With the tax cuts enabled during the Bush administration coming to an end soon, lobbyists and tax attorneys are lining up to offer their opinions on how the tax code should be reformed.

According to an article in the National Law Journal (Firms Gear Up For Critical Tax Polcy Changes), "[a]bout $4 trillion worth of tax revenue provisions are expiring, the most in the history of the U.S. tax system":

"The next president has some ticking time bombs to address," said Jim Miller, a tax attorney who last month moved to Winston & Strawn's Washington office from Hunton & Williams. "There's now the greatest potential for tax reform certainly since 1986".

How is this important to you?  Consider this:

"Tax issues will be the key driver for political and economic activity for the next half-dozen years," Mike T. McNamara (a Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal partner) said. "All of our clients are trying to look at how tax policy will drive or hinder their business plans."

It isn't just your clients who need to watch the tax policy.  Your firm needs to pay close attention to how tax policy is addressed so that you may draft your own business plan that take the new policies into consideration.

Alan J. Auerbach, Jason Furman, and William G. Gale wrote an essay on possible approaches to tax policy titled Facing the Music: The Fiscal Outlook at the End of the Bush Administration.

The tax foundation has a summary of each of the Presidential Candidates' tax plans that can be accessed by clicking here.

If you want to talk about "perfect storms", consider the effects on your business of expiring tax cuts and a struggling economy.  How tax policy is approached in the coming year(s) will be telling on how well our economy rebounds from this (at least so far) minor contraction.

Related posts

• No related posts.

This is the fifth in a series on partner compensation and client profitability written by Ron Paquette, consultant with Redwood Analytics, now part of LexisNexis.  The first article, titled Client Profitability: What Is The Cost Of Partner Time?, was an introduction to the concept of allocating partner cost in calculating client profitability.  The second article, titled Partner Cost And Client Profitability, (Part II), is focused on pitfalls of some firms' methodology in allocating costs to partners.  The third article, titled  Partner Cost And Client Profitability, (Part III), is focused on basing a partner's direct cost on a "minimum margin percentage".  The fourth article, titled Partner Cost and Client Profitability (Part IV), is focused on basing a partner's direct cost on a "minimum margin dollar amount".  This article is focused on allocating a partner's direct cost using a variation of both the "minimum margin percentage" and "minimum margin dollar amount" based on different partner "ranks" using a sliding scale. 

Figure 2

• It ensures that every partner has a positive margin associated with his/her hours when valued at standard rate. While one may purposely choose to lose money on specific matters through discounting, there should be margin on every hour of time when valued at published rate.
• It is based on the partner’s published rate. While total compensation can rise and fall with firm profits, this relative cost will not fluctuate and this method is in line with thinking about compensation for a partner’s work effort.
• If executed properly, a leverage model will be supported by forcing the highly compensated partners to a lower margin % than lower compensated partners.
• It supports a firm with a closed compensation system since actual compensation will not be revealed through profit model.

• Higher complexity. With either bucketing (fig. 1) or the margin curve (fig. 2) the firm will still have more decisions in this methodology than in either minimum margin approach. More decisions open the door to more disagreements and dissenters.

Like the other Redwood recommendations, the weaknesses are overshadowed by the strengths in the model. And, if the firm can build agreement around the (semi-arbitrary) decisions necessary for this methodology, Redwood believes this creates the most robust model of all those explored, allowing the firm to assess relative client profitability without having to exclude a client due to high/low partner costs. In the last entry of this series, we will detail the list of criteria we have developed to better understand the strengths and weaknesses of a new methodology that we may encounter. 

Related posts

• Partner Cost And Client Profitability, (Part III)
• Partner Cost and Client Profitability (Part VI)
• Partner Cost And Client Profitability, (Part IV)
• Partner Cost and Client Profitability (Part II)
• Client Profitability: What Is The Cost Of Partner Time?

David Maister wrote an article in 2007 related to the conditions that confront firms who face strategic changes (Are We In This Together? The Preconditions For Strategy).  In it he wrote of four types of personalities:

• Type 1 is the solo operator who values independence, wants to make little investment in the future, but is willing to bet on his (or her) ability to catch fresh meat each and every day. I call this the Mountain Lion approach. “Pay me for what I do today (or this year.)”
• Type 2 is the individual who prefers to act in coordination with others, but doesn’t like to invest (or defer gratification) too much. I call these people (collectively) the Wolf-Pack. “If we act together we can kill bigger animals, but it had better pay off soon or I’m joining another Pack!”
• Type 3 is the individual who wants to be independent, but is interested in building for the future by investing time and resources to get somewhere new. Such people remind me of Beavers building dams to provide a home for their (own) family.
• Type 4 are individuals who want to be part of something bigger than they can accomplish alone, and have the patience, the ambition and the will to help the collective organization invest in that future (He references humankind, Ants and Bees as possible personifiers - I'll stick with Ants).

One of the things that draws me to this article is that I can identify people in the firm in which I worked in all the above types.   The Mountain Lions were the highest producers and top originators; the Wolf-Pack were those who lived off the fat of the Lion's spoils and could churn out work; the Beavers were those who just did the work and quietly practiced law; the Ants were those who just went along with what was decided and never had much input or care into the direction of the firm.

 The dynamics led Lions and wolves to form alliances and complain of the ants.   In spite of the work ethic of the ants, they lost clients, had poor billing practices, and always ended up being the worst performers in the firm. 

Thus, most initiatives failed in our firm.  When decisions needed to be made, lions and wolves teamed up against ants.  The lack of unified purpose left a conference room thick with self-preservation and under-the-breath animosity.   Maister summed it up nicely:

It is hard to identify and create buy-in for what “we” (i.e., the firm) should do if there is no strong sense of “we” — a mutual commitment and sense of group loyalty and cohesiveness. Similarly, it can be meaningless if the members of the firm are not committed to go on a journey together into the future.

Problems result when a cult of personality forms around some in the firm (typically the lions).  Left unchecked, the lions gain an air of invincibility and management becomes practically impossible.  On the other hand, poor performers are a drag on the firm and lack of accountability can tear apart a firm.  The only impetus to change can end up being a a dip in profits and/or a lion or wolf going to another firm.  Both of these events are bad times to begin a discussion of change.  

It would be unwise to deny that changes need to be made to adapt to the changing economy.  There is little reason to expect the economic down cycle to end soon.  The real estate boom is being replaced by the volatile commodities boom (energy and food).  Globally, businesses are transitioning into "defense mode"; ie, shrinking investment, laying off employees not directly related to long-term strategic goals, hoarding money.  Law firm cash flows lag, on average, 160 days.  You may not feel it today, but soon your cash flow will be affected.

How will your firm adapt?  There are many blogs talking marketing and business development ideas.  This month alone there are several who have discussed marketing and client development:

• Bruce Marcus, May 17th: NO PAIN, NO GAIN (Is The Marketing Return Worth The Risk?)
• Kevin O'Keefe, May 22nd: Effective presence marketing via blogs and social media
• Bruce MacEwen, May 12th:  Who's On Your "Red Team?"
• Tom Kane, May 20th: Full-Time Client Feedback Person - The Next Trend?

Though counterintuitive to some, maintaining or even increasing spending on business development during market downturns can lead to more profitability (RVs, Bananas and Recession-Proofing the Law Firm, Marketing Advice for Lawyers During Economic Down Cycles).  One thing should be certain:  maintaining the status quo should be off the table.

 Anthony Cerminaro (BizzBangBuzz) wrote of a top ten list of obstacles to making changes in his post Overcoming Resistance To Change:

1. Procrastination;
2. Well-meaning naysayers and apologists;
3. Fear of failure (defeatism);
4. Impatience;
5. Waiting for the whole plan to be in place;
6. Lack of self-confidence or cultural intimidation;
7. Inflexibility or lack of adaptability;
8. Trying to do it all yourself;
9. Lack of forethought or concentration;
10. Lack of necessary skills or talents.

His post also provides suggestions to overcome the above. 

To effectively create positive change in your firm, you must first determine what changes need to be made.  This requires a thorough understanding of your current position and requires some forethought into what should be your firms strengths and weaknesses going into the next few years.  Then a plan needs to be devised that will address the weaknesses and take advantage of the strengths based on the opportunities showing up in the marketplace.  Measurable performance indicators need to be established that further your plan.  Then the difficult part:  gaining consensus.

The dynamics of your firm will dictate the direction you go and the ability to form a consensus to act.   The degree of success in getting the lions and wolves on board will determine whether the plan will ever gain favor.  The degree of accountability placed upon everyone may end up being the deciding factor.

Related posts

• Working with the Law Firm Business Model to increase income
• Which Comes First, Doing the Right Things or Doing Them Right?
• What Law Firm Partners Need To Agree About
• The Authority Triangle, a Law Firm Management Tool
• Starting Your Own Law Firm, You Need a Shtick and a Niche

 This is the fourth in a series on partner compensation and client profitability written by Ron Paquette, consultant with Redwood Analytics, now part of LexisNexis.  The first article, titled Client Profitability: What Is The Cost Of Partner Time?, was an introduction to the concept of allocating partner cost in calculating client profitability.  The second article, titled Partner Cost And Client Profitability, (Part II), is focused on pitfalls of some firms' methodology in allocating costs to partners.  The third article, titled  Partner Cost And Client Profitability, (Part III) , is focused on basing a partner's direct cost on a "minimum margin percentage".  This article is focused on a related methodology:  using a "minimum margin dollar amount" to allocate partner direct cost.

• It ensures that every partner has a positive margin associated with his/her hours when valued at standard rate. While one may purposely choose to lose money on specific matters through discounting, there should be margin on every hour of time when valued at published rate.
• It is simple. Firm leaders need only to decide on one variable that can be based on firm analytics and margins for other titles (e.g. income partners or senior associates).
• It is based on the partner’s published rate. While total compensation can rise and fall with firm profits, this relative cost will not fluctuate and this method is in line with thinking about compensation for a partner’s work effort.
• The most highly compensated partners will be forced to the minimum margin ensuring they appear less profitable than junior partners, therefore supporting a leverage model.
• Multiple partners hitting the minimum margin level will have different margin % if they have different standard rates, further promoting a positive leverage model.

•  A firm will need to decide on the minimum margin. While strong arguments can be made for a certain threshold, there may still be dissenters. 
• Each partner who is affected by the minimum threshold will have the same margin (in dollars), leaving discounting as the only differentiator of profit on billable time

Like the Minimum Margin %, the strengths of this methodology prevail over the weaknesses and many firms have found this option easy to implement and easy to gain support for (due to minimal arbitrary decisions). In the final two entries, we will discuss some variations on the two minimum margin methodologies (% and $) and discuss a set of criteria to help a firm determine the pros and cons of each.

Related posts

• Partner Cost And Client Profitability, (Part III)
• Partner Cost and Client Profitability (Part V)
• Partner Cost and Client Profitability (Part II)
• Partner Cost and Client Profitability (Part VI)
• Client Profitability: What Is The Cost Of Partner Time?

This past week, The Remsen Group held the Southeast Managing Partner Forum in Atlanta.  Fifty-eight participants attended representing thirty-nine firms in the Southeastern region.  According to 23% the participants, marketing and business development was the most effective way to improve long-term profitability.  This eclipsed raising rates, which was rated as the most effective way to improve long-term profitability by 21% of respondents.

According to the 2007 Law Firm Economic Survey from LexisNexis, marketing and business development was second only to rates as the most effective way to improve profitability.  Yet only 3% linked compensation to marketing and business development activity.  It is apparent that firms consider marketing and business development as important keys to improving profitability.

In our 2008 Survey (currently accepting submissions - please click here if you would like to participate), we dedicate 19 questions on business development.  We hope to be able to flesh out what works for firms and what isn't working to improve profitability.

In a year where the majority of economic news points to an economic downturn, how a firm invests now will determine what opportunities open for it after the economy recovers.  It's worth reviewing some past posts that help firm's manage down cycles and prepare for the eventual upswing:

• RVs, Bananas and Recession-Proofing the Law Firm;
• Planning Helps Law Firms Weather A Bad Economy;
• Information-Driven Business Development For Law Firms;
• Management ABCs: The Hawthorne Effect;
• Marketing Advice for Lawyers During Economic Down Cycles;
• Retained Earnings Prepare Law Firms For Unexpected.

Another interesting statistic that follows earlier surveys is that over 2/3rds of the attendees of the Managing Partner Forum in Atlanta did not follow a firm-wide strategic plan.  John Remsen, along with John Smock and Thomas Grella, Esq., have teamed up to provide a web seminar on Law Firm Strategic Planning.   John Remsen is the owner of The Remsen Group, a marketing consulting firm that is focused on the law firm market.  John Smock is a management consultant and partner with Smock Sterling strategic management consultants.  Mr .Grella is the Managing Partner of  McGuire Wood & Bissette, PA and co-authored the book The Lawyer's Guide to Strategic Planning published by the American Bar Association.  The webinar is scheduled for  June 10th at noon eastern.  To register, click here.

Related posts

• Survey Targets Business Development In Law Firms
• Law Firm Challenge Number 1: Get a Plan!
• Top 25% of Law Firms Earn Margins Above 40%
• The End of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles?
• The Case Against Income Partners

This is the third in a series on partner compensation and client profitability written by Ron Paquette, consultant with Redwood Analytics, now part of LexisNexis.  The first article, titled Client Profitability: What Is The Cost Of Partner Time?, was an introduction to the concept of allocating partner cost in calculating client profitability.  The second article, titled Partner Cost And Client Profitability, (Part II), is focused on pitfalls of some firms' methodology in allocating costs to partners.  This article is focused on basing a partner's direct cost on a "minimum margin percentage".

 When it comes to allocating partner direct costs (compensation) to a client the answer, unfortunately, is not a simple one.  After exploring options with various law firm leaders at a number of firms, we heard consensus on one key point — that “it depends.”   “Depends on what?” you might ask. Well, it depends on the current state of affairs of the firm, the long and short term goals of the firm, the relative level of partner compensation, and maybe most importantly, how the firm thinks about client profitability. As a result, we have developed a handful of options to address the analytic needs while considering firm goals and philosophy. In my next several entries, I’ll explain some of those options, and their pros and cons. Today’s option is basing a partner’s direct cost on a minimum margin percentage for each partner.

• It ensures that every partner has a positive margin associated with his/her hours when valued at standard rate. While one may purposely choose to lose money on specific matters through discounting, there should be margin on every hour of time when valued at published rate.
• It is simple. Firm leaders need only to decide on one variable that can be based on firm analytics and margins for other titles (e.g. income partners or senior associates).
• It is based on the partner’s published rate. While total compensation can rise and fall with firm profits, this relative cost will not fluctuate and this method is in line with thinking about compensation for a partner’s work effort.
• The most highly compensated partners will be forced to the minimum margin ensuring they appear less profitable than junior partners, therefore supporting a leverage model.

• A firm will need to decide on the minimum margin percentage. While strong arguments can be made for a certain threshold, there still may be dissenters. 
• For those who have the minimum margin %, the only profitability differentiator relative to how they  affect client profitability is the realization on the hours worked. If too many partners are at the minimum, there is virtually no difference in leverage within the partner ranks.

Related posts

• Partner Cost And Client Profitability, (Part IV)
• Partner Cost and Client Profitability (Part V)
• Partner Cost and Client Profitability (Part II)
• Partner Cost and Client Profitability (Part VI)
• Client Profitability: What Is The Cost Of Partner Time?

Since 2000, law firm PEPP (profits per equity partner) have increased on average 11% for Amlaw 100 firms and 8% for Amlaw 200 firms.  Some observers fear that, like other markets that have sustained growth periods at or near double digits in the past 10 years, the law firm partner profit "bubble" may soon burst as well.

Looking at Amlaw 200 data, PEPP increased by 2% in 2001.  In 2002, the increase was 7%.  2003 saw an increase of 11%, 8% in 2004 and 2005, and 10% in 2006.

This increase doesn't only apply to Amlaw 200 firms.  Looking at the differences from 2005 and 2006 for the top respondent firms in the Law Firm Economic Survey  by Juris Inc. and LexisNexis, respectively (the only two years available), firm PEPP increased 11%.  It is likely that most firms in the mid-market and small market increased incomes by respectable if not similar percentages over the same period.

What can you do to prepare for a stunt in the growth (or decline) of PEPP?  Bruce MacEwen posted an article May 5th  on his blog Adam Smith Esq., titled A "Bubble" in PPP? that looks at some short term ideas to help "mitigate the downward trend" and predicts a change in the las firm business model over the long term:

Short term ideas:

• Redeploy lawyers in troubled practice areas to healthier ones;
• Use the opportunity of "shared pain" with your key clients to get closer to them;
• Adroitly stand by while the normal waves of attrition take their toll;
• Build or at least safeguard capacity in selected practice areas that you anticipate will emerge strongly from the downturn;
• And always, always, keep a sharp eye on costs–although, truth be told, you don't have much material flexibility here. You're not moving your offices to Brooklyn and you're not paying less than market for partners and associates.

Long term predictions:

• the billable hour, lamented by many but eliminated by few, will eventually replaced with a more "value-based" model, though MacEwen stresses that he is not "holding [his] breath" on this;
• the traditional associate/partner model changes to include more non-equity partners and more contract attorneys;
• at least fundamentally, "the core processes by which law firms manage cases and deals must and will change" (ie, more project management, more team philosophy centered around practice groups to become more efficient).

Ultimately, MacEwen believes that due to increased demand (at least for Amlaw 100 firms), finding work won't be the problem.  However, he sees the traditional model as being unsustainable based on the limits placed on things such as productivity (>2,400 hours?), rates (>$1,000 per hour?)and realization (>100%?).  Because of this, if PEPP does suffer a downturn for an extended period of time, the long predicted changes to law firm dynamics may happen.

If this occurs in large law firms, it is incumbent on smaller firms to adapt quickly.  The predictions above are all point towards efficiency that allow firm profits to increase through efficiency rather than increased rates and worked hours.  Much has bee written about the "unmanageability of law firms".  Despite this, firms have continued to make exceptional profits - due in no small part to their enviable margins.  With good management, law firms can see profits that far exceed anything that firms receive currently.   And if partner profits start decreasing, your firm will be in crisis -  just as it is not a good idea to go to the grocery store on an empty stomach, it isn't a good time to contemplate an overhaul in processes during a crisis.

Much of the allure of smaller firms is quality service at a lower price.  Some large firm partners charge rates in excess of $1,000 per hour.  If large firms realize they can offer similar services at lower prices and still increase profits, smaller firms can be squeezed out of the marketplace.

Think Walmart.  As Walmart entered the scene, small businesses were unable to compete based on their lack of purchase power.  Walmart could offer more product selection at a lower price.  Home Depot and Lowes did the same to small hardware stores.  The small shops that survived did so by using their secret weapon - customer service and personal engagement.  Still, you won't find many of these shops who don't struggle on a monthly basis and have to watch as their clients often come to them for advice, then go to Home Depot to buy the big-ticket items.

For small and mid-size firms to compete in this changed environment, they will have to embrace workflow efficiencies that meet or exceed that of the larger firms - and use their "secret weapons" of personal engagement with clients and responsiveness.  However, without the fundamentals of an efficient business in place, your firm will suffer under the weight of your processes.  

There will always be individual clients available, but more dependable sources of income often come from business clients and their leaders.  These clients are already demanding more cost certainty.  If larger firms are able to provide this value to business clients first at a price that isn't so different than yours, your firm may be in trouble.

The time to act is now.

Related posts

• Survey Targets Business Development In Law Firms
• Reflections on the 2007 ALM Billing Rates & Practices Survey
• Law Firms with Non-Lawyer Management Achieve Higher Per-Partner Incomes
• Law Firm Survey Shows Link between Leverage and Partner Income
• Law Firm Business Model: Margin

This is the second in a series on partner compensation and client profitability written by Ron Paquette, consultant with Redwood Analytics, now part of LexisNexis.  The first article, titled Client Profitability: What Is The Cost Of Partner Time?, was an introduction to the concept of allocating partner cost in calculating client profitability.  This article is focused on pitfalls of some firms' methodology in allocating costs to partners.

Some firms have chosen to exclude costs all together from billable hours worked by partners.  Generally it has been requested for one of two reasons: the firm would like to keep actual partner compensation out of the profitability model (a closed compensation system), or the firm is thinking about a P&L model where partner compensation is simply a distribution of firm profits.  While this methodology does accomplish those goals, from a client profitability perspective, it introduces its own set of issues.   

What results is a model where client profitability is maximized by only using partners to perform the billable time.  In the example below, there is a timekeeper with a 66% profit margin and two partners, both with 100% margins.  Any hour that the Associate performs for a client will in essence drag down that client’s profitability and a matter manager might be tempted to use a Partner where an Associate would suffice in an effort to ‘game’ his clients profitability.  This is contrary to the proper use of leverage and economic theory which would have the partners working on tasks for which lower level timekeepers are not qualified such as originations and the management of matters and attorneys.  For this reason alone, there needs to be some cost associated with each billable hour of a Partner’s time, if not for any other purpose than to represent the opportunity cost of them not performing these other tasks.  Besides, every firm that we have encountered expects their partners to perform a certain quantity of billable hours for their clients which would imply that some of their compensation should in fact be allocated to the client.

Another methodology that has been requested in an effort to support a closed compensation is what we call a fixed (or capped) partner cost.  In this scenario, every partner is given the same direct costs.  Aside from the privacy of actual compensation, firms make their case by stating that above a certain point, all partner compensation is for contributions besides the billable hour.   However, since billable rates vary significantly even in the upper echelons of partners, it is hard to justify those hours having the same cost rate.  Regardless, like the methodologies we have already examined, this too creates some unfortunate outcomes. 

The biggest concern with this methodology is the reversed leverage that it creates (similar to having no costs at all).  In the example illustrated below, we see a firm that has chosen $270,000 as the partner direct costs.  Any partner whose compensation exceeds this threshold has their compensation limited and as a result, all have a $150 cost rate for their time.  The result is that the highest rate timekeepers have the highest profit margin, 40% in the case of the Rainmaker, while those with lower compensation, like the Jr. Partner, have minimal (or zero) profit margin for their work.  Certainly, the cost to the firm for these 3 timekeepers is not the same.

The alternate version (and preferable to the former) is to use the dollar amount as a limit to partner compensation and not a flat amount for every partner.  In the example below, we see the Jr. Partner whose actual compensation is below the $270,000 mark.  In the fixed methodology his profit margin is 0% but if it were capped, his direct costs would be his actual compensation and therefore would have a more favorable profit margin of 44%. This still does not relieve the cost similarity between the Dept. Manager and the Rainmaker but it is a slight improvement over having all partners at one cost rate.  Of course this methodology does not meet the requirements of a closed compensation system (unless the firm is primarily interested in the privacy of Sr. Partner compensation).

The next installment will focus on better ways to calculate partner cost in measuring client profitability.

Related posts

• Partner Cost And Client Profitability, (Part IV)
• Partner Cost And Client Profitability, (Part III)
• Partner Cost and Client Profitability (Part VI)
• Partner Cost and Client Profitability (Part V)
• Client Profitability: What Is The Cost Of Partner Time?

ALM Research recently released the 2008 Law Firm Business Development Practices Survey, which targets two "tiers" of law firms:  those listed in the AmLaw 200, The Global 100, and the NLJ 250 (Tier 1) and those not listed (Tier 2).   Though the survey is mostly focused on large firms, the average number of attorneys for Tier 2 firms was 85, within the higher range of the mid-market. 

Business development is difficult to assess in mid-size firms simply because many don't track it.  However, firms do see the importance.  In the 2007 Law Firm Economic Survey by LexisNexis, 25% of respondents claimed business development was the best strategy to improving profitability, second only to increasing rates.  Likewise business development is one of the 5 highest rated factors for financial growth in the ALM survey.  The extent to which these activities are tracked and measured will determine the extent to which firms can gauge the effectiveness of their methods.

Some other key findings:

• More firms are dedicating resources to business development that are separated from a marketing role;
• Budgets for business development have increased over the past year;
• Around 50% of respondents employ client interviews and surveys (the highest rated business development activity among respondents);
• Just under 50% employ "client service teams" focused on clients who generate the most revenue;
• Over 50% receive some sort of sales training;
• Nearly a third of Tier 2 firms reported that they were "not sure" if revenues increased, decreased or remained flat in the past year.

The last finding listed is surprising.  If your firm is not tracking revenues, there is no way of knowing whether your firm is in trouble financially or not.  Further, you can't accurately forecast if you don't benchmark.   The importance of measuring performance can't be emphasized enough. 

The above is just part of the findings of the survey.  To purchase the survey, visit the ALM Research site by clicking here.

Related posts

• The Case Against Income Partners
• Reflections on the 2007 ALM Billing Rates & Practices Survey
• For Long Term Increases To Income, Partners Must Delegate Work
• The End of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles?
• Managing Partner Forum Attendees: Business Development Most Effective Way To Improve Profitability