The inventory count that never matches the system
Correcting the system to match the count erases what the count found.
A count that ends with the system corrected has thrown away the most useful part of the count.
Not every business has this problem, and some should leave it alone.
Most of these can be done better. Whether it's worth doing is a separate question. What follows is one common form of the problem, described in general terms, because your version will differ. These are possible challenges, not a description of your business, and some should be left exactly as they are. If it sounds like your week, that's worth a conversation.
Watch: The Count, and What It Was Trying to Tell You
Sound familiar?
- The count takes a weekend and ends with the system adjusted to match.
- The same items come up short every time.
- Nobody can say why the numbers drifted.
- Shortages in one place cancel out overages in another.
What it looks like
Periodically, somebody counts what is on the shelf and compares it with what the system says. It is tedious and usually happens outside normal hours. At the end there is a list of differences, and then the system is corrected to match the count.
What it costs
The difference between the record and the shelf is information. It says something happened that was never captured, and the question is what. The possibilities call for different responses: material used on a job and never recorded, which means that job was under-costed; something delivered short and signed for as complete; something damaged and quietly discarded; a counting error; or something being taken. Overwriting the system with the count answers none of these. It makes the records agree, which feels like resolution, and erases the evidence. The next count produces the same differences for the same unexamined reasons.
Where it goes wrong
- The count and the correction are one action. There is no moment in between when anyone could investigate.
- Differences are not recorded afterward. Nobody can tell whether an item is always short or this is the first time.
- Value gets netted. A shortage in one place offsets an overage in another, and a total that looks fine hides two problems.
- Counting happens while things move. Timing differences look identical to real ones.
What a better version looks like
The comparison and the correction become separate steps. The comparison produces a list of differences and changes nothing. Each is something to explain, and the ones that cannot be explained are the findings. Corrections are then made deliberately, with a record of what changed and why, so the next count can be compared with the last. Counting more often and in smaller pieces shrinks the window in which a cause occurred from three months to a week, which is short enough that somebody still remembers.
What still needs a person
A person explains the differences, decides which ones matter, and makes the corrections deliberately. A system that silently corrects itself to match whatever it was last told is how the information got lost in the first place.
Questions worth asking about your own operation
- When the count and the system disagree, what happens next?
- Is there a record of past differences, item by item?
- Which items are always short?
- How long between a cause and the count that finds it?
If this sounds familiar
Bring me the version you actually have. I'll learn how the process really works before I suggest anything. If it isn't worth changing, or isn't a fit for me, I'll say so. Talk through a problem