
Professional Builder
Professional
Builder
Why Productivity Matters
By Fletcher Groves --
3/31/2000
|
_htm_m2411c360.png)
|
|
|
_htm_m2411c360.png)
|
|
_htm_me4e67f0.jpg)
|
|
Fletcher
Groves is vice president of SAI Consulting in Ponte Vedra Beach,
Fla., and the lead consultant for the professional staff working
in the real estate and construction industries. Groves has spent
more than a quarter of a century working in the home building,
real estate development, management consulting and commercial
banking industries. He held senior management positions at Arthur
Rutenberg Homes and also started and managed his own residential
building company.
|
|
_htm_m2411c360.png)
|
|
When building companies participating in our
most recent Reference Point study state that the length of their
contract-to-closing process increased significantly in the past two
years, does it really matter? It matters a lot. The 27-day increase
in the average number of days it takes a builder to build a home --
from 141 days in 1997 to 168 days in 1999 -- equates to a 20%
increase in cycle time. This increase, in turn, results in a 15%
decline in a builder’s productivity.
With this productivity decline,
evidenced by cycle time increases, some combination of two phenomena
will almost certainly occur:
1) Sales will stay the same, but
backlog will increase and revenue will drop (as fewer homes are
completed with the same investment in fixed expenses).
2) Revenue will hold steady, but
working capital, work-in-process and operating expenses will increase
significantly -- each with a bruising effect on net operating income.
|
_htm_m2411c360.png)
|
|
|
_htm_m2411c360.png)
|
|
_htm_319cef0c.jpg)
|
|
Average
number of days builders say it takes to build a home from contract
to closing
|
|
_htm_m2411c360.png)
|
|
These effects can be temporarily masked -- by
timing, accounting techniques and unsustainable spurts of
period-ending "production7quot -- but the effects will simply
multiply.
Performance
Measures
Let’s
look at the relationship between cycle time and the three performance
measures that affect productivity: throughput (revenue), inventory
(work-in-process) and operating expense. The goal is to increase
throughput while reducing inventory and operating expense. As the
table below shows, however, the desired result isn’t the
easiest to achieve.
|
When
Throughput...
|
and
Inventory and Operating Expense ...
|
Cycle
Times will ...
|
|
... goes down
|
... also go down
|
... tend to stay the same
|
|
... goes down
|
... stay the same
|
... get longer
|
|
... goes down
|
... go up
|
... get much longer
|
|
... goes up
|
... also go up
|
... tend to stay the same
|
|
... stays the same
|
... go up
|
... get longer
|
|
... stays the same
|
... also stay the same
|
... tend to stay the same
|
|
... stays the same
|
... go down
|
... tend to get shorter
|
|
... goes up
|
... stay the same
|
... get shorter
|
|
... goes up
|
... go down
|
... get much shorter
|
In terms of making the productivity measures
move the right way, a "less-for-less", "same-for-less"
or "more-for-more" approach might not do any damage, but
the only strategies that really make sense are "more-for-same"
and "more-for-less." It is not a coincidence that the
strategies that have the most positive effect on productivity
measures also produce the fastest cycle times.
This point needs to be made
perfectly clear. There is no way that a decline in productivity (as
evidenced by an increase in cycle time) can ever have a positive
impact on a builder’s operating or financial performance -- and
no extenuating circumstances or events offset that reality.
Calculating
Cycle Time
Why do builders need to calculate the actual cycle times of their
processes instead of simply guessing at them? First, as Reference
Point data demonstrates, most builders have no idea how long it
really takes them to sell, design, estimate, build and close title on
their product. Second, to be an effective measurement of
productivity, cycle time needs to be determined on a consistent,
periodic basis. Third, cycle time is not only an effective measure of
productivity, it is also a lead indicator -- both a driver and a
predictor -- of future operating and financial performance. For all
of these reasons, cycle times need to be calculated, not estimated.
|
_htm_m2411c360.png)
|
|
|
_htm_m2411c360.png)
|
|
_htm_m7dbf0c83.jpg)
|
|
Percentage
of builders rating these common improvement projects a "high
priority."
|
|
_htm_m2411c360.png)
|
|
There are two techniques for measuring the cycle
time of a builder’s contract-to-closing process. Both methods
are accurate, but they are useful in different ways, and one is more
difficult to calculate than the other.
The first method is to track some
or all of the jobs as they move through the process. In a
manufacturing company, this would be done with a lot traveler, a tag
that accompanies an order or product through the process. In a
building company, the tag would accompany the documentation
(contract, plans, etc.) as it passes through the contract-to-closing
process. The average duration is used as the cycle time for whatever
calendar period is being measured.
|
|
CTS
|
STC
|
CTC
|
|
Calculated Cycle Time
|
56
|
153
|
15
|
|
Builder Estimates of Cycle Time
|
41
|
119
|
8
|
|
Difference
between builders’ estimates of number of days in
contract-to-start, start-to-completion and completion-to-closing
and calculations of cycle time based on the amount of inventory
and throughput in their systems.
|
The second method -- and the easiest one to use
-- is a formula-based calculation. It uses measures of process
throughput (the number of production units -- the jobs -- that pass
through the process in a given period) and units in process (the
number of jobs in the process at any point during the period) to
determine the cycle time of the process. Regardless of the process
(contract-to-start, start-to-completion or completion-to-closing) or
the time period being measured (month, quarter or year), the formula
is always the same:
(Average
Units in Production ÷ Units Completed) x Number of Days in the
Period
(Units
in Production ÷ Units Completed) x Number of Days (80 ÷
42) x 30 = 57 days
|
|
1999
|
1997
|
|
Closing and title process
|
17%
|
7%
|
|
Financing process
|
24%
|
17%
|
|
Construction documents and
building agreements
|
28%
|
21%
|
|
Estimating/budgeting process
|
31%
|
16%
|
|
Plan design, drawings and
specifications
|
32%
|
35%
|
|
Permitting process
|
39%
|
30%
|
|
Contract approval (sales) and
change order process
|
45%
|
35%
|
|
Suppiler and trade contractor
partnering
|
52%
|
39%
|
|
Quality-assurance process
|
55%
|
26%
|
|
Project scheduling and
coordination
|
70%
|
56%
|
|
Percentage
of builders rating improvement opportunity "high priority"
1997 and 1999
|
Usually, the number of units in production is
based on an average of the number of units in production at the
beginning and end of the period. For example, if a builder started
June with 75 (signed but not started) contracts and ended the month
with 85 contracts, the average number of units in process for June
would have been 80 contracts. If the builder started 42 homes in June
(thus completing the contract-to-start process), the cycle time of
the contract-to-start process would be:
An additional advantage to using
a formula-based cycle time calculation is the capability to solve for
any of the unknown variables in the equation. While the most common
use will undoubtedly be for determining cycle time length, the
formula can also be used to develop valuable insight into issues such
as process capacity, start requirements and the effects of even-flow
production.