The amount of resources that are consumed by shop floor reporting systems, such as labor costs, do not contribute anything significant to the effort of reducing waste and can be classified as waste itself. The amount of time needed to collect labor cost will increase dramatically as batch sizes are reduced. If it took two minutes to collect the data for a batch of 1,000, it still takes two minutes to collect the data for a batch of one. Eliminating these shop floor reporting systems and their related transactions represents a significant contribution to productivity improvement.
In addition, enough of the data being collected is wrong so as to make the final answer wrong. Accomplished manually, the collection of labor hours and units produced is bound to be rife with error. So, some companies spend huge amounts of resources to mechanize the system with bar codes and computers, resulting in a system that is almost —very nearly —accurate. When one considers the thousands or millions of transactions reported, it is clear that there are enough errors to distort the data. Second, most companies’ labor reporting systems are independent of the time clock systems used to pay employees. In these instances, the two systems must be reconciled before payroll can be finalized. Generally, an honest effort is made to do this, but at the eleventh hour the labor-hour data is plugged to balance to the time clock system.
We have never heard of a company not meeting a payday deadline because the two systems didn’t reconcile. What would that do for employee morale?
The third reason the answer in the product cost column is wrong is because in many cases inappropriate allocation methods are used. Many of the methods were established long ago and, as companies’ operations changed, allocation methods did not. In addition, there may be more than one acceptable method of allocation that could yield significantly different results. Thus, that precise-to-the-fourth-digit product cost that you are looking at is merely the result of a choice of allocation methods, even if all of the input data were correct. Choosing a different but acceptable method gives a different cost.
Given the fact that individual product costs are based on partially inaccurate data and subjective allocation methods, one should be cautious in making decisions based on this information. However, there are instances where a company does need to have a reasonable idea of its product cost. Since product costs do not —or should not —vary greatly from day to day, product costs can be calculated as needed instead of spending money on a formal cost system. This approach of calculating cost on an ad hoc basis using actual costs will achieve a higher degree of accuracy, at a lower cost, than maintaining the traditional cost-data collection systems.
The elements of a product’s cost can be defined as the sum of material cost, assigned processing or conversion cost and allocated cost. Material cost is relatively easy to obtain by referring to the products’ Bill of Materials and the company’s purchasing records for purchase prices. However, scrap factors should not be added since scrap is waste and needs to be eliminated. If, during the implementation of lean, the manufacturing process is reorganized into product families, a high degree of processing costs can be directly assigned because product-specific work cells are created. In fact, it is possible to get to a point where not much more than occupancy costs are allocated to the product families. Some, but probably not many, companies may be able to group products into families where the cycle times for all of the products are within a very narrow band. In this case, the total processing and occupancy costs for the family can be divided by the number of units produced. When this average cost is added to the specific product material cost, a total approximate cost can be obtained without significant distortion.
Most companies have product families with significantly differing cycle times, so the average-cost method described above will not be adequate. Some companies have used Activity-Based Costing (ABC) as a substitute for traditional standard costing. In ABC, costs are allocated on the basis of cost drivers (e.g., number of purchase orders issued). Many companies have found that ABC encourages larger batches in order to spread the cost over a larger number of units, thereby “reducing” the cost per unit. In lean, the thrust is to reduce or eliminate the cost, not just spread it over more widgets. Because ABC is highly dependant on allocations, we do not see this as a desirable alternative.
One of the basic principles of performance measurement is to motivate the right decisions, as we said in Chapter 3. The same could be said of product costing methods. Accordingly, a third method that could be employed is to allocate processing and occupancy costs based on product lead times. Lead time is defined in a broad sense: process time plus inspection time plus move time plus wait time. Inspection, move and wait time are all non-value added, or waste. Thus, as a process is improved and the lead time reduced (i.e., waste is eliminated), the product cost will be lower.
Figure 5.4 illustrates the progression from a traditional batch and queue environment to a pure flow, just-in-time process. Figure 5.5 illustrates the difference between the results of standard cost and lead-time cost for two products. In this case a standard cost system shows that product A has a lower conversion costs since the total standard time is lower. However, if costs are attached to products on the basis of lead time, product B has the lower reported costs. In addition, as the process is improved and lead time is reduced (i.e., velocity increased), the reported cost of the products would decrease.
In all of these cases, cost is not absolute, but merely an estimate that is dependant upon the allocation method chosen. It is important that management clearly understands this; otherwise, decisions about which products to sell, or not to sell, could be made for the wrong reasons. It is much more important that management understands the profitability of a portfolio of related products. The apparently low-margin products that fill out the line will become acceptable if they provide a competitive advantage in the eyes of the customer and the product line as a whole generates an acceptable profit.
Tell a traditional accountant that detailed product costs need not be maintained, however, and the argument comes back that those numbers are needed to satisfy the auditors who want to know inventory values. But let’s look at the standard “clean opinion” that auditors give out:
“We conduct our audits in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. … In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the consolidated financial position of …”
Note the key phrases “free of material misstatement … assessing significant estimates,” and “presents fairly, in all material respects.” These phrases acknowledge that items in the financial statements are based on estimates, including the valuation of inventory, and that the financial statements are fair in all significant respects, giving recognition to the materiality principle.
If a company turns its inventory two or three times, which is not unusual for a traditional batch and queue company, it will have four to six months inventory on hand. This represents a significant balance-sheet item, and a small error in valuation can have a significant effect on reported income. Therefore, the typical audit devotes a considerable amount of time testing the methods used to allocate costs to the inventory, in addition to obsolescence and net-realizable-value tests.
On the other hand, it is not unusual for a good just-in-time company to turn its work-in-process and finished goods inventory 25 to 50 times a year. In other words, these companies would have only one or two weeks of inventory on hand that has incurred any processing time, and therefore need to have labor and overhead allocated to it. It is relatively
easy to calculate, at a macro level, one or two weeks of labor and overhead, and to capitalize this amount via an accounting journal entry at the end of each month. And even if this estimate were wrong by a full week, it would not create a significant misstatement of the financial statement.
In addition, when inventories are kept this low, the risk of obsolescence is reduced and the net realizable value of the inventory taken as a whole is not an issue. In our experience, using this method is not only acceptable to auditors, it also reduces the time and cost of the audit. Thus the argument that unit costs are needed to value inventory is not valid in a lean environment.
Making the Transition
The historical obsession with determining the cost of individual products consumes enormous resources and diverts us from the task of driving real cost down. However, eliminating a standard cost system and all of its related transactions is not easy and can’t be done overnight. Many of the transactions that supply data to the cost system also supply data to the MRP operating system. Consequently, transactions such as labor tickets and move tickets cannot be discontinued until alternate operating processes are implemented. There must be a coordinated effort between the operations and accounting to accomplish this.
As production cells are configured and flow production is implemented, manufacturing routings can be flattened or eliminated and labor tickets can be reduced and finally eradicated. As kanban systems are implemented, move tickets can be eliminated. When a company makes serious progress in its transition to lean manufacturing, and no attempt is made to eliminate these redundant transactions, a serious disconnect occurs between operations and accounting. Eventually operations will realize they are processing the transactions only for accounting, since they now have alternate processes to satisfy their needs, and the integrity of the data being reported becomes even more suspect. Nobody wants to produce numbers just for the sake of producing numbers.
USE OF CAPACITY VARIANCE
Cost accountants apply a variety of techniques in setting overhead rates in a standard cost system. sometimes the rates are set plant-wide so that there is one rate applied to all products. Sometimes the raes are set by department or some other segmentation, so that different rates are applied to different products. In all cases, the rate generally represents budgeted overhead costs divided by some number of hours. The number of hours is typically based on the budgeted hours necessary to support the sales forecast.
However, some companies will set the overhead rates using theoretical capacity —the number of hours that would be consumed if the plant were operating at full capacity. This produces the lowest possible overhead rate for the plant and therefore the lowest standard cost. If this method is used and the number of expected hours based on current sales levels is less than the theoretical capacity, an unfavorable capacity variance is guaranteed. When companies use this method of setting overhead rates, this capacity variance is typically reported separately in the profit and loss statement, due to unabsorbed overhead associated with the unused capacity.
In addition, volume variances are also reported and represent the unabsorbed overhead when actual hours are less than budgeted hours. We have seen instances when the overhead rate was based on theoretical capacity, but the entire unabsorbed overhead was calculated as merely a volume variance. In these cases, up to 50 percent of the standard gross margin was consumed by unfavorable variances and the financial people used this to beat up the sales and marketing people for hurting profits by not generating enough sale volume. This in turn encourages the sales people to try to generate additional volume at any price. In fact, the real problem was that the financial people approved large capital investments that were justified on a lower unit cost, which was based on high throughput. However, during the approval process, nobody seriously challenged whether that level of throughput —or sales —was possible for the business in any reasonable time.
6
Plain English Management
Financial Statements
The average recipient of a standard cost-based profit and loss statement does not understand the document in his hands. It communicates nothing. Worse still, for those few that do understand it, these statements fail to give meaningful information about what is really happening in the operation. To remedy this situation, we have developed management financial statements presented in plain language. This chapter illustrates a step-by-step method for creating these statements.
Look at a typical standard cost Profit and Loss statement though the gross profit line (Figure 6.1). In this example, sales increased from one period to another, but gross profit did not. It stayed flat in absolute dollars and declined as a percentage of sales. If a business manager were to receive this financial statement after the end of the period, where should he look to make corrective actions to insure that future increased sales actually result in higher profits?
In 6.1, standard cost as a percentage of sales remained at 50 percent of sales. Assuming no significant product mix change, it could be assumed that the standards were not changed to anticipate any process improvements.
Also, purchase price variance went from $1,000 unfavorable to $1,000 favorable. Does this mean that the purchasing department has done a good job negotiating with vendors? If so, did they negotiate a lower price but sacrifice quality or delivery? Or does it mean that the purchasing department did a good job negotiating with the cost accountants in setting the new standards? This is not uncommon when material standards are based on anticipated prices rather than current actual prices.
The only clear statement made by Figure 6.1 is that the change in each of the variances raised more questions than the financial statement can provide answers to. The business manager cannot really tell why profits did not increase even though sales did. As Wiremold made the transition to lean, it became quickly obvious that they needed to give operating associates better financial information. As a starting point for developing an alternative to standard cost-based Profit & Loss statements, Orry and his team established several principles to which the new financial statement must adhere:
Useable by non-accountants
Eliminates complexity in presentation
Has higher assignable costs, lower allocated costs
Includes both financial and non-financial information
Motivates the right decisions
Complies with GAAP principles
The objective of making the management financial statements accessible to non-accountants seems obvious since most of the users are not accountants. But the objective is rarely realized. Management reporting is a major product of the financial organization and if users do not understand those reports then all of the effort that goes into producing them can be classified as waste. An accountant must develop the eyes of an outsider. Keep in mind that what you’re really doing is developing a new product and, in order to create something desirable, you need to get the customer’s feedback into the process.
One way to make financial statements more understandable is to eliminate the complexity of presentation. The statements in Figure 6.1 present the financial results in a manner so complex that no meaningful conclusions about the state of the operations can be made. We recommend reducing the level of allocated costs in order to increase personal responsibility and accountability. Assigned costs are directly incurred; allocated costs are indirect and examples might include: depreciation of the building, property taxes and insurance as borne by each of the company’s product lines. Using allocated costs, managers are tempted to make operating results look good by changing allocation methods. Looking at results that are based on costs incurred by, and therefore assigned to an operation, increases accountability. Allocated costs should be separated from those that are assigned. The way we improve results is by eliminating waste, not shifting blame.
Along with these columns of dollar figures, non-financial measurements are also needed to track the physical factors of a business, because improving productivity requires
physical change. Accordingly, a comprehensive set of management reports must include both financial and non-financial data in order to provide a more complete understanding of the business. These measures could include the number of days of inventory on hand, customer service measurements, number of days in outstanding accounts receivable, key productivity measures and defect reduction, to name a few. The results of presenting financial information in a clear, understandable manner, combined with key non-financial metrics should improve the organization’s ability to motivate the right decisions.
For instance, clarity in the metrics will ensure that the products being produced are the ones customers want, not the ones creating the most absorption hours. We know that, in an attempt to avoid unfavorable overhead volume variances, managers routinely increase labor hours in order to improve overhead absorption — no matter the effect on inventory or productivity (see Chapter 5). This behavior may make the currently reported profits look better, but it consumes cash, space and other resources by increasing inventory. If volume doesn’t increase in the short term, increasing labor hours merely postpones the day of reckoning, particularly in the high-tech industry, where short product life cycles increase the possibility of future write-offs for obsolete inventory. In other words, the method of reporting financial information has caused dysfunctional behavior. Finally, nothing should be done to violate GAAP; we are not talking about changing accounting principles, but about presenting financial information in a clear and understandable fashion.
Real Numbers Page 9