Plan and SKU rationalization model

Every plan and elevation in the catalogue tested against what it costs to keep alive, what withdrawing it releases, and the gross profit that walks with it. Cut where the buyer will substitute, not where the drawing is expensive.

$2.4M

Reference-scale value

Data sets in the model

6 weeks

Build and deploy

Derived

Evidence grade

The decision this model makes

Plans get added because a sales meeting asked for one. They almost never get removed, because removing one requires somebody to name which, and nobody can price what naming it costs.

Thirty-eight plans and three elevations each is 114 combinations, carrying $2.47M a year in drawing and permit maintenance whether they sell or not.

The instinct is to cut the expensive drawings. That instinct is wrong, and the model exists mostly to prove it. Pull a combination and its buyers do not disappear — most take a different front on the same plan, which is why elevation substitution runs at 95%.

Asking someone to change floor plan is a harder ask, so whole-plan substitution runs lower. That gap between the two rates decides both scenarios, and it comes out of your own buyer history rather than out of an assumption.

Cause 01

Carry per combination

$32,000 a plan and $11,000 an elevation, paid every year whether the combination sells eighty homes or four.

Cause 02

Substitution

Pull a combination and the buyers do not disappear. Elevation substitution runs at 95%, whole-plan at 85%. That gap decides both scenarios.

Cause 03

Gross profit at risk

The share of buyers who do not substitute and leave. It is what turns a $390K carry release into a negative number.

Cause 04

Purchasing consolidation

SKU depth joined to tender volume. Not a catalogue saving at all, and it is where the case actually lives.

Want more detail?

The rest of this model — the data sets it runs on, the cause split, the working behind the reference figure and a sample output — goes out by email. Two fields, nothing else.