Dec 7, 2011 | Collaboration, Management
Currently, I am in the middle of a project that seeks to find a way to motivate a collaboration between a group of industry and government bodies on a pressing problem. None of these bodies have a culture that welcomes external collaboration, they often seem to have trouble even internally.
In the process I came up with a list of “must haves” that the proposed co-ordinating body must take on just to get the prospective collaborators to the table to talk about it.
Any comments, and additions would be welcome
- Independence,
- Transparency
- Plays a catalytic role in the collaboration
- Ensures the governance of the collaboration is robust and consistent.
- No self interest beyond the role to facilitate the collaboration
- Serves as a co-ordinating body for activities,
- Serves as the communicator, but without any exclusivity
- Serves as the “warehouse” for codified IC
- Acts as the dissemination mechanism for IC, and contributions to the process.
- The body needs to have the confidence of all stakeholders.
- Dispute resolution mechanism
Dec 5, 2011 | Leadership, Management
Respect is a word bandied about a fair bit, but what does it really mean in an organisational sense?
It seems to me that respect is rarely built by an avoidance of conflict, rather by the willingness to meet it head on with three behavioral characteristics:
- Using facts and data when available on which to base a view, not relying on personality and position.
- All assumptions made are absolutely transparent, and any relevant data is available to all for analysis and debate.
- “Due process” during the discussions is clear, all parties have ample opportunity to put views, particularly dissenting ones, on the table for discussion.
By contrast, the easiest way to destroy respect is to allow personal stuff to intrude.
Nov 30, 2011 | Management, Strategy
The detail of Strategy development is different for every situation. There is no template that is able to account for the nuances that exist, despite the claims to the contrary.
There are however quite a few sensible and easy to say but usually hard to do things that should feature in your considerations.
1. Go to where the work is done. Too many businesses treat strategy development as an exercise to be completed in isolation, assembling lots of data and PowerPoint slides. There is no substitute for going to where the work is done and realistically examining the issues. In lean parlance, “go to the gemba“, talk to a few customers, some who you would like to be customers, and a few outside the boundaries of your current market aspirations.
2. Identify the assumptions that do not get questioned, those that often make up the foundation of a strategic exercise, and then question them, to ensure they make sense. The “what business are we in” question and “every customer buying a 2mm drill really wants a 2mm hole” observations are a key to strategy development, use the opportunity to make sure you are focusing on the right customer, and what it is they are really looking for.
3. Use stories and analogies to make your points. People relate to stories, they understand analogies, and they are way more fun that moving data around a spreadsheet.
4. Do some scenario “what if” thinking, and make them relevant, but a bit far out there to get the juices going. Several years ago doing a strategic exercise with a client whose business was significantly impacted by the $A, for both the import of raw materials, finished product, and competitive offerings in their market, we did just this exercise. At the time, the $A was around $US.70, and we spent some time discussing what would happen at all exchange points up to $1.20, almost inconceivable at the time, but facing them a few short years later.
5. Make the strategy “porous” in the sense that as new information, situations, and opportunities emerge, that can be absorbed into the strategy, facilitating adjustments in resource allocations and priorities, without compromising the purpose and values of the business.
In the end, strategy is about choice. It is as important to articulate what you will not do as it is to articulate what you will. Making intelligent and robust choices only comes as a result of gathering and understanding data and combining that with the insights and wisdom that are often found out in left field.
Nov 20, 2011 | Change, Leadership, Management, Strategy
The chaos in the European monetary system, and the appearance of a lack of the required backbone to address the issues has parallels in every commercial change situation I have ever seen, irrespective of the size of the oranisation:
- It takes a while to stuff up a sound system with hubris an self-interest, the decline is slow, but with hindsight, absolutely clear.
- The leadership that got into the mess is unable to clean up its own poop, and needs changing.
- Necessary changes cannot be made until it seems there is no option, and the stakeholders recognise that the status quo is simply unsustainable.
- In change, some get hurt more than others, but most suffer from some austerity. If the stakeholders clearly understand that there is simply no option, and they trust the emerging leadership to take tough, but in the long term decisions that benefit all, they will suffer the short term pain to set things right.
In Europe we are half way through this process. Most Europeans would recognise the status quo is unsustainable, and that change must happen. The leadership is changing, Italy and Greece have changed, and Spain has an election coming up at which the incumbent government will probably be decimated, Ireland made the changes a year ago, and appears to be recovering, and Portugal is just tagging along, so far so good in driving change. Next step is to ensure the measures are appropriately tough, and that they “stick” despite the opposition that will emerge from organised vested interests.
It seems to me that the whole process is being facilitated by the Germans. They do not want the EU to implode as it would see their new Deutschmark soar, removing their current competitive advantage, so they are paying the price of short term financial market instability to force the changes elsewhere in Europe, to give impetus to the general understanding that aggressive change is the only way forward.
If Europe was a company, this is exactly what we would see if a number of key subsidiaries got into trouble.
Billy Bloggs & Co, my small client undergoing some painful restructuring is showing us what will happen in Europe.
Nov 18, 2011 | Management, Marketing
This process has many forms, I have probably seen most of them over the years.
Percentage of sales, opposition activity, what the P&L can bear, what was spent last year, what seems like a nice round number, what the new CEO says, the last and “balancing” item in the budget, and there are others, including and significantly the confusion between strategic investments and short term tactical spending which is often just a cost of doing business in a distribution channel.
Notice the absence of customers in the mix?
All of these common budget setting tools are internal, the serve the operational needs of the business, and have nothing to do with customers, and how they are to be reached, engaged, and persuaded to become apostles for your business.
No wonder we get so much random rubbish thrown at us through the multiplicity of media channels we now have, that have nothing to do with the brand building and strategic positioning of the product or service.
Nov 14, 2011 | Leadership, Management, Small business
The conduct of meetings, whether they be the AGM of a major company, or the committee of the local raffle group should run by the same basic set of rules, worked out over a long period to ensure that a meeting comes to a conclusion at the end of a comprehensive “due process”.
Whilst the AGM of a public company should be far more formal than the local tennis group, nevertheless, some rules should never be broken, significantly the one that states: “No-one can speak twice on a topic until all who wish to speak on the topic have done so”.
This simple rule ensures that the local opinionated motor-mouth who seems to pop up on most small committees is controlled.
It is up to the chairman to keep the discipline, but many a local meeting I have attended has failed because the basics of conducting a meeting are not enforced.
