Jun 6, 2013 | Branding, Demand chains, Innovation, Marketing, Small business
Coles limited engagement in an “anti factory farming” campaign is indicative of the strategic and marketing tightrope the food industry in this country is walking.
On the one hand we have an effective duopoly of FMCG retailing exercising their power to increase their returns to shareholders, and service their customers by both maximising margin and minimising costs. A core part of this strategy is to absorb the proprietary brand margin by aggressively allocating shelf space to housebrand products that are just globally sourced copies of the proprietary Australian products.
On the other hand we have an Australian dollar that has effectively given a 50% price subsidy to the international competitors to the Australian supply chain, at a time when all other domestically sourced input and overhead costs from labour, power, various rates and taxes, freight, and risk costs have all increased substantially. Double whammy!
An added complication is often that the (usually young) buyers in the retailers take the “fast moving” part of the FMCG literally, and fail to recognise the time and investment often required to reflect even a minor change in their product specifications through the supply chain. The consumer end may be fast moving, but when it takes 7 years to mature a fruit tree, and many generations of animals to reflect spec change in the end product, it can be anything but fast moving.
Now Coles have, quite legitimately, moved to build a sort of “animal provenance” into their produce supply chains, as a competitive positioning strategy against Woolworths, increasing the costs of their suppliers, as well as requiring added investment by suppliers for which they need a reasonable chance of a competitive return. This is at the same time they have reduced consumer prices substantially (consumers have been very grateful) in some markets like milk. Whilst Coles, and Woolworths who followed them, may have sacrificed a bit of margin, the supply chain has borne the brunt of it, despite some spin to the contrary.
The small guy has little chance of succeeding against these odds unless he is very smart, and does not have all his eggs in the chain basket, as just competing on the grounds dictated by the chains is a no-win choice.
There are however, strategies that can be deployed to succeed, but they require a re-engineering of the supply chain into a new beast, a Demand Chain that is driven by consumer demand, not supply, and is managed through a chain “community” where information is shared, and is agnostic in some way of the power of the big chains.
Having been a bit gloomy so far, it is however encouraging that the big two retailers are now differentiating themselves competitively, as consumer niches that can be accessed by agile and innovative suppliers. will evolve.
PS. Just after posting, it was announced that Simplot had put its Bathurst and Devenport plants into a wind-down for closure, and McCains had cancelled potato contracts with three big growers. if we needed more evidence of the parlous state of food processing, it just arrived.
Jun 5, 2013 | Innovation, Leadership, Management, Strategy
I was struck by a line in a terrific blog post by Ian Leslie I read that said ” Google can answer almost anything you ask it, but it cannot tell you what to ask”
It is totally counter-intuitive to consider that the power of the web is now narrowing our horizons, and that by succumbing to the lure of the algorithm, we are dismissing the beauty of serendipity, that unexpected discovery, the thing we would never have seen were it not for “right time, right place”. It does not seem to matter if it is a scientific discovery, Fleming recognising that the growth on his slide was killing all the bacteria around it, or just finding a book in a bookstore that is “right” somehow, these thing s cannot happen on Amazon, or in isolation.
The question then becomes how do you create serendipity?
You need to be messy, cross- functional, collaborative, iterative, and work with an open mind, as well as applying discipline to the scientific method of process improvement, practicing what I call Loose-tight , or ambidextrous management.
This ambidexterity is not easy. It takes leadership, an enabling culture, and a deft hand, but the results speak for themselves. Combining the ability to mine the accumulated knowledge of all of us, with the creativity inherent in human nature when it is open-minded and free to make non linear connections will eventually lead you to ask the right questions, and reveal what you do not know.
Once you see the question, serendipity has a chance.
May 10, 2013 | Innovation, Small business
Yesterday, watching a bee that had snuck in my office window trying to get out, I was reminded of a simple fact that to my mind is a great metaphor.
Put a few bees in a bottle, and point the bottom towards a light source, and the bees will all belt themselves against the bottle bottom, never finding the open end. Flies by contrast buzz around at random, and eventually will, by luck, find their way out the open end.
Running a portfolio of R&D projects is a bit like having a lineup of bottles full of bees.
For some bottles you need to have light very focussed at one point, in order to concentrate the effort at that point, others you need a wider light source to enable a wider scope of activity, and others, you need light all around, with one small exit, so that eventually the disciplined bees will find the opening, and escape.
If all you have in the bottles are flies, exercising discipline is a pointless exercise, as flies just buzz at random irrespective of external motivation. You need bees, and multiple potential light sources.
Getting the right mix of disciplined process and the connection of the apparently random dots that make the “wow” moment is the core task of those running a portfolio of projects.
May 1, 2013 | Communication, Innovation, Social Media
20 years ago yesterday, April 30 1993, CERN, the European Organisation for Nuclear research, the developer of what has become the W.W.W. announced that they would open it up, making it free to all by posting the codes on what became the worlds first website.
A computer based communication system had existed since 1985, when the first “domain” name had been registered, but it was the private property of individual universities and research organisations.
To my mind, this single action by CERN management in 1993 was the catalyst for the revolution we have undergone in the last 20 years, and which is still continuing, and this revolution (I am looking for a stronger word than just “revolution”) is at least as significant as the realisation that steam could be used to drive machines, and you could set up a system to mass produce the printed word.
In a number of TED talks over the years, there has been some extraordinary contributions to our understanding of the impact this decision has had.
Clay Shirky has mused about the brainpower released, the cogitative surplus, by the web, Kevin Kelly makes observations and predictions about the development of the web, and Ray Kurzweil wonders at the continuously accelerating pace of innovation that is occurring. All have made the point that the world has changed.
Tim Berners-Lee, now Sir Tim, was the man. He wrote the protocols that underpin the web HTML, et al, while working as a software engineer at CERN. The project was a part time indulgence, a side project, but then it went public.
To my mind, this is almost equivalent to the Big Bang, the day the world started, anew.
Apr 24, 2013 | Collaboration, Innovation, Operations
At a simple level, cognitive productivity is just using the brainpower at your disposal to deliver the optimum outcome, weather that brainpower be resident between your ears, or between the collective ears of many in a group.
However, it is also much deeper than that. The notion of cognitive overhead how much effort there is in understanding something comes from this post by David Demaree, a software engineer in Chicago, which was prompted by the early iterations of Google+. Cognitive Overhead — “how many logical connections or jumps your brain has to make in order to understand or contextualize the thing you’re looking at.”
As conceived, it applied to software engineering, and the resulting products, but it seems to me it has much wider application. All those remotes that run our “entertainment centers” are testament to that, what happened to the simple old TV remote, one device, did everything without a science degree?.
Clay Shirky talks about the notion of cognitive surplus. This idea proposes that people are motivated by the opportunity to create and share, no longer just by the command and control ideas of the hierarchical employer where money and power emanating from a position description are what counts. The real power in the new economy comes from individuals, and the power vested in them to create by the digital revolution. Even if that creation is just another silly cat picture posted on Instagram, it is nevertheless a creative action taken by someone who could not have done it just a few years ago
If you put the two notions of cognitive overhead and surplus together, you have a recipe for cognitive productivity. Leveraging the cognitive surplus in a manner that minimises cognitive overhead, to deliver greater and greater value to society.
That my friends, is the future!
Mar 28, 2013 | Governance, Innovation, Leadership, Operations, Small business
Manufacturing is not just an amalgam of industries, far more importantly, it is a capability, a way to capture imagination in a physical form.
In discussions about manufacturing, its slow demise in Australia, the level and type of support it should receive, its importance to long term prosperity, and the links between manufacturing and innovation, we leave one really important factor aside, one I suspect it is just not generally recognised. We define “industry” with the assumptions and words that came with the explosion of manufacturing in the last 100 years, the “food” industry, the “Auto” industry, the “Airline” industry, and so on. We do not seem to recognise that the capabilities are “cross industry” that the definitions we use no longer hold, if they ever did , beyond adding a bit of convenience to the language.
The lines are blurring further, rapidly and irrevocably.
Is Apple an electronics designer and manufacturer (Mac computers), a service provider (itunes) , or a product marketer (ipad)? My answer: They are all, and none of the above. Rather, Apple is a marketer that delivers its value proposition via a range of operational and sales channels that have nothing to do with the generally accepted definitions of industries. Certainly Apple has been able to leverage their collective imagination better than any other enterprise I can think of.
The next step is a truly scary one for many, the advent of 3-D printing.
Within a very short time, 3-D printers will be as available and cheap as desktop computers, all you need is a digital design file and a printer. We will be able to produce everything from simple household items to highly specified parts for our cars, produced in our kitchen.
The marvelous wind powered devices of designer Theo Jansen have been printed in miniature, and work just like the full sized ones, and dramatically make the point. If you can imagine it, you can now print it!
Manufacturing is about to go through a change as profound as that brought on by the steam engine.
20th century notions and boundaries to “manufacturing” are as outdated as a bow and arrow in a gunfight, so we must change the language and intellectual boundaries of the conversation if we are ever to make any sense of the dynamics at play.
