Jul 3, 2012 | Change, Innovation
Fast Company’s 50 most innovative companies of 2012, a pretty impressive list, but most are tech companies in one way or another, which I guess reflects the domain of Fast Company magazine.
However, I think the omission by implication of a broarder definition of “Innovation” does a disservice by making light of business model or process innovation, both of which add enormous value. Google may have started as a disruptive technology, but the reality is that it succeeded because it was a disruptive business model, as was Facebook, Alfred Sloans divisionalisation of GM in the 30’s to customer based categories, after Ford totally disrupted the horse and buggy industry, the list can go on.
Then there is this WSJ article that addresses the “what is innovation” question, and presents a view hard to argue with, but is still a narrow view.
We can present stories about disruptions that changed existing industries, or about the many ways in which the network effect, and collaboration that creates the environment for innovation, and all would by themselves be right, but wide of a basic grasp of the nature of innovation.
My view is that innovation is a process that adds value where none existed before, anything that adds real, new value to a market or opens a new market, can carry the tag “innovation”.
Jul 1, 2012 | Management, Personal Rant
If Australia was a company, it would be a case study for the need for a coherent strategy as the basis for commercial sustainability. As it is, the place is a shambles, the Directors are held in contempt, clearly they are not listening to management, and have no ideas themselves beyond short term self preservation, and are simply wasting the proceeds of our collective good fortune.
Lets consider some of the characteristics of an enterprise that is successfully meeting the needs of its stakeholders, while building the foundations of long term prosperity.
- The board has articulated a clear, simple purpose for the business to exist, and a strategy that is well understood throughout the business, and by outside stakeholders. Where individuals, or groups have a divergent view, they see that there has been a transparent “due process” undertaken, so they do not feel, as if their voice is irrelevant, or unheard. Contrast that to Australia’s current “board” in Canberra. There is no coherent articulation of the values we hold dear, but when it suits, hypocrisy and expediency with the truth are paraded out as virtues.
- In a corporation, available resources are allocated across a portfolio of needs, from overheads necessary to keep the place running to projects that will build the foundations for continuing prosperity, and those that are needed to address more short term challenges. Contrast that to the poll driven expediency of our current board, and total lack of any management skill, project or otherwise.
- In a corporation, once priorities have been agreed, resultant activities are driven by the desire for simplicity and consistency in the manner in which the contributions to the outcomes are measured and equated. Consider the inconsistency of the introduction today of the carbon tax. The objective is to, supposedly, make a start to a carbon neutral future, give a fillip to carbon reduction technology, and so on, but at the same time subsidies are being given to the Aluminum smelter in Geelong to keep 600 jobs, while the smelter continues to take 15% of the electricity consumed in Victoria, generated from brown coal. Inconsistent??? If the logic holds, Fairfax and News Corp should be in line for massive assistance. After all, they are semi redundant industries laying off 2,000 workers, so they must warrant assistance, right? Hell might freeze over.
- In a corporation we would get the best people we could to head the functional responsibilities, and they would faced the discipline of the bottom line, and delivery of objectives. Here we get, with a few notable exceptions on both sides, political hacks, deal-doers, and “operators” who have served their time in parties whose membership is small enough to fit in a phone box, and who will do and say anything with impunity, if their skin is thick enough. As a result, Australians have lost faith in their integrity, and ability to deliver anything of value.
- Oh, and by the way, we can put directors who lie to shareholders in gaol, although they usually just get a whopping fine, and are banned from being a director again. This is not just a shot at the current prime Ministers whopper about carbon imposition of a tax, but at the whole body politic who seem to be impervious to the truth, use data in highly selective and misleading ways, and squirm at any notion of transparency and accountability. The same lot however, will legislate to outlaw their behavior when others copy them. Is it any wonder that we have lost all respect for them
Jun 29, 2012 | Communication, Social Media
During times of stress, when there is too much to do and too little time to do it, we find ways to sort the tasks into categories to better manage our time.
In medical terms, Triage. Treat now, can wait till later, no hope so time is better spent elsewhere.
Running through my favorites list, and the email subscriptions I take, I realised I had done a similar thing with my social media options.
Some email subscriptions get opened every time, others sometimes depending on the headline
Some in the favorites list get looked at weekly, others once in a while, others I had not looked at for ages, so they just got deleted.
There is a hierarchy at work here based on my experience with these sites and my evolving interests, and weather we know it or not, we all do it.
The task therefore for the blogger, is to be on the first tier of the social media triage with as many readers as possible, and to do that, we need to be engaging to a pretty specific group of readers. Those that fall into the second and third groups are far less relevant.
This is not a numbers game, it is a relevance game.
Jun 28, 2012 | Branding, Marketing, Social Media
How many times have you heard from marketers “my job is to create the brands”, (often followed by the “yours is to sell it” when they happen to be talking to sales people)
Many marketers use it as the rationale for their existence. Pity it is nonsense.
Customer experience with a product creates a brand, not any amount of advertising, promotion, engaging games, and all the rest. At best, marketing creates the environment in which a customer will try, come back to, or stick with a product, but ultimately, it is the experience that creates the loyalty of an individual consumer, and that relationship multiplied many times, becomes the brand.
This simple insight has the potential to change the nature of your marketing significantly, and also enables some sensible measurement of the impact of marketing activity.
Jun 25, 2012 | Change, Leadership, Operations
Much has been written about the management of change, and it usually focuses on the challenges, acknowledging just how difficult change really is.
When you turn it around, and consider what happens in successful change programs, there is very little management, and a lot of selling.
Leaders lead from the front, demonstrating the behaviors necessary, whilst managers push from behind. Demonstration is the oldest, and still the best form of selling, so when those whose work place, and the processes they operate are subject to being changed seeing those with the decision making power demonstrating the altered behavior makes the change easier.
You do not manage change, you sell it.
You sell it to your employees, shareholders, customers, suppliers, and anyone else who will stand still long enough to listen, and most importantly, believe.
