Oct 7, 2010 | Customers, Management, OE, Sales, Strategy
Since man sought to organise themselves beyond family groups, geography has been the fundamental organising principal of almost all the institutions created, it was really the only thing that made sense. Everything from businesses to empires and the church(s) were geographically organised structures.
Since the 70’s, many commercial institutions have attempted to reorganise along a customer or product driven logic, largely with limited success. Geography and the transaction costs associated with removing the natural barrier of distance have conspired to make it difficult and costly, and the old management silos are hard to break down until the enterprise is in real trouble, as IBM was in the 80’s.
For the last 10 years at a huge rate the net has removed geography as a significant driver of organisational structures. It simply makes no sense to now have multiple overheads in neighboring geographies, when the net tools enable the sharing of everything immediate.
The outcome, structure your organisation to focus on what keeps it alive, customers!
Oct 4, 2010 | Alliance management, Collaboration, Operations, Social Media
Somehow, there is an evolutionally phenomenon at work that kicks in when a group gets larger than 150-200, the number that social research has repeatedly identified as the number of people that any individual can have a relationship with, first postulated by anthropologist Robin Dunbar, and now commonly known as “Dunbar’s number.“
As humans evolved, they did so in groups of 200 maximum, and there was little serious conflict inside the group, but there was constant conflict with the similar sized groups in the vicinity, even though they were to all intents and purposes, identical, apart from their group membership.
We now have social media seemingly rewriting the rules, or is Facebook and similar networks the electronic equivalent of a genetic mutation?
In a situation where you have many more than the genetic 200 having a sort of a relationship facilitated by the net, what implications does this mutation, if that is what is, have on the way we should be thinking about using, and regulating access to these sites, and what are the implications in the management of conflict?.
These are very big questions for the next 20 years thay deserve more than a passing, and ideaology driven response.
Sep 29, 2010 | Management, Small business, Strategy
All businesses are conflicted, small ones more obviously than larger ones.
On one hand, the immediate urgency to do whatever necessary to generate the cash to pay the bills, and on the other, the necessity to build capability, relationships, and definitive market position, all critical elements for commercial sustainability, but there is rarely enough time to do both as well as you would like.
There is no easy answer to this dilemma, but in my work with small businesses there are a number of strategies, largely borrowed from large businesses that pay dividends:
- Act like a larger organization internally, by doing things such as having a formal monthly management meeting, regular formal performance reviews, an overt strategy generation process that involves employees, and detailed operational planning.
- Delegate both responsibility and authority clearly. Often those who start businesses do so because they want to feel in control, and delegation does not come easily
- Spend 50% of your time (assuming you are the CEO) outside the businesses with customers, and demand chain partners building relationships.
Small businesses benefit hugely from these disciplines, partly because they are so important for the smooth running of any businesses, and partly because it acts as an “insulation” to the unanticipated. Most in small businesses do not see the need, as they are in daily contact with all in and around the businesses, and therefore, some of these things are seen as unnecessary bureaucracy, when in reality they are more like shock absorbers.
Sep 27, 2010 | Management, OE, Operations
Continuous improvement initiatives I have seen almost always impose a “finishing line”, correctly believing that focusing on an objective is a key to motivate performance.
However, what they often miss in this approach to improvement is the cultural aspect of continuous improvement, the recognition that there is no finishing line, just the next challenge, and the real management challenge is to build a capacity to improve continuously as a foundation of the culture of the business,not just to address the current issue.
Another of the many paradox’s that exist in our world, to motivate, have a goal, but having a goal other than an inbuilt desire to do it better today than you did yesterday, can be counter-productive
Sep 26, 2010 | Demand chains, Management, Operations, Strategy
A while ago I wrote that there seemed to be the beginnings of some thinking amongst the smaller manufacturing operations I interact with about the relative value of manufacturing in high cost Australia, and retaining control of, and having the opportunity to develop, the intellectual capital involved, rather than sending manufacturing offshore in pursuit of lower costs.
I came across this article reflecting the same view, but amongst some of the biggest manufacturers in the US, and it also reflects the beginnings of this trend.
In Australia, we have let our trade skills erode so dramatically over the last 25 years that if we do start to see some sophisticated manufacturing return to our shores, and the obvious contender is photo-voltaic cells, now almost exclusively manufactured in China with Australian technology, we may not have the technical manufacturing skills to deliver.
If this nascent trend does harden, it will usher in a huge gap in our operational skills capability, one that will take a generation or more to fix, and most importantly to any solution, we need a recognition by federal and state politicians that we have a problem bigger than the next election cycle. The long term investment in education and the culture changes necessary will add another big chunk of time to the reaction, possibly a generation.
Sep 23, 2010 | Leadership, Management
Much of the typical managers time is spent ensuring and managing compliance, ensuring the rules are followed, the standards and timetables are met.
This is all fine, and must happen, but where does the balance between compliance and engagement happen?
We are asking stakeholders, particularly employees, to bring their brains to work, but often ensuring they do not use them because there are rules in place that need to be followed.
It is becoming pretty clear that the old carrot and stick management methods do not work in an environment where creativity and the unorthodox is the priority, to be effective, you need engagement, you need the right side of peoples brains to be at work.
Constantly we are being called on to be innovative, creative, to think outside the box, to seek the differentiator, and participate in a “clever country” but our whole system of education from kindergarten to post graduate, our public administration, and our career planning is geared to conformity in order to get ahead.
There is a paradox here that the post industrial age economies need to come to grips with.
