, just to keep up.
On of my former clients is a printing business, an SME with deep capabilities in all things ‘printing’ that enabled the company to be very successful, in the past. Their capabilities are terrific, highly competitive, if we were still in 1999.
If I use them as a metaphor for most I work with, there is a consistent pattern.
They do not see digitisation as an investment in the future, rather it is seen as an expense. This means that the challenges are not considered to be strategic. There is no consideration of the application of digital to their product offerings, beyond the digital printing machines, services beyond those that made them successful 20 years ago, and their business models, beyond what is demanded by the two biggest customers, who between them deliver well over 35% of revenue.
They have not considered digitisation of operational processes, beyond a 20 year old ERP system, which has not been updated in any meaningful way for a decade, and they still only use a portion of the capability. The reason for this is simply a lack of internal capability and awareness, and the lack of cash to invest for the long term.
They have not modified their organisational and operational culture. No digitisation effort can succeed without the support of an operating culture that encourages ongoing change. Organisational processes can be modified by decree, but they will not stick. It takes everyone in the boat to be pulling in the same direction, in unison, to make the forward progress proposed by the digitisation nirvana. This takes leadership, and a willingness to be both vulnerable internally, and a strong ability to absorb the stuff from outside. You need to ‘get out of the building’ not to smell the roses, but to see the lie of the land, and understand where the opportunities and challenges are hiding.
The recognition of the critical necessity of change is where you get given one point out of a possible 10. The other 9 are reserved for taking action. A daunting prospect for most.
Following are the 5 steps necessary to become ‘match fit’.
- Map the existing operational processes so you know what you are changing. The starting point!
- Map and change the mindset of the people, so everyone understands the extent of the challenge to the business, and to them personally. This will prove very tough for some, so expect push-back.
- Take small and incremental steps along a path that all understand leads to a digital future, which means that a lot of collaborative planning has been done. Look for some low hanging fruit where early wins are likely.
- Ensure that there are the necessary opportunities for all stakeholders, but particularly employees to grow and change with you. Those that choose not to, also choose to work elsewhere. There are no free rides.
- Ensure the resources of time and money are allocated uncompromisingly to the long-term outcomes. It is just too easy to put aside something that is important but not urgent for something that may seem to be urgent, but is not important to the transformational effort.
Most need outside help to get this done. Usually that help in the early stages is not found amongst software vendors who have a dog in the fight. It is amongst those who have ‘been there, done that’. It will also be a resource hungry beast, but assuming you feed it, and you have the right mix of project management and technical capabilities, the investment will generate returns quickly, just not tomorrow.
Header cartoon credit: Tom Gauld
Aug 7, 2023 | Analytics, Leadership
We all need to become ‘knowledge workers’ say the pundits, who generally fail to define just what that term means, and how we achieve it.
Most would simply apply some added practical training and education, and bingo, knowledge, but I suspect it is more complicated than that.
Knowledge is way more than just education and training. It is also the wisdom of experience, domain familiarity, networks of people who can be called upon, and a capacity to make connections in non-obvious ways. It is intangible, as individuals, we have no physical stocks of knowledge, although we do now have relatively unlimited access to its sources.
The value of knowledge is also very hard to define, if not impossible, and it is not of much value when it stays in one place. Its value is highly contextual. It is of little obvious use having an expert in genetics when you are struggling with a problem of commercial governance. However, when you dig deep enough, you often find there are lessons to be learnt from other domains that can be applied, and in the process of digging, you learn.
The real value of knowledge is when it flows from one to another, and on to many, then, magically, it grows, evolves, and is put to uses not previously considered, creating even more value.
Therefore, the definition of a knowledge worker should be more like ‘Builds, shares, and leverages data for use beyond their domain’.
Improvements and alternatives encouraged.
Aug 4, 2023 | Governance, Strategy
Every year the American History Business Centre a non-profit run by Gary Hoover, puts out a chart that updates the market capitalisation of Americas top 20 public companies.
The 2023 version has just arrived in my inbox.
I find the path of the evolution astonishing, even in the relatively short time since the turn of the century to now.
A few things that pop out, at least to me.
- The acceleration in the rate of increase since 2000
- The absolute dominance of the Tech giants Apple, Microsoft, Alphabet and Amazon, that has driven the market cap, especially since 2010. The growth rate is so fast that the numbers are already out of date. Apple broke the 3 trillion dollar mark, the first to do so, in January. It has bounced around that benchmark a bit, but is today is 3.011T.
- The emergence of Tesla from nowhere 5 years ago to 7th today, a market cap bigger than the other US carmakers combined, who outsell Tesla by a big margin. However, Tesla unit sales have taken off with the opening of Chinese manufacturing, delivering 710k units worldwide in 2022.
- The absolute contrast to Australia’s top 20, dominated by financial institutions and commodities.
Have a look at the graphs in the link, and consider the implications for the competitive position and ‘re-industrialisation’ of this country.
The most recent Harvard economic complexity report puts Australia at 93 on the list, bracketed by Uganda at 92, and Pakistan at 94. Stellar company indeed.
The government appears to be taking the problem seriously, with the $15 Billion National Reconstruction Fund announced in the October 2022 budget, but is it enough, and is the support the right kind of support required to stimulate the domestic economy to build the complexity that will act as an insulator to the types of global disruptions that seem now both inevitable and more frequent?
While we are distracted by short term political wrangling, point scoring and pushing of social agendas that are truly relevant only to minorities, the big-ticket items, those that will determine the shape of the country over the coming decades, go begging.
Our so-called leaders lack the vision, commitment, and coconuts to take a hard look at what needs to be done, and then get on and do it, short term political polling be damned.
