82,891
edits
Cost reduction: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (8 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a| | {{a|devil|}}Cost is not the opposite of (monetisable) [[value]], and it is not the same as [[waste]]. A process may have a value ''because'' there is a cost to it. If you get rid of the cost, you get rid of the value. This is why no-one could make money out of email. It took away a cost, and meant the monetisable value of the abstract action of sending and receiving written communication dropped to nil. | ||
{{wasteprov|Cost}}s may arise largely as follows: | |||
==={{wasteprov|Personnel}}=== | ==={{wasteprov|Personnel}}=== | ||
{{wasteprov|Personnel}} from [[Sales]], [[KYC]], [[Onboarding]], [[Credit]], [[Trading]], [[Tax]], [[Legal]]/[[Negotiation]], [[Operations]]. Costs include hidden costs like pension, redundancy expenses, national insurance and so on. All other things being equal, you can address these | {{wasteprov|Personnel}} from [[Sales]], [[KYC]], [[Onboarding]], [[Credit]], [[Trading]], [[Tax]], [[Legal]]/[[Negotiation]], [[Operations]]. Costs include hidden costs like pension, redundancy expenses, national insurance and so on. [[All other things being equal]],<ref>The {{wasteprov|fungibility}} of {{wasteprov|personnel}} is a popular falsehood of [[management consultancy]].</ref> you can address these {{wasteprov|cost}}s as follows: | ||
*{{wasteprov|Downgrading}}: Reallocate work from more expensive units to cheaper ones. So, the negotiation process moves from [[legal]] to the [[documentation unit]], to [[operations]]. | *{{wasteprov|Downgrading}}: Reallocate work from more expensive units to cheaper ones. So, the negotiation process moves from [[legal]] to the [[documentation unit]], to [[operations]]. | ||
*{{wasteprov|Relocation}}: move work to a lower cost jurisdiction where a like-for-like personnel are cheaper: moving document management from London to Birmingham, Belfast, Madrid, Krakow, Cape Town or Bangalore. | *{{wasteprov|Relocation}}: move work to a lower cost jurisdiction where a like-for-like personnel are cheaper: moving document management from London to Birmingham, Belfast, Madrid, Krakow, Cape Town or Bangalore. | ||
*{{wasteprov|Outsourcing}}: Contract work out to third party service providers who may manage their own resources in | *{{wasteprov|Outsourcing}}: Contract work out to third party service providers who may manage their own resources in lower cost jurisdictions, but in any case can be switched on and off easily | ||
==={{wasteprov|Real estate}}=== | ==={{wasteprov|Real estate}}=== | ||
A square foot of office space in Bangalore is 75% | A square foot of office space in Bangalore is 75% cheaper than one in London. So - if you have to have a personnel-heavy process then , {{wasteprov|all other things being equal}}, it makes sense to move it. Right? | ||
*{{wasteprov|Downgrading}} won’t affect your real estate spend | *{{wasteprov|Downgrading}} won’t affect your real estate spend | ||
*{{wasteprov|Relocation}} will (but | *{{wasteprov|Relocation}} will (but don’t forget the one-off costs of having to acquire new premises) | ||
*{{wasteprov|Outsourcing}} will (but you will pay for this through your service fee; but the | *{{wasteprov|Outsourcing}} will (but you will pay for this through your service fee; but the outsourcer is incentivised to locate itself in the cheapest possible place). | ||
==={{wasteprov|Systems}}=== | ==={{wasteprov|Systems}}=== | ||
{{wasteprov|Systems}} permitting communication and collaboration between the {{wasteprov|Personnel}} involved in a negotiation is a fixed {{wasteprov|cost}} (in that is not so much a function of ''{{wasteprov|time}}''). But not the costs here increase where you are {{wasteprov|relocating}} or {{wasteprov|outsourcing}} parts of the workflow. | {{wasteprov|Systems}} permitting communication and collaboration between the {{wasteprov|Personnel}} involved in a negotiation is a fixed {{wasteprov|cost}} (in that is not so much a function of ''{{wasteprov|time}}''). But not the costs here increase where you are {{wasteprov|relocating}} or {{wasteprov|outsourcing}} parts of the workflow. | ||
==={{wasteprov|Consumables}}=== | ==={{wasteprov|Consumables}}=== | ||
Ink, paper, pens, yellow stickies. In the scheme of things de | Ink, paper, pens, yellow stickies. In the scheme of things ''de minimis'', but you’d nonetheless be horrified at the total cost. Does technology obviate some of these issues, or amplify them? It's the [[technology paradox]]. | ||
{{sa}} | |||
*The [[seven wastes of negotiation]] | |||
{{ref}} | |||