Target Costing
Target Costing
Target Costing
1
General Concept
2
Target Costing Characteristics
Contradicts the traditional approach: design
product, determine cost, set price
Intense customer focus
What do they want?
How much will they pay for it?
Can we make a profit on it?
Want answers to these questions before
committing to the project
3
Target Costing Characteristics
4
Target Costing Characteristics
5
Target Costing Characteristics
Cost control at all phases of the product life cycle
Design
Production
Delivery/setup
Customer’s cost of ownership
Emphasizes future sales instead of current cost savings
Service and repair
Disposal and recycling
6
Cross-Functional Team
Marketing Distribution
Design/engineering Service/support
Manufacturing Cost accounting
Purchasing Finance
Including suppliers Legal
7
Target Costing Process
8
Establishing the Target Cost
10
Establishing the Target Cost
11
Establishing the Target Cost
Unit Selling Price
12
Establishing the Target Cost
Gradual decline as volume
increases
13
Establishing the Target Cost
Unit price, cost and profit are almost meaningless
because they fluctuate
Life cycle totals are more meaningful
14
Achieving the Target Cost
16
Achieving the Target Cost
EXHIBIT 1
CUSTOMER REQUIREMENT RANKINGS
Total 27 100%
Us
Competitor
Both
17
Achieving the Target Cost
18
Achieving the Target Cost
Decompose the cost gap (exhibit 2)
Life cycle decomposition
Cost reduction goals are divided among the functions in
the product’s life cycle
Design/engineering
Manufacturing
Sales/distribution
Service/support
General administration
Etc.
19
Achieving the Target Cost
Value chain decomposition
Cost reduction targets are divided among internal and
external activities
Internal costs
Labor, overhead, selling and administrative costs, etc.
External costs
Components and services acquired from suppliers,
etc.
Often represent a large proportion of total cost
20
Achieving the Target Cost
EXHIBIT 2
COST GAP BREAKDOWN BY LIFE CYCLE AND VALUE CHAIN
Value Chain
Life Cycle Internal Costs External Costs Total Costs
Target Current Gap Target Current Gap Target Current Gap
Research and development $ 0.30 $ 0.50 $ 0.20 $ 0.30 $ 0.50 $ 0.20
Manufacturing 4.00 5.00 1.00 $ 13.00 $ 15.00 $ 2.00 17.00 20.00 3.00
Marketing and distribution 1.50 2.00 0.50 4.50 5.00 0.50 6.00 7.00 1.00
Service and support 0.25 0.50 0.25 0.25 0.50 0.25
General administration 0.75 1.00 0.25 0.75 1.00 0.25
Total $ 6.80 $ 9.00 $ 2.20 $ 17.50 $ 20.00 $ 2.50 $ 24.30 $ 29.00 $ 4.70
21
Achieving the Target Cost
22
Achieving the Target Cost
EXHIBIT 3
COMPONENT COST BREAKDOWN
Percent of
Component Function Cost total cost
Motor Turns blade $ 8 40%
Transmission Provides oscillation capabilities 4 20%
Speed control/switch Controls blade speed 3 15%
Body Houses motor, transmission, speed control 2 10%
Blade Moves air 1 5%
Blade guard Protects blade from contacting objects 2 10%
Total $ 20 100%
23
Achieving the Target Cost
Relate the components to customer requirements
(exhibit 4)
Develop Quality-Function-Deployment matrix
Indicates which components have the greatest impact
on customer requirements
Develop a functional ranking (exhibit 5)
Indicates the importance of each component to the
customer
Based on the component’s contribution to providing
the desired functions
24
Achieving the Target Cost
EXHIBIT 4
QUALITY-FUNCTION-DEPLOYMENT (QFD) MATRIX
Components
Customer Requirements Speed Blade
Motor Transmission control Body Blade guard
Multiple speeds
Horizontal oscillation
Vertical oscillation
Light weight
Adjustable height
Airflow capacity
Quietness
Compact size
Looks nice
Strong correlation
Moderate correlation
Weak correlation
25
Achieving the Target Cost
EXHIBIT 5
COMPONENT CONTRIBUTION TO CUSTOMER REQUIREMENTS
Components
Customer Requirements Speed Blade
Motor Transmission control Body Blade guard
Multiple speeds 40 X 14.8 = 5.92 60 X 14.8 = 8.88
Horizontal oscillation 80 X 11.1 = 8.88 20 X 11.1 = 2.22
Vertical oscillation 80 X 3.7 = 2.96 20 X 3.7 = 0.74
Light weight 70 X 14.8 = 10.36 10 X 14.8 = 1.48 20 X 14.8 = 2.96
Adjustable height 100 X 3.7 = 3.70
Airflow capacity 50 X 14.8 = 7.40 50 X 14.8 = 7.40
Quietness 40 X 18.5 = 7.40 60 X 18.5 = 11.10
Compact size 5 X 11.1 =0.56 5 X 11.1 =0.56 30 X 11.1 =3.33 30 X 11.1 =3.33 30 X 11.1 =3.33
Looks nice 50 X 7.4 = 3.70 50 X 7.4 = 3.70
26
Achieving the Target Cost
Identify components for cost reduction
Calculate a value index for each major component
(exhibit 6)
Component cost as a percentage of total cost divided
by the component’s relative importance to the
customer
Index greater than 1
Disproportionately high cost in relation to its
importance
Implies cost reduction should be considered
Do not manage by the numbers alone
27
Achieving the Target Cost
EXHIBIT 6
CALCULATION OF VALUE INDICES FOR COMPONENTS
Percent of Contribution
Component Total Cost Percentage Value Action
(Exhibit 3) (Exhibit 5) Index Implied
Motor 40% 31.64% 1.26 Reduce cost
Transmission 20% 13.88% 1.44 Reduce cost
Speed control 15% 8.88% 1.69 Reduce cost
Body 10% 16.65% 0.60 Improve
Blade 5% 21.83% 0.23 Improve
blade guard 10% 7.03% 1.42 Reduce cost
28
Achieving the Target Cost
Generate cost reduction ideas
Eliminate over-engineering
Eliminate, replace, combine, rearrange
Seek ways to accomplish the goal at less cost
Consider the process as well as the product
More efficient manufacturing processes
Better logistics
Etc.
29
Achieving the Target Cost
Test the ideas
Will they be effective?
Are they technologically feasible?
Is there a domino effect?
Construct a component interaction matrix (exhibit 7)
Do activities interact?
30
Achieving the Target Cost
EXHIBIT 7
COMPONENT INTERACTION MATRIX
Speed Blade
Component Motor Transmission control Body Blade guard
Motor X X
Transmission X X
Speed control X
Body X X X X
Blade X
Blade guard X X
31
Make the Decision
Begin
Value engineering
Repeat Achieve
Yes No Close No
value target
enough?
engr.? cost?
Yes Yes
No
Abort
project
Release design
for production
32
Organizational Impact
Positives Negatives
Customer focus Too much customer
focus
Cross-functional
integration Potential organizational
conflict
Open sharing of
information Too much pressure to
attain targets
Better process
understanding Longer development
times
33