Nov 17, 2011 | Collaboration, Strategy
Scientific collaboration is a challenging proposition, most scientists would agree that collaboration is a key component in problem solving, but few practice it beyond their immediate research group, as their careers are dependent on publishing. As a result, they hoard ideas, data, methods, and all the other stuff necessary for progress, and publish it themselves.
The culture of the scientific community is geared to recognize publishing new and original stuff in scientific journals, not sharing ideas on a wiki. Scientists do not get a job or more funding on the basis of wiki-sharing great ideas, but they do for getting marginal stuff published, so guess where the focus is! To build collaborative scientific effort, we need to reverse this relationship.
During the project to map the human genome, huge amounts of data were required, data that was dispersed amongst the various bodies doing the research that generated it. To facilitate sharing, an agreement that became known as the “Bermuda Principles” was forged that created the culture of sharing data immediately it became available, and this simple change turbo-charged the effort to complete the project.
What drove the difference the agreement created to most other scientific collaborative efforts was that the major funders agreed that the price of participation in the project was the sharing of data, if you wanted the funding, the absolute condition was sharing data. Bingo, collaboration was created by putting a price on participation.
Nov 16, 2011 | Marketing, Small business, Strategy
Woolworths and Coles price and promotion strategies are often shaped by what happens in the UK, as there is a history of successful imitation in Australia. The resurgence of Coles has taken the initiative from Woolworths, and the short term outcome has been price reductions to consumers, the flip side of course, and there is always a flip side, is a further hollowing of the production sector in Australia.
I am pretty sure that if you asked consumers which they would prefer, a price reduction today, or production security into the future, they would take the former, without understanding the probable consequences.
The Federal Court found last week in favor of Metcash in their effort to sell Franklins, saying in part that the competitive power of Woolworths and Coles served to keep prices to consumers down, solidifying the power of the status quo.
Nov 8, 2011 | Management, Strategy
The electronic revolution in all its guises is a paradox, and a huge challenge to any management group, and individual who seeks to make a mark.
On one hand, the advances in the capacity to process, store and transmit data is ravaging 20th century business models, on the other, it is creating huge opportunities to create new value.
The area in the middle of these two extremes is rough commercial terrain, full of quicksand for the unwary. This observation applies to both the businesses that survive on the web, as well as those more traditional manufacturing and processing businesses who still need factories and farms to produce stuff. It is just that all the processes that support the management activities have been changed dramatically.
Nov 4, 2011 | Branding, Communication, Marketing, Strategy
A consumers relationship with a brand is a bit like a friendship, if it is strong, you will be prepared to put up with a bit of nonsense and still be friends, if it is weak, you may not be. If the poor behaviour continues, it will normally be the end of the “brand friendship”, after all, a friendship is supposed to be a two way process.
It’s a simple equation, deliver the benefits of friendship, the “brand promise” to people who care, and you will not depreciate your brand, fail to deliver, and depreciation occurs, and as every marketer knows, building it up is always harder than tearing it down
Accountants understand the notion of friendship in a balance sheet, called “goodwill”, they see it all the time, problem is they do not understand how it gets there.
A quick scan of the commentary yesterday after the Cup day reduction of retail interest rates resulted in all the major banks, except NAB, passing on the whole reduction indicates, a customer PR bellyflop of significant proportions, a whack on the nose to all “brand friends” .
It really does not matter how justified the “banking” of .05% of the decrease by NAB may be, they have just spent millions telling us how they are different from the others, setting themselves up as the bank for service, one you can go to with your financial problems, your banking friend, and it has been an effective message. All gone, “Poof”.
A rational bankers decision based on the margin squeeze created by the rising costs of wholesale money, and the reducing rates in Australia, but taken in an emotional market. Dumb.
Want to see brand depreciation, just look at NAB for a case study.
Nov 3, 2011 | Change, Leadership, Strategy
It seems that the carrot and stick approach will work less in the future than it has in the past. Science is demonstrating that for tasks that require even a modest amount of cogitative skill, paying more for the task actually reduces performance. Again, the higher the rewards, the less the performance, and our world is rapidly becoming a place where routine and repetitive tasks are being eliminated.
So much for the notion of huge executive pay as an incentive. When you look around, it is pretty obvious. Linux, Wikipedia, Apache, the list goes on, major businesses emerging from an economically impossible business model, getting smart people to work for nothing, then giving away the results!
That should make an economists head hurt.
Humans work for a meal and a place to stay, be warm, and have some basic comforts, but once these basics are taken care of, they work for the satisfaction, the recognition, to achieve something meaningful, and to enjoy doing it. The trick therefore is to have a purpose in your business, one that engages and motivates, and allow your employees to exercise their innate creativity and insight to achieve the purpose.
Daniel Pink presents these ideas in an animated presentation that is as entertaining as it is informative.
Nov 2, 2011 | Management, Operations, Strategy
Yesterday’s question time, a childish brawl over who knew what and when about the Qantas decision to ground its aircraft, lock out staff, and leave customers around the world stranded, got me thinking. Not just about the pointless squabbling amongst the pollies over a point of history that legally is none of their business, but about the way a business can be subject to expectations way out of line with their competitors, and its legal obligations.
It is obvious that Qantas had considered grounding as a tactic in their industrial dispute, it is completely stupid to think Alan Joyce woke up on Saturday with a bright idea, there would have been a deep consideration at board level of a very aggressive and disruptive tactic that was almost of a “bet the farm” nature.
The real question is, what obligations does Qantas have to act in what politicians consider to be the public interest, when Qantas is a public company, and the Government sold their shareholding years ago in order to free themselves from the demands of being the major shareholder?
Qantas is fighting for its survival, the competitive world of aviation has moved on, and Qantas must adjust or disappear, and yet, there are clamourings for it to ignore the probability of its demise without change.
What gives the pollies, and a large portion of the public the right to demand that Qantas shareholders take a bath to satisfy an emotional attachment that is not backed by any financial commitment? If this was almost any other company in the top 100 listed companies, the tactics in an industrial dispute would be of little general interest, only the stakeholders directly involved would be making their points, and then within the legislated framework.
Why is Qantas different?
