When costs rise, your first reaction is to cut expenses—but do you really know whether you're cutting costs in the "bones" or just the "fat"?/成本漲了，你第一反應是砍——但你知道砍的是骨頭還是脂肪嗎？

Two numbers from the ACCIM report that make your heart uncomfortable: 51.2% of businesses hit by raw material price increases, 48.2% by high operating costs.

Over half the bosses are shouting "costs too high."

But Wen Laoshi asks: you say costs are high—can you tell which parts are "fat to cut" and which are "bone you can't touch"?

I once saw a factory owner. Raw materials up 15%, his reaction—cut everything across the board. Marketing, training, supplier relationship maintenance. Six months later, revenue dropped 20%.

He didn't cut fat. He cut bone. Why? The supplier maintenance budget he cut cost him priority supply rights for two key materials. When prices fluctuated again, others had stock—he didn't. The training budget he cut led to two skilled workers leaving; replacements had only 60% qualification rate.

Cutting the wrong costs is more expensive than not cutting at all.

A basic principle in decision methodology: classify first, then act. Any action before understanding the problem structure is gambling.

Costs contain "dead water" and "living water." Dead water = spending that no longer produces returns—an ad channel from three years ago with zero conversion, or equipment leasing with under 20% utilization. Living water = spending still producing value—core employee salaries, key client maintenance, strategic raw material inventory.

Most bosses' problem under cost pressure isn't "not knowing to save money." It's cutting with one stroke. Dumping living and dead water together.

I worked with a food wholesale boss who wanted to eliminate his entire customer service team. I asked him to pull complaint resolution data first. Result: the team resolved 85% of complaints monthly, and resolved-complaint customers had 40% higher repurchase rates.

The CS team wasn't fat. It was bone. Cut it, save 20K monthly salary, lose over 100K in client value.

The biggest fear in business isn't wrong direction, it's wrong timing. Same for cost-cutting—biggest fear isn't being afraid to cut, it's cutting the wrong place.

Wen Laoshi's observation: the essence of cost decisions isn't "how much to cut" but "what to keep." You need a complete decision process—from framing the question to final decision—step by step with evidence.

Book a decision consultation—40 minutes to separate bone from fat.

—————————————————————————————————————————

ACCCIM 報告裡有兩組數字，放在一起看會讓人心臟不舒服：51.2% 的企業受原材料漲價衝擊，48.2% 運營成本高企。

超過一半的老闆在喊「成本太高了」。

但聞老師想問一個不太舒服的問題：你說成本高，你分得清楚哪些是「該砍的脂肪」，哪些是「不能砍的骨頭」嗎？

我見過一個開加工廠的老闆，原材料漲了 15%，他的反應是——全面砍預算。砍營銷、砍培訓、砍供應商關係維護。半年後營收跌了 20%。

他不是砍了脂肪。他砍的是骨頭。

為什麼？因為他砍掉的供應商關係維護費，讓他失去了兩個核心原料的優先供貨權。等到原材料價格再次波動，別人有貨他沒貨。他砍掉的培訓費，讓兩個熟練工離職了，新來的人合格率只有 60%。

成本砍錯了，比不砍還貴。

決策方法論裡有個基本原則：先分類，再動手。你沒有搞清楚問題結構之前的任何行動，都是在賭。

古人怎麼做這事？他們用一個很簡單的框架——陰陽。

不是玄學。陰陽的意思是：任何事物都有兩面，你得先分清哪面是「收」哪面是「放」。

成本裡有「死水」和「活水」。死水 = 已經不會產生回報的支出，比如一個三年前有效的廣告管道但現在轉化率為零，或者一筆每月固定支出但使用率不到 20% 的設備租賃。活水 = 還在產生價值的支出，比如核心員工的薪資、大客戶的維護費用、關鍵原材料的戰略庫存。

多數老闆在成本壓力下的問題不是「不知道要省錢」，而是一刀切。把活水和死水一起倒掉了。

我做過一個案例。一個做食品批發的老闆，成本壓力大到他想裁掉整個客服團隊。我讓他先做一件事：把過去半年的客戶投訴和客服解決率拉出來看。結果發現——客服團隊每月解決 85% 的投訴，而投訴解決後的客戶復購率比投訴未解決的高 40%。

客服團隊不是脂肪。是骨頭。

砍掉了，省下的月薪不到兩萬，但流失的客戶價值可能超過十萬。

做生意最怕的不是選錯方向，而是搞錯時間。同樣地，省錢最怕的不是不敢省，而是省錯了地方。該衝的時候你省了研發，該守的時候你省了客戶關係——一步踏錯，半年白幹。

聞老師的觀察是：成本決策的本質不是「砍多少」，是「留什麼」。先看清你手裡哪些是骨頭哪些是脂肪，動刀才不會傷到自己。你需要一套完整的決策流程——從提出問題、分析處境到最終拍板——步步有據，讓每一刀都砍在該砍的地方。

 預約一次決策諮詢——40 分鐘，幫你分清哪些成本是骨頭、哪些是脂肪。