On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 13:10:54 -0600, "Ed Sheehan"
Based on that info, each of the 12 employees is expensed at $3 an
hour. That sounds goofy. What are they doing when they're not making
revenue for the company? Wouldn't the $3 expense, to enter an hours
worth of orders, offset the expense itself? If the margins are SO low,
that the employee's revenue making time is a question, then maybe it's
time to look at all the *other* overhead. 2 minutes an order is very
quick, especially if you have to enter new customer information. 3
minutes to pack and ship a product is blazing fast! Something is wrong
with the entire picture, if you ask me.
What are they doing during the other 15 hours a week, while getting
paid? How much are they getting paid to not make direct revenue? I've
done lots of cost analytics at my current employer. If you take every
keystroke to be a revenue loss, then you're just digging in the mud to
find dirt. If this is a distribution company, get me some *real*
numbers and drop me an e-mail. I'd be happy to go over the current
budget(if there IS one), review the software setup, and offer some
streamlining and cost-cutting suggestions. I've done a LOT of
streamlining and cost-cutting at All-Spec, since we run on very low
margins with less employees than we should. As the business has grown,
we've spent time and money to automate processes, and streamline data
access. The inital expense is quickly recouped in employee time
Switching to MS Access will end up costing tons more in design costs,
as well as time loss. Do a green screen to GUI comparison and you'll
see that it takes quite a bit more time to enter data using a mouse
and a keyboard together. Also, Access isn't the fastest database for
large amounts of data, without some major iron running it, by itself.
BTW, from what I've heard, MvBase is more expensive to have support
for, than D3. Switch to D3/Linux and your overhead will probably drop
by a significant amount. Though, I could be wrong.
>Total Employees : 12
>Desired Employees: 6
>The $50K costs are from the employees. The owner spends ~ 3 min per order
>taken, ~2 min more to ship. At 300 orders/week, that's ~ 1500 minutes or 25
>hours/week spent on most of the business. He can't justify the number of
>employees he has, so after an analysis of who really does what, he intends
>to make the switch.
>I am attempting to persuade him to reduce the complexity of the Pick
>software, so that if/when the business expands, he can re-scale back to
>where he was with way less growing pains than moving back from MS Access.
>That would seem to let him have the best of both worlds: Easier software
>tasking, with built-in bounce-back when the time is right.
>I think the initial costs would be to provide a software/menu subset of what
>they're currently using, retaining file structures, and allowing an improved
>workflow/menu navigation for better ease-of-use for new/green employees.
>Sort of simplifying the business rules.
>We usually think of adding more capability/complexity when dealing with
>companies, but these days, a retraction may be what's needed, at least for
>the short term.
>> What percentage of there gross sales per year is that 50K? What is
>> their overall layout for IT as compared to their gross sales?
>>> I have a client who process about 300 order per week. Currently
>>> running MvBase/NT with probably 100 licensed seats. They say they're
>>> spending approximately $50K/year on costs.
>>> They are considering dumping the whole ball of wax and putting
>>> everything on MS Access. I'm getting more specific cost info now,
>>> but I know that they have OE, inventory, reporting, and all the
>>> other functionality that goes with distribution. They just can't
>>> handle the TCO with their current cash flow.
>>> But I can't see them on MS access either. Is there a cheaper Pick
>>> solution out there wich would allow them to migrate from Pick to
>>> Pick? I believe that going to MS Access would be product-cheap and
>>> Thanks for any ideas,