November 25, 2008 at 10:12 am
Andy Lennon (11/25/2008)
...It seems to me that basing a budget largely, though certainly not exclusively, on past budget vs. expenditure numbers is a fine idea. What is necessary is realizing that costs are not going to be the same year after year for innumerable reasons (changing prices, special projects, changing office locations, etc.). I would think that a company should set up a reasonable budget for each department, then make sure to set up an overdraw budget: money held in reserve in case the other budgets are exceeded. Anyone needing to tap that reserve should have to document how and why their given budget was exceeded. Any money left over could be carried over into the next year's overdraw or distributed as bonuses (perhaps weighted so those who are most financially responsible get the biggest). As Steve mentioned, most comapanies have vast amounts of information in digital form. I should think that it would be simple enough to continue refining budgets year after year, so the overdraw budget would only ever be needed for emergencies or unplanned expenses.
Part of the problem is laziness. There is a concept which has been around since the 1970's (or before?) called Zero Based Budgeting. In ZBB each manager has to restart a budget plan from zero each year, justifying the expected expenses for the next year.
This takes a lot of work and most managers don't want to take the time to the work and most executives don't want to pay their managers and accountants for the time to do the work. So the easiest way is just to use the dollar figure you spent last year, with perhaps an inflation escalation rate applied.
November 25, 2008 at 10:55 am
ZBB is how I always did things, looking back at last year only to ensure I was covering costs or estimating expenses properly. It is a pain, but it should be easier now with so much digital info. Besides, that's what a manager should be doing.
There is a lot of waste, and I think the reward is at the bottom line of the company if you're under budget. If everyone did that, it's that much closer to bonuses. There is a reward. Looking at it as "I didn't get anything right now" for being under budget is short sighted, and it's a bit of what blandry wrote about. Think bigger picture.
I agree with S&M expenditures, but not "we need to spend our budget" expenditures.
November 25, 2008 at 11:12 am
The 'use it or lose it' is the bureaucratic equivalent of legal 'precedent'. Courts avoid trying to come up with new decisions from out of nowhere, there is enormous significance in (possibly flawed) continuity. People can look at previous case law and have a sense of what to expect. People can have a sense of what their next year's budget will be based on this one.
So a starting point might be what the department spent last year. And if they needed only 80% of allocation last year, why, absent some major change in how things are done, should this years allocation be still at last years 100% (+ inflation) levels?
Of course this could (and often does) encourage some waste. But in many cases, there is always some potential discretionary, i.e. legitimately useful but not absolutely necessary expenditures. A kind of reward for departments who conserved their resources during th year as a hedge against unexpected expense.
...
-- FORTRAN manual for Xerox Computers --
November 25, 2008 at 11:19 am
A couple of things in your column deserve discussion, Steve.
First, you seem to discount the value of those "feel good" trips. From a purely pragmatic point of view, they just don't seem justified because they don't solve any problems. What you're overlooking is that those "make the customer happy" trips are (or should be) a very significant part of the company's sales strategy.
Neglected customers have been known to take their dollars and go elsewhere -- and sometimes that can be a *lot* of dollars. I know of one instance where a proposal was downchecked because the company had left a key point of contact temporarily unstaffed on a prior contract. Letting that customer feel ignored for a few months meant that tens of millions of dollars worth of business went elsewhere. I don't know about you, but I consider that to be a lot of paychecks which didn't need to get kissed off.
The second thing I disagree with is your casting the manager's decision as based solely upon spending his full budget. If you accept that the trips have value (which is presumably the manager's opinion, or they wouldn't fund them in the first place), then why would any self-starting individual not look at remaining funds as:
1) I've still got money approved for these sales trips.
2) I may not have as much next year.
3) We'll make the sales pitch before somebody stops us.
We should never forget that investments in competent marketing are at least as important to a business' fortunes as technical competence. Just ask Microsoft and IBM. Or try to ask the folks at Asthon-Tate.
Regards,
Bill Clardy
November 25, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Each company seems to have a different method of budgeting, but here is a basic overview of how/why "use it or lose it" works when done right. The first thing that needs to be understood is what is a cost center? A cost center is a department that will NOT make a profit or a loss in any given year. These departments typically are internal departments such as IT, audit, or accounting. The "no profit" is a key piece for these departments because of how they are allocated money. Typically it is allocated as a lump sum from other departments or incurred as an hourly fee as their services are used. For example, at the beginning of the year it could be determined that Sales will use $1,000,000 worth of IT resources (based on the applied rate and bill rate which I will skip over). IT will receive $1,000,000 of their budget from the profits that Sales makes. On the flip side IT has figured that their actual core costs are only $900,000, and they have budgeted an extra $100,000 for deferrable costs: training, maintenance, conferences, etc. This is where a lot of the problems occur. These extra costs must be legal and in the best interest of the company subject to internal audit controls. To keep things simple I will assume that this $1,000,000 is the entire IT budget. There can be three resulting scenarios:
1) What if IT exactly hits the $1,000,000 budget? IT meets its costs and is able to make sure that its staff is well trained for the future to guarantee a long-term competitive edge. IT has satisfied all of its obligations as well as reasonably improved its internal processes, resources, etc.
2) What if IT costs run over the budgeted $1,000,000? IT cuts deferrable expenses (training, maintenance, etc) to keep the budget at $1,000,000. In the extreme case where this is not enough, IT will need to draw on company reserves. Managers will typically start to be fired if this happens often enough.
3) What if IT costs are less than the budgeted $1,000,000? IT will need to spend the extra money on projects that are in the best interest of the company. What happens in the extreme case where IT had poor planning where they budgeted too much or didn't have the appropriate special projects lined up? IT has essentially stolen from Sales in this case. They charged sales for services rendered and then they did nothing to help the business. Sales (as a profit center) could have taken that money and recruited more customers with it. Other departments could have used that money to do special projects which would have benefited the company. Instead IT said, "Sorry, we budgeted too much and then sat on the extra money. I hope you don't mind." Manager don't last too long in this environment either.
As you can see from this example, one of the number one goals of a manager of a cost center is to meet your budget exactly. If they are over or under then they have failed in part of their managerial duty. Note: If they buy frivolous things at the end of the year they have still failed in acting in the best interests of the company (and internal audit failed as well).
At my company we do have an end of the year spending spree. A test box for SQL 2008 may be an "extra" expense, but in the long term it is very useful. I used to dislike this system, but the more I have studied the more it makes sense.
PS. Zero based budgeting or basing your budget off of last years numbers (or whatever else you may do to budget) is a separate issue dealing with the creation of the budget during budget season.
November 25, 2008 at 2:08 pm
I know some will disagree, especially those use to budgeting a specific way but it's kind of pointless to justify a specific model for budgeting simply because no one model or method will work for every industry. I worked Retail for over 10 years success was measured on beating prior years sales and making actual expenses meet your budgeted costs. This is how most of retail works and it's out dated and destined for failure.
If 10 years ago 2 companies started out (opened) at the same time and one focused on trying to increase the difference between profits & costs while the other focused on beating last years sales, who do you think is the real winner at the end of that 10 year period? Sure the beat last years slaes company may have more employees and a much larger annual income but when hard times come, and they always do even if it takes a while, it is the smart business that focused on profability that will weather the diffcult times.
The banks are a great example of this. In my hometiw the local bank is doing well, even growing. It is the large monster behemouths that are slow to change and therefore destined to die off.
I think we all are in agreement that the old ways of doing business are outdated and more importantly, destined for failure in this info based economy/world. Sadly I do not believe this mentality will change until a generation change occurs where no one over 35 years of age today is running any company 25-30 years from now.
Kindest Regards,
Just say No to Facebook!November 25, 2008 at 2:16 pm
william (11/25/2008)
A couple of things in your column deserve discussion, Steve.First, you seem to discount the value of those "feel good" trips. From a purely pragmatic point of view, they just don't seem justified because they don't solve any problems. What you're overlooking is that those "make the customer happy" trips are (or should be) a very significant part of the company's sales strategy.
Neglected customers have been known to take their dollars and go elsewhere -- and sometimes that can be a *lot* of dollars. I know of one instance where a proposal was downchecked because the company had left a key point of contact temporarily unstaffed on a prior contract. Letting that customer feel ignored for a few months meant that tens of millions of dollars worth of business went elsewhere. I don't know about you, but I consider that to be a lot of paychecks which didn't need to get kissed off.
The second thing I disagree with is your casting the manager's decision as based solely upon spending his full budget. If you accept that the trips have value (which is presumably the manager's opinion, or they wouldn't fund them in the first place), then why would any self-starting individual not look at remaining funds as:
1) I've still got money approved for these sales trips.
2) I may not have as much next year.
3) We'll make the sales pitch before somebody stops us.
We should never forget that investments in competent marketing are at least as important to a business' fortunes as technical competence. Just ask Microsoft and IBM. Or try to ask the folks at Asthon-Tate.
Regards,
Bill Clardy
Bill,
I don't think that Steve is discounting the value of the trips, but he is saying that adding additional trips at the end of the budget cycle to spend your budget is where the problem comes in. Let's face it, if the trips are necessary for the business you budgeted for them and planned them. The same thing goes for upgrades, test boxes, etc...
A friend of mine is the technology director for out local schools and he saves all he can during the year, in case, there is a problem that is a major expenditure, then at the end of the year he HAS to spend it all on stuff even he considers fluff. In reality he should get the same budget and get part of the extra money put aside for contingency while the rest is returned, in this case to the tax payers.
Isn't it better to reward the thrifty instead of punishing them? What's better saving money or going back to the till for more later because you spent early?
Jack Corbett
Consultant - Straight Path Solutions
Check out these links on how to get faster and more accurate answers:
Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help
Need an Answer? Actually, No ... You Need a Question
November 25, 2008 at 2:32 pm
blandry (11/25/2008)
In my relatively short life, we have ....And yet as we blame the CEOs of the three big American car makers for flying to Washington in corporate jets to beg for money, are they any different than the individual who bought too much house, a huge SUV, and every gizmo and gadget they thought they 'deserved' - most if not all on credit, thinking that the 'party' would never end?
The problem....
Yes.
1) The individuals have not gone to Washington asking for money from other taxpayers to bail themselves out
2) The CEO's are supposed to be business capable if not at least savvy where as the average individual has maybe 1 semester of basic economics from a government school which translates into knowing little about how a business actually works. You can bet few business owners are a part of the group that bought more then they could on credit. That's not to say none did only that there are few.
3) Even a welfare recipient is smart enough to know that when they go get their government check that they don't drive up to the office in their shiny BMW/Mercedes.
What the CEO's of the car companies did wasn't stupid it was arrogance in its peak form, pure, simple and unadulterated.
Not only did these arrogant {censored} act as if they were owed the money but they put little to no thought into how their actions would affect lower level workers in the company. I'm no fan of the unions, God knows they've helped destroy this country almost as much as the government schools, but that doesn't give the CEO's a pass to act like the workers are irrelevant.
Kindest Regards,
Just say No to Facebook!November 25, 2008 at 3:05 pm
Jack Corbett (11/25/2008)
...Isn't it better to reward the thrifty instead of punishing them? What's better saving money or going back to the till for more later because you spent early?
Actually, in business I would like to see the thrifty punished. If you reward them then managers will have a strong incentive to deny any/all requests for money because then at the end of the year, guess what, they are under budget! That's a nice fat bonus for them while their team goes understaffed and untrained. Also they fight to get the largest increases possible so when they don't use it, another bonus!
I would much rather reward the accurate. Give me a budget that you are willing to stake your job on, and I know that there isn't too much padding in it one way or the other. People are always worried of spending too early. That is why it is a December spending spree, not a January one. It is actually teaches a good practice of waiting as long as possible before buying what you need.
What would you say if a developer ordered a 4 CPU box with 64 GB of RAM to run a small 2 user Access database? Would you congratulate him not running into any performance bottlenecks?
November 25, 2008 at 5:56 pm
Jason Whitney (11/25/2008)
Jack Corbett (11/25/2008)
...Isn't it better to reward the thrifty instead of punishing them? What's better saving money or going back to the till for more later because you spent early?
Actually, in business I would like to see the thrifty punished. If you reward them then managers will have a strong incentive to deny any/all requests for money because then at the end of the year, guess what, they are under budget! That's a nice fat bonus for them while their team goes understaffed and untrained. Also they fight to get the largest increases possible so when they don't use it, another bonus!
I would much rather reward the accurate. Give me a budget that you are willing to stake your job on, and I know that there isn't too much padding in it one way or the other. People are always worried of spending too early. That is why it is a December spending spree, not a January one. It is actually teaches a good practice of waiting as long as possible before buying what you need.
What would you say if a developer ordered a 4 CPU box with 64 GB of RAM to run a small 2 user Access database? Would you congratulate him not running into any performance bottlenecks?
I think we actually agree. My point is more that I'd rather have someone be careful throughout the year because they want to make sure they are covered in an emergency, then spend 1/12 of their budget each month and then be caught when there is an emergency. And basically these people would be "punished" by a reduced budget if they have some left because they got better deals on the laptops than what they requested in the budget. These are the folks that should get their budget requests granted each year because you know they are making the effort to get an accurate budget and stay under it.
Jack Corbett
Consultant - Straight Path Solutions
Check out these links on how to get faster and more accurate answers:
Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help
Need an Answer? Actually, No ... You Need a Question
November 26, 2008 at 9:09 am
We should measure budgeting like we measure programmers and other employees. By Effectiveness.
Not by making/exceeding the budget. We should look at if money was spent well, needs were met, etc. Did the manager do a good job with their money. Are the employees upset because they never got anything or didn't get enough resources. Were customers handled appropriately because they had enough resources.
You have to trust managers with budgets. It's important for them to succeed, but then you have to review what happened and look for ways to improve things.
As a side note, I don't necessarily begrudge private planes for CEOs since it can be an effective way for them to conduct business. Having them waiting in airports might not be the best use of their time, though that's debatable with the connectivity we enjoy these days. However flying to DC to ask for money in private jets was just bad form.
November 27, 2008 at 6:32 pm
I worked for an 'un-named' state agency for just a few days over a year and was completely appalled by the attitude of 'have to spend it', I could not believe some of the things I heard. "We have x left in the budget for this project we have to spend it somehow, lets buy all these office supplies'. It appalls and amazes me as to the ethics involved in those statements, hence my short employment time. Actually I knew within 4-6 months that I was not a government employee person. not only based on the budget lack of ethics, but on other lack of work ethic issues.
I continually keep consultants to their budgets, they tell me x dollars, I don't care if the project goes over those dollars, you estimated it would take you x dollars, that is all I am authorizing for payment. Although if things happen that go outside of the original SOW than of course I will authorize payment, but I am usually pretty clear on what the project expected outcomes are.
Viewing 12 posts - 16 through 26 (of 26 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply