Parable of the bungled baggage.

Customers remember the best and the worst.

When you absolutely “nail” it, they remember, and when you absolutely “stuff” it, they also remember, but guess which one they remember when you do both.

The parable of the bungled baggage, and variations of it is a story often used to illustrate the point, a small or seemingly unrelated factor  can undo all the good work that goes  into a customer interaction, so watch for the small things, and focus manically on what Jan Carlzon calls on the “Moments of Truth”  those times when there is a direct contact between your front line of customer service, and your customer, after all, without customers, there is not much else.

Machine utilisation & efficiency, only half the story.

 

Machine utilisation and machine efficiency are probably the most commonly used KPI’s used to measure the performance of factory management. Both serve a purpose, but they do not by any means describe the “whole”.

The factor that completes the picture is “flow”, the state where product “flows” uninterrupted from one process to another, at a rate dictated by demand from the market.

Most factory managers know instinctively, if not by data, that their factories run best when there is uninterrupted flow  through the processes, but if they are measured on machine efficiency, (production units/time) as they often are, they will be pushed to maximise the efficiency of individual machine points, building up inventory elsewhere, and interrupting the flow, and compromising the productivity of the factory.

The measurement of efficiency of individual points of a production process is ingrained, it is a fundamental part of the cost accounting and investment disciplines we all take for granted, but badly needs to be re-thought and taught to emerging operations and general management.

Responsiveness and responsibility go together.

 In a small business, every action has someone responsible for it, whereas in a large organisation , or worse, a public bureaucracy, nobody has responsibility for the dumb things they do, they just become an automatically imposed “rule” that carries the sanction of the organisation.

Taking responsibility is not just good policy, good for the employees, it is good marketing.

Successful alliances manage the dissimilarities.

Alliances form because organizations have similarities, and commonalities that promise synergy.

However, most alliances fail because they fail to manage the areas if dissimilarity.

Leo Tolstoy  remarked that happy marriages were the result of the manner in which partners dealt with incompatibility, not how compatible they were.

It is the same in a commercial alliance, the literature is full of examples of alliances of one sort or another that emerged because of the prevailing logic of moving into adjacent market areas by merger or take-over, based on seemingly common customers, technologies, channels, or philosophies, only to find a disaster waiting because they failed to see how some  dissimilarity that had not been considered relevant threw a spanner in the works, and cost the alliance. 

After the synergies have been identified and quantified, but before the deal is done, have a separate group look for the areas where there are no synergies, where the organisations differ substantially, and assess their impact on the potential for disruption of the alliance working as well as the optimists predict. 

Breadth of kaizen

Over many years, the best marketers I have come across have been trained as scientists, in a wide range of disciplines, many had no formal marketing training.

Took me a long time to figure it out, the scientifically trained people had as a part of their automatic response, a systematic process of collecting data, forming a hypothesis based on the data, testing it and looking for inconsistencies in the results, then forming a further hypothesis based on the better data to test. Kaizen or “continuous improvement” by another name.

 It was an automatic, built in response that works really well in a marketing environment, particularly where many marketing people are inclined to see a problem and jump straight to a conclusion based on what has worked in the past, rather than a detailed  examination of the root causes of the problem.

As I write this post, I am reflecting on the role of the “automatic” response being one that seeks to understand the cause and effect relationships underlying a problem, and how little we know about how to make our businesses embrace it across all functions and all challenges.

That would lead to systemic Kaizen, and should prove to be a potent competitive tool.

So, a new decade.

Is it just a date, or does it signify a new beginning?

A bit of both I suspect, and forecasting the future should be left to the ladies in tents at the circus, but a couple of things we know for sure:

Firstly, the infrastructure of the world economy will undergo a profound change over the next decade as carbon management emerges as the dominating political and economic factor after the turmoil in the Middle East, and the potential that has to blow up in our collective faces. How we manage it over the next decade will impact for generations, hopefully we can avoid the short-sighted, narrow, self interested and belligerent posture that created the middle east imbroglio in the equivalent decade a century ago.

Secondly, the world is now connected,  the technical advances of the last decade will throw up huge opportunities to address the challenges and inequities we face globally, but will put many impediments in the way.

Are you ready for the ride?