Achieve Target Price and Earn Profits Too!

January 25, 2012 by 1 Comment

Whether launching a new product or expanding capabilities to accommodate our clients growing needs, meeting the target price is a significant barrier to earning new revenue streams and potential profits. Sometimes we take on new business opportunities as a way to gain market share, deepen relationships or to gain an advantage over the competition. While these strategies for new business serve their purposes well, it remains essential not only to meet the target price, but also to be profitable at the target price.

Fortunately, approaching target price challenges from both a design improvement and process improvement perspective allows us to open ourselves to a path toward meeting our objectives. A design and process improvement course can make taking risks less emotional and bring us into the realm of rational decision making. What if a design and process improvement method was consistently employed, and the data collected from these efforts demonstrated that a 10%, 15% or even 30% gain in profitability is likely.

One step in achieving a data driven decision-making model is to create processes that deliver reliable data needed to incorporate into an existing decision making and forecasting model. A process that generates and delivers this kind of information is presented below. It is an iterative process that synergizes with a well known Six Sigma concept, Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, Control (DMAIC).

Step One: Define Base Process

  • Define base process
  • Create value stream map
  • Delineate sub-processes and assign cycle times to each
  • Identify and document opportunities for improvement
  • Present per product price and improvement opportunities

Step Two: Perform Project, Provide performance Feedback and Improvement Opportunities

  • Actual cycle times
  • Yield reporting
  • Constraint analysis
  • Feasibility study
    • Incorporate actual data to engineer design for manufacturability model
    • Material & equipment suitability
    • Yield and process time optimization

Step Three: Adopt New Process

  • Define new process
  • Create new value stream map
  • Delineate sub-processes and assign cycle times to each
  • Identify and document opportunities for improvement
  • Present per product price and improvement opportunities

Step Four: Perform New Process, Provide performance Feedback and Improvement Opportunities

  • Actual cycle times
  • Yield reporting
  • Constraint analysis
  • Feasibility study
    • Incorporate actual data to engineer design for manufacturability model
    • Material & equipment suitability
    • Yield and process time optimization

This iterative process continues to deepen, creating an improvement perspective and can continue until all potential waste is removed, or can be finished when a desired target price and profit is met.  The data gathered from the process can then be integrated into our decision-making models.

While the decision-making model currently in use may not be well structured and documented, we are making decisions and are therefore using some sort of model. Enhancing our awareness regarding how we go about making decisions and adding a rational perspective to our new business strategies can support our efforts to increase revenues and profits.

Click Here to download a case study supporting this model.

Click Here to begin a conversation on how ASAP can help meet your target price initiatives.

Filed under Uncategorized Tagged with , , , , , , , , , ,

Reducing Variations In Assembly And Packaging Processes – A 3-Step Guide

January 9, 2012 by 4 Comments

Assembly and packaging processes, sometimes referred to as secondary processes, can be difficult to define, measure, analyze and control. Labor-intensive, secondary processes performed by us humans seem to present the most challenges. The unpredictable nature of human performance can be overwhelming, making it seem impossible to feel confident about the accuracy and consistency of our processing methods.

Uncertainty feels risky and is frustrating to deal with. Blaming the people performing the process seems like an appropriate behavior, however, I have found it is more productive to take a curious approach and understand what drives this unpredictability.

So the then the question becomes how. What course of action can be taken to understand what causes variation and unpredictable outcomes? Broadly speaking, we need to look at the system inputs, such as, process, people and tools. The first input to become curious about is the process. Some questions to consider include:

  • Is the process defined?
  • Are process tasks defined?
  • Are tasks and sub-process measurable in terms of quality and quantity?

Once the process is defined and measurable, move to a review of the tools needed to perform the tasks and sub-processes. Some questions to consider about tools include:

  • Are the tools widely available
  • What training is available for tool use
  • How are tools calibrated and maintained to ensure consistent performance.

Finally, we can review what specific skill sets are needed to use the tools and perform processes. Some questions to ask about skill sets include:

  • What types of motor skills are needed, fine, gross or a combination of both?
  • Are hand strength and dexterity needed?
  • Are detailed math skills needed for measuring and counting?

After negotiating this adventure in curiosity, we can start inserting humans into a well designed, measurable process where variations can be analyzed and controlled.

While this 3-step guide may seem time consuming, the benefit of doing this work is an ability to create fantastic training programs to further our goal to offer great products to our customers.

Speaking of great training programs, check out this sample video, highlighting ASAP’s performance training video production capabilities.  We have also included the corresponding Shrink Wrap Quality Training Test.

Filed under Uncategorized Tagged with , , , , , , , , , ,

Productivity Affects Sales – How?

December 15, 2011 by 2 Comments

Meeting sales goals is one of our highest priorities, and productivity is a determining factor in whether or not we meet those goals. The degree to which our manufacturing processes are productive affects our capacity to generate revenue. Since our organizations exist to serve the demands of our customers, measuring productivity and understanding the degree to which productivity affects sales performance is worth exploring.

One of the difficulties in measuring productivity is that often our manufacturing environments have high-speed, automated equipment to produce our core processes, and secondary process are semi-automated requiring a labor component. While it may be a fairly simple equation to determine cycle times of our equipment-based primary processes, methods to determine cycle times in secondary processes requires a different approach, especially if customization is a requirement.

Although it may be difficult to measure, monitor and improve productivity, it is an important component to capacity and ultimately sales. This model demonstrates how productivity affects our ability to generate sales revenues.

Productivity 100% 50% 60% 70%
Budgeted Hours (at capacity) 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000
Actual Hours 2,000 4,000 3,333 2,857
Lost Capacity (hr) 0 2,000 1,333 857
Lost Revenue ($50/hr) $0 $100,000 $66,650 $42,850

Looking at this model in terms of meeting sales goals shows how important it is to know what capacity issues may sprout up if productivity levels are less than expected. If I am planning to achieve a 15% increase in sales, do I have the capacity to meet the goals? Are the capacity issues due to productivity or a lack of available resources?

Theses are ideas and questions are integral components in planning for successful organizational growth and meeting customer expectations.

Generating sales opportunities, closing sales, increasing demand and developing long-lasting client relationships is only half of the equation. The other half is actualizing these efforts through our manufacturing environments. Productivity has a big impact on whether or not we fully leverage our sales efforts.

Filed under Uncategorized Tagged with , , , , , , , , , ,

The Painful Truth about the Temporary Labor Industry’s Business Model

December 5, 2011 by 3 Comments

Most of us use temporary labor agencies.  It seems like a pretty easy solution to managing variable demand.  And it is.  I just make a call and ask for laborers. An agency could have an office right in my building.  I just walk down the hall, or have them attend my production meeting, send an internal email or phone call.

Except that often, when I ask for 8 folks, I get 5. I ask for people with specific skills and 3 of the 5 actually possess the skill.  The other 2 folks, not the 3 as asked for, are coming soon and those people don’t have the skill set either.  Not only is the skill set absent, but the temps don’t really want to be here anyway.  Several of the people selected are not interested in productivity or quality and we hear about it in a very loud fashion.

These are just some of the frustrations we experience when contracting with temporary agencies, and we can’t really blame the people because the painful truth is that the industry itself benefits when their staff is unproductive.

I know this sounds harsh, but consider this: if my customer is expecting a turn time/delivery in 5 days, I need to plan and staff my project for this expectation.  If I plan the project as if it will run at 100% of productivity, then I need 5 people and I staff my project with temporary labor.  After the project gets started, I notice that productivity is at 60%.  Now I need 2 more laborers, or do I?  Since the 5 people I have are producing at 60%, what output can I expect from the additional 2 laborers and how will this affect my commitment to my customer?

This is a complex mathematical question.  First, I have to calculate lost time/productivity from Monday and if the crew continues at 60%, I have another calculation to make.  I figure I actually need 9.167 people working for the next 4 days.  Consequently, a project that should have taken 5 people 5 days, or 200 production hours to complete, now becomes a 333.33-hour, stress-filled project.  Not to mention the extra management costs working to avert disaster.

Whew, I avoided disaster with my customer and that feels great, but now I have a responsibility to my company to be profitable.  Let’s look at how this project performed:

Project

Budget

Actual
Hours

200

333.33
Revenue  ($30)

$6,000

$6,000
Labor Cost  ($15)

$3,000

$5,000
Gross Profit

$3,000

$1,000

This model demonstrates the actual labor cost due to an unproductive crew.  My company just lost $2,000 of gross profit.  In fact, I gave it to the temporary agency because instead of researching other alternatives, improving my process and or asking folks to be productive, I continued to add unproductive labor costs to the project.

Additionally, the temporary labor industry does not help me  improve my processes; offer fixed per project costs, or guarantee quality and yet the agency gains $2,000 in revenue.  The logical conclusion, painful as it may be, is that the temporary labor industry benefits from providing unproductive labor hours.

I’m thinking there is a better way to manage my variable demand and that now is the time to check into alternatives, especially before my next project is due.

Filed under Uncategorized Tagged with , , , , , , , , ,

Damaged Product – A 6-Step Process to Resolution

October 31, 2011 by Leave a Comment

Damaged product is simply not acceptable. Whether our products are OEM or retail, customer interaction with product packaging and the product is critical. Retail customers, like you and me, do not buy products that have dents, broken shrink-wrap, or torn labels. Likewise, OEM customers do not want to deal with fallen over pallets, banged-up outer cartons or ripped open bags. This kind of damage greatly reduces an OEM’s ability to be efficient and creates questions about the quality of the goods received.

Damaged product packaging and products has negative consequences, both from a brand loyalty perspective and from an internal costing perspective. The cost associated with brand loyalty is decreased revenue opportunity. Often customers do not tell us their problems; they simply quit buying our products. The internal product costs are bit easier to determine through cost modeling. With consequences such as these, it leads us to wonder how product packaging and product damage occurs and how can these issues get resolved?

The following is a comprehensive process to resolve damaged product.

1.  Document the actual damage that is occurring through samples and photos.

2.  Evaluate the frequency, assign costs and create cost model to understand the financial impact and establish a budget for improvements.

3.  Map distribution channel, noting the various conditions the product experiences as it travels to the end-user.

4.  Examine manufacturing systems to insure products are safely transitioned from operation to operation.

5.  Examine the packaging system including:

    • Primary packaging practices
    • Secondary packaging practices
    • Tertiary packaging practices
    • Pallet patterns
    • Pallet protection materials

6.  Document findings and create an action plan incorporating root cause and budgetary factors.

Naturally, executing and earning the ROI on this 6-step process takes deep commitment from corporate leadership and cross-functional staff members alike. However, embracing a curious approach to problem solving and establishing budgets can make all the difference in resolving issues surrounding damaged product.

Filed under Uncategorized Tagged with , , , , , , , , , ,

How Does Productivity Affect Profitability?

October 26, 2011 by 4 Comments

We all know there are several factors that affect profitability.  One of my favorite considerations is productivity.  Increasing productivity levels can dramatically increase profitability.  Typically, profitability is evaluated from a financial statement prospective, and labor is measured as a percentage of sales.  Often, the natural inclination is to decrease labor costs through lay-offs and work force reductions.

However, rather than reducing our work force, productivity provides a platform to increase the output of our current work force and thereby increasing profitability.   A key starting point to uncovering the potential profits hidden within productivity is asking questions such as; “How productive is our work force?” and, “How do our current productivity levels affect our profitability?”

Often, there is difficulty in determining a method to answer these questions due to the complexity of our manufacturing operations, ERP systems and reporting systems.  Simplifying the process with productivity models helps to gain insights on the potential Return On Investment involved with the pursuit of increasing work force productivity.

The productivity model below illustrates the effect of productivity on profits.  The first table explains the basic assumptions behind the model.

Assumptions
Process Time (sec)

250
Product Sales Price

 $5.63
Project Quantity

10,000
Project Runs Per Month

  5
Labor Cost / hour

$25.00

Next, this model illustrates the effect of productivity on the profitability of one manufacturing process, produced five times within one reporting period.

Profitability

Productivity

50%

60%

70%

80%

100%
Revenue

 $281,250.00

 $281,250.00

 $281,250.00

 $281,250.00

 $281,250.00
Labor Cost

 $173,611.11

 $144,675.93

 $124,007.94

 $108,506.94

 $86,805.56
Manufacturing
Cost (50%)

 $140,625.00

 $140,625.00

 $140,625.00

 $140,625.00

 $140,625.00
Gross Profit

 $(32,986.11)

 $(4,050.93)

 $16,617.06

 $32,118.06

 $53,819.44

This model demonstrates how powerful productivity is, as a factor in profitability. While developing processes to track productivity outside financial reporting mechanisms, can be cumbersome and complicated, there is opportunity for a substantial ROI on these efforts.  We can begin to reap these additional profits by following this five-step process.

  1. Define processes and sub processes
  2. Perform time studies and line balance
  3. Implement consistent training methods and train supervisors and line employees to the process
  4. Set productivity goals
  5. Monitor output and measure against goals

Practicing these steps is a great place to start unlocking the hidden profitability opportunities within our manufacturing processes!

Filed under Uncategorized Tagged with , , , , ,

Relationships: Transactional or Strategic, which is Preferred?

September 12, 2011 by 4 Comments

The preferred relationship type is both!  Both transactional and strategic relationships have the potential to bring value to our organizations.  When determining which relationship types we prefer, the essential question is: “what business results are we looking to achieve?”

When focusing on the ability to obtain OEM and product components better cheaper, and faster, a transactional relationship may be preferred.  On the other hand, when focusing on broader business goals such as creating new revenue streams, increasing market share, increasing productivity and improving customer service, a strategic relationship may be preferred.

There are points along our supply chain that require different types of relationships.  The key is to understand what type of relationship works best given the specific business need.  The table below may help to identify which relationship type might work given differing situations.

Situation

Transactional

Strategic
Fix an immediate problem

X

  
Generate New Revenue Streams  

X
Increase core competencies  

X
Product pricing pressures

X

X
Leverage resources  

X

Once a relationship type is matched to a particular need within our organization, it may be useful to explore the attributes associated with the two different approaches to relationships.  The table below lists attributes of both relationship types.

Strategic Relationship Attributes

Transactional Relationship Attributes
High relationship participation Limited relationship involvement
High commitment Specific requirements
High level coordination Easy Role definition
High level of trust Contract driven
Collaborative problem solving Little training needed to purchase
Conflict resolution Concrete outcomes
Open communication Limited communication
Shared risk Low risk
Complex information sharing Simplistic information sharing

Interestingly, when examining business needs, matching relationship types and reviewing relationship attributes; it may be possible that a combination of both is the best option.  Understanding what kind of relationship works best for our specific business need enables us to include characteristics and attributes from both relationship methods into our selection processes.

Combining desired business outcomes and relationship types into selection processes has the potential to help our businesses operate more effectively.

What have your experiences been with strategic and transactional business relationships?

Filed under Uncategorized Tagged with , ,

Bulk Pack For Huge Savings in Display Fulfillment & Kitting Costs

July 18, 2011 by 5 Comments

Display fulfillment and kitting projects often require products packaged in their primary package, to be placed into an assembled display.  Likewise, kitting projects require packaged products to be combined and placed into a shipper carton.  Both processes require removing product from a container, typically a master carton.

Surprisingly, the quantity of product packed into this container/master carton has a big impact on the cost of fulfillment and kitting projects.  Consider that opening a master carton, removing product and breaking down the carton for recycling takes about 36 seconds.

While at first glance 36 seconds seems inconsequential, this is where the carton quantity has an impact.  Since it takes 36 seconds to open, remove and discard a master carton, these seconds become fixed.  Whether we are removing 3, 12 or 25 parts from a carton, it still takes at least 36 seconds to perform the product removal process.

Working with the assumption that 36 seconds is a fixed process time, the method to determine the product cost is to distribute process time evenly over the carton quantity. For example, if the carton quantity is 3, then divide 36 seconds by 3 parts equaling 12 seconds per product.

Carton Quantity

3

12

25

50
Removal Process Time Per Product (sec)

12

3

1.44

.72

Next, multiply the seconds per product times a fully burdened labor rate.  For example, 12 seconds times a $30/hr equals $.099 per product.  Therefore, the cost for simply removing one part/product from its secondary packaging is about $.10 per part.

Carton Quantity

3

12

25

50
Removal Process Time Per Product (sec)

12

3

1.44

.72
Cost per Product – $30/Hr Labor Rate   ($) $.10 $.025 $.012 $.006

Now, if the a finished display requires 50 parts per display, then the cost per display for simply removing the product from its carton is $5.  This chart below illustrates the impact carton quantities have on display fulfillment costs.

Carton Quantity

3

12

25

50
Removal Process Time Per Product (sec)

12

3

1.44

.72
Cost per Product – $30/Hr Labor Rate   ($)

$.10

$.025

$.012

$.006
Cost per Display – 50 Parts/Display ($)

$5

$1.25

$.60

$.30

To determine the cost per display project, multiply the order quantity 500 times the cost per display.  For example, 500 times $5 equals $2,500. The chart below illustrates the removal cost based on order quantity and the potential saving of bulk packing product for display projects.

Carton Quantity

3

25
Cost per Display – 50 pieces per Display

$5.00

$0.60
Cost per display order – 500

$2,500

$300
Cost Saving For 25 Carton Quantity

$2,200

  

Furthermore, bulk packing products that are going into display projects, reduces the amount of cartons needed, which reduces secondary packaging costs while reducing waste and garbage removal costs.  The chart below demonstrates the opportunity for material and waste reduction.

Carton Quantity

3

25
Product needed to fulfill display 50*500

25,000

25,000
Cartons per pack-out quantity

8,334

1,000
Material Saving For 25 Carton Quantity

7,334

  

Obviously, there are additional steps to a fulfillment process than simply opening, removing and discarding the secondary packaging of a product.  However, a simple change in secondary packaging quantities has the potential for huge labor, and material cost savings.

Filed under Uncategorized Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Complete Brand Packaging Begins With The End In Mind

June 2, 2011 by 2 Comments

A lot of time and resources are spent on branding efforts.  Brand recognition and brand loyalty are considered assets and are tracked and measured. We chose images; colors, shapes and text that we believe will help communicate the kind of experience our target market is going to have when they purchase our products.  In short, we are making promising to our customers and working to earn their trust.

Earning trust is a difficult task and once we entice a customer to buy, delivering on our promises becomes critical.  One strategy to build customer confidence is to incorporate marketing messages into product packaging.  Most purchasing decisions are made in store and the package presentation is the first concrete opportunity to continue delivering on brand experience promises.

After a purchase is made the product goes home with our buyer.  The next interactions include, opening the outer package, looking at and unpacking the accessories, making sure all components are included, assembling/hooking up/setting up the product and reading the directions.  Each of these interactions is communicating messages about our brand.  The more complicated and difficult these steps are, the less loyal we tend to be about the brand we just purchased.

When considering the brand experience we would like our buyers to have, it is important to think about how the package influences brand perceptions.  Some points to keep in mind when thinking about complete brand packaging include:

  • Product presentation – what is the initial impression at point of purchase
  • Production protection – what level of tamper resistance is needed
  • Product placement – how will the product be placed for purchase
  • Ease of use – the ease of opening, accessory layout and instructions
  • Product enhancement – how can the package facilitate the use of the product

It is important to consider how end users will interact with our products. The way in which the product is packaged can be a useful tool to communicate brand strategies.

Filed under Uncategorized Tagged with , , , ,

5 Step Process To Removing Complexities In Manufacturing Processes

April 27, 2011 by 4 Comments

A good place to begin removing complexities in our manufacturing operations is in our secondary processes.  Often there is a clear delineation between a primary manufacturing process and a secondary process.  For example, an organization that produces plastic widgets may identify its primary manufacturing process as injection molding, the conversion of plastic into a widget.  Processes such as separating, assembly, packaging and finishing are considered its secondary processes.

Since primary or core processes tend to be the processes best understood within our organizations, it seems logical that gaining a better understanding of what is happening after core processing, creates an opportunity to reduce complexity.

When it comes to removing complexities, there are no quick fixes.  The concept behind this 5-step process is to gain a better understanding of how we currently produce our products.  Working through this process, we find a natural inclination to simplify.

    1. Create “as is” process maps – Document the whole route the product travels from it’s core/primary process to the next, or secondary processes, following the product through to its finished, shippable state.
    2. Define processes – Document processing specifications at each secondary process defined in the process map.
    3. Measure cycle times – Measure each process to understand process time requirements for each process articulated in the process map.
    4. Evaluate Sequencing – Evaluate each process and determine its fit within the larger system based on cycle time, finishing order and value creation.
    5. Simplify – Remove non-value added processes by reducing extra processing steps, product travel times and redundancies.

It can be difficult to peel back the many processing layers involved in our manufacturing operations.  However, once the manufacturing journey our products travel are stripped down to minimum processing requirements, we can begin to rebuild our processes with a new clarity.  This new clarity provides a shift in perspective, creating an opportunity for an intentional, re-focused effort to align our manufacturing processes with strategic business objectives.

Filed under Uncategorized Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

← Older posts

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.