Feb 18, 2013 | Collaboration, Governance, Leadership, Personal Rant
It is wonderful to consider the impact the Prime Ministers “A Plan for Australian Jobs” announcement over the weekend has had, already, on Australian jobs.
-
- Multitudes of grateful bureaucrats have laboured mightily for months and months, crafting and re-crafting the words of the announcement to ensure it does not say anything that may attract any critical comment, and includes every existing program and hopeful announcement at least twice,
- Favoured consultants are rejoicing at the fees to date, and to come,
- Advertising and PR agencies wriggle to the bar to celebrate the coup of gaining “the account”,
- Engaged lawyers, consultants, bureaucrats, researchers, and grant trough dwellers, rejoice at the billion dollar bait now on the table.
But what about the rest of us, those who struggle to compete in the real world?
Lots of well meaning, multi-syllable words that ensure there is no accountability for anything, just continuous blather, platitudes and clichés. Oh, and the plan tells us they will spend a $billion of our money. It is after all, “our responsibility to assist in the structural adjustment process in the economy”. We, as obedient and loyal servants, should be grateful the Government has finally realised the parlous state of manufacturing in this country, and are doing something about it.
I read the plan, twice in fact because I thought I must have missed the important and insightful bit the first time through. You can save yourself a bit of time and read the summary, that is useful, but please consider the following whilst you do:
-
- Minister Combet says in his introduction that the plan is “Supporting Australian industry to increase exports and win more business abroad”. Call me pedantic, but I thought increasing exports and winning more business abroad were the same thing, and besides, what has Austrade been doing for the last 40 years?. Having run a real business on contract for a Federal department, set up with the express aim of increasing agricultural exports with a budget of 6 million over 3 years, which attracted the ire of the “You cannot subsidise exports” Nazi’s in Canberra, I can only wonder what a billion is doing for their collective blood pressure.
- There is a fair bit of verbiage about “fostering clusters” in the report. There is no doubt that clusters can become innovation hotbeds. Everyone with a pig in the race points to the tech miracle of Silicon Valley, and the medical cluster centered on Boston, amongst a few others, but forgets that they took decades to evolve, (a bit longer than the average election cycle in the first world) and the evolution of successful clusters has had nothing to do with public investment beyond the provision of high quality public infrastructure, schools, universities, transport, and power. Every investment (to my knowledge)by a Government in an overt effort to build a “cluster” around the world has failed, or is failing in the absence of a long term investment in infrastructure.
- Oh the joy of a good acronym! The plan is full of them, some new, some recycled, but the gold standard is a beauty: G.O.L.D. standing for “Growth Opportunities and Leadership Development”. Wonderful isn’t it, must have come from an orgasmic Eureka moment for someone. Clearly, I am just being petty.
- A headline objective of this plan is “Creating a stronger, fairer, and simpler tax and transfer system and reducing red tape” Great sentiment, but all through the plan is articulated the need for more legislation, regulation, and creation of various advisory and oversight bodies. When I was at school, these sorts of additions would consume added resources, add complication, and create demarcation squabbles amongst agencies. Not a lot of “simpler, fairer” in this lot that I can see.
- This is the last whinge, perhaps the best, so congratulations if you have got this far. There is a graph 5.1 on page 23 of the report that shows collaboration across a number of economies, which is presumably there to demonstrate the value of collaboration, which the government wants to (correctly in my view) foster. The figures show Australia at about 18% (of what is not really clear to me) next door to Germany, held up as a poster child of manufacturing excellence, at 19%, and China, at 19.5%. The field is lead by a Black Caviar like stretch by Britain at 69%, but the last time I looked, the British economy was a basket case. Perhaps the graph is a mistake, showing the opposite of the Governments argument, or perhaps the situation has changed because the data is so bloody old, or perhaps my simple old brain has been scrambled by the clichés and acronyms.
Australian manufacturing is in a hole, and rule 1 of my rules of holes says that “once you realise you are in a hole, stop digging”. There is little in this plan that actually throws away the shovel, it just burnishes it for more use. The real challenge is the endless duplication, commercial naivety, turf wars, lack of gumption, and the assumption that all problems can be legislated away that infests our elected bodies and their bureaucrats that is the greatest hurdle Australian manufacturing has to jump.
Header cartoon courtesy TomGauld.com
Feb 13, 2013 | Governance, Management, Operations, Small business
Ever put off a difficult decision? asked for more information that you know will not change the outcome? shuffled the responsibility elsewhere?
Most of us have, at one time or another, but we generally tell ourselves that we delayed the decision, sought a greater level of certainty, or something else when deep down we know that we have decided not to decide, or at least, used an artifice to enable us to not to act on the decision.
If all you have done is to kick the “pain-point” down the road a bit, you also generally realise that the pain when it comes will be worse for the waiting. In putting off the pain point, you have actually made a decision, one that will often come back and bite you.
I was reminded of this reality recently when the owner of a small business I work with failed to take a hard decision in relation to one of his employees. The inevitable conclusion to that employees departure was repeatedly put off because it is a small business in a regional centre, and sacking someone is hard, it becomes everyone’s business. It has become clear that the employee concerned realised the position, and rather than behave honorably, has committed the company to expenditure that is unnecessary, wasteful, and possibly terminal.
The price for deciding not to decide can be very high indeed.
Feb 11, 2013 | Change, Governance, Leadership, Strategy
How often do we hear that we learn more from our failures than our successes, that if we do not fail sometimes, we have not done enough, and that an innovative, exciting culture embraces failure? Thomas Watson Senior, creator of IBM once said “the fastest way to succeed is to double your failure rate.”
So how is it that we rarely see failure really celebrated if it is so productive? Such celebration is very rare in my experience.
An Canadian NGO, Engineers Without Borders has broken the mould, and published their “Failure Report” and attracted considerable attention, this article in the Guardian outlines the background.
How brave is that?
NGO’s depend for their funding from groups that you would expect to be pretty risk averse, they would hate to see their donations seemingly wasted, and admitting failure is on the surface at least, admitting to waste and potentially putting their funding at risk.
I wonder what would happen if Australia’s public companies were publish their own failure reports?
Rio Tinto’s foray into Aluminum , Harvey Norman missing the on line shopping revolution, Woolworths finally admitting Dick Smith had turned feral, James Hardie and asbestosis, Eddie and the Labor party, the list goes on. We get outside analysis, sometimes the entrails of failure are exhumed by legal processes, but never do we get the honest, gut-felt, reactions of those involved in the decision making examining their behavior, and taking responsibility for the failures. All we hear is the spin of the successes, and the message that the protagonists are all seeing, all knowing, who only act in the interests of others. Ducking of responsibility has become a management core capability, “I cannot recall” the last refuge of the villain.
How much better if we did as we say we should do, and celebrated failure as a part of the learning process, and that intelligent analysis of the reasons for failure, and the resetting expectations makes for a healthy culture.
Feb 5, 2013 | Governance, Management, Marketing
This is definitely not referring to the pallet of old brochures gathering dust in the warehouse, although most businesses still seem to accumulate them.
I am referring to the sales leads, data bases, prospects, active conversations, existing customers and relationships, that together constitute the marketing inventory. When you think about these things as “Inventory”, an asset, you instinctively consider the means by which you generate a return, as that is what you do with assets.
The similarity of marketing inventory to physical inventory is that you can use the same sorts of measures for marketing inventory that you use for physical inventory, pretty much broken into the sorts of categories that Lean inventory management would require:
- “Flow” and Balance through the system of leads, prospects, active prospect, execute the sale, they are essentially “how many” questions.
- Conversion rates from one part of the system to another. Conversion trends are valuable pointers to both tactical success and emerging problems.
- Velocity through the system. As in physical inventory, the quicker the better, whilst maintaining flow and balance.
Considering the sales and marketing effort in this way encourages a sensible demarcation between the functions, and generally removes the argy-bargy that often happens. Importantly, it focuses attention on the cost and return analyses that enables resources to be used where they generate the best return. Having your expensive sales force out doing cold calls with a 1% hit rate now makes no sense, as the process has been completely disrupted by technology.
Jan 26, 2013 | Governance
Today is Australia Day, January 26, 2013.
As I watch what is going on around me, I see a lot of frenetic stuff, the hype at the cricket, crowds of people carrying “Australia” bags, hats and eskies, Pollies offering platitudes for a sound-bite, and many group BBQ’s at the local park.
All good stuff, but should there be more?
The Australia now is a vastly changed place to just a generation ago, and my grandfather, a digger who spent a vacation in France in 1917 simply would not recognise it, although he bled for it. We are a polyglot nation, remarkably able to absorb and celebrate difference, now removed from our European roots and finding a way in Asia, wealthy in many ways, but twitchy and suspicious of those we do not know, and authority, and nervous about the future.
We are like a kid who realises he is now alone in the world, and has to stand up for himself, but is not too sure how to do it.
So what will we look like in another generation, by 2050?
I suspect the things that seem to occupy our minds now will mostly be seen as trivial excursions by then, and we will be paying a high price for ignoring the things that are important but not urgent, at least in the minds of those supposed to think about these things for longer than an election cycle. The education of our kids, and their kids, real education, to think, question, and be prepared to defend a conclusion, our research capability, both public and private, and the capacity to commercialise that knowledge, the selling off of our national estate, and the determination to dig up everything, flog it at commodity prices, and import the manufactured product as our own manufacturing capability withers on the vine.
As Australian day 2013 closes with another display of fireworks and platitudes, we Austalians should stop and think, project ourselves forward 50 years, and ask, “what do we want the place to look like?’. Then, for a change, lets demand that those visions become part of the public debate, not sidelined by today’s celebrity nonsense.
Jan 25, 2013 | Governance, Management
If I hear the sporting team metaphor once more this week, I think I will spew, although I have often used it myself over the years.
I’ve been contributing to a sales conference this week, listening to some intelligent, well thought out stuff from some surprising corners of the business, some crap from a few who should know better, and endless sporting analogies.
Lets examine the sport team metaphor realistically, looking for the shortcomings that are rarely mentioned:
• Sporting teams have a set number of players, and your ability to maintain a “bench” is limited. In contact sports, there is usually a few all-rounders who can be used as substitutes, but in most, what you start with is all you have. What would happen in a business if you could not adjust capabilities and numbers on the fly to respond to unforeseen circumstances?
• Sporting teams conduct the contest within a well known and understood set of rules by which each side complies. Try telling your competition to play be a set of rules agreed beforehand.
• A sporting contest takes place at a set time, in a set place, and has a set duration, and if you do not turn up, you lose. Fundamental to the commercial contest is the “faking” of the opposition to get them to expend resources doing something that can deliver them no benefit, and if you can do that and not even have to turn up, so much the better.
• Sporting teams know who their opponent will be next week, and the week after, have a pretty good idea of their capabilities, so therefore can train specifically to address the challenges as they arise in a predictable manner. Not so in commercial life, and just because you beat a competitor last week, does not mean they will not come back at you in an unexpected way tomorrow, not even waiting for Saturday! Sneaks.
The list goes on, but the point is that metaphors are great, they illustrate a point, but they do not provide a template, just a lesson.
