Production Strategy

Financial success often depends upon making wise strategic and structural decisions.  The Pareto Principle or ABC rule says that 20% of a firm’s products will deliver 80% of its volume or profit.  For most organizations, on a purely mathematical basis, some version of the Pareto Principle will hold true.  It may be 10% or 33% of the products accounting for most of the results, but this clustering is nearly universal.  Focusing on those activities that provide the greatest “bang for the buck” is a good strategic and tactical approach to business.

Production methods (including services) can also be classified into ABC categories.  The oldest method: custom or handicraft production can be labeled C.  The big breakthrough of standardized parts and mass production can be labeled A.  The hybrid products delivered by modular stages as in an assembly line can be labeled B.  Again, most organizations find themselves with a combination of mass (A), modular (B) and custom (C) produced goods. 

Since mass production has inherent advantages and is the lowest cost approach, firms should add modular products when the incremental benefits outweigh the costs.  Moving to the custom level involves the same benefit/cost comparison.  The incremental percentage margin is set by the marketplace and tends to decline through time as competitors add similar products, better features and benefits are offered and processes are refined and costs removed.   Sales and product managers will usually overestimate the margin benefits, while finance and production managers will underestimate them.  On the marginal cost side, the roles will often be reversed. 

The relative benefits and costs will vary from case to case, but the general structure and decisions will always need to be addressed.  In order to generate higher margins, firms need to offer products which appear to have greater custom appeal and this requires additional costs.  Firms which neglect to evaluate these trade-offs or which allow case by case negotiations often find that they have too many custom products and too little profit — or too few value-added products and too few customers.

There are four strategic approaches to this inherent trade-off.  First, firms can be disciplined and choose just one of the 3 production types.  They can deliver goods in a narrow range (A), using focused factory techniques.  As Henry Ford said, “any color you want as long as it’s black”.  They can adopt an operational excellence strategy and reduce costs through time.  Or, they can develop a modular strategy with well-defined processes for production, product development and marketing (B).  By leveraging the efficiencies of a set of highly effective modular processes, they can deliver new products and services at moderate volume with higher margins.  A product innovation strategy can be delivered this way.  Finally, they can choose a customized production strategy (C) and deliver highest margin niche products to specialized users.  This approach can attempt to leverage mass or modular production, but the real focus is on developing or adapting products to meet specialized needs.  This fits best with the customer intimacy strategy.

Unfortunately, the explosion of product choices in the 1970’s and 1980’s resulted in most firms delivering some messy, unintended combination of A, B and C products.  The mass production world moved from 90% A and a little B to 50% A, 40% B and 10% C in many cases.  Some firms even found one-third each as their production profile.  A second overall strategy has been to outsource the production of A level mass production items to the lowest cost source: in a focused factory, to a market leader, as an import, as a drop ship or through a partner.  A third strategy is to develop a truly modular production line ala Dell and move all production through a single highly refined process.  A fourth strategy is to outsource the customized work to partner firms, IT implementation shops, other engineering firms or to repackaging firms.

It is possible to combine mass, modular and custom product deliver flows within a single firm, but it is not easy.  At a minimum, firms need to make decisions in these terms, monitor the results and adapt to ensure that the marginal benefits justify the marginal costs.

Labor Market Failure and Recovery

After 18 months of hiring freeze, it’s time for all profit-maximizing firms to kick start their recruiting.  At present, we’re hiring too few, we’re too focused on exact hiring matches and we’re unwilling to invest in the future.

 The recession was first sensed by wise businesses in 2Q 2008.  The banking crisis of Fall, 2008 terrified even those whose careers went back to 1974-1982 when the last panic of gas prices, inflation, interest rates and Japanese competition derailed the post WWII expansion.  While the freeze and risk-averse decisions were justified at the time, they are wrong today.

 The all-in cost for a senior professional staff member is roughly $100,000 per year.  A good hire lasts for up to 10 years.  A typical hire is a $1 million investment.  In the current environment with 16M candidates chasing 3M jobs, the odds of finding a great candidate are excellent and the ability to hire at 20% below old market salaries is a given.  Firms with a strategic view of human resources should be first in line to hire these high ROI assets – TODAY.  Every good hire is a $200-300,000 addition to the firm’s net worth.

There is little joy in HR departments these days.  Hiring volume is down so the pressure is on to reduce HR staffing and to NOT use external recruiters.  The volume of applicants per position has quadrupled.  HR’s ability to use on-line application forms and screening tools has improved, but not enough.  To cope with the excess supply, HR and hiring managers have decided to make an exact match of past experience by industry and function to the position the penultimate criteria for hiring.  This allows the greatest percentage of candidates to be eliminated in the first screening. 

 Unfortunately, this means that many qualified candidates are not considered.  Narrowly experienced and over-tenured candidates are favored, even if they have had the same experience for 8 years in a row.  Firms pursuing this approach will soon find that they have hired adequate candidates who have limited upside potential.  They are also likely to find that they have made many “hiring errors” because they have not given equal weight to the questions of personal motivation/drive and teamwork/manageability.  I recommend Martin Yates “Hiring the Best” as a guide.

Firms that continue in “hiring freeze” mode have a bias towards replacement of existing positions versus investment in the staff who deliver future value.  There are thousands of highly skilled project managers, business analysts, scientists, quality specialists, product managers, marketing researchers and other professionals who are unemployed because firms are unwilling to restart the investment cycle.  This recession will end and success will depend upon investing in new products, new customers and better processes.  There may be some areas where NOT replacing a separated employee is the right choice.  Successful firms make decisions one choice at a time rather than relying on simple rules.

 Firms that have their financial house in order need to race to the labor market while supply exceeds demand and hire skilled, motivated team players to pursue the next cycle of business investments that deliver long-term value.