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.