Clarity on PLM

Clarity on software for innovation, product development, engineering, and manufacturing
Subscribe

Product Cost a Priority? Not now, I’m Busy

September 22, 2011 By: Jim Brown Category: Smart People with Opinions (Guest Posts), What I Learned

I had an opportunity to share ideas and experience about product cost management and product profitability with Eric Hiller. Eric responded to my post on PLM and Product Cost Management (PCM) and we have shared some great dialogue following that. Eric has some great experience in this area and I asked him if he would like to share it. I hope you enjoy it!

The following is a guest post from Eric Hiller:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sure, cost is important… but I have a lot of other things to do, too.

I’ve been fascinated by the problem of product cost since 1996. I did my graduate work on the subject, I considered it when I was a young engineer at Ford Motor Company, I started a company that makes product that helps companies make their products more profitable, and I have been a consultant to executives in Fortune 500 companies on the subject of product cost management. I’ve learned a lot of lessons in those endeavors, but one of the most interesting is:

Product Profit is NOT as Important as One Might Think

I know that’s pretty shocking to say, especially for a guy who is fascinated by the subject of Product Profit.  But it’s true… or at least it’s true in a relative sense versus other product attributes that the product development team must meet.

The statement above also seems surprising given that we have been taught for years that the purpose of business is to make money for the owners, and money for the owners comes from free cash flow, and free cash flow comes from profit, and profit comes when expenses are less than revenue, and in most manufacturing companies, Product Cost (roughly equivalent to Cost of Goods Sold for the finance types reading this post) is 70-90% of revenue.

Considering my rough Aristotelian logic in the last sentence, why wouldn’t we assume that product cost is, indeed, the most important thing to business? (I’m being a bit facetious in my rhetorical question to prove a point here.) The point is that there are many other things that go into making a successful business, even from the product development-only standpoint.  These include:

  • product performance
  • time-to-market
  • quality
  • safety/compliance
  • number of features of the product
  • product profitability
  • development cost

In product development, most teams have to balance all these goals.    We can see this from Tech Clarity’s 2011 report on product development tradeoffs in Figure 1.  When you ask the average executive in product development, they are concerned with a multitude of issues.   Even the least important category below (Product Sustainability/Green Initiatives) has almost 50% interest from executives.  (Note that I consider manufacturability to be a concern that is very closely aligned and/or drives product cost.)

Figure 1 – What Product Development Executives are Concerned About

But, which of these goals is that the MOST important goal.  Michelle Boucher at Aberdeen Group gauged the sentiment of product development executives in November 2010 on this question. Here are the results that she found (Figure 2), when she asked 312 respondents to pick “The top business pressure driving their company to have better insight into decision-making during product development.”

Figure 2 – What is the MOST important concern to product development managers?

Source: Aberdeen Group

I particularly like this survey question, because it forces the respondents to pick the most important. There’s a couple of interesting things here. First, if we look at the results of this survey versus similar questions asked in the past, we will see that the focus on product cost and profitability is less than it was a year or two ago. Hopefully, this is indicative that the economy might just be starting to show little signs of recovery. Second, notice that when the survey forced the respondents to rank the importance of goals in an ordinal way, the focus of PD executives is still fairly balanced across the different goals that we discussed in the bullets above. In fact, if we combined “customer demand for lower product costs” and “need to lower development costs” together, the total focus on cost or profitability of the organization is about 27%, which makes it almost identical to the other four focuses.

This data matches my own experience in talking to hundreds of customers over the last eight years. In the highly unscientific and intuitive statistics cruncher in my brain, if I combined all the feedback (direct and implied) that I have gotten to the same question, I would say the ordinal ranking of the average product development organization, whether spoken or unspoken, is as follows:

  • Safety/compliance (required to sell product at all!)
  • Time-to-market
  • Quality
  • Product performance
  • Number of features of the product
  • Product profitability
  • Development cost

In fact, when I asked the question directly to several product development executives, this is almost exactly the order they gave me, although often they will not list every one of these attributes in their answer.

So what does this mean?

Does it mean that product cost and profitability are unimportant things? No. It simply means that sometimes they may be less important than other goals. So how do we make progress in product development and delivery of corporate profitability, given that product cost is the least favorite subject of many design engineers?

I suggest the following simple framework:

  1. Set the required level needed for each of the other attributes, except for product cost / profitability
  2. Set a minimum level target for product profitability, but think of product profitability in your mind as the variable you are optimizing.
  3. Execute on meeting the goals for the non-product cost attributes actively first, while monitoring product profitability and evaluating each choice made about a non-cost attribute, asking “Will this decision make my product profitability go up or down?”

Those of us who come from a background of optimization probably remember that it is very hard to optimize on more than one variable at a time. Therefore, the typical way to make progress practically on a optimization problem with multiple goals (which is exactly what product development is), is to set some hard constraints (Attribute Targets) for all the variables but one, and then run the optimization to maximize or minimize that last variable of interest (in this case product profit or cost, respectively).

A simple conceptual graphic of this framework is shown below.  In the green ovals we show lines of equal product profit.  We’d like to climb the hill to maximum profit, but there are real world constraints on the level of our other product attributes (e.g. time-to-market). This leaves us a tan shaded region where all our non-cost targets are met.  In my suggested framework, the team first works to get into the shaded region and then starts making choices to meet (and optimize) the last target of product profitability.  The axes represent two choices the team is making, but we know that the team will really be making thousands of choices (it’s just hard to represent that in 2D).

Figure 3 – Graphical Representation of meeting product development targets as constraints, while optimizing product cost and profit

 

This approach may sound like common sense to some people, and if so, great!  However, don’t let the point pass you by without internalizing it a bit.  One of the blinding flashes of the obvious from David Allen’s book Getting Things Done is that the human brain just can’t let go of something important until it is written down or handled.  So, one of his first rules is that you have to “write it down.”  Similarly, instead of letting Product Profitability be that nagging voice that keeps distracting everyone, companies can simply “write it down,’ too.  That is, they should set a maximum product cost target and keep checking it in the rear view mirror, while keeping the immediate goals of Safety/compliance, Time-to-market, Quality, and Product performance, etc. in the front windshield view.

This may sound like a nuance, but I still often get the question “How do I balance my product cost targets with all the other targets I have in product development?”  Years ago, I was perplexed what to tell the questioner other than “Make product cost your top priority.”  That was not a realistic solution to the real concern.  Eventually, after thinking through the problem and observing the culture of product development, I came up with the simple framework we are discussing.  When I have explained this framework to product development teams at past clients and customers, it seems to make people feel much more at ease and helps people regain a sense of control.

Obviously, one could change the framework to make any product development attribute or target the ‘to be optimized’ variable, just as easily.  But given the immediacy of the challenges of program timing, quality, and performance, it seems that making product cost the optimization variable works best for most product development teams.  Sometimes, we just have to learn by experience.

Eric

(p.s. I still think Product Cost Management is really important!)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So that is what Eric has to say, I hope you found it interesting. Are we really too busy to care about cost? Do we just believe that profitability is more about top-line issues by having the right product? Let us know how you feel about it.

Share

Do You Design for Compliance, Sustainability and Cost? Survey says…

December 01, 2010 By: Jim Brown Category: Research Rap

A quick peek into some research on … designing products for environmental compliance from our 2009 report. And maybe more importantly, here is the link to participate in the 2011 study on designing for compliance, cost, and sustainability. This year, I am expanding the research to recognize the trade-offs sometimes required between cost and compliance. Please share the link with your friends in engineering and manufacturing.

Note: For my blogging friends and those in the press, let me know if you are interested in helping gather responses, I will return the favor with some contributed content.

Research Findings – 2011

OK, it is a trick heading. There are no findings yet, take the survey and help me gather a broad perspective on the issue. If you are a consultant or a vendor, please feel free to pass along the link to an engineer or manufacturer. I will share some of the data back on this blog in return.

Research Findings – 2009

One of the most interesting findings from the last report was the broadening view of sustainability. The focus on environmental compliance information was getting the most attention in data collection from suppliers (no surprise) but the growth in focus on a broader view of sustainability was much higher (including carbon footprint, energy usage, waste/recycling). We are looking into that question again in the current survey, it will be interesting to see what has changed in the last year or so. See more of the report findings in my post on making environmental product compliance sustainable.

Cost and Sustainability

I have written about compliance before, and the need to reduce the compliance tax on product innovation. While the prior survey focused primarily on environmental product compliance, the research shows a growing interest in sustainability. But the business reality is that compliance and sustainability can’t always command a higher price, so companies have to continue to focus on controlling product cost to be commercially sustainable. You may have heard my views on designing for product cost and product cost management (PCM) before, it is something I am passionate about. So now is the opportunity to look at these issues in a holistic way.

So that was a quick peek into some recent research on compliance and a request for help in learning more, I hope you found it interesting. Let us know what it looks like from your perspective.

Please feel free to review more free research and white papers about PLM and other enterprise software for manufacturers from Tech-Clarity.

Share

Reflections on Final PTCuser Conference

June 14, 2010 By: Jim Brown Category: One-to-One, What I Learned

I had the chance to talk with … PTC and their customers at last week’s PTCuser user conference. PTC has been busy, making a number of significant announcements. I will clearly not do justice to such a big event in one short blog, but I hope to hit the highlights for you and share my thoughts on the implications.

Note: Just to be clear, this is the last PTCuser because the conference is changing and will be renamed PlanetPTC.

What I Learned

PTC is still serious about mechanical CAD. They believe that there is still innovation happening in that space, and that it will be an interesting market in the future. Good news for mechanical engineers and those that are fans of PTC CAD solutions including Pro/Engineer and CoCreate. They announced Project Lightening which is a multi-year strategy to reinvent mechanical CAD, but promised deliverables in the near term. Not much information here yet, but from conversations with PTC product managers this is a big focus area. Expect some significant focus on making MCAD much easier to use.

PTC is pushing the PLM boundaries. PTC furthered InSight product analytics by announcing product cost analytics and expanded Arbortext into service documentation and instructions. By going into areas like product analytics (particularly in areas like cost), PTC continues to push the envelope. PTC has a broad vision for PLM, and has already stretched the scope of PLM to include product documentation and engineering calculations in the past, and they don’t appear to be done yet.

PTC is making good on their Social Product Development initiative. The new SocialLink product is a great example of this. They added a new product, but also demonstrated how these new social computing capabilities will work across the entire PTC product portfolio. That is the right way to do it (in my opinion). The capabilities are generalized and part of the infrastructure (in large part thanks to Microsoft), but the application of the capabilities is happening in the solutions themselves. This allows product managers from each product line to decide how their users can benefit. Expect more here over time.

PTC has refocused on a Small to Midsize Business (SMB) PDM system – ProductPoint is no longer trying to be both a simpler PDM offering for the SMB and PTC’s answer to Social Product Development. With the introduction of SocialLink and other social computing capabilities, ProductPoint is now free to be a SharePoint-based PDM system. Good news for the SMB who doesn’t need (or can’t attain) a full PLM system.

PTC enters PPM market – PTC is launching a product portfolio management solution based on Microsoft technology. The early indications are that PTC’s solution is more focused on project roll ups and programs than decision support in product portfolios and R&D investment. Stay tuned for more on this in the future as I learn more.

PlanetPTC replaces PTCuser – PTC users have asked PTC to take a broader role and responsibility in the user event. PlanetPTC also includes a community site and virtual events like webcasts, showing that PTC really believes in the power of social media.

So that’s what I hear from PTC, I am sure I missed something. I hope you found it useful. What do you think? What else should I have asked them? What else would you like them to do?

Share

Did PLM Give Up on Product Cost Management?

June 09, 2010 By: Jim Brown Category: What I Learned

What I learned this week … is that product cost is not getting the attention it deserves in PLM. I was presenting on the future of PLM in a PLM-focused event last week in Helsinki. My topic was the future of PLM, and I based my discussion on the four dimensions of PLM expansion (recently updated past post). I got a great question from one of the participants. He wanted to know “why I hadn’t included cost in the future of PLM? My response? Good question!

Product Cost in PLM

Product Cost Management (PCM) in PLM is something that I used to bring up on a regular basis. Design for cost is an important initiatives. Particularly as companies are trying to remain lean in uncertain economic times, controlling cost is critical. Even in good times, designing products with optimal cost structures is hugely important to driving high profit margins. So why has this dropped off of my radar? Is the problem being addressed? Is the problem solved? No.

The problem still lingers, but I haven’t seen as many companies willing to try to address it. Perhaps this complicates the roles of ERP and PLM, and companies don’t want to deal with a hard decision on which system supports which part of the process. ERP and PLM both have the potential to help, and should be a part of the solution. But neither ERP nor PLM are ready to take on the PCM challenge fully.

  • ERP
    • Has historic costs
    • Understands multi-currency, locations, volumes, other sourcing factors
    • Generally handles cost for the execution of procurement and manufacturing
  • PLM
    • Has new parts
    • Understands product content early when costs are locked into designs
    • Generally handles product development decisions in the innovation lifecycle

So each system has some thing to offer. So why instead of addressing this properly with the right combination of ERP and PLM, do companies continue to use masses of disconnected spreadsheets to solve the problem? At least I can hope that they are managing the spreadsheets in PLM so it is readily available and can be reused. But that is only a partial solution. We need a better answer.

Challenges

ERP and PLM both bring value as seen above, but both fall short. Here are some of the issues:

  • New purchased parts - ERP is not involved in the early parts of design, and doesn’t help with estimating costs of new parts. PLM (for the most part) doesn’t have a rich enough model for sourcing. I have seen “cost” as a single field too many times, without any concept that the cost will change based on volumes, locations, currencies, etc.
  • Newly engineered parts – For brand new parts, there is not historic data to work from. Costs need to be developed based on product characteristics like materials and manufacturing complexity. Comparisons can help, but ERP typically doesn’t know enough to determine which parts are similar in their construction

Who will step up?

Are vendors ready for this? Agile has had a cost model for some time. Siemens partnered with ATK. Dassault Systemes invested in this area. PTC just announced that their InSight product analytics product will address cost. So there is hope. There are also specialty vendors like Akoya and aPriori that help engineers estimate cost based on product attributes. Why haven’t SAP PLM and Oracle (with Agile and ERP) done something about it?

More importantly, are manufacturers ready? Adidas CIO mentioned Design for Cost at a PLM user conference (PTCuser) yesterday. But I don’t hear it often enough. I haven’t seen the momentum that something as important to profitability as cost deserves.

Implications for Manufacturers

If manufacturers aren’t willing to integrate cost into their design processes (and PLM), they will be stuck with spreadsheets. And actually, the question was broader. The question also addressed other financials in addition to cost. For example, is PLM addressing product pricing? Product forecasting? While I think that it makes sense for PLM to address this, I have seen little activity in this area to this point. What a shame. What a great opportunity for someone to step up.

So that is my rant for today, I hope you found it interesting. Why did this fall off of my radar? Did it fall off of yours? Have you done something to address this? If you did let us know about it!

Share

SEO Powered by Platinum SEO from Techblissonline