May 31, 2010 | Leadership, Operations
The disastrous oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico will generate a welter of written material, both legal and managerial as the causes, responsibilities and therefore liabilities get sorted out, and those responsible seek to put in place a set of rules that prevent a recurrence, classicly bolting the stable door after the horse is long gone .
From a managerial perspective, the finger-pointing has started, and appears to be very aggressive. Each of the three parties, BP, the well owner, Halliburton, the contract driller, and Transocean, the owner of the rig, are all busily pointing fingers at each other in an effort to cast the blame onto the others.
Also in the mix are the US regulatory authorities, the Federal Minerals and Management Service, that is charged with the responsibility to promote safety, revenue collection and exploration, a classic conflict of interest.
This fiasco has the potential to be as absorbing as the blame game after the Wall Street meltdown 18 months ago.
It seems to me that the lesson is that as systems become more and more complex, and are therefore more and more likely to break down somewhere, we as a society need a new way to articulate where the responsibilities lie, and what are the sanctions for breaching them. In order to achieve this we need a mechanism that has at its core a simple, unambiguous statement and understanding by all parties to a system that then drives behavior throughout the system in accordance with an overriding purpose for the system to exist.
In the current context, the probability is that the Chairman of BP America Lamar McKay may keep his job, but worst case, gets fired with a financial cushion, Tim Probert, Halliburtons responsible executive will continue to be able to peddle his nonsense, and there will be lots of “tut-tutting” in Washington about the role of the MMS, shareholders in the various companies will be stuck with the financial and litigation bill, whilst the state governments of Florida and neighboring states are stuck with the cleanup, and nobody will carry the can, and none of the root causes of the disaster will change, or perhaps they will change sufficiently at the margins to satisfy a few voters for a while.
Most reasonable people would consider this an unreasonable outcome.
May 31, 2010 | Innovation, Strategy
Providers of what eventually become seen as “Legacy” systems have the most to lose from a disruptive innovation, so they usually fight the hardest to maintain the status quo simply because they have so much to loose, and the collective vision in the business obscures the potential of the innovation to disrupt and destroy their existing franchise.
Kodak, invented digital photographic technology, but the margins in photo processing business were too attractive for them to disrupt themselves. Kodak simply failed to take the next step and go beyond film, and as a result is a shadow of its former self, its cash cow of film processing virtually gone.
Similarly, Polaroid “owned” instant photography, they had figured out how to apply emerging digital technology to photography, but the sunk cost of the existing business model was huge, they were a virtual monopoly, they underestimated the market drastically, so they sat on it, believing they had too much to loose by disrupting the ststus quo. Too bad!
Look at the frantic legal rear-guard action that has been a feature of the on-line music war, and the current woes of the newspaper industry, in both cases the losers have been the former incumbents, who had the game sewn up for years, and had the resources to remake their business model.
The only way to ensure longevity, is to be the one disrupting your own market.
May 27, 2010 | Innovation, Management
The formula for innovation success is different in each set of circumstances, but has some consistent themes: time, determination, patience, skill, top level support, collaboration, a combination of analytical and spatial skills, engaged participants, process discipline, and tolerance of failure.
The reasons not to innovate are far more creative, but have the common theme of finding an excuse not to stretch. The link is to a list of the 100 most common excuses, it is a bit of fun, but there would be few excuses lisited that we have not all heard at some time.
May 26, 2010 | Management, Marketing, Social Media
The brother of digital democracy is Analytical Insights. As more and more happens on the web, the opportunity to develop analytical techniques and resulting algorithms that are able to assist the prediction of behavior grows.
As every user of Amazon, and many others have noticed, the more you use it, the better it is at predicting, then offering you further purchases that focus on your interests. This is not a matter of “fries with that” or luck, it is a reflection of the deep analytical capacity to look at an individuals past behavior, and predict what they may like to do now.
Perhaps it is digital democracy’s big brother.
May 25, 2010 | Customers, Marketing, Social Media
A newish term to describe the capacity of consumers to respond, and to initiate change, and it is having a huge impact on the demands on the people running the marketing efforts of all organisations, and the breadth of their responsibility within those organisations.
Suddenly, because of the reach of the net, marketers are being asked to create startlingly different products in order to remain differentiated from the competition, whilst being socially and ecologically responsible, but still meeting the financial metrics that dominate organisations.
In most cases, this is a very big ask, marketers are usually as bound by the successes of the past as anyone else, consumers need to push them to new solutions by rejecting the old ones.
