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 27, 2015 | Change, Governance, Marketing, Small business, Strategy
value chain arbitrage
There may be a niche in the market, but is there a market in the niche?
This question was posed to me many years ago as I pondered a new product business plan.
There was pretty clearly a niche in the market that was not well inhabited by competitors, but I was asked:
“Is this because you are just smarter than others, and had seen something they had not, or was it that they had concluded that there was no market in the niche”
Identifying a niche with no commercial potential that would deliver an ROI on the investment may be an interesting observation, one to be filed away for a look again later, but no real value now.
I have kept an eye on that niche for years, way after I left the employment I had at the time, and observe that at the time there was no return in the niche, but now, post digital marketing, there is, and it has been mined extensively and profitably by those who saw it.
The parameters of marketing have changed radically since I first identified the niche.
No longer are we constrained by geography, value chain middlemen who control key points and strangle out rents on the arbitrage value, and expensive, pot luck advertising.
Those constraints are gone, and we are left with a landscape of niches that do have a market in them, recently uncovered by the power of the digit.
Small and medium sized businesses have been delivered the means to scale their operations in ways not imagined 20 years ago.
Niches are now global.
They may be narrow, and deep, but when you find someone down there, they are there for a very good reason indeed, and are usually very receptive to offers that reflect their deep engagement with the niche.
Rich pickings for niche Small and medium players who move quickly, play well, and play smart.
Apr 7, 2015 | Innovation, Marketing, Strategy
Innovation and context
The first axis of innovation is the product. French born and educated artist, mathematician, philosopher, free thinker Marcel Duchamp who took American citizenship in 1915 submitted a piece to the prestigious Exhibition of independent artists in New York in 1917.
The piece was initially rejected by the exhibition organisers, but later lauded as a turning point in art, from the ‘retinal’ meant to be just seen to something meant to be more philosophical.
It was a piece titled “Fountain” and was in fact a porcelain urinal, the first if its kind.
My point is that the first urinal publicly displayed can be created and installed by an “artist” and Duchamp was a genuine artist in the widest sense of the word.
However, the second installation of a porcelain urinal, because it is not an original idea, is done by a plumber.
The second axis is context. Duchamp’s urinal would not have been so famous, such an artistic turning point (I still have trouble with the whole idea) had the photograph that started it all not been by a renowned photographer, taken in his studio, and lauded by the intellectual press at the time as ground-breaking. Had Duchamp just installed his urinal in the public loo down the road, it would probably not have been any more than a fancy pisser, unnoticed in the chaos of life.
What the difference is was the context in which his porcelain urinal was presented.
When you need someone who understand the differences, and how sensitive they are, give me a call, and I will be delighted to help you manage the context such that your pisser has the opportunity to become a piece of art.
Mar 23, 2015 | Collaboration, Innovation, Leadership, Management, Strategy
Plan backwards
All sorts of planning activity is aimed at defining the point where we want to be, then assembling the resources and capabilities to get there.
That is how planning is done, almost always, because by and large, it seems to work, and it keeps the spectator crowd happy.
Libraries have been written that describe all sorts of methods and models that can be used. They can be very useful and thought provoking, providing a framework to help articulate the factors that will impact the business, and the options you have in responding, but they rarely offer an antidote to the malaise affecting the development of really distinctive capabilities, genuinely new products, processes and business models.
The real innovations, the things that change everything seem to come from a different place, “left field” being the most common description.
Most planning ends up being just an extrapolation of the past, despite the well meaning and significant effort to make it something else.
Perhaps a better way is to put yourself in the future place, then work backwards, identifying the steps that need to have been taken to reach the point where in your mind, you are now.
Be specific about the end, articulate it clearly, and then “Plan Backwards” by considering the factors that delivered value for you. I generally call this process ‘Hindsight Planning’.
- What did you do that worked, and conversely, what might you have done that did not work?
- What capabilities did you need to develop?
- What trends drove changes to the industry you were able to leverage?
- Where did the technical innovations you leveraged come from?
- Which markets and customers were successfully addressed?
- What big customer issues were addressed?
- What did the business model(s) you used look like?
- And finally, How were you able to extract value for all these things?
This sort of analysis, if it is to lead to a positive outcome, requires that you recognise and deal with two types of barriers:
Management barriers.
People like consistency and predictability, so when the forecast future looks very like the past, just a bit blurry, they are happy with it, endorse it, and resource it. By contrast, being the harbinger of change that will affect the status quo is no way to get ahead in most organisations. However, it remains a truth that the future never looks the same as the past, no matter how much we would like it to be so.
- Idea averaging. Management absorbs and usually just “averages” or applies committee thinking to a good idea, but at worst, just rejects them for a range of reasons that sound absurd and utterly naive with the benefit of hindsight. Existing businesses are rooted in the networks and frameworks required to make them successful today, and are usually intolerant of new things that involve risk. Usually successful incumbents are well evolved, so are resistant to change, their current way has enabled the current business to be successful, why change? There are many examples of this phenomena, Kodak being a standout, Polaroid another, Cobb & Co another. The current attempts by the taxi industry to resist the encroachment of Uber in my hometown, Sydney, is an example unfolding, and the music industry prosecuting their customers for using their products is an example of one that is just about folded.
- New business models. The successful commercial execution of a real innovation generally requires some new way of delivering the value to customers and extracting value for the suppliers. In short, a new business model. Industry incumbents rarely completely disrupt themselves, by definition, they have too much to lose. Therefore, there needs to be new strategies and supporting business models developed by those outside or on the fringes in some way of an industry. Uber and Apple came from way outside the industries they disrupted, and can you imagine Hilton, or Accor funding that mad idea AirBnB that was gong to crucify their budget tourist dollars?
- The Profit paradox. Profit is counted by looking backwards rather than forward, rewards came after the fact. Forecasting profit, or “fortune telling” is inherently risky, as the only think you know for sure is that you will be wrong, the real question is by how much, but the consequences of getting this brand of fortune telling wrong are significant. However, in the long term, you are only truly profitable if your returns are greater than the cost of capital. If they are equal, you may as well put your money in the bank, because it is safe, less than that and you are long term destroying capital. This simple fact is ignored in almost every profit forecast, statement or review I have ever seen. The conundrum is that to generate a return greater than the cost of capital you must take risks and do stuff differently, some of which will not work out, or only work out in the long term, therefore risking the current profit. It is pretty easy to ramp up the profit made today at the expense of tomorrow, but in this case, tomorrow does actually come.
Creative barriers.
Creative barriers evolve around points of the assembly of ideas, where information, insight, experience, are mixed up to create the otherwise unlikely connections that are the foundation of a creative solution to a problem, situation, or challenge. These are the barriers that most businesses try and get around by the off site strategic planning sessions that rarely seem to be able to deliver the promise of the day. The energy and drive in the workshop room gets absorbed by the day to day of being back in the business. Removal of the barriers is a high priority challenge for management.
The barriers to creativity are many and varied, often overlapping in many places. Following is a ‘brain-dump’ list of the ones I consistently find.
- No commitment from the ‘top’
- It is not OK to be wrong.
- Give up too easily. Edison’s famous quote “Now I know 999 ways that do not work” whilst experimenting to develop the lightbulb resonates still.
- Creativity is hard to quantify, and is therefore often not measured. The old adage what gets measured gets done is right, so creativity is extinguished.
- Lack of resources, time, equipment, money, are all used as excuses for being too willing just to accept the status quo.
- Enterprise culture eliminates risk as far as possible, and creativity is inherently risky and “out there”.
- Rules rule. Particularly in public enterprises, and creativity is not in the rules.
- Challenging orthodoxies, assumptions and the status quo is frowned upon.
- Lack of what I call ‘environmental intelligence’ or an understanding of the macro trends and individual movements in the commercial and strategic environment in which you compete. Seeing trends that impact an enterprise, and their intersections is a rich source of creativity.
- Lack of discipline. Perhaps counter intuitively, creativity includes a range of activities that if subject to some disciplined and focused thinking can deliver great results.
- Not having the right people. Creativity is perhaps the most collaborative of human activities, well, almost. Not having the right people is a commonly owned albatross.
- Everyone can say “no”. Formal layers of approval for ideas act on creativity like a wet blanket on a campfire.
- Creativity is not a required contribution from everyone, it is assumed to be the product only of the young, or the marketing department, of the boss’s wife. Creativity should be everyone’s job!
I could go on, the list is huge, it is a wonder that creativity survives at all given the barriers.
An idea is the outcome of all that has gone before, and the triggers around at any given time, rarely is it the ‘Eureka’ moment. Ray Kurzweil who has a stellar track record in seeing the future in technology believes we need to become comfortable with what he calls “Hybrid thinking” and I can only agree but see that the ideas he articulates have a far greater range than just creativity and innovation in technology.
Feb 3, 2015 | Leadership, Management, Strategy
For years I have followed Seth Godin’s musings, ideas and presentations, a remarkable collection of original thoughts, metaphors, instruction, and repackaging of the complicated into the simple, shared with enormous generosity.
This post that came out this morning, his productivity pyramid, is such a simple idea, bits of which most of us have considered in one way or another, but it takes a deeply inventive mind to articulate it in such a simple way.
I think it was Michelangelo who said something like “Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication”, may have been Mark Twain, perhaps you can correct me, but irrespective, simplicity is really hard, and this is really simple.
I just added the visual.
Thanks Seth.
Jan 27, 2015 | Leadership, Small business, Strategy
Time to think
Those who run small businesses have some very common challenges.
Significant amongst them is insufficient time to get everything done that needs to be done, and no time left over for “self”
The old cliché working “in the business and not on the business” is a cliché because it is appallingly true.
Most, if not all have also heard about the “urgent but not important to Important but not urgent” continuum, certainly I have written about it in the past.
However, taking some concrete action to free up the time is harder than the easy clichés of business coaches and consultants, so here are a few added steps to take along the path. They come from the “Lean” thinking movement that has so profoundly altered the way we manufacture things over the last 25 years.
First: distinguish between policies and procedures.
Policies are the things that deliver a framework for activities an decision making. Think about it as Google earth focussed on a large region. You can see the shape and limits, but not the detail of the roads, railways and suburban areas. Procedures by contrast are a step by step expression of the sequence of activities that together contribute to the outcome. To continue the analogy, they are the GPS, giving you street by street instructions on how to get from point A to point B.
Second: Make a list of all the things that are recurrent activities, and priorities them against a list of questions you ask yourself:
- Is it required for the business to function efficiently?
- Are there repeatable steps with specific start and end points and efficiency/productivity metrics?
- Does the task have to be done by me, or could someone else do it
- Is it the best use of my time?
Third: Be ruthless about eliminating those tasks that do not add value that make no contribution to your ability to serve customers, and by delegating to others.
Fourth: write the procedures to make the tasks that remain routine, repeatable, and robust. You generally have two options in writing procedures.
- Have a roundtable with all those involved in the task, and map it out on a whiteboard, or butcher paper, capturing all the interactions that occur.
- Take a bit of time, and keep a record for a couple of times the job gets done, then whiteboard it to standardise, and eliminate the unnecessary loops and rework that almost inevitably you will uncover. Think about it like building a house. Start with the foundations, then progressively fill in the external walls, internals walls, followed by the details of the fittings and fixtures.
Once documented, test the procedure a couple of time to “stress test” it, then delegate.
Fifth: Outsource where possible those tasks that take a capability not readily available in your business, or where there is a specialist available who can do it better and quicker, and therefor in the long run cheaper, than you.
Voila! For most small business owners, 4 hours a day.
