Quality Magazine
  Home
  Subscribe
  Subscribe to eNewsletter
  Subscription Customer Service
  Online
  Industry Headlines
  eXtras
  Blogs
  Quality Product Spotlights
  White Papers on the Web
  Tech ManufactureXPO
  Quality Downloads
  Webinars
  Quality Showcases
  e-Inserts Plus
  Online Store
  More Product Info
  Archive
  Q-Tube
  Q-Cast Podcasts
  Quality Showrooms
  Brain Teasers
  Current Issue
  Coming Events
  Features
  Departments
  Columns
  Products
  Quality Quick Clicks
  Special Sections
  NDT
  Vision & Sensors
  Aerospace
  How To Guide
  China Editions
  Quality Guides
  Quality Buyers Guide
  Software Selector
  Registrars Guide
  Services Guide
  Quality Services
  Job Marketplace
  Industry Links
  Classifieds
  Career Center
  Events
  Quality Expo 2012
  IMTS 2012
  Meetings and Shows
  Industry Webinars
  Quality Awards
  2012 Quality Plant of the Year Nomination Form
  2012 Quality Professional of the Year Nomination Form
  Quality Leadership 100
  Quality Info
  Media Planning Guide
Search in: EditorialProductsCompanies
What Is Cheaper Data Really Worth?
by Evan Miller
September 16, 2009

ARTICLE TOOLS
EmailEmailPrintPrintReprintsReprintsshareShare



Over the last couple months I've been writing about the Data Cost / Value Matrix. My first question was "Is 'Data Driven' just another buzzword?" I proposed an operational definition of "data driven" that we all begin to work from. This definition is based on the four quadrants of the Cost / Value Matrix, moving from Low Value / High Cost to High Value / Low Cost.

Then I offered a tool that enabled you to figure out your score on the Data Cost / Value Matrix. I asked "What is your 'Data Driven' Score?" So now we get to the question: "What is cheaper data really worth?"

I thought a story might help answer that question.

Last fall a customer came to us with a sizeable integration and customization project. It came at a time when the financial and manufacturing world seemed to be falling down around us. I was, frankly, surprised that they wanted to spend that kind of money at the same time that banks and investment firms were collapsing, the stock market was imploding, and businesses were shedding employees like autumn leaves.

But we worked with him through our standard process of defining the project and formalizing a Statement of Work. We launched the project right around the new year. During that process, my customer agreed to meet with me in six months to do a post-mortem on the project. He said he’d be willing to open his books so we could evaluate - objectively - whether the project was paying for itself.

We got together last month, seven months after we finished our deployment. True to his word, he did open his books to me and demonstrated - with CFO-approved numbers - that he had paid for the initial investment in less than three months.

Many organizations look for a two-year payback. He had achieved his in an eighth of that time.

Now, seven months into the project, he had documented an ROI of 171%.

That got my attention.

We started by reviewing the work we had done with his team. This was a truly collaborative effort. His engineers had done an exceptionally fine job of building the foundation for the project, and then worked with my staff to implement the solution. Together they did a fantastic job of automating and integrating a variety of work flows and data systems. The result was a streamlined process for tracking repair and rework processes across multiple departments.



Going into the debriefing meeting, I knew that the project was the classic tactic of "reduce the cost of data." I expected that the ROI would be based on the efficiencies gained by eliminating islands of data, removing duplicate data entry, and integrating disparate data systems. I expected that he paid for the project by eliminating staff through automation. (I knew the company was going through a downsizing concurrent with our project.) Clearly we were helping this customer move laterally on the Data Cost / Value Matrix from expensive data to low cost data.

As we dove into the data, I found a number of surprises.

First, he didn’t eliminate any jobs because of this project. As he reduced rework he reassigned the rework staff to more productive activities. They shifted from non-value-added status (overhead) to value-added production staff.

Second, reducing the cost of the data contributed only about 2% to the ROI. It was such a puny number. I had expected reducing the cost of the data would account for maybe 50% or 60% of the cost savings.

The lion’s share of the ROI came from improved throughput. Cheaper, more reliable, and more accessible data enabled his staff to drive defects out of the process. Reducing defects increased first pass yield. This resulted in lower WIP (work in process), faster product delivery cycle times, and improved order to cash cycle times.

We can get substantial benefits by reducing the cost of data by eliminating the Data Shuffle. I've seen companies achieve an impressive ROI just because they've reduced waste in the data collection process.

But the real payback is when automation enables your people to apply knowledge faster, and use that knowledge to reduce variation and make better business decisions.

How are you looking at ROI? Do you ever understate (as I was tempted to do) the benefit you get from the value of the data?

Copyright 2009 by Hertzler Systems Inc.


Evan Miller
Evan Miller joined Hertzler Systems Inc. (Goshen, IN) in 1984. For the next seven years he held positions within the company in sales, marketing, technical support and training. In 1991 when founder Paul Hertzler retired from the firm, Miller became president and is now co-owner of the company.

|PrintEmail
  Comments (0)Post a Comment
 

No HTML or BBCode in comments please.
 


Did you enjoy this article? Click here to subscribe to the magazine.




























Most Emailed Articles

  1. Management: A Closer Look: Understanding Risk Management for Medical Device Manufacturers
  2. Other Dimensions: Does New Stuff Have to be Calibrated?
  3. Auto Industry Goes on U.S. Hiring Binge
  4. Jim’s Gems: Don’t Focus on What Seems Unfair
  5. GD&T Workshop: A Top Down View
  6. Understanding ISO 13485
  7. Test & Inspection: Sensing the Thread
  8. Software & Analysis: FMEAs for the Medical Industry: Which FMEA Type Should I Use?
  9. Shifting the Paradigm: Business System Analyses for Identifying Areas to Improve
  10. ISO 13485: Medical Devices and Risk Management
Top Searches
  1. Quality 101
  2. Quality Management Systems
  3. quality assurance
  4. quality inspector
  5. quality performance indicators
  6. LEAN Quality Management Systems
  7. surface finish
  8. root cause
  9. variation management
  10. optical inspection
 
Most Popular Articles
  1. Other Dimensions: Does New Stuff Have to be Calibrated? 01/31/2012
  2. Quality 101: Nondestructive Testing 02/22/2008
  3. Quality 101: An Introduction to Gage R&R 12/01/2005
  4. Understanding ISO 13485 01/02/2008
  5. 50 Years of Quality--Take Another Look at Nondestructive Testing 10/23/2011
  6. Measurement: The Democratization of Measurement 01/27/2012
  7. Aerospace Industry To Face Challenges in 2012 02/07/2012
  8. Quality Measurement: Effects of Screw-Thread Geometry 10/01/2005
  9. U.S. Manufacturing Making a Comeback 02/01/2012
  10. Quality 101: Surface Finish Measurement Basics 09/01/2004
© 2010 BNP Media. All rights reserved. | Privacy Policy