Dec 30, 2013 | Customers, Governance, Leadership, Strategy
Just before Christmas, in an unusually hot and humid period, I was attacked by “mossies” while sleeping. The blighters feasted on my left shoulder, leaving a very itchy area.
So what you ask, and fair enough to wonder at the relevance.
It occurred to me that it was a nice metaphor for the “strategic itch” that seems to occur in many enterprises around this time of year. Someone, usually the CEO, gets a mossie in his ear about strategy, which results in everyone putting in an effort to redo the stuff that was probably done last year, a few updated numbers, some new graphs, and a reaffirmation of some vision and mission statements. All this of course culminating in an off-site 2 day meeting that involves a bad head-ache on the second morning.
The itch is scratched for another year, there are some “decisions” that are incorporated into the budget process, but little of real value has been achieved.
Just as scratching the mossie bites on my shoulder offered short term relief, but had little impact on the time it took for the itch to go away, and indeed ran the risk of causing some longer term problems if infection set in, so does the yearly strategic meeting do little, but potentially causes problems.So, here are a few “do’s and don’ts” that may remove the causes of the itch.
Do:
• Identify and consider the drivers of performance and change in your industry
• Consider how your current capabilities are lined up against these drivers, identify gaps, and agree how to address them.
• Review and consider your responses to the value propositions of your competitors, and consider what you would do to you, if you were them.
• Re-acquaint yourself with your customers, ensure you know why they buy from you and not others, and consider the manner in which you build relationships with them.
• Spend time identifying the “cause and effect” chains in your business, and how you can make them more visible, efficient, manageable, and accountable.
• Do a bit of “what if” scenario planning, the more out of the box the better
• Have some different people, from both inside and outside the enterprise in the process and at the meeting to avoid just continuing status quo thinking.
• Remember that innovation capability is about the only sustainable competitive advantage left to us, so consider how best to build the capability to innovate, without worrying too much about that new product in the pipeline.
• Agree a small set of KPI’s that reflect the most important things you considered, and ensure the processes are in place, or at least agreed to measure and communicate performance against them.
• Make sure everyone in the enterprise understands the priorities, and the underlying logic of the priorities, in other words, achieve alignment throughout the business.
Do not:
• Concentrate on the numbers, these days they are too easily generated and tend to remove the motivation to think.
• Allow status to be a determining factor in the importance given to every individuals contribution to the conversation
• Shy away from difficult, or confronting people or conversations.
• Think that all the answers to tough questions can be arrived at in the meeting.
• Think the job is done when the conversation ends. You get 1/10 for talking, the other 9 for doing.
• Think that this is a one-off, annual event. Strategy planning and review processes should be at the heart of enterprise governance, and are an ongoing challenge, particularly for boards.
Have a good strategy meeting.
Dec 23, 2013 | Change, Management, Operations, Strategy
Amongst all the emotional rhetoric and dubious numbers being visited upon us by various interest groups and pollies after the announcement by GM that they will be folding their tents, there seems to be very little sensible analysis of the whole picture. Comment has all been focussed on the current supply chain, the economic and social impact of its crumbling, and what others should have done in the past to prevent it, and now clammering for compensation.
Compensation for what?
Lets have a look at some of the more common blathering.
- Holden is a national icon. GM is a huge multinational company, with problems facing it appropriate to its scale. Australia is a pimple on its arse, no matter how much we blather about “Holden, the national icon”. Why should we continue to support its operations here? If they are not commercially sustainable on their own merits, experience suggests, it is just a matter of time, and the longer we administer the medicine, the more painful the withdrawal.
- The workers need compensation. Fair enough, there will be pain in many households supported by Holden, and Ford over Christmas. However, compensation for what, where are the lines drawn? These workers have had many years of news that their employers are in the edge, so the announcements should not be a surprise, and now they have 4 years notice, and generous redundancy. There are many thousands of worker that have been displaced over the past 20 years who would have killed for just a month of notice and modest redundancy, let alone the largess heading the way of displaced auto industry workers.
- The supplier businesses need compensation. Similarly, the manufacturers in the supply chain, now to be supplying only Toyota whilst they remain manufacturing here, are facing tough times. Should be no news in any of this for them, so failure to adapt over several strategic horizons should not be an excuse for handouts.
- Employees pay taxes. So, the argument goes, being employed, even by a subsidised industry, owned overseas, is better than having them unemployed and the industry closed. This is the sort of economic and social poop, ignoring the lessons of many past disruptions that even the far left should be embarrassed about.
- The industry is the engineering University of Australia. There is some real truth in this, the capabilities nurtured by the car industry have benefited many other industries. However, as the decline in manufacturing in this country is across the board, not just in the car industries, perhaps we should be considering engineering capabilities in the wider context than just one industry that is clearly at the end of its life as it has been run to date. Australia has several sources of potential international competitiveness, mining engineering and technical mining services, solar engineering are just two. The fist of these we squeezed mercilessly for current income, disregarding the long term opportunities to build sustainable engineering capabilities, the second of which we actively encouraged to go overseas to find financial and technical support. How stupid are we?
- Loss of sovereignty. Perhaps the most spurious of the lot. As it goes, without the car industry we have no ability to defend ourselves, no national pride, no capacity to be Australian. Given that only 20% of the cars sold over the last couple of years have been manufactured here, this argument holds little water.
The solutions for the car industry have been obvious for a while, and although not easy, or without risk are not inconsistent with the commercial choices faced by any firm in an industry facing disruption. A few companies have embraced them. Futuris, a former subsidiary of Elders, and a major suppliers of car seats went offshore several years ago, and are reaping the rewards, and there are others, although way too few, who have moved to accommodate the long term trends in the industry, and have prospered.
Here is where I have problems. We are focussed on the political cycle, short term returns, ideology lacking foundation in the real behaviour of real people, and an expectation that it will be all done for us, by the “government”, forgetting that the government is us, spending our money in ways that suit them, and their political priorities, that have little to do with the long term development of engineering capabilities in the country.
Bit like Canute up to his arse in waves bitching about the tide.
Dec 18, 2013 | Change, Collaboration, Leadership, Strategy
Years ago I worked in a small management group that was faced with the resurrection of a failed business. Problem was, the parent company was blissfully unaware, as the poor performance was hidden inside the operations and overhead recovery of the much larger parent entity.
When it was broken out as a separate division, I did the first P&L, in those days by hand on a 25 column ledger sheet, (any readers remember those?) and wondered what the hell I had done leaving my comfy corporate marketing job for this pile of smelly, baked-on crap.
Over a period of 6 years, this small group turned the business around. It was profitable, 5 times the size, and strategically well positioned. Then the MD of the parent woke up with a good idea in his hand and re-merged the division back into the larger business in an effort to capture some of the successful competitive DNA we had grown. You know what happened then.
Upon reflection, the core of our success was two things:
- Relentless focus on the things that mattered. We relentlessly identified problems and their root causes, and attacked them as a group, disregarding the superfluous, distracting, and often attractive alternative opportunities to spend our time.
- We worked together. The management group, a pretty standard functional arrangement argued, experimented, and engaged as many people as we could who may have something to contribute. People on the operational floor often had the solutions to problems before we had identified the problem adequately, no information was privileged, apart from salary levels, and every pair of eyeballs, and voice listened to, and encouraged. We just had to trust everyone, and it worked. By having many eyeballs on everything, we always had better outcomes.
I am reminded of all this, some 25 years later, with pride, some nostalgia, and sadness. One of that small group died last week, and many of those involved attended his funeral yesterday, it was a sad but joyful day.
Vale my friend and colleague George McDonald, St Peter better have a solid lock on the VB fridge.
Dec 16, 2013 | Branding, Governance, Management, Strategy
For perhaps the 1,000th time last week I heard the “strategy” question asked. It comes in many forms:
What is your customer strategy?
What is your google strategy?
What is your social media strategy? and so on.
All are valid questions, but the implication is that there is a different strategy for every bloody thing that is faced by a business, which to my mind is a degradation, perhaps commoditisation of the meaning of the word as it should (in my view) be practised. This type of usage is about the implementation of strategy, the manner in which you go about achieving the strategic outcomes desired, not about the formulation of the drivers of performance over the long term.
Equally, having an annual “strategic workshop” that sets strategy for the year is a nonsense, well, at best a budgeting session by another name.
“Strategy” is at once simpler, and more complicated than that, and comes down to five really challenging questions that must be lived, every day, by all in the enterprise. They are not the subject of some crappy off-site gab-fest in the slow sales period of the year if you are serious.
- What is the business we are in? (the old are we selling drills, or 20mm holes question, probably the most undervalued, and original marketing question)
- What does the enterprise do to add value?
- What are the behavioural drivers of the primary customers we are seeking to service
- What is our value proposition to these customers and potential customers?
- What capabilities are crucial, now and into the future, and how do we develop them to be differentiated?
When was the last time you seriously asked yourself any of these?
Nov 27, 2013 | Change, retail, Sales, Strategy
The verb that describes the process of retailers ignoring the shift to digital: payment, e-shopping, mobile selection of destination, on-line reviews, and so on.
The business model is rapidly evolving, whatever your current model may be, nothing is set in stone, or even rubber. To survive, business models need to be granular pieces of collaborative capability that capture the instantaneous, mobile, web-enabled future.
Currently, our esteemed political leaders are debating how to extract GST from net sales, bleating about the lost revenue that should go to hospitals, schools, and perhaps overseas study tours. It has happened for the last few Christmases; the retailers’ association generates some on-line sales numbers, then applies GST, hyping up the lost revenue to pollies who are too silly to recognise the flaws in the logic:
- Not all sales over the net are “lost” sales to bricks and mortar retail: the net is a demand generator, it does not simply suck sales away from retail.
- Not all net purchases are from international sellers: many are domestic, on which the GST is collected.
- On-line sales are growing strongly, but are still a modest 6.3%, according to the latest NAB survey. Optimising the other 93% would seem more productive than bleating about the little they lose.
- The compliance costs will be huge. Irrespective of how many economic models are generated, common sense would lead to the conclusion that a significant percentage of parcels would need to be opened, and heavy fines imposed, to put a brake on international purchases. If Customs cannot stop the flow of drugs, guns, and such by post, what makes them think they can be more effective slowing the flow of Barbie dolls and books at Christmas?
- Our retailers have the perfect right, if not the capability, to sell internationally, boosting their numbers. Obviously, boosting capability would seem sensible.
The world has moved on. Being “netf…ked” is optional – a choice in the hands of management. So, why not set out to be the netf..ker” rather than the” netf..kee”
Nov 21, 2013 | Governance, Management, Marketing, Strategy
The metaphor for business as war is widely used, and it does have considerable value when considering strategy, tactics, capability development and resource deployment.
Marketing is a base component of this mix. It requires you to see the world, product offer, through the eyes and behavior of others, your customers, and potential customers, and in so doing, observe and understand the value proposition of alternative offerings.
So, if there is a metaphor for the competitive aspects of marketing, it is act like your enemy, do to yourself what your enemy would if they had the information, resources and capabilities you have, with the intent of defeating you.
With apologies to the original, “do unto others before they do unto you.”
