Image

Partnering with Electrical Distributors for Improved Efficiency

Dec. 16, 2015
How establishing this relationship can cut down on material handling costs and labor waste for electrical contractors

What do Amazon, Apple, Disney, Google, Harley Davidson, and Microsoft all have in common? These are just a few of today’s power house companies whose humble beginnings were born out of a garage. Like these business giants, many electrical contracting operations can trace their roots back to similar starts. The garage is not only a safe haven and “low-capital” startup for business, but it can also serve as a space to build products or equipment prior to taking it to the job site. It’s also not a bad place to store stuff.

Photo 1. This is a good example of job-site management of project materials. Rolling shelf units store materials for individual job-site crews.

As the business grows, shelves are added to try and keep product inventory organized. Leftover items from previous jobs also start to make their way back into the garage. Before you know it, you’re in the business of material handling and logistics. Although this model can work for a while, it tends to break down once the complexity, speed, quantity, and size of projects increase. When this happens, it’s time to rely more on product suppliers for help. In fact, it’s time to look to the entire host of experts in the logistics and supply chain and use their capabilities to the fullest.

Construction is facing a major shift toward the concept of industrialization. As it happened in other industries, industrialization follows these steps:

  • Management of labor
  • Management of work
  • Lean operations
  • Modeling and simulation
  • Feedback from the source

Industrialization begins with management of labor and work, including identifying who should do what, when, and where. In other words, it doesn’t all have to be done on site as the schedule suggests. Using vendors to support the work — not just sell material — is one way to accomplish this.

Evaluating efficiency

Even though electrical contractors constantly fight for the lowest material price, in reality, price is secondary (see Lowest Installed Cost). Without the lowest prices — and often even with them — contractors are unable to recover from the labor losses associated with handling materials instead of performing installation work. MCA’s research, published in a prior EC&M article (see “Real Ways to Reduce Material Handling Costs” in the January 2008 issue or on ecmweb.com), shows that field labor spends 40% of their time on material handling. This includes material movement, ordering, receiving, returning, looking for, sorting/organizing, and more. To quantify the true cost of these activities, let’s look at a simple example.

Assume a particular job site is running with 10 electricians. Its inventory consists mostly of anticipated commodity items (the project manager ordered 80% of the material identified on the estimate at the start of the job; however, the estimate was not broken down to a fine detail nor reviewed by the foreman who is running the job). Therefore, each day a small shipment of miscellaneous items is required to keep things moving effectively and match the work environment. Additionally, let’s assume that most, but not all, of the deliveries are received as expected and as ordered — and that the loaded cost for labor is $40 per hour.

If inconsistencies and last-minute changes to the order cause interruption and realignment of workers at the job site, resulting in a loss of productive effort equal to one hour per week per man, then this can be used as a basis for calculation. One hour per week per man is simply allowing 12 minutes per man each day to finalize whether he will be working on his primary plan, alternate plan, contingency plan, or emergency plan — and allowing him to gather the correct material to get started.

One hour per week, per man (12 minutes per day per man), for a 10-man crew at $40 per hour equates to: 1 hr/week/man × $40/hr × 10 men × 50 weeks/year = $20,000 per year in lost productivity

And that’s just on one project!

This same example can be expanded to measure the entire company. If the company employs 200 electricians at $40 per hour, then the resulting cost of lost productivity is $400,000 per year.

Compare these costs with the savings you may receive on the same project for a “good material buyout.” Let’s assume this 10-man project is a $250,000 project, and with a good buyout, there was a 2% savings on material price. If material represents about half of the project cost, in a best-case scenario, the savings is around $2,000. However, this savings is burned up in a few weeks by losing time on material handling. You can do this calculation for your own company, and ask yourself what material and logistics items are eating up that one hour.

Establish a vendor partnership

To combat labor wastage on material handling tasks, you should select suppliers based on what they can do to provide the correct material, at the specific installation location, at the time the labor is ready to install it.

Choosing a vendor based only on material price alone is not going to reduce material handling costs, though. If the goal is to reduce job-site material handling, then the cost of the material is far less important than the effective use of labor. Contractors need to ask suppliers what they can do to provide the correct material, at the right installation location, when labor is ready to install it.

Following is an outline of the various levels of service vendors can provide at different commitment levels:

Non-partner, preferred service provider

  • Provides vendor managed inventory (VMI) and other value-added services generally associated with unique lighting, gear, or other packages.
  • No purchase commitment beyond the individual service.
  • Contractor responsible for all productivity improvement.

Descriptive partner

  • Provides value-added services for a complete project.
  • Project level purchase commitment in return for shared accountability to project productivity.

Selected partner

  • Limited number of partners actively participate in all aspects of all projects of the company.
  • Large scale multi-project purchase commitments, including commodity items in exchange for shared accountability for both project productivity and company backlog.

The process of selecting a full vendor partner can take up to six months, and should be done very carefully and deliberately. Below is a brief overview of the steps that need to be taken, based on MCA’s research and work with electrical contractors across the country.

Define vendor requirements

  • What are the business objectives?
  • What are the operational objectives?
  • What are the functional requirements?

Evaluate the vendor partnership

  • Gather team input on services
  • Can candidates provide the service?
  • Have they provided the services before?

Develop a short list

  • Analyze strengths, weaknesses and opportunities

Gather detailed input on what all parties want for various aspects of partnership

  • Vendor partner presentation
  • On-site visits

A material logistics solution is most effective with a vendor partner who is willing to take equal risk in developing solutions for mutual benefit of reducing project cost.  It can also be attempted with material and equipment suppliers who have pre-developed solutions from their learning with other partner contractors. The Figure below shows a sample work cube, where project tasks are broken down and identified by the electrical contractor’s foreman.

This sample work cube shows how job tasks are identified.

A valuable vendor partner will learn the project through the eyes of the project team and begin planning possible solutions for reducing cost. Some solutions could be predetermined, such as:

  • Preassembly of selected components
  • Wire cutting and paralleling
  • Testing of equipment
  • Kitting and packaging in job packs suitable for installation
  • Staged deliveries to the job site; delivering as the material is needed
  • Stocking and maintaining on-site boxes and trailers for commodity materials
  • Material returns processing
  • Job site material clean-off
  • Specification verification
  • Submittal preparation support
  • Receiving, inspection and damage claims support
  • Off-site storage at the vendor’s secure warehouse

Other solutions can be created for project-specific risks and needs. For example, Photo 1 shows a delivery method specified for a project — where the material can be called for from the crew per floor and area of the job site and delivered to those dedicated crews.

These (and other) services are identified through a dedicated procurement planning session, including the electrical contractor’s project team (project manager, superintendent, foreman, procurement manager) as well as the vendor’s team, which needs to go beyond the salesperson. The solutions come from reducing risk at the point of installation. The more parties are involved in planning, the more solutions are possible and the higher likelihood they will come off without a hitch.

Photo 2. This area of the job site is being used as a staging location for prefab items and other color-coded commodity products.

Another example (Photo 2) shows an area of the job site for consistent delivery of prefabrication material, picked up from the contractor’s shop by the vendor as requested, along with other commodity items flagged and color coded to go along with the same phase of installation.

Some contractors and vendors may look at these simple examples and say “we already do that,” “we have better carts available,” or “we do that better by using QR codes.” The part that is not visible in the two photos, which is more valuable than the QR codes, is how the project team came to these integrated solutions, which is through all of the processes, including vendor selection described above.

Over the past several years, an increasing number of contractors have been successfully working with their supplier partners to achieve the goal of reduced lost time from handling material. The overall results of these efforts have been to improve productivity and profitability by striving to deliver complete projects at the lowest installed cost. The distributor’s advantage in these partnerships is also higher profits and more secure sales. Smart suppliers have seen a major benefit in partnering with contractors and are adding contractor partnership offerings to their strategic planning initiatives.  

Daneshgari is president and CEO of MCA, Inc., Grand Blanc, Mich. Moore is vice president of operations. They can be reached at [email protected] and [email protected].

SIDEBAR: Lowest Installed Cost

Lowest installed cost does not mean cheap. In fact, paying more for the material can actually improve a contractor’s profit margin.

The basic premise of lowest installed cost is that a contractor can manage the trade-off between material cost and labor savings to provide greater value to the customer, greater sales to the supplier, and greater profits to themselves. Another way of viewing this is the return on investment in vendor services. With an efficient partnership, based on mutual understanding of each other’s business needs and operations, finding a win-win solution is not only doable, but also almost unavoidable. The calculation below shows the return on a modest 2% investment in material price resulting in a willing vendor partner helping the contractor to reduce material handling labor costs by 25%.

Voice your opinion!

To join the conversation, and become an exclusive member of EC&M, create an account today!

Sponsored Recommendations

Latest from Construction

In the typical facility, the plant manager has X amount of discretionary spending power that can be directed toward a single purchase. At each level of management down, discretionary spending is stepped down into smaller amounts. Anything beyond a given manager’s limit must be appealed to the next level up. For example, the Plant Engineer can’t quite swing a purchase of $5200 but the Plant Manager can approve it. This informal arrangement reduces corporate overhead and improves operational efficiency. It does not address whether the spending decisions would make financial sense to the Chief Financial Officer, but the cap at each level keeps any mistakes to a reasonably acceptable loss or misallocation of resources. Beyond the Plant Manager’s limit, there is usually a formal process for getting spending approval. It typically involves filling out a Capital Request (or similarly named form). In well-run companies, the form is very structured. It mostly wants some basic information that will give the reviewer(s) the ability to justify not just the purchase but also the cost of acquiring the capital to do so. Because the funds will typically be borrowed by the corporation, the cost of capital must be balanced against the return on investment. There will be at least one person crunching the numbers to make what is called “the business case” for the proposed spending. Making the business case is something you should do, in some way or another, when considering spending within your approved limits. If the spending is above your approved limits, then the manager above you will need a bit beefier of a business case. The business case must take into account the value obtained versus the money spent. Consider the purchase of a thermographic camera. If you intend to purchase a mid-range camera but nobody at your facility is trained and certified in its use, the purchase is probably a waste of money. You’d be better off getting an entry-level camera and then arranging for a path toward certification if you intend to have that ability in-house and it makes operational and financial sense to do so. And generally, it makes sense to have a person or two with Level I certification so they really understand how to get the most out of a camera system that’s beyond the basic level. On the other hand, if you were a manager at an electrical testing firm with several Level III Thermographers you would be wasting your thermographers if you decided to “save money” by equipping them with only basic or even intermediate camera systems. Your firm needs to be able to troubleshoot problems when that important client calls in a panic. Your thermographers need the tools to do that job, and “cost-saving” on camera systems won’t cut it. Presumably, your clients are smart enough to already have basic camera systems; they just don’t have the expertise to use advanced systems. Sometimes a different logic applies to other types of test equipment. In the typical plant, maintenance electricians need sophisticated DMMs. If they lack the training to use the features that are needed for most effectively keeping equipment running, simply choosing a less capable DMM they already know how to use is not the answer. They need the appropriate DMM along with the training on how to use those features correctly. So far, we haven’t looked at the need to crunch any numbers to make the business case. What we have done is think about the match between the purchase, the problem that needs to be solved, and the ability of the user to solve the problem using that purchase. This sounds like a common sense approach that everyone would naturally take, but people often lose sight of the reason for the purchase in the first place. The tendency is to either go all out on something they can’t use or don’t need, or to “save money” by shortchanging the end users with something that doesn’t allow them to do what they need to do. What about those numbers? When you do a purchase request, a bean counter is going to try to determine the cash flows involved (typically in monthly periods). If you write something like, “The payback period is three years,” they don’t find that helpful. Lenders care that a loan can be serviced, and cash flow is the critical factor in calculating whether it can. Thus, beancounters don’t use payback to determine whether they can afford to borrow. They use the Internal Rate of Return (IRR) or Modified Internal Rate of Return (MIRR). Formulas for both IRR and MIRR have been in spreadsheet programs for over two decades, but before that they were determined using a Business Math Calculator (about $150 in 1990). And before that, they were laboriously calculated by hand. The cash flows that are charted will be either additional revenue generated or losses prevented. To help the person who figuratively wears the green eye shade, tie the use of the test equipment to a revenue stream. A major appliance plant in Tennessee has several production lines that collectively produce $1,560,000 per hour of revenue. Thus each minute of unplanned downtime is quite costly. If the plant electrical engineer there wanted to upgrade test equipment in a way that exceeds the Plant Manager’s spending authority, he needs to help the green eye shade guy do the math. He can cite short case histories from the past two years and briefly explain how having X capability (present in the new equipment, absent in the existing equipment) would have saved Y minutes of downtime (which the green eye shade guy will calculate out in terms of revenue and cash flow). The green eye shade guy also needs to know whether each case history is a one-off that will never recur or if it’s representative of what to expect in the future. You can settle this question with a brief explanation. For example, “The responding technician did not have a [name of test equipment]. Consequently, he had to arrive at the same conclusion by other means to the tune of 24 minutes of downtime he would not have incurred if he’d had a [name of test equipment]. This problem occurred once on Line 2 and twice on Line 4.” Now the green eye shade guy can simply add up the downtime, monetize it, and create the cash flow analysis. And it’s really good for something like a power monitor. For example, “In this particular case the plant did not have a monitoring system capable of detecting short-term bursts of power, which we call transient spikes, and alerting us. Transients happen with no notice, and usually without being detected. The motor shop forensic report shows the main motor failed due to winding insulation failure caused by transients. With a power monitor detecting and reporting those transients, we would have been able to intervene before outright failure, on a scheduled basis. That would have reduced downtime by 57 minutes twice last year alone.” Making the business case for your smaller purchases means simply thinking about what you are trying to accomplish and then making sure you are spending the funds correctly to achieve that goal. But as you go up the food chain, you need to make the picture more clear. And when you appeal to corporate for approval, you need to provide reasonably accurate downtime savings numbers that can be converted by them to revenue loss prevention in specific dollar amounts.
Man staring at wall with hand-drawn question marks and money bags on it
ID 2955659 © Wayne Ruston | Dreamstime.com
dreamstime_xxl_2955659

Sponsored