As an artisan, when does it make sense to hire workers?

I recently had a discussion with a woodworking artisan and a friend with a financial investment background and professional experience when the discussion of revenues came up. It is no secret that it is difficult to earn a living as an artisan (in woodworking in this case but perhaps it is similar in other fields). The simple fact is that few people, if any, are willing to pay for the time it takes to hand make furniture or other objects in the “traditional” manner. We are used to paying for items that have been mass-produced in places where environmental concerns are non- existent or disregarded, by low labor cost employees (who, themselves barely eke out a living, often in miserable circumstances) or items that have been made by ever improving automated machinery. This friend’s advice was classic: to make a better living, you should hire workers, preferably paying them as little as possible. Of course, this is what we learn in micro-economics 101: critical mass, cost control through standardization, automation, etc. and it reeks of using workers just for their ability to do repetitive tasks cheaper than programming large machinery - the objective is ultimately automation, standardization, serialization; it is not what my concept of artisanal work is about.

Don’t get me wrong, I am not criticizing the approach and development, nor is it a curmudgeons’ expression of unhappiness with the state of affairs, it is simply an observation from discussions with customers and prospects about the price of various hand-made objects: there is often admiration and appreciation for the work that goes into the piece and, usually, a lack of interest in paying the price that the artisan considers reasonable for the effort expended mastering the craft and the time spent making the object. This changes, of course, when the products become considered pieces of art; many of us aspire to this, few achieve it.

In the piano world there was a generally accepted division of the market into 90%-9%-1%, that is, 90% of piano shoppers were looking for a good deal (i.e., low price), 9% of piano shoppers had heard of different brands, were somewhat aware of differences between them, and wanted a “name brand” (albeit at a discount), and 1% of piano shoppers knew exactly the sound that they wanted and would scour the earth to find it - price was not an object of concern. I found it interesting that so many of the brands that the general public had heard of, were fighting for that 1% of the market… but I digress…

Unless an artisan’s product range can be standardized, such that each individual product within the range can be replicated exactly, it is difficult to justify adding employees other than in the “back office” (order processing, marketing, accounting, etc.) where efficiency gains from critical mass can be achieved. Indeed, there are a number of places where independent artisans group together to share retail space - even sharing the time needed to sell. This makes sense since retail locations usually require 50% of the sales price or a significant price per square foot for exhibiting products for sale - small artisanal operations have little to no leverage with retail outlets with regards to cost of selling space. so it pays to produce more and to be bigger. But when products become standardized, adding production employees to fulfill production needs raises the following question: at what point does “artisanal” just mean “hand made”?

According to the Oxford Dictionary, “artisanal” relates to the characteristics of an artisan (artisanal skills) and thereby of a product made in a traditional or non-mechanized way. To me, this implies not only the work itself, but the tools used to make it as well. So, in fact, a larger operation with many workers may still be considered “artisanal” as long as the methods used to produce products remains traditional.

Well, this is a bit contrary to what I was thinking initially…

In fact, I was also wondering about this because of my purchase of a CNC machine. I wondered if I was destroying the artisanal “mantra”. But here, I thought, I could automate a certain number of work steps, as if I had a worker, while keeping costs low and flexibility high. (Flexibility is often just a term to avoid saying “too lazy to properly lay out the work steps to manufacture a product”, or, in my case, non-standardized products that may require changing the order of work - take your pick which one fits best).

What I discovered with the machine, however, is that its use is greatest in making totally new products around its capabilities (which means broadening the product offering). Thinking that the two could be a trade-off was seriously de-valuating a worker’s contribution since a worker can contribute in a multitude and variety of tasks, not necessarily all requiring exactly the same skill. And a good worker can pay for him/herself by adding value in a number of areas such as product refinement, development, process improvement, etc.

This leads me to view in a positive light the traditional approach of apprenticeships. When they are supported by education and include standards for quality of work, it allows a win-win relationship with aspiring artisans: they find practical work in which they can hone their skills under the watchful eye of an experienced, successful artisan, and the artisan can receive valuable contributions from a young, motivated worker at a price that (s)he can afford. If there is enough gain to be had, it can become a long-lasting employment relationship and, ultimately, a partnership which allows transition of the business to the younger partner.

I suppose the conclusion, after this meandering thinking, is quite simply that it makes sense to hire a worker when the volume of sales allows it. The motive for hiring starts from the opposite side as the motive of the friend who suggested that to be profitable you must hire since my conclusion is that hiring workers is a consequence of making fine products that many people buy. That is important if only because it defines the work contribution differently. And in hiring, you may continue to be an artisanal shop. Good news!


Economics of wood bowls

Making bowls using traditional wood turning technique on a lathe results in wasting most of the wood.  I wondered about the economic aspects and tried an alternative method to wood bowl-making to determine if it could really be advantageous. 

My conclusion is that, although savings can be significant depending on wood species and size of bowl, giving up on the "good old fashioned way" of turning wood bowls is not justified, at least not for financial reasons alone because there are many other factors, e.g., labor/ time spent and creative limitations that need to be factored into  the decision.  It becomes a complementary technique, not a replacement.

In simple terms, in order to make a wood bowl, you procure a  large, solid piece of wood and hollow it out by removing wood and replacing it with air.  Because of the tools and process of cutting wood out on a lathe, the wood that you remove (as "shavings") is, for all intents and purposes, wasted.  And although I "recycle" it in my compost, I find this to be a poor use of wood from both economic  and ecological points of view.  For the purposes of this discussion, let's consider the shavings as wasted wood.

I currently know of two techniques that can be used to reduce this waste:

  • For pieces of wood that are large enough, e.g., tree trunks or sections of trunks, specialized tools exist that allow you to "core" concentric bowl-shaped pieces of wood (so called "blanks") on a lathe.
  • Bowl blanks can be constructed from planks/ boards glued together from which concentric circles are cut. These concentric cone-shaped pieces are then stacked back together so as to minimize the waste.

Both techniques have pros and cons.  As I have experimented with the second technique recently and wanted to determine the impact it could have on the cost of making a bowl, I'll focus on this below.

Imagine that you'd like to make a 20 cm diameter bowl that is approximately 9 cm tall.  If you take a wood board that is 20cm square and 3cm thick, you can probably see that, by cutting out three concentric circles, each 3 cm wide, you could construct, if these could be stacked upon one another, a 9cm tall cylinder with three different diameters: one 20cm, one 17cm, and one 14cm.  Stacking them together becomes possible if you now imagine that you have cut each concentric circle at an angle, say 45 degrees, from outside edge towards the center, and from top to bottom.  In this case, the diameter at the bottom of each larger circle will be smaller than the diameter at the top of each successively smaller circle, which allows the bottom of the larger circle to rest upon the top of the successively smaller circle.

You will also have noticed that the shape is hollow for the top two circles.  This hollow is the wood that has been saved.

Financially here's how it works out:

  • Wood cost at lumber yards (in the USA) is calculated per species by volume (board foot= (LxWxH inches)/144 = Board Feet).  Calculating the cost in this way makes the shape of each piece of wood irrelevant since it is the "amount" of wood that is used.  (It is actually a bit more complicated since thicker wood is harder to find but let's keep things simple here.)  Here are approximate board-foot costs of species I regularly use: 
    • Ash $4.85
    • Maple $6.85
    • Cherry $8.50
    • Walnut $14.00
    • Morado $25.50
  • To make a bowl from a solid piece of wood that is 8 in. x 8 in. x 3.5 in (approx 20cmx20cmx9cm) the wood cost comes to approximately the following:
    • Ash: $7.50 =>  ((8x8x3.5)/144)x$4.85
    • Maple: $10.65
    • Cherry: $13.25
    • Walnut: $ 21.75
    • Morado: $39.70
  • Whereas making it from a 8x8x1.25 (20cmx20cmx3cm) board would cost the following
    • Ash: $2.70 (saving $4.80)
    • Maple: $3.80 (saving $6.85)
    • Cherry $4.75 (saving $8.50)
    • Walnut $7.80 (saving $13.95)
    • Morado: $14.20 (saving $25.5)

Note that this is the price saved per bowl.  People who make a living making bowls will have over 50 in inventory at any one time, which represents significant savings in cost of raw materials (wood).   Of course, if bowl making from either one piece of wood or from several boards used the same amount of labor, it would be simple.  However, as we saw above, making a bowl from boards requires some additional work: cutting the boards into angled concentric circles and gluing these together in order to create the general bowl shape.  Assuming the cost of glue is negligible, let's look at the time aspect.

Let's assume that the wood turner is capable of making a good bowl from a solid piece of wood in 1.5hours and let's assume that a wood turner earns an average of $16.25/ hour (recent statistics for wood workers in New Jersey.)  This means that the bowl cost should run from $31.90 (Ash) to $46.15 (Walnut).

My experience shows that the measuring, cutting and gluing operations add an extra hour to the work.  This means that the bowl's cost should run from $45.50 (Ash) to $54.63 (Walnut).  If, however, the bowl were made from Morado, it's cost would be almost the same $64.10 (traditional) compared to $66.15. 

As we can see, only if wood costs were much higher would it make economic sense to avoid the wasted wood.  But there are, in fact other considerations - both for and against.  The main ones that come to mind are as follows:

  • "Environmental" cost due to waste of a precious (renewable) resource for local woods but what of woods that are transported great distances?
  • Using a solid piece of wood to create a bowl leaves the artisan the greatest flexibility regarding the bowl's shape.  As wood is removed the options for the final shape of the object become reduced.  Stacking pyramid-like concentric circles on each other reduces shape options significantly.
  • Using boards to create bowls allows additional creative techniques to be applied by gluing different wood varieties and colors together - creating a bowl with multiple layers - whereas making a bowl from a single, solid piece of wood can only be as beautiful as the natural characteristics of that piece of wood (grain, chatoyancy, color, etc.)

This exercise has demonstrated to me that the different techniques for creating and turning bowls each have a place in the artisan's craft and although economics is an important concern, in this case it does not justify abandoning the traditional methods.

 

 

Alec HouckeComment
Working by the hour vs by the customer

 “We don’t work by the hour, but by the client.”  from "Gray Mountain" by John Grisham quoted by a lawyer in the book but I was wondering how it applies (should it?) to all service businesses and my woodworking in particular.  

As a customer I have often felt that suppliers are more interested in their bottom line and how I can contribute (i.e., working "by the hour") as opposed to truly working to understand needs and providing a solution (i.e., working by the client).

As a supplier (incl. customized woodworking products), understanding that BOTH are necessary (profit AND solution) I try to separate the two: evaluation of financial potential (as quickly and discreetly as possible) and taking the time to understand the need before taking the risk - committing to a solution - of quoting.   I prefer to turn away business than to take the approach of "custom-fitting" the customer into my "standard" solution while hoping to be able to bill enough to make it worthwhile for me.  Agreed, the similarities between my (micro) business and, well, almost any other, are stretched here.  I am undeterred...

One year ago, I was approached by a chef who asked if I could make (replace) the handle on his (very expensive) Japanese knife, the one he preferred and used on a daily basis.  It seems that the handle had become cracked and was uncomfortable for use.  He had contacted the manufacturer and was told that it would cost approx. $400 to get a quote, he'd have to be without the knife for a prolonged period of time (return to Japan) and would not know how much it would ultimately cost for the repair.  I asked a perfunctory question about the shape of the handle and discussed the possibilities with him before telling him that I'd be ready to try for 10% of the cost of a quote.  He said he'd think about it and never came back - to my relief.  In retrospect, I'd let my desire to be useful and helpful overwhelm the warning bells ringing as I imagined what I could do to possibly be of help.  Today, I understand how difficult it is to make something that requires perfect shape and balance (to him, not to me), which is difficult at best.  I would likely have had to make several iterations of handles (i.e., incurred great cost) before finding one that fit his hand, not to mention the varieties of wood that would have provided the weight balance he'd become used to.

Years ago, in a piano restoration capacity, I'd found a profitable niche doing something similar - taking the piano restoration process apart into manageable components in order to meet the primary inhibitor to (Steinway's) restauration approach.  To have Steinway restore your S-model piano would cost, on average, $28,000 (plus shipping) and would require the client to be without a piano for minimum 9 months.  After that, the piano would return in almost new condition, which meant 2 years of piano tech work to adjust the mechanism, hammers, frequent tunings etc. to bring it to the client's preferences.  For my service offer, I broke down the restoration into : Cabinet restoration, String replacement and Piano Action replacement (keys and/or hammers and/or dampers).  To minimize customer impact, I purchased a used Steinway S so that I could offer it to the customer as a replacement for those who wanted to have the piano's cabinet restored (90 days sub-contracting to a specialist including pick up and return of both).  For the other services, I offered to perform the work at the customer's home as it is a (minimally) intrusive work that provided the benefit of having the customer see the progress and of limiting the space needed for me to perform the work in my own (limited size) workshop.  This reduced the costs significantly for both of us and allowed the customer to have a "pay as you go" approach that could be as limited or complete as desired based on the results expected vs delivered.  Every case was unique (and less expensive than Steinway's).  Work by customer, right?

Recently, I was approached by a person who asked if I could repair a handcrafted pen that he'd purchased from someone like me in the recent past.  When I asked about the pen, he mentioned that it was made of antler, a material I have never worked with.  The work would have required disassembling the pen and replacing the mechanism.  In the best case scenario, I could have billed the price of a new pen for less work time. In this case, I declined outright and suggested he return to the person who had made the pen in the first place as they would have greater knowledge of the material and the risks of working with it. I have no particular interest in working with antlers and was concerned that I could crack his in the repair process.  In other words, if anything had gone awry, there would have been no potential gain for me and marginal gain for him (a new antler pen would have been slightly more expensive).  Experience taught me to listen to the warning bells.  Still, better to be clear about it and quickly so as to avoid wasting his time.  One year ago, I may have considered trying.... 

Although concern for my gain (or possible loss) was an important factor, I still consider this to be working "by the customer". 

The Amazon Web Services President emphasized this "work by the customer" approach as the key to their business growth and success vs the "old school" competition.

The outcome must be a win-win.  Working "by the hour" will always provide a win for the supplier (short-term), but the customer takes a risk.  Working "by the customer" will (should) provide a win for the customer, but the supplier takes a risk - but isn't this the way it should be?  

I was prompted to write this today partly out of frustration because, as a potential customer of a renewable energy solution, I have contacted a couple individuals who have demonstrated a complete lack of interest in understanding my problem and who have insisted on trying to convince me that what I want, which is apparently not going to be profitable for them, is not really what I want.  In the interactions, we have both wasted time. Few interactions can be so frustrating, better to have told me immediately that my project did not interest them rather than spending hours in meeting and writing emails - perhaps you'll agree.

Feel free to comment with your own experience if you'd like, I'd be interested in reading those.

Why this blog?

I started Libellules about one year ago now and thought it could be of interest to discuss business aspects of a small handcrafted (and handcrafting) business from inception to "normal" operation. 

The purpose of this blog is to relate experiences relevant to the creation and operation of a small business - ALL aspects of it (see below the topics that I hope to cover at some point in this blog).  Beyond that, there is an ulterior motive, or rather many ulterior motives: generate some traffic to the web site for increased business, have fun writing, work out, through the exercise of writing, the progress (or not) of my business, help to keep me focused, and perhaps even help others who are considering starting a small business.

My background may be relevant since it will color my approach.  I was brought up in a small business environment with a parent who was a serial entrepreneur.  One of those businesses was successful enough to pay for a comfortable lifestyle (we never went hungry or without heat) including a university tuition in the USA.  I was encouraged to start work in a large, reputable company in order to learn how to do things "properly", which I did for over 30 years, having worked in Sales, (Business) Finance, Service, Administration of Service, Marketing (Product, Communications/ MARCOM, Channel) as an employee, manager, and executive for local as well as multinational markets though not through smooth career promotions but rather in irregular motion.  I have also worked in small companies, internet startups and more traditional economy structures.  Libellules is not my first startup.

Here are some of the topics I hope to discuss through the blog - I am sure the list is not exhaustive and I cannot promise that I will follow the structure listed.  The reason for structuring the list this way comes from my background.  I think that small business is big business is ... well, small business.  In other words, running a small business works best when you consider all the aspects that are more evident in a large business.  I have the good fortune of knowing a few pilots who know the importance of checklists - a big business structure can serve as a useful checklist for a small business in order to ensure you don't forget something and get blindsided.

In no particular order...

  1. Sales
    • Set measurable objectives (and measure)
    • Essentially a retail business (not exclusively, but mostly)
    • Forecasting
      • Importance of seasonal buying
      • tying up money in inventory
      • tying up money and time in finished goods inventory
      • losing opportunities due to lack of inventory
    • Distribution
      • Resellers
        • volume vs profit
        • costs
      • Direct sales
        • but can my products get the exposure needed
        • costs ($ and time)
  2. Marketing
    • Customers
      • who are they
      • what/why are they buying
      • where are they buying
      • when are they buying what
    • Pricing
      • To pricetag or not to pricetag
      • Social conventions (haggling or not)
    • Display/ RPOS
      • Buy vs create
      • Cost ($ vs time)
      • design inspiration - attractive vs repulsive
    • Promotions
      • What/ when/ where
      • Costs
      • Maximize bottom line
        • Trade-off between revenues and profit
        • competition
    • Getting known
      • Logo and  relationship to branding
      • Media (all of them)
        • Branding
        • Business cards
        • Stickers
        • Banners
        • Online
          • Social
          • Blog
          • Products! (the right ones...)
  3. Production
    • Product assortment
      • Cost vs market price
        • COGS
        • Special selling costs
        • Special vs standard sales display requirement
        • Special vs standard volume/ size requirement for transportation
      • Relate to Marketing - what will sell (virtuous cycle)
        • keep an eye on market
        • associations/ guild/ market-makers
      • Learning curve to profitable sales (time investment)
        • Services (custom)
        • Selling capabilities/ expertise - balance w/ standard
    • Production management
      • Timing
      • hobby vs business
    • Quality
      • Who decides whether a product is suitable for sale or for the "family gift" pile?
  4. Admin and Finance
    • Measuring the business
      • Relevant metrics to help manage
      • Measure for calculated risks
    • Taxes
      • How to measure and report, and when
    • Systems vs Intuition - finding the "Golden Mean"
      • Inventory
      • Costs
      • Productivity
      • Invoicing
      • accounting
  5. Leadership - The Human factor
    • Strategy
      • Review objectives and results
        • save time through learned intuition (experience)
      • Stop, take a deep breath, a long walk, and "have a think"
        • Split personality
          • Employee
          • Owner - Business Manager
        • Keeping things real
          • Couples therapy
    • HR - keeping it personal
      • Fly in the ointment vs enjoyment vs profit
      • Training and development
    • Business objective
      • Hobby vs business
      • Confronting reality 

It's perhaps overly ambitious to think I have anything of use to say about any of these points but one thing is certain, I have had, this past year, a specific experience within every one of these points.

Enough of an Intro - next time I'll dig into the meat.