Sustainable Improvement: How To Make Cost Cuts Stick

McKinsey Quarterly - May 2010Further compelling evidence this week from McKinsey that sustainable business improvement is what really counts.

According to McKinsey: many cost-reduction programs are “illusory, short lived, and at times damaging to long-term value creation”.  Only 10% of cost reduction programs show sustained results three years later. Yes, you read that right: 90% of cost reduction programs fail.

Amongst McKinsey’s advice on best practice in cost accounting and data integrity, three things stand out for anyone looking to build a framework for sustainable performance improvement.

(1) ‘Seeing’ the Process

McKinsey reports a fundamental difference between Manufacturing costs and Sales, General and Administrative (SG&A) costs.  Manufacturing costs have fallen consistently over the past decade, whereas SG&A costs are unchanged. McKinsey suggests one reason why SG&A costs have proven so difficult to reduce: that ‘managers lack deep enough insight into their own operations’.

This diagnosis fits exactly with a case study from New Balance, which initially focussed its Lean program on manufacturing, with dramatic results in service, lead times and reduced costs.  But, away from the shop floor and looking at SG&A costs, it was far more difficult to achieve the same results with the same techniques.  It’s easy to see what’s happening on the production line and in the warehouse.  It’s far more difficult to figure what’s going on in the office. New Balance described Nimbus as allowing them ‘to see the process’ – after which their Lean program could deliver SG&A cost reductions.

(2) Local Engagement

McKinsey notes that: “Most cost innovation happens at a very small and practical level.”  Which is why any process management application must engage end users and the process stakeholders. The people who are closest to the process are best placed to see the cost reduction opportunities, and to assess the trade-offs.  Cost management must be an ongoing exercise, says McKinsey, part of the culture, not a one-off unsustainable initiative.

Some discomfort for the Six Sigma community because, for the same reason, McKinsey’s recommendation is that: “The process planners who run programs such as Six Sigma improvement efforts are generally the wrong choice to manage cost-cutting programs.”

(3) Understanding The Whole

The report stresses that cost reduction has to be seen in the round: Initiatives in one area of the business can often have unintended negative consequences elsewhere.  It quotes a global manufacturer where cost-cutting in manufacturing led to the loss of clients and market share because the the cost-cutting leaders were working in isolation from the sales and marketing teams.  They simply didn’t understand how customers used the products.

All in all, more solid evidence that sustainable performance improvement across the enterprise requires a complete, integrated and end-to-end view of the business processes, and in a language and format that enables enagement at every level.

© Text Michael Gammage 2013

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s