#costtoserve Archives - Sales DNA and a Service heart

When we buy a product, we have an expectation of how long we’ll be able to use it and how much value we’ll be able to extract from it. The length of this period is traditionally governed by terms like technical and economic lifecycle. How much more value could we derive from a product with modern asset centric service lifecycle management tools? Let’s show you how to monetize the end-of-life phase of a product.

In 2010 I worked for a global OEM, selling mission critical equipment. In my first conversation with the product sales leader, I asked what value promise we made to our buyers concerning the operational and service lifecycle of our products. In short: “If product owners use the product in line with the use cases anticipated by our design and engineering team, if product owners practice good husbandry and execute all preventive maintenance instructions as laid forward in the user manuals, then our product will operate at nominal performance for the duration of the technical lifecycle.”

Wow, read that response again and spot the “ifs” and assumptions in that sentence.

There was a time when the OEM was the only one knowledgeable about the product and the owner/user wasn’t. The OEM determined the length of the technical lifecycle and the conditions for good husbandry. Today, customers are more informed and certainly more vocal. The OEM will need a better story to contextualize maintenance prescriptions and underpin replacement, retrofit, and decommissioning decisions.

Contextual maintenance prescriptions

In 2020 I wrote a blog based on a question from a product owner who wanted to reduce its maintenance cost. “What happens to the performance of my product when I skip a preventive maintenance cycle or increase it from 12 to 18 months?”

Representing the OEM, this was a tough one. I could repeat the prescribed maintenance instructions, but I had neither carrot nor stick to convince the customer to adhere to these instructions and buy my maintenance services. If I gave in, I would certainly lose preventive maintenance revenue; if I held my ground, I might win in the short term, to lose the bigger picture. What I needed was a mechanism to consider the age of the product as well as the wear-and-tear.

Managing aging products

Creating such a mechanism and developing a contextual rationale for maintaining aging products is relevant for both OEMs and product owners. To underpin the answer to the question is: “What is the tipping point where to continue to invest in the current product versus going for a newer product?”

During the warranty period, asset owners expect their products to work without any substantial maintenance cost. As the product ages towards mid- and end-of-life, those expectations shift. To monetize those shifting expectations, an OEM will need an asset centric service model. Meaning, knowing where the products are, in what state and how they are being used.

What does this look like? If each touchpoint with an asset during its service lifecycle represents an activity. If each activity requires an effort. If each effort has both a cost and revenue component, then you can paint a picture of the cost-to-serve that product over its lifecycle. When you start comparing actual cost/revenue against planned cost/revenue, then you will have the data points for decision-making. In a full transparency mode, customers will have the same information, leading to balanced buyer-seller investment decisions.

Informed investment decisions

To understand how an OEM can monetize end-of-life situations, it is necessary to flip the point-of-view to the asset owner.

Suppose a customer purchased a product a couple of years back, to fulfill specific use cases. The buyer made certain choices to maintain the product to protect that investment. At any point in the lifecycle of the product, the owner needs to decide:

Do I continue using the current product in gradually degrading mode?
Do I retrofit or upgrade the product boosting performance and/or lifespan?
Do I decommission the old product and buy a new one?

To make an informed decision, one considers:

The product is getting older in calendar years
Product output/ performance is dropping below a certain clip level
The cost to maintain the product is higher than the value it generates
The use cases for the product may change over time

Ideally, one would have tools to make a forward-looking statement. A tool answering the question: “Considering all of the above, how much opex and capex do I need to spend on my product to keep it in working order?” Such a tool exists!

Multi-year maintenance plan

In the 1970s a method called the “House Condition Survey” was created in the UK to determine the technical state of buildings and to derive subsequent maintenance plans. Not based on abstract/generic, OEM-sourced maintenance prescriptions, but based on the actual state of the equipment in the context of its use, wear, and tear.

In the Netherlands this methodology has been refined in a norm NEN 2767, with a so-called Multi-Year Maintenance Plan (MYMP) as primary output. The asset owner can ask a service provider to execute ‘textbook’ preventive maintenance and contract an additional MYMP. The MYMP will serve a forward-looking opex/capex statement for budget planning and risk mitigation purposes. For the service provider the MYMP serves as input to defining sales strategies monetizing end-of-life.

Monetizing end-of-life

Now we have the data points to construct a forward-looking statement and we understand the interest of the product owner, the OEM can build an end-of-life services portfolio:

Upscaling textbook preventive maintenance to condition-based maintenance
Selling retrofits and performance booster packages
Subscription offerings to keep the product on latest engineering revision and software level
Buy-back of older products and sell them as refurbished units
Cannibalize decommissioned products for component and precious-metal recovery

With the above services portfolio, both OEM and asset owner have a toolbox to monetize the end-of-life of a product. Deployment of the tool is not a one-size-fits-all but is contextual to the actual behaviour of a product in the field. Knowing where those products are, in what state and how they are being used, is at the foundation of lifecycle monetization.

Published on PTC Blog.

Four years ago we moved to the country side and bought an old farmhouse on a large plot of land. Having big construction and landscaping plans we regularly rented all kind of equipment to get the job done. The journey I experienced was tough for the companies that rent out equipment and for my DIY-projects progress. I wish some of these rental companies had state-of-the-art service execution systems, such they could drive both a better customer experience and value delivery.

Job and Equipment planning is tough

The most important thing I’ve learnt in those four years of home improvement is that a piece of rental equipment is ‘just’ a small piece of the planning puzzle. As an example, for my landscaping an element of the work was the relocation of a lot of dirt. For this I needed a (mini) excavator. The availability of the excavator was intricately entangled with ten or more other planning items. You can imagine my surprise/ frustration when the excavator wasn’t available on its due date … and the alternative had only half the capacity.

This is one of many examples I accumulated over four years. As a result I’ve become proficient in reverse engineering the processes of the rental agencies. It’s tough for rental agencies too. If only they had better visibility and planning tools. Speaking of the devil, I happen to work for a company that provides those tools and has implemented them in both business-to-business and business-to-consumer contexts.

The happy path

A rental fleet represents a significant investment so it may sound obvious to know where all that equipment is, and in what state. When you visit a rental yard or a construction site it becomes clear that knowing what-is-where is not that easy. If my personal experiences are representative for equipment visibilty, then WYSIWYG is a rather common implementation.

WYSIWYG works fine when the rental process follows the happy path. Meaning: actual pickup and return date are as planned/ booked; equipment doesn’t break and/or require servicing; no conflicts between availability and demand for equipment.

Going back to my landscaping job and the excavator. With half the capacity, my rental period mathematically doubled. With half the capacity, interlinked activities got pushed out as well causing additional delays. In the end my rental period tripled. Because ‘my’ excavator originally was booked by another customer, the rental agency phoned me in the third week to expedite its return. I was not happy, and certainly I did not pay anymore than the original contracted amount.

Does this sound familiar? Can you imagine how much it costs for a rental agency to mitigate the not-so-happy-path? Cost in headcount and lost revenue generation?

Reducing Turn-Around-Time?

Knowing that a piece of rental equipment is only making money when it is rented out, a key driver is to reduce the so-called turn-around-time (TAT). The time it takes to clean, inspect and service an equipment after its return, making it available for the next customer.

Suppose you have a rental fleet valued at 1b$, then your daily cost for interest and depreciation are roughly half a million $ per day (based on a annuity scheme at 4% interest and five year term). Thus if you can turn TAT-days into rental-days, cost-days become revenue-days. Suppose each piece of equipment has four rental periods per year, and you reduce your TAT by one day, you save 2m$ in cost. Add your sales margin and we’re talking serious numbers when renting out equipment back-to-back.

Defining servicing priorities

This brings us to the most challenging issue in the rental business. Instead of reducing the TAT for every equipment upon return using FiFo, you want to prioritise those units that have an adjacent rental period. By applying prioritisation rules, you can better plan the capacity of the rental return and servicing functions as well as making sure that the most revenue generating units as turned around first.

An example of the non-priortised

We’ve seen examples where excavators, dumpster trucks and cranes not having an adjacent renter are ‘left’ at the customer site post rental period to save yard space. To ‘free-up’ capacity for the turn-around team in favour of ‘hot rentals’.

Managing the lifecycle of the equipment?

Rental equipment can have a rough life. Let me be honest. I sweated ‘my’ excavator to an extent I would not have done if I owned the excavator. In setting their rates, rental companies take these use cases into account. After each rental period there is a decision to be made: do we maintain the existing equipment or do we replace it?

The math behind the decision is simple: is the earning capacity of the equipment more or less than the cost to sustain it? To make the equation come to live, you need both historical data and forward looking data.

Keeping a record of historical data is pretty much possible in any business tool. For the forward looking piece you’ll need a tool that supports asset centric use cases for your assets.

Plotting the future preventive maintenance activities
Plotting the future calibration and certification activities
Aligning future service interventions such they don’t break or clash with rental periods
Create reporting that depicts plan versus actual versus outlook on equipment level

In the past four years I’ve learnt a lot about the rental business. Though a rental fleet is a significant asset on the balance sheet, in rental operations we still see a lot of appointment centric and reactive business practices. Modern day tools allow rental companies to apply asset centric business practices. Becoming proactive and getting a better return on the asset investment.

This article is published on Field Service Digital.

Tag: #costtoserve

Monetizing End-of-Life Assets