Nov 25, 2010 | Customers, Innovation, Leadership, Management
Innovation programs always throw up the word “adjacency” and it has lots of interpretations, depending on who is doing the talking. So here is my two bobs worth.
Measure each of the following parameters on a 1-5 scale, (or 1-10 for a more nuanced outcome) 1 being the same as current, 5 being completely different, requiring new processes and infrastructure. Have a debate about the scores, collect more data, seek council of those with a different perspective, as it is generally a qualitative score rather than one that can be easily quantified.
- Channels to market
- Current sales force knowledge and relationships in the adjacent market
- Behavior of potential customers, the factors that drive their business model
- Existing potential customer relationships and the barriers to entry/exit in the market
- The nature of the competitive environment. (A “Porter” type analysis often assists here)
- The strength of your value proposition
Nov 24, 2010 | Change, Communication, Management, Marketing, Social Media, Strategy
The power in commercial relationships has shifted dramatically since the net. It has removed the power previously held by companies and institutions and handed it to individuals who choose to use it.
No more can an enterprise afford to ignore or annoy an individual without cause, or even with cause, as the individual now has the capacity to publicly respond with twitter, facebook, linked-in, et al, and have an impact inconceivable just a few years ago.
This is not evolution, it is revolution, as the constraints on the ability to communicate and coalesce around an issue is unprecedented, and represents a fundamental re-ordering of the balance of power. The changes in the external environment are changing much, much quicker than the average organisation is able to change in anticipation, creating a significant short term risk for many of them.
Nov 22, 2010 | Change, Communication, Management, Social Media
Corporations default to functional silos, despite the efforts of most to recognise the horizontal cross functional nature of processes, the things that gets stuff done. This is because in the past, you required hands to move things around, make calls, stuff envelopes, travel, all adding to the cost of completion.
Individuals personal networks tend to also run in silos, the football group, the school friends, workmates, and so on, but the demarcation is a bit more blurred than at work.
Social networking tools have further blurred the demarcation , and networks can go way beyond the face to face relationships of old, and those networks can be leveraged across many tipping points and considerable social energy can be built, simply by harnessing the dynamics of the group.
Corporations are coming around to this self-evident (if you happen to be under 35)fact, but they are largely run by people not engaged with social networks so the evolution is far quicker outside corporations than inside them. Remember the huge embarrassment of Nestle a while ago, in relation to use of non sustainable sources of Palm oil, embarrassment that could have been easily mitigated had someone in a senior position watched their own facebook site, twitter, or even listened to someone who was.
The formation of groups around a question, issue, or cause is suddenly quite easy, and for corporations adds a huge risk to their intangible assets, and they usually are blissfully unaware in the boardroom.
The risk can be mitigated, but it requires individual with the organisational power to cede control of the details of “management” of the on line groups to individuals who are engaged in the processes, as the risks can emerge almost instantly, and requires instant response.
Nov 18, 2010 | Alliance management, Collaboration, Innovation, OE, Strategy
Only in physics, in personal relationships we seek common ground, people who under stand instinctively what we are saying and thinking, and who work the way we do.
Collaborative teams and alliances of many types often fail from the start because those who join, or are “volunteered” are similar, whereas in a collaborative team with a problem to solve, you need all types, and the processes to assist the management of the group need to be a part of the consideration.
You need at least one of each of the four behavioral extremes;
- Someone who is creative, out there, not too concerned with convention and how it has been done before
- Someone who is numbers and data driven, analytical, who seeks quantitative foundations for hypotheses and ideas
- Someone who just has to complete, they like to plan, and then work the plan to the end
- Someone who builds bridges, and can assist the relationships, both internally and with outsiders
These four types will not often come together without assistance, as they are very different, they see thing in conflicting ways, but to solve a problem, or make an alliance really work and create value for all, that’s just what you need, it is just harder to manage.
Oct 20, 2010 | Management, Operations, Personal Rant
If you ever needed a lesson in the pitfalls of negotiating under pressure, take a look at the mess created by the agreement of the terms of the revised Mining Resources Rent Tax between the large miners, and the Federal government . If it wasn’t so serious, it would be funny.
In simple terms, the deal which set MRRT rates was with the Federal government, but the states own the resources, and already do, and will continue to levy, a royalty payment on tonnes extracted.
The miners thought the MRRT rate was inclusive of any increase by the states in Royalties, so they had a reliable ceiling on the total tax paid, the Feds say no such condition was agreed, and the states are cash strapped, and looking for revenue, where better than the miners in a boom.
All parties stuffed up royally by making assumptions in a pressure cooker negotiation, and not articulating them in the discussions, and written agreement.
This is easy to do under pressure, but these guys are supposed to be experts, so it is unbelievable that such a basic oversight occurred. The lesson is that whatever you do, take some time away from the scramble and pressure of “completing” a negotiation before an agreement is executed to ensure all the bases are covered.
Oct 19, 2010 | Customers, Leadership, Management, Marketing
The scary thing about competition is that someone always loses, even if it is only an opportunity. Many would like to believe that we should all be friends together to save the pain, but outside the public sector, it does not happen like that.
Successfully competing is down to delivering superior value to customers at a cost less than the customers best alternative. To do that in this connected world where transaction costs are disappearing the whole enterprise needs to be focused on what it is that the customer values.
Sounds pretty simple, but how rarely I see it
