Unpacking the characteristics of a demand chain

Unpacking the characteristics of a demand chain

Aug 15, 2018 | Demand chains, Operations

Recently I found myself in a group conversation about marketing ‘channels’, and almost had to scream.

Like most conversations of this nature, they were just about logistics. Pity the poor old customer, barely got a mention apart from being noted as being on the end of a supply chain.

The whole conversation sounded like the ones I had in the 70’s, prior to any of the development that has gone into the thinking about the nature of the chains delivering product to customers, or the systems that drive them that has occurred in the interim.

A chain does not kick into operation until someone decides to buy something, it is activated by demand, not supply. Therefore, we would be better served to think about it as a demand chain. This is more than a semantic difference, it acknowledges that the chain is a ‘Pull’ model, activated by demand, not a ‘Push’ model, activated by supply with no reference to how that available supply will be sold.

Everything that comes after the decision to buy something is just seeking ways to split up the revenue from that sale.

Looking at it from the customers view, the only things that are important are those that add value for them, the details of the shipping from A to B, and manufacturing processes are supremely irrelevant.

Everyone in the chain is competing for a slice of that dollar.

A chain is a complex system, or it can be. The simple definition of a complex system is that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. You can view a chain as a number of sequential but essentially separate activities, or as a number of interdependent activities.

In the first, we are fighting for a slice of the pie, in the second, we are collaborating to make the pie bigger before slicing it up and sharing it around.

They are profoundly different.

The latter is way harder to build and maintain, but delivers significantly better financial and strategic outcomes in the long term, as the price on the day of a product becomes almost irrelevant.

Following are the descriptions I use to make the key distinctions.

Supply chain.

Supply chain arrangements are basically, grow/make it and chuck it over the fence and hope somebody buys it, and eventually pays you, something, which is most often not reflecting what the producer thinks it is worth. Most of agriculture works on this model, and it has failed us.

Characteristics: Short term price, adversarial negotiations, multiple supplier competition of undifferentiated product, buyers who hold the negotiation power deriving from scale, or the anonymity via auction.

Value Chains.

A value chain seeks to control at least some of the value-add that occurs between the production and customer, and thereby capture some of the added value by margin. Mostly however, the value add is calculated as the ‘cost add’ as the consumers view of value plays no role in the calculation. The classic case is bread, where millers have become bakers to capture the value added margin that results from bread being baked from their milled grain. You often see this type of vertical integration evolving as one link seeks to control what happens on either side. However, it is still an essentially sequential and disconnected process, of grower, miller, baker, and distributor.

Characteristics: price is important but not the only factor, specifications and specification maintenance become important, the amount and type of value added is taken into account, very aggressive negotiation occurs, but it is no longer ‘take it or leave it’ as it is in a supply chain. Calculation of the value add is usually the marginal cost of the manufactured goods sold, minus the input commodity price. As in a supply chain, this is usually just a calculation based on competitive pressures. Often in recent times, marketing has got hold of the end product, (as in bread) differentiated it a bit, added some advertising and benefit claims, and tried to sell the product for a premium.

Demand chains.

These are rare beasts indeed, and do not usually carry the name ‘demand chain’. It is activated by pressure applied to the chain from the end buyer, the opposite direction of both supply and value chain arrangements. It is pressure delivered to the chain by real demand, and has proven to be the key to success. For example, Toyota apply demand chain disciplines on their suppliers, by having the parts procurement process activated by a ‘Kanban’ card on the production line. This is the genesis of the TPS which has revolutionised modern manufacturing.

Characteristics:  Driven by demand, collaborative relationships for mutual benefit drives activity, specifications and DIFOT performance are crucial, prices are negotiated on the basis of best outcome for the whole chain, as well as the individual, and there is information transparency throughout the chain which these days requires IT integration.

 

The spread of digital technology has given us the tools to make the transformation to demand chains easier, but they require power to be devolved, and the status quo in most cases to be altered, so rarely do they evolve to their full potential. Increasingly we will see an evolution towards demand chains as enterprises seek sources of differentiation, enhanced customer service, and cost reduction, all at the same time.

 

Culture: ‘People like us do things like this’

Culture: ‘People like us do things like this’

Aug 1, 2018 | Governance, Leadership

 

So said Seth Godin in a segment of a Q&A session.

Articulating culture is really hard, my go-to definition to date has always been ‘The way we do it around here‘ from Michael Porter.

This articulation ‘People like us do things like this‘ adds to it, by widening the circle to which it applies.

If there is  not a shared set of beliefs and behavioral norms that describe how and why you do the things you do, in any organisation or institution, chances are the outcomes will be suboptimal.

I recommend you watch this, (it is only 7 minutes) and while the answer is to a question from a politician on how to win, it has far wider implications for us all.

Then think about the behaviour you want, and the means by which you can measure progress towards it to build a sustaining culture.

9 ways to ‘stack the deck’ to win that vital tender

9 ways to ‘stack the deck’ to win that vital tender

Jul 25, 2018 | Marketing, Operations, Sales, Uncategorized

 

The better prepared the tender, the better the chance of winning.

Hard to disagree with that statement, but then what makes for a better prepared tender?

While price has a role to play, it is only the deciding factor when all else is equal. Your task as a tenderer is to ensure that all else is not equal, and that your tender represents the best value to the enterprise wanting something  done. Then  you have stacked the deck!

A friend of mine is a senior engineer in a very large building contractor, one of those who is changing the skyline of Sydney on an almost daily basis.

The stress is killing him.

There is the constant need to keep the work flow of projects moving, identifying, preparing and winning tenders, then there is the stress that really kicks in as the construction side of the business tries to extract profit out of a ‘successful’ tender.

Talking to him I was reminded of Albert Einstein’s quote that ‘If I had an hour to fix a life defining problem, I would spend the first fifty minutes defining the problem, the rest is just maths’

When preparing a tender, the filling of the form is the maths. You have to get it right, all questions answered with quality copywriting, no spelling or punctuation errors, professional layout, but still just maths.

The key to winning is not in the maths, that is just table stakes, it is in the manner in which the vision of the contractor is reflected in the documents, the manner in which the tender you submit reflects value in the eyes of the judges. Each judge in the process will have a different definition of ‘Value’. The accountants will focus on cost, the engineers on the durability, regulatory and engineering integrity, the architects in the manner in which the construction reflects the aesthetic and functional innovations contained in their design, and the stakeholders in the return on investment, which is a function of both price to build and price that the construction can generate from buyers and users.

When you spend an extra $1 on the build that generates an extra $2 on the market value, the extra investment is a great one.

So what makes for a winning tender, that is also commercially successful as the job is completed?

Seems to me that the best measure is the degree to which the tenderer comes back and offers some sort of inside running for the next big project because of your performance in the last one or two

Tendering against someone who has that sort of inside running is usually a waste of time and money.

In the case of public infrastructure tenders, where price is a more important factor, you also have to manage the added complication of the nature of the bureaucratic processes and the politics of  the day.

Just ask Acciona, the Spanish firm who contracted to build the Sydney light rail project, which has become another infrastructure debacle. They seem to have taken the arguably inadequate tender docs literally, failed to do their own due diligence, quoted a price and time line, then found themselves in a billion dollar slanging match with the government.

When was the last time you saw a really complicated project RFQ that reflected all the complications that evolved during the construction?

So, how to stack the deck in your favour?

Perhaps a better way of putting it is to answer the question: ‘How can I quote the highest reasonable price, and still win the tender?

Know more about the project than the principal.

Understand what is really being requested. Most tender documents are dry tick the box type things that have nothing of the ‘humanity’ to which most projects are setting out to make a contribution. Focus on the humanity, and vision, not just the yes/no questions.

Understand the ‘vision’ of the principal.

Better yet, shape the vision, so that you can shape the guidelines of the tender docs to best suit your distinctive capabilities

Have relationships with all the ‘functional Buyers’ in the process.

It is always the case that there are a variety of roles played inside a tender process. Engineering, regulatory affairs, financial, architectural, and project management all will have a differing perspective of the end result, and the best route to get there. There is also always someone with the final call, a right of veto. Understanding the nuances of these functional variations, and accommodating them in the manner in which you approach both the documentation and the informal conversations that occur is vital.

Anticipate and leverage ‘Buyers’ personal inclinations.

The ‘buyers’ in the process, in addition to the functional bias, will have personal and emotional views about the best tender. Some will be for you, some against you, some ambivalent, and sometimes there is one prepared to ‘coach’ you on the side when you are a their preferred candidate. Being sensitive to these views, and leveraging them is often of critical importance.

Identify information holes.

No RFQ is ever complete, so identifying the ‘information holes’ not only gives you added credibility, it also gives you the opportunity to get a jump on competitors

Articulate any obvious shortcomings you may have.

Rarely would a tenderer be an absolutely perfect fit for a job, there will always be compromises that can be used as objections by those who may have an alternative favoured candidate. The best way to deal with objections is to raise them yourself, and deal with them. Once dismissed in this way, they generally cease to be valid objections.

Be proud of price.

Remember the old cliché ‘Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM’? It still applies. Human beings are always concerned with their own best interests, which correlates strongly to making as few mistakes as possible. Most are wary of the cheapest price, there is always a catch, either in the fine print, exclusions, or poorer quality, so there is always room to justify a reasonable price that delivers value but not at the rock bottom.

Tenders are competitions.

As in any competitive situation, the more you know about your competition, the better able you are to address their strengths and capitalise on their relative weaknesses. A tender process is not all about you, and your response, it is also about your response relative to the others in the race.

Attention to detail.

It is so obvious that it should not be in this list, but nevertheless, is often overlooked. Spelling and grammatical mistakes abound, as do simple editing errors, inadequately or unanswered questions, and an absence of simple but elegant and memorable graphic design. Make sure you do not repeat these mistakes of your competitors.

 

When you lose, as is inevitable from time to time, make sure you invest the time and effort in understanding why you lost, learn the lessons so the next time you are a step ahead.

Photo: industry.nsw.gov.au

 

 

The four parameters of collaborative success.

The four parameters of collaborative success.

Jul 23, 2018 | Collaboration, Strategy

Collaboration in all sorts of guises, from casual cooperation to formal agreements and even mergers and acquisitions,  is becoming more and more common. Digital tools of communication appear to make it easier, which they should do. However, the tools themselves do not address the basic causes of collaborative failure, a failure to agree on a common outcome that is in the best interests of all parties, and to act on that agreement consistently.

Most collaborative structures fail, sometimes after initial success is unable to be repeated or scaled, even in the face of a compelling logic.

Over the years I have put together a number of alliances, in several industries, with vastly different objectives, from buying simple manufacturing inputs together, to jointly entering export markets with high barriers.

While the nature of  them is different, there are four challenges that simply must be addressed before the collaboration has any hope of survival let alone success.  These four common characteristics of all of them need to be acknowledged and managed.

Profit potential.

The collaboration must be seen by both parties, sometimes all parties where there is more than two (as is often the case in agricultural alliances) as being worth the effort. The potential value must be positive for both the alliances and every individual member of the alliance. This is always a fragile calculation, and the tragedy of the commons always comes into play.

In areas where there is no profit motive, such as between government departments, finding a unifying motive is even harder, and usually in my experience succumbs to politics and ego even faster than  in the private sector.

Complementary skills.

The chances of success are enhanced when the strengths of the parties are complementary, the strengths of one serves to fill in the weaknesses of the other. There is always overlap, sometimes considerable.  At each point of overlap the parties should be asking themselves if that particular area is of significant strategic importance to them, is it a key part of their value proposition and differentiation. Where it is, and there is overlap, trouble follows.

Common view of the outcome.

Differing expectations of the outcome results in stresses that kill off any collaboration. In the absence of a very clear and common view of the outcome of a collaboration, both for the collaborating group and its individual members, it will fail. This is a challenging proposition, as all sorts of human characteristics and frailties become enmeshed in the manner in which they all behave. This common view of the value and outcome of the collaboration must be clear at all levels in all  the collaborating enterprises, and the resources of all focussed at least to some extent on making the collaboration work.

Governance of the collaboration.

Managing an enterprise where there is the opportunity to exercise institutional power is hard enough, it is geometrically harder when the institutional  power is absent, or significantly diminished as it usually is in a collaboration.

Collaborations vary as noted from one-off transactions to  financially, operationally and strategically merged entities, with most residing somewhere between these extremes.  There must be governance rules that define the appropriate behaviour of the parties to  the agreement in all sorts of situations that can be envisaged, as well as those that cannot. These rules must go beyond the scope of applicable regulations, as we are dealing with people. The role of Directors and senior management is to enhance the value of an enterprise, and given there is mountains of data demonstrating that collaborations, particularly at the M&A end of the continuum destroys value, the governance of any form of alliance is critical to its commercial success and longevity.

Normally there are common concerns that can be agreed up front, but there also needs to be agreement on how to manage those situations that are not specifically a part of the initial agreement, but that pop up in the course of operations.

 

It is always best to hammer those out and put them in writing, irrespective of the goodwill that may exist at  the outset, as both people and circumstances change. Tiny molehills that emerge tend to rapidly become mountains unless addressed in a consistent manner, early.

 

There is considerable benefit in working on a ‘code of conduct’ at the formation stage. This can be an agreement over coffee of two sole trader entrepreneurs to a several day workshop of the parties to hammer out the agreements against a pro forma that covers the areas necessary for success.

Such a pro-forma must cover a range of areas, the most important being:

  • Expressions of the specific outcomes each party expects.
  • Definition of what is in, and what is out of the collaboration.
  • Definition of the roles and responsibilities of each of the parties.
  • Creation of joint decision making processes, and the means by which they will be communicated, evolved and managed.
  • The investment requirements of the parties, including non-financial investments, the area where the most challenging disputes can emerge, and how these differing investments will be valued over time.
  • What happens to the assets of the collaboration in the event of a dissolution of the collaboration.
  • A specific list of governance rules and the investments required to maintain them.
  • Specifically set out to build and maintain trust, without which all  the foregoing is a waste of time, and trust is always a function of behaviour, it has to be earned, rarely is it just given..

 

A final point upon which all collaborations hang, and have always hung since the beginning of people living together in some sort of interdependent manner. A collaboration,  or co-operation can only succeed over time when all parties to the agreement see that their best interests are best served by serving the best interests of the group before their own.

Cartoon credit: Scott Adams creating Dilbert, and his wry commentary

Is data killing marketing creativity?

Is data killing marketing creativity?

Jul 18, 2018 | Branding, Marketing

The credibility of marketing in the boardroom fails the test to be quantitative, simply because it is about the future, about predicting  human behaviour and designing experiences and communications that they will relate to.

We hope.

Businesses are run on data, ‘what is the ROI’ may be the most common question around the board table. When the answer is ‘I do  not know’ or a set of fluffy clichés about customer experience, the accountants, lawyers and engineers who run the joint go to sleep.

Therefore marketers have embraced the availability of digital tools like a drowning man grabbing a floater, any floater will do, and now we are drowning in data.

Problem is the foundations of  the data are shaky, but because it passed the data sniff test, it gets a nod.

The result is boring, risk averse, creatively dead, communication and  marketing programs.

This is great for those few who remain undaunted by the data, who build on a creative platform, using data as one of a number of tools to hone the impact, simply because the competition is so bland.

Where something is unknown , rather than speculating, imagining, and creating, we deliver a dump truck of irrelevant data to fill the hole in the hope that no one asks the key question about its validity. ‘Because it is numbers, it must be right’ seems to be the default position.

The best marketers  today use data, they leverage data, they do not love it, do not allow it to drive the output, just to inform it. They remain creative.

So, my answer to the question posed in the headline is “mostly yes”. However, for those who have figured out how to use data to inform their creativity rather than to drive it, the good times are here. It is much easier to stand out in the sea of mediocrity that now exists for those very few who can harness and direct the power of data rather than being consumed by it.

Cartoon credit: my thanks, again, to Tom Fishburne www.marketoonist.com