Sep 30, 2011 | Change, Leadership, Management, Operations, Personal Rant, Small business
The news that Fosters will be sold to SA Miller Brewing represents almost the last Australian food and beverage business with a global brand has now disappeared. I say almost, as I can think of no other, but some may argue that a few sales in Fiji or NZ constitutes global. To my mind, it does not rate.
Why is it that we seem to be unable to build and sustain food businesses from this country?.
Australia is now a net importer of packaged food, according to the AFGC 2010 report, and yet we are an abundant producer, particularly of broadacre commodities, grain and meat. Most people when told we are a net importer go into a state of disbelief, and yet the march of imported food, and the decline of Australia’s manufacturing base has been happening slowly over a long period.
It’s pretty easy to blame the evolution of globalisation of supply chains, the domination of Woolworths and Coles, regulation imposing costs overseas competitors do not have, the geographic spread and relatively sparse population denying the economies of scale, but the reality is that it is a management failure. The failure is shared by boards and shareholders who have tolerated a complacent management, discouraged long term strategy in the chase for short term returns, and simply disengaged with the basic drivers of competitiveness over a long period.
The only hope left is that a few SME’s will emerge from the heavily culled pack that remains, but it seems to me that they have missed the boat, and the barriers that the businesses that existed 30 years ago, and should have breasted, are now simply too high for the small guys to tackle without the scale and capital resources necessary. Our one hope is that there is a processing breakthrough, technologies like the CSIRO High Pressure Processing technology offer some hope, but they are unlikely to be the savior by themselves.
Almost gone, down to the last gasp, what on earth will we do then? Or don’t we care?
Sep 29, 2011 | Collaboration, Leadership, Strategy
Complexity is strangling us, paralysis by analysis has become pretty widespread, and the paradox is that we are all trying to do more with less.
In that context, creating an environment where everyone can contribute to the maximum of their capability seems like a pretty good idea.
To achieve that level of engagement irrespective of the size and complexity of an organisation, all it takes is one simple question”
“What do you think?”
The catch is that the hard part starts after the question, when the cultural environment needs to have evolved sufficiently to encourage people to tell it as they really see it, and then feel they have the power and authority to implement.
Sep 28, 2011 | Lean, Management
Years ago as a senior manager in a large organisation, part of the monthly routine was to write an APP report: Achievements, Problems, Plans, kept to an A4 page, used as a scene setter for the more detailed monthly report.
At the time it was a pain in the posterior, generally done at the last minute, with the objective of getting it done, rather than communicating the context of the rest of the report.
In short, a squandered opportunity.
How much better it would have been to use the APP as a summary of the context and detail of the functional responsibility I carried, something that had performance measures built in, and that was useful. In time it may have evolved into an A3 type report that I have more recently been using as the core tool of project planning, but the attitude that it was just a pain eliminated the opportunity to be creative and constructive with it.
How many good ideas are being squandered in your environment?
Sep 27, 2011 | Change, Marketing, Personal Rant
Am I the only one, or are others getting as sick as I am of the shallow, cliché ridden utterances of both sides of this “debate”?
The government is pushing their carbon tax, which will become law on July 1 next year, making the fundamental mistake of calling it a “Tax”, thereby ensuring they have a marketing problem, while the Opposition is opposing, anything, everything, while quietly using a nonsense 5% reduction in emissions to be derived from “Direct Action” whatever that is.
Irrespective of the position you choose to take on the question of what we should do about global warming, if anything, it would be nice to have some facts as a basis for the debate.
It is pretty clear that the planet is warming, the facts show that over the last years, whether you want that definition to cover 20, 50, or a 100 years, the globe is warming.
Now we have a fact to use as the basis of the debate, lets be a bit sensible about how much emotionalism we employ to push any particular barrow, and straying from the facts should be greeted with howls of outrage by the taxpayers who will ultimately bear the costs of the implementation.
Oh, and this condemnation of the quality of the political debate, not just in this country, but in many countries is much wider than the question of climate change, just look at how effectively our elected leaders are grappling with the economic meltdown of the US and Europe. As Charles De Gaulle is reported to have said, ” I have come to the conclusion that politics are too serious a matter to be left to the politicians”.
Sep 25, 2011 | Collaboration, Strategy
Thinking about they way organisations work, the “industrial” model of hierarchical functional management, expertise and knowledge hoarded, and little transparency of effort and outcomes is way past its use buy date.
We are social animals, who evolved in a village, usually not more than 150 people, where all the individuals made their contributions by way of what they were best at, and the group benefitted.
The age of the net 2.0 is bringing back the notion of the collaborative potential of the village as distinct from the hierarchical structure of the corporation.
This is a different way of organising ourselves. We need to be more adaptive and collaborative, the outcome of the whole system is the objective, not just the benefit that may accrue to an individual.
