|
 |
|
Manufacturing Customer Inquiry Application
|
|
Case Study 1
Case Study 2
Case Study 3 ::
|
Art Pennington:
|
Thanks for making time to talk with me Roger. |
|
Roger Ross:
|
My pleasure Art. Anything I can do to help communicate your amazing concept. I know it’s helped my customers get results far beyond their expectations. |
|
Art Pennington:
|
I am very glad it is delivering results for them. But you’ve been following something very similar to my Profit Method for a number of years, in some cases with remarkable results. When did you get started in the consulting business? |
|
|
It was back in 1993, almost 15 years ago. |
|
Art Pennington:
|
Did you adopt the Profit Method from the beginning or did the process kind of evolve in your mind? |
|
Roger Ross:
|
Well, believe it or not, it’s actually the way I was taught. The consultant I was working with at the time was using Magic. He had completed a large project for ABB Combustion Engineering and had great success. So, he introduced me to MAGIC, which I’ve been using since that time.
My mentor would design systems by going into a company and saying, “What’s your idea of the perfect system?” The parallels are really uncanny compared to the way the Profit Method works and the way he envisioned creating systems for customers. One of the things he always said was, “If a company’s going to invest in custom software, then the software should work the way the company works and not make the company change to fit the software.
We did a few projects together and then in 2000, I went out on my own. I just kept that same method of building systems. It’s really the only way I know. But it has been a win/win situation for both my customers and me.
|
|
Art Pennington:
|
So, you were taught right from the beginning,
I know that, since then, you’ve had a number of successes with your software development efforts. Can you enumerate some of them?
|
|
Roger Ross:
|
One is Waterbury Rolling Mills located in Waterbury, Connecticut. They were experiencing a lot of confusion and chaos with their information. So, they brought us in.
They had attempted six times to create a new application to run their entire business from receiving the order from the customer, to sending it to production control, scheduling it in the mill, starting the order and sending it on its way through all of the work centers.
Each of the six times, they failed. I don’t know why those projects failed, but we came in and worked directly with the president, just as prescribed in the Profit Method.
This was a large operation, $40-$60 million in net profit. And they had a sizeable problem.
|
|
Art Pennington:
|
After six failures, the President must have been pretty desperate for a solution. |
|
Roger Ross:
|
Yes, and we worked directly with him. This particular solution probably matches up best with the Profit Method approach. It was a simple operation--not a lot of people in the project--just two programmers, the president and the IT manager.
We had a rubber room meeting. The president shared with us his vision for the company and how he wanted the information to flow. We created the vision statement and delivered the solution as a series of prototypes. We developed the completed solution in a year for about $50,000.00.
There were many employees saying, “You guys are gonna fail. They never got it right in the past. You’re not gonna make it.” And being a consultant, I didn’t know the ins and outs of that company. I didn’t care. I said, “I’m here to do a job and we’re gonna get it done.”
We worked hand in hand with the president. We started with gathering customer information, and we built screens. We would build a section, go back to the president and show it to him to determine if this is what he envisioned, and he would say, “Yes. So, we moved on and we did that through the entire project.
As orders were created, they could send them to Production Control and queue them up, and then Production Control would schedule them for production. And they had to manage just-in-time levels, actual inventory and casting.. They had to manage their actual inventory. They had to manage casting. They had their own casting facility to cast the giant coils. This was a rolling mill so they had huge 10,000 and 12,000-pound coils of copper and bronze.
|
|
Art Pennington:
|
So this was an application to basically automate the entire business process of a rolling mill. |
|
Roger Ross:
|
Yes, absolutely, straight through to shipping and then it would feed information to accounting. |
|
Art Pennington:
|
It’s great when you find an application where you’re able to compare your results with someone who has tried it the other way. In this particular case, they tried six times. Now do you know if this is six other vendors? |
|
Roger Ross:
|
No, it was in-house. |
|
Art Pennington:
|
Oh, it was all in-house. They tried in-house six times and failed. I can see where they’d have very little confidence in your succeeding. That’s funny. And you were able to do it for $50,000.00 in 12 months. That’s incredible. Automate an entire company whose net profits is $30-$40 million. That’s an incredible feat, an incredible feat. |
|
Roger Ross:
|
There were some big productivity increases for them. It used to take them a considerable amount of time to enter an order. They had to drill down to several screens and repeat information. There was a lot of redundancy built into their old system and we took all of that out by pre-populating a lot of information based on customers’ order history and what they wanted. They could enter an entire order in less than five minutes. |
|
Art Pennington:
|
Wow. Do you recall any other parameters of improvements as far as profit or proficiency, number of employees, anything like that? |
|
Roger Ross:
|
They had over 100 employees and three shifts, a 24/7 operation. Up until the new solution was in place, they had never balanced on a physical inventory.
We made them do a physical inventory every single month until they balanced—actually forced them to do that. And after about six to eight months of doing physical inventories every month, they finally balanced and their inventory was in sync with what their database said they had for inventory.
|
|
Art Pennington:
|
Well, one of the principles of the Profit Method is that you create the software and it provides tremendous benefit from day one. But the secret is that you continue to use the software and continue to get those benefits on an annual basis, so it compounds itself. Now if you implemented a Profit Method project ten years ago and you’re still using it today, you’ve compounded the benefits of that throughout those ten years. And it looks like all these companies are still using the original solution. |
|
Roger Ross:
|
Yes, they have all used these solutions for a number of years and accrued many benefits. One of the biggest, I think, is the fact that they have many years of information history in their database. That is invaluable for management decisions. |
|
Art Pennington:
|
Okay, Roger. Thanks for taking time to discuss your successes with the Profit Method. |
|
Roger Ross:
|
Anytime, thank you |