We Germans love thoroughness. In hardly any other country are things calculated, checked, and documented as meticulously – especially when it comes to costs. Yet it is precisely there that a familiar pattern emerges: you start ambitiously, invest time and expertise, create complex calculations – and then put them in a drawer.
The phenomenon has a name: Should Costing. Originally intended as a strategic instrument for cost management, in many companies it remains a static project, a one-off effort with no follow-up. The result: after a few months, the effort is forgotten, the data is outdated, and the insights have evaporated. And the most important question remains unanswered: How can you keep Should Costs alive – current, relevant, and effective?
The misconception of the one-off task
Many organisations treat Should Costing like a special assignment: a project with a start, a goal, and a final report. But cost structures are not a snapshot. They change daily – with raw material prices, supply chains, exchange rates, and production locations.
What is a precise calculation today can be a distorted reflection tomorrow. Paradoxically, the effort required to create such analyses then leads to them remaining unused. Too tedious, too expensive, too rarely updated. The result is stagnation in the “COMPLETED PROJECTS” directory.
Yet the actual value of Should Costing lies not in the calculation itself, but in its reuse. Cost transparency only unfolds its impact when it is regularly renewed.
From model to management tool
The solution is not to make Should Costing even more detailed or complex. It is to make it more dynamic. What is needed is the step from project to process – from a static model to a living system.
Dynamic Should Costing is the name of this approach: a system that updates itself, fed by market intelligence, indices, and supplier data. A system that doesn’t gather dust in the archive but moves with reality.
The principle is simple but effective:
- Build: A solid foundation – cost structure, data model, roles, processes.
- Monitor: Continuous observation of market and material trends.
- Refresh: Regular, automated data updates.
- Apply: Active use as a basis for decision-making in procurement, engineering, and management.
In this way, Should Costing does not become a finished set of figures, but a cycle – a learning instrument that beats to the rhythm of the market.
The human factor: behaviour instead of computing power
Technically, this is all feasible. The real challenge, as so often, lies in behaviour. The hurdle is not a lack of data, but a lack of movement. Many companies remain stuck in the logic: “We’ll do it right once – and then it’ll be fine.”
But markets are dynamic. Aluminium prices, energy, wages – they change weekly. Anyone who only analyses cost structures once will soon be working with historical material.
Current cost truth arises from mindset, not software. It arises when teams are willing to treat data as a living asset – not as an archived report. When procurement and engineering take joint responsibility for keeping things up to date. When you accept that perfection is not a state, but a process.
Scaling through simplicity
The path to sustainable cost transparency does not begin with large platform projects, but with small routines: regular data refreshes instead of full analyses. Automated market feeds instead of manual updates. Dashboards instead of PDF folders.
Together with our partner Valuemize, raw material indices, benchmarks, and supplier insights can be integrated automatically – ensuring calculations stay current without the need for new analyses every week.
The goal is relief, not overload: Should Costing thus becomes a compass for decision-makers, not a burden for specialist departments.
Why all this?
Because outdated cost models are dangerous. They simulate stability where something has long since shifted. And they weaken the negotiating position against suppliers who have long since adjusted their prices.
On the other hand, those who work with dynamic, data-driven models negotiate based on facts. They recognise trends before they become a cost wave. They can differentiate between price and cost – and see where margin, material, and manufacturing really stand.
This is the real strength of Should Costing: not control, but insight.
From Excel project to company routine
Many ask: do you need special tools for this? The answer is: no – but you need consistency.
Costineers works tool-agnostically: whether in Excel, Siemens TcPCM, Tset, or Facton – the tool is not what matters, but the mindset. Cost methodology is not a software issue, but a leadership tool. The crucial thing is that the results are understandable, useful, and accessible – for everyone who works with them.
Because only what is understood and used changes behaviour.
What remains
Should Costing is not a calculation exercise, but a cultural issue. Those who know their costs shape their market. Those who only calculate them once lose touch.
Dynamic Should Costing is therefore more than a method – it is a mindset: current instead of static, applicable instead of archived, effective instead of perfect.
And that is exactly the core of cost competence in the 21st century: it is not the most beautiful calculation that wins, but the most living one.
Conclusion: In a world of dynamic markets, living cost models are needed. Companies that understand their Should Costs as a learning system make better decisions, negotiate on an equal footing, and use resources more efficiently.
The path there is not a major project, but a habit – maintained through regularity, supported by mindset, and backed by data.
Or put more simply: From calculation to tool. This is how Should Costing becomes what it should be – a real value driver.
