Dec 18, 2015 | Collaboration, Governance, Leadership, Strategy
Peter Drucker said something like “innovation is the only truly sustainable competitive advantage”.
Having just re-read his 1985 musings on Innovation and Entrepreneurship, after 20 or so years, the degree of his foresight is truly astonishing. It is great to finally have a Prime Minister who actually understands how to make a buck, and the strategic, commercial and competitive challenges of bringing new products to market. He may be one of the few in Canberra who do, but at least it is a fair start.
With much fanfare the Government on December 3 tabled in parliament a Senate report on ‘Australia’s innovation System‘ However, with the exception of Professor Roy Greens valuable contribution as an appendix, I see little of real value in the report beyond a few worthwhile observations and some useful changes to the tax treatment of entrepreneurial endeavours.
Our venerable Senators have had summarized for them documents (I wonder how much consideration these busy important people actually gave to the detail of the submissions) that may have started with some valuable ideas but which have been sanitised into a document long on rhetoric and disturbingly short on anything of value, which can only be delivered when someone asks the question “What now”?
As someone who has run an agency outsourced from the Federal bureaucracy charged with identifying and delivering innovation to a specific sector, I can attest from first hand just how powerful the cultural forces are against anything with even a hint of risk, change, or long term thinking in the now politicised public sector.
Successful innovation takes all three, plus a clear definition of the problems to be addressed.
There is little evidence of anything in the report that encourages me to think that the status quo will be truly challenged.
It is useful to look to successful models, and there are none more successful than the US since the second war. Most will now assume I am jumping to Google, Apple et al, but no. if you look deep enough you will see the hand of government at a deep level making very long term investments in basic science, building knowledge that the private sector then leverages with innovation into commercial products delivering new value.
A scientist named Vannevar Bush (no relation to the Bush pollies) was commissioned by President Roosevelt just before he died to report on what needed to be done to promote research and development and the commercial innovation it drives, just as this senate inquiry has done. Bush reported to president Truman in 1945, delivering his report, “Science, the Endless Frontier” which laid out the proposition:
“Basic research leads to new technology. It provides scientific capital. It creates a fund from which the practical application of knowledge must be drawn”.
Directly resulting from this report was the National Science Foundation. Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency DARPA and several other institutes charged with the charter to do basic science, of discovering new knowledge.
When you look at all the products disrupting industries up to today, and changing our lives, many if not most of them have their roots in the various agencies spawned by Bush’s farsighted ideas, and the ability of the scientific agencies concerned to outlive the political cycle.
Now compare that to Australia’s situation.
CSIRO used to be a great agency, capable of developing technology like the wireless technology in the 90’s now in every mobile phone after years on the shelf until a commercial use with smartphones was found. Scientific Capital at work.
Now CSIRO is a politicised dysfunctional rump of its former self, with a little of the funding ripped out over the last 20 years of hubris restored via this latest in a long line of Innovation “initiatives” to the sounds of grateful clapping. I see few practical remedies for the past 20 years of innovation vandalism being actually addressed, although at least a real start may have been made.
As I always say in workshops, “the best time to start an innovation initiative was 10 years ago, the second best time is now”.
Lets hope it is not too late for Australian manufacturing.
Dec 15, 2015 | Branding, Leadership, Sales
Reckitt Benckiser did everything right, and they did everything wrong with their Nurofen brand.
How can that be?
The ACCC has now successfully prosecuted Reckitt Benckiser in the federal court for misleading consumers with their Nurofen brand of painkillers, requiring them to pull product off the market within three months.
There will also be a fine, potentially a significant one to drive home the message.
In the process, years of investment in the brand will be trashed.
Who will ever trust Nurofen again?
On one hand, I have absolutely no sympathy for a corporation of any type that knowingly and deliberately perpetrated this sort of misleading communication. The writing has been on the wall some time after Nurofen won Choice magazine’s coveted “Shonky Award” which garnered a fair bit of publicity at the time, including a star appearance on the ABC’s ‘Checkout” program. That Reckitts chose to ignore the ‘social warnings’ and voluntarily adjust their communication is a huge failure in leadership.
The marketing however has been very good over a long time.
Having run large corporate marketing departments, I can understand exactly how it all evolved.
An experiment with a brand extension generated added market share, consumer preference and retail shelf space at premium prices and margins. The marketing people responsible were recognised and rewarded by their employer and peers. Who would not take the next step, and seek new segments?
Back pain, period pain, migraine relief, et al, commercially seductive stuff.
Nobody would tinker with that sort of success. Anyone who dared to suggest that it was wrong, and they should walk away from the measurable short term success in favour of being a brand worthy of long term trust, a truly difficult notion to measure, would find themselves seeking other opportunities very quickly.
The failure is in the leadership of Reckitt Benckiser.
Reckitt Benckiser management simply failed to reconcile the short term financial benefits of successful brand marketing with the long term benefits of having a brand and business that demonstrated leadership by building trust. They failed the basic test of personal leadership which is to do what is right, even when it is not necessarily expedient.
Clearly the ‘leaders’ of Reckitt’s were there not as leaders, but as managers. They are undoubtedly good at managing the numbers, negotiating the deal, maneuvering amongst the corporate politics, but would you want them beside you when the going got really tough? Instinctively you know it would be all about them, they would not ‘ have your back’
It is easy to forget that business is about people, not corporations.
People buy products from people, not businesses.
While we all talk about ‘relationships’ endlessly, particularly in the digital and social spheres that now so dominate our lives, we tend to forget just how hard it is to maintain a real relationship.
One night stands are pretty easy, there is no real personal investment, marriage is hard just because there is that investment required.
We should never forget the difference.
Jun 18, 2015 | Customers, Leadership, Operations, Small business
courtesy www.myob.com.au
Most businesses want to grow, even just a bit, it is not only in the DNA, but some scale makes life in most areas easier. So how do small businesses go about it?
4 basic strategies.
1. Empower the team.
Make every front line person as well as the office realise that their input and customer service is essential. It can be done, and it works. Bunnings is king of the hardware space, delivering great outcomes for Coles, whereas Masters has been a disaster for Woolworths, yesterday claiming the scalp of the MD Grant O’Brien. I shop at Bunnings a lot, drives me nuts, but at least their people their have product knowledge useful to a casual renovator, share it with you and smile. My two attempts at Masters have been different, and there won’t be a third. Whilst these are both large businesses, it is no different for a small one. Make everyone aware of the 8 moments of truth, and committed to improving them on each interaction that occurs.
2. Critical processes need to be documented.
This is not just to pass the various audits haunting us, but so that employees and everyone else knows what is important and what to do. Documentation makes for robust repeatable processes. The challenge becomes one of continuous improvement, as once a process is documented, it sometimes takes on a persona as being “done”. Within continuous improvement lurks the obvious but often overlooked fact that to improve you first need a stable, measured processes as the starting point for improvement. Documentation provides that starting point.
3. Automate repetitive tasks.
If the same thing is done regularly, in the same way, automate it. Then you get accuracy, reliability and cost reductions, and who does not want those. Often there is a cost up front, but taken in the context of the potential savings and productivity improvements they are usually small. The most common automation target is customer service. It can be very successful at stripping out costs, but go too far and customers go somewhere else. A “learning” FAQ function makes great sense for many, and make sure you do not lose the opportunity for the personal touch.
4. Make everything searchable.
Documents, emails, social media posts, everything that gets done should be in a central repository searchable by anyone when it is needed. The waste of having documents in silos is enormous, unnecessary and just plain stupid in this day and age.
The technology is now such that it is possible for small businesses to be significant global players in a narrow and deep niche should that be their objective, but even for the local businesses without those grand aspirations, scaling operations is a key consideration in the quest to maximise that other most important resource, your time.
May 26, 2015 | Governance, Leadership, Strategy
cartoon courtesy Hugh McLeod www.gapingvoid.com
Part of what I do day to day is made up of business reviews. Whilst every business is different, and the competitive environment is different, there are some common questions to be asked that tend to reveal the effectiveness and impact of strategic and business planning.
Strategic planning has become a cliché, often just meaning the three day off site that stuffs up your week, and takes some preparation in case you are asked some difficult questions, but following is a checklist of things I look for in a plan, which may assist your thinking.
Major trends. What are the external, big picture things that are, or will impact on your business. Trends such as technology, the regulatory environment, trade barriers, et al that have the potential to change the context in which the plan has to live. These are generally much “bigger” than a one year time frame, although the pace of technical change often gives the lie to that generality.
AAR on previous forecasts. “AAR” is an acronym, “After Action Review” which emerged from the US army after the debacle of Vietnam. They sought to quickly, and from a grass roots perspective, understand what went wrong, what worked, and how it could have been improved. In effect is it a continuous improvement cycle. Applying the same thinking to the previous years forecasts and assumptions always reveals opportunities for learning. If it is the first time, do it for the last 2 or three years, and analyse what the businesses did, or should have learnt from these experiences.
How and why the differences. Planning should be a rolling, self improving process, but so often I see planning done in isolation of the opportunities to learn from the past. Understanding the reasons why forecasts are different from one planning period to another requires an explicit understanding of the assumptions made. This step builds on the AAR above.
How would you double the business. Most business planning tends to be incremental, a 3% increase in sales, a 2% decrease in costs, it is all easy to agree to in a planning meeting, after all, who would not agree to increments of improvement? To get away from incrementalism, consider what it would take to double, or triple the business. What would you need to do differently, what new products, markets, customers would you have to acquire. I like to change the perspective to this by adopting a position 3 years down the track, imagining the business has doubled, and imagining what changes had been necessary, and how they had been implemented. With the benefit of imagined hindsight, what did we do right, what mistakes were made, what capabilities and capacities did we have to increase, how did we fund the increase, all sorts of confronting questions that in the answering offer insights to the planning process.
Where is the growth coming from. Everyone predicts growth, it is part of the commercial DNA, but articulating where it is coming from introduces some reality checks. If it is from a competitor, why will they just let the volume go? what will their reactions be, and how will you in turn react to their responses? If it is from new products, why would a customer buy yours instead of the one they had been buying, and if it is a new market you are creating, how is your value proposition sufficiently compelling to get the attention of a potential customer, and how are you going to justify the new expenditure in a market that they are unfamiliar with?
What are your distinctive strengths, and how does the plan leverage them? It is astonishing to me how often when I ask this question that the responses are reflections of the market table stakes the things you have to do well just to survive and be competitive, they are not distinctive. It is like a watchmaker proudly claiming that their watch tells exact time. So what, to be a watch, you have to be able to reliably tell the time, it is not distinctive, it is table stakes. What makes you distinctive, does something really different, passes Seth Godins “purple cow” test. It may be that your watch is waterproof to 200 meters. Not many will take advantage of this strength, but to some, the guarantee of waterproof performance will be distinctive. The problem now becomes how you reach the small number of those who care at the time the are considering a purchase.
What differentiates you from the competition, and importantly, the potential left field competition? This question is often confused with the one above, a strength is not necessarily a distinctive capability that adds value to a customer that would drive them into your arms. To continue the watch analogy, when the Japanese started delivering digital watches, the Swiss that at that time absolutely dominated the watch market failed to recognise the attraction of the differentiation that had just taken place, and were decimated.
What would a private equity owner do with this business?. This can be a confronting question, but a very useful one. If you look at the business from an entirely different perspective, one whose time frame and investment return metrics are both aggressive, and usually entirely different to the prevailing horizons, it can stimulate some thinking that is very useful, and informs the rest of the discussion.
Creating a strategy that has real “grunt” and articulating that plan to all stakeholders that are impacted, and can contribute is a huge challenge, and takes time, commitment and brain power to achieve. Unfortunately, the success rate of strategic planning is very low, testament to the difficulty, and the number of things that can go wrong.
Apr 5, 2015 | Change, Leadership
Insight from Hugh MacLeod. Thanks
Marketing is all about engaging with people, real people, one at a time, and giving them something of value.
In the process, often you have to change their minds, give them a sense of what could be, and reflect their lives back to them in ways they had not seen themselves.
As marketers, and fellow human beings, we have to do it with ideas, arguments, humanity, and ……. Cartoons??
Yes cartoons.
I have been a fan of Hugh MacLeod for a considerable time, his combination of wit, humour, sarcasm and insight, that ability to distil the hubris and bullshit we see every day, while delivering a message of great value is wonderful.
It changes peoples lives.
This collection reflects his deep understanding and connection with people and business, headlined by his collaboration with Brian Solis.
It should be required reading although you do not really read it, you either get it at a glance, or you don’t.
Happy Easter, be safe, and love someone.
Allen
Apr 1, 2015 | Communication, Governance, Innovation, Leadership
How do you know
Some pretty smart people say some pretty dumb (with hindsight) things.
“Everything that can be invented has been invented.” Charles H. Duell, Commissioner, US Patent Office has been widely credited with this quote in 1899. He may not have said it, but it was reasonable at the time given the pace of innovation that had occurred for the previous 50 years. It is no sillier than Bill gates saying in 1981 that “640k should be enough for anybody”, or “Man will not fly for fifty years,” Wilbur Wright, 1901.
It is really hard to get a handle on all the stuff you do not know, by definition, you do not know you do not know it.
However, coming to grips with the opportunities that become available when you discover something from an unknown left field is where the gold is.
So how do you begin to see things you do not know you do not know?
This question is not common, but has come up a couple of times ion the last few years when working with clients with deep technical knowledge, but perhaps a narrower than ideal breadth.
In considering the answer, there appears to be few simple strategies to put in place:
- Be constantly and remorselessly curious, and ask questions. Anyone who has had kids knows that for a few years, the most common question they have is “why”. Go Back to your childhood, and ask why all the time.
- Have a diverse group of people around you who will challenge the thinking, preconceptions assumptions and most importantly, the status quo.
- Be prepared to give and receive honest feedback. There are rarely any right answers when you go looking for the unknown, just more questions, and the often unexpected and insightful responses you get from people, use them.
- Make sure others know you do not know, and are seeking answers, not offering solutions.
- Read widely and with great variety. This is now easier than it has ever been, we are overwhelmed with information sources, and the problem is curation and absorption rather than finding stuff out.
We are undoubtedly in a knowledge economy, competitive advantage is in knowledge, so gathering, sharing and leveraging it should be high on every enterprises agenda, from multinationals to the small business around the corner.
