I had an interesting
conversation the other day with one of my clients about traditional Cost Accounting (CA) and the TOC
based Throughput Accounting (TA) that might be interesting for everyone. It seems that one of my client’s bosses at
the company’s corporate office asked what they were going to do about reducing
their overtime. Seems like a reasonable
request if the overtime is too high…right?
And if you look strictly at the numbers (i.e. $’s spent on OT), and if
you’re deeply imbedded in traditional CA, you just might come up with the wrong
question. Now what do I mean by that?
At the direction of their
corporate “brothers” and as part of the contract, this particular client had “staffed
up” to what they consider “normal” workloads and as long as the workload
remains within what they considered to be normal range of workload, then very little overtime was
required. But when the work load
increased significantly, they used overtime so that they could meet the new
demand? Isn’t that when overtime is
justified and should be used? I mean it
would make very little sense and would probably not be possible to rush off and
hire additional workers to cover a sudden increase in workload. Now, if there was a clear shift upward in
workload that sustained itself for a definite period of time, then they might
hire more people. So knowing that the
plan was to use overtime to cover sudden increases, why would the corporate
experts ask them what they were doing about their increase in overtime? The answer to this question and other ridiculous
one lies in traditional CA’s belief that favors cost reduction above everything
else. Let’s explore some of the
differences (maybe conflicts is a better word) that exist between traditional Cost Accounting and TOC based Throughput Accounting.
Throughput Accounting (TA)
is really defined by a few simple definitions as follows:
·
Throughput
(T):
T = The rate of cash generation through sales or Sales Revenue – Totally Variable
Costs or T = SR - TVC
·
Inventory
or Investment ( I ): I = All the money invested in things
companies purchase that they intend to
sell.
·
Operating
Expense (OE): OE = All the money a company spends to turn
inventory into throughput
·
Net
Profit (NP): NP = Throughput – Operating Expense or NP = T - OE
·
Return
on Investment (ROI): ROI = Net Profit ÷ Investment or ROI = NP/I
So with these five simple
formulas we can answer, in advance, the impact of the decision we are about
to make. Will the decision:
1.
Increase Throughput?
2.
Reduce Operating Expenses?
3.
Increase our Return on Investment?
It really is this
simple. With Throughput Accounting, good
sound business decisions can be made if the actions we are considering
increases throughput, decreases operating expenses or increases ROI. But if you’re making decisions using Cost
Accounting rules, your decisions will be much, much different. Remember, above everything else, cost
accounting looks first at cost reduction or "How do we save money?"
So is it any wonder that this guy’s corporate boss was asking him about
overtime reduction? Never mind that the
overtime generated significantly more throughput because he’s only looking at
how much money he could save by reducing overtime.
And so it goes, cost
accounting stimulates the wrong behaviors in other ways.
Consider the belief by CA that embraces efficiencies as a performance
metric. What type of behavior results by
using this metric? If I am being
measured by how high I can make my efficiencies, then one of the focal points
would be to run my part of the process to the max. But what happens when I do this? If my part of the process has the shortest processing time,
then the next process step will have a mountain of work in process (WIP)
inventory sitting directly in front of it. My
people will appear busy for sure, but have they contributed to improved
profitability? If you ask a die-hard
cost accountant, they’ll probably give you a thumbs up because they view
inventory as an asset and because higher efficiencies are a good thing. The fact is
excess inventory ties up cash, increases operating expenses, impedes
throughput, extends cycle times, hides quality problems and causes on time
delivery metrics to deteriorate. The only place efficiency makes any sense at all is in the constraint!
Here’s my bottom line. Using cost accounting to make daily
management decisions is a serious mistake because this is not the intended
purpose of cost accounting. Cost
accounting has only one purpose….to satisfy outside reporting requirements
(i.e. GAAP). Traditional cost accounting
provides false incentives to build inventories because it views inventory as a
positive asset. Throughput Accounting views
inventory as a negative liability because it is indicative of system-wide flow
problems.
So back to the original
discussion I had with a client the other day.
If the corporate office truly believed in or at least understood even
the basics of TOC and TA, the correct question should have been, “What are your plans
to increase throughput?”
Bob Sproull
No comments:
Post a Comment