by Adam Hartung | Jan 18, 2010 | Current Affairs, Disruptions, In the Rapids, Leadership, Openness, Web/Tech
Over the last week everyone has heard stories about how Facebook, and Twitter, became primary communication conduits for people with connections in Haiti. Telephone and slower communication vehicles simply have not been able to connect family and friends in this crisis like Facebook. When shift happens, it accelerates as new uses come to the forefront quickly. For everyone trying to connect with employment candidates, suppliers and customers this shift has immediate and important impact on behavior.
Source: Silicon Alley Insider
For advertisers, the impact is significant. Where should ad dollars be placed? On a traditional home page and search site – like Yahoo! – or on Facebook?
And it's not just the sites themselves, but how long people are on these sites. From an advertising point of view, you can start to think about Facebook – and YouTube – almost like a "channel" from early television days. Where the audience comes back again and again – offering you not only a large audience, but more opportunities to reach them more often. Facebook and YouTube are beginning to dominate the "user views."
Source: Silicon Alley Insider
Source: Silicon Alley Insider
Of course, the impact isn't just regarding the web, but how any business would use media to reach a target audience. Most advertising agencies, and ad people, are still focused on traditional media. But, as we can see, that WILL shift — even more than it traditionally has.
Source: Silicon Alley Insider
Anybody investing in newspapers, expecting a resurgence in value, is pretty foolish. Newspapers are going to lose ad dollars – not gain. Relatively, newspapers already are getting too much of the ad spend. Talk radio has growth. And clearly the web. Since we can expect that newspaper and magazine readership will continue recent downward trends, and television is fragmenting as well as stalling, the big growth is on the internet.
The market shift is really pretty clear. We aren't speculating about the market direction with this data. The question becomes, will you be an early adopter of these new media channels or not? Given that the web and mobile have the lowest ad rates of all media, why wouldn't you? Over the last 2 months Pepsi has decided to NOT advertise on the Super Bowl, instead putting the money into social media. And after introducing the Granite Concept car at the Detroit auto show, even behind-the-times GM is now considering a launch of this vehicle, intended for buyers under 35, using only web advertising.
So what are your plans? Do you have scenarios where Facebook and YouTube are integral to your marketing? Do you have pages, groups and channels on these sites? Do you post content? Are you using them to interact with potential customers, vendors and employees? If not – what are you waiting on? Do you need a Disruption to create some White Space and get started? If so – isn't it time to get going?
by Adam Hartung | Jan 6, 2010 | Current Affairs, General, In the Rapids, Innovation, Leadership, Openness, Web/Tech
Leadership
Listen To Competitors–Not Customers
01.06.10, 03:10 PM EST
The accepted wisdom that the customer is king is all wrong.
That's the start to my latest Forbes column (Read here.) Think about it. What would Apple be if it had listened to its customers? An out of business niche PC company by now. What about Google? A narrow search engine company – anyone remember Alta Vista or Ask Jeeves or the other early search engine companies? No customer was telling Apple or Google to get into all the businesses they are in now – and making impressive rates of return while others languish.
But today Google launched Nexus One (read about it on Mobile Marketing Daily here) – a product the company developed by watching its competitors – Apple and Microsoft – rather than asking its customers. In the last year "smartphones" went to 17% of the market – from only 7% in 2007 according to Forrester Research. There's nothing any more "natural" about Google – ostensibly a search engine company – making smartphones (or even operating systems for phones like Android) than for GE to get into this business. But Google did because it's paying attention to competitors, not what customers tell it to do.
No customers told Google to develop a new browser – or operating system – which is what Chrome is about. In fact, IT departments wanted Microsoft to develop a better operating system and largely never thought of Google in the space. And no IT department asked Google to develop Google Wave – a new enterprise application which will connect users to their applications and data across the "cloud" allowing for more capability at a fraction of the cost. But Google is watching competitors, and letting them tell Google where the market is heading. Long before customers ask for these products, Google is entering the market with new solutions – the output of White Space that is disrupting existing markets.
Far too many companies spend too much time asking customers what to do. In an earlier era, IBM almost went bankrupt by listening to customers tell them to abandon PCs and stay in the mainframe business —– but that's taking the thunder away from the Forbes article. Give it a read, there's lots of good stuff about how people who listen to customers jam themselves up – and how smarter ones listen to competitors instead. (Ford, Tribune Corporation, eBay, Cisco, Dell, Salesforce.com, CSC, EDS, PWC, Dell, Sun Microsystems, Silicon Graphics and HP.)
by Adam Hartung | Dec 31, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, General, Leadership, Openness, Web/Tech
HAPPY NEW YEAR!
We end the first decade in 2000 with another first. In ReutersBreakingViews.com "Don't Diss the Dividend" we learn 2000-2009 is the first time in modern stock markets when U.S. investors made no money for a decade. Right. Worse performance than the 1930s Great Depression. Over the last decade, the S&P 500 had a net loss of about 1%/year. After dividends a gain of 1% – less than half the average inflation rate of 2.5%.
Things have shifted. We ended the last millenium with a shift from an industrial economy to an information economy. And the tools for success in earlier times no longer work. Scale economies and entry barriers are elusive, and unable to produce "sustainable competitive advantage." Over the last decade shifts in business have bankrupted GM, Circuit City and Tribune Corporation – while gutting other major companies like Sears. Simultaneously these changes brought huge growth and success to Google, Apple, Hewlett Packard, Virgin and small companies like Louis Glunz Beer, Foulds Pasta and Tasty Catering.
Even the erudite McKinsey Quarterly is now trumpeting the new requirements for business success in "Competing through Organizational Agility." Using academic research from the London Business School, author Donald Sull points out that market turbulence increased 2 to 4 times between the 1970s and 1990s – and is continuing to increase. More market change is happening, and market changes are happening faster. Thus, creating strategies and organizations that are able to adjust to shifting market requirements creates higher revenue and improved operational efficiency. Globally agility is creating better returns than any other business approach.
A McKinsey Quarterly on-line video "Navigating the New Normal: A Conversation with 4 Chief Strategy Officers," discusses changes in business requirements for 2010 and beyond. All 4 of these big company strategists agree that success now requires far shorter planning cycles, abandoning efforts to predict markets that change too quickly, and recognizing that historically indisputable assumptions are rapidly becoming obsolete. What used to work at creating competitive advantage no longer works. Monolothic strategies developed every few years, with organizations focused on "execution," are simply uncompetitive in a rapidly shifting world.
And "the old boys club" of white men in top business leadership roles is quickly going to change dramatically. In the Economist article "We Did It" we learn that in 2010 the American workforce will shift to more than 50% women. If current leaders continue following old approaches – and generating anemic returns – they will rapidly be replaced by leaders willing to do what has to be done to succeed in today's marketplace. Like Indra Nooyi of PepsiCo, women will take on more top positions as investors and employees demand changes to improve performance. Leaders will have to be flexible and adaptive or they, and their organizations, will not survive.
Additionally, the information technology products which unleashed this new era will change, and become unavoidable. In Forbes "Using the Cloud for Business" one of the creators of modern ERP (enterprise resource planning) systems (like SAP and Oracle) Jan Baan discusses how cloud computing changes business. ERP systems were all about data, and the applications were stovepiped – like the industrial enterprises they were designed for. Unfortunately, they were expensive to buy and very expensive to install and even more expensive to maintain. Simultaneously they had all the flexibility of cement. ERP systems, which proliferate in large companies today, were control products intended to keep the organization from doing anything beyond its historical Success Formula.
But cloud computing is infinitely flexible. Compare Facebook to Lotus Notes and you start understanding the difference between cloud computing and large systems. Anyone can connect, share links, share files and even applications on Facebook at almost no cost. Lotus Notes is an expensive enterprise application that costs a lot to buy, to operate, to maintain and has significantly less flexibility. Notes is about control. Facebook is about productivity.
Cloud computing is 1/10th the cost of monolithic owned/internal IT systems. Cloud computing offers small and mid-sized companies all the computing opportunity of big companies – and big advantages to new competitors if CIOs at big companies hold onto their "investments" in IT systems too long. Businesses that use cloud architectures can rearrange their supply chain immediately – and daily. Flexibility, and adaptability, grows exponentially. And EVERYONE can use it. Where mainframes were the tool for software engineers (and untouchable by everyone else), the PC made it possible for individuals to have their own applications. Cloud computing democratizes computing so everyone with a smartphone has access and use. With practically no training.
As we leave the worst business environment in modern times, we enter a new normal. Those who try to defend & extend old business practices will continue to suffer declining returns, poor performance and failure – like the last decade. But those who embrace "the new normal" can grow and prosper. It takes a willingness to let scenarios about the future drive your behavior, a keen focus on competitors to understand market needs, a willingness to disrupt old Lock-ins and implement White Space so you can constantly test opportunities for defining new, flexible and higher returning Success Formulas.
Here's to 2010 and the new normal! Happy New Year!
by Adam Hartung | Dec 30, 2009 | Defend & Extend, General, Leadership, Openness, Web/Tech, Weblogs
As we enter 2010, is your business expecting a very different future – and have you started planning to implement new approaches based upon a different future? For example, how do you plan to acquire new customers, employees and vendors in 2010 and beyond? Do you still rely on traditional advertising? Do you use a web site? Is most of your on-line IT budget still dedicated to web site development? How much of your plans for 2010 are extensions of what you've been doing on 2009 – or maybe an ongoing trend from much earlier in the decade?
According to the Wall Street Journal in "Linked In Wants Users to Connect More," the number of Linked in users almost doubled in 2009, from 31.5M to 53.6M. And to drive additional user traffic the site is working hard to add applications which can help companies with recruiting, marketing and other business functions. With users jumping, and time on site increasing, is your company blocking access? Or is it figuring out how to leverage this leading web site to find new customers, recruit aggressive new employees and build a stronger business?
But Linked-in is considerably less successful than Facebook. Do you still think of Facebook as a site for college kids to plan drinking parties? If so, you've missed a tsunami in the making. Facebook's user base, at 350 million, is over 6 times Linked-in. According to ReadWriteWeb.com "It was a Facebook Christmas; Site Hits #1 in U.S. for First Time." On 2 days Facebook actually had more site hits than search giant Google! And Facebook was the #1 Google search in 2009. Facebook use is exploding. The average Facebook user spends over 3.5 hours in a session. Many Facebook users log in daily to keep up with their network and what's happening in markets of interest to them.
Increasingly, people don't do web searches to find out about restaurants, movies, products, services – or even jobs. They go to social media sites like Linked-In, Facebook and Twitter. If you depend on people to use your web site to learn about your business – that may be too late. When referred by a friend, what is the first impression a potential customer (or recruit) gets when reaching out to your LInked-in, MySpace or Facebook page? What applications or groups do you support to demonstrate your business and your ability to grow? How are you reaching out through these environments to meet the people who should be a customer, employee or vendor?
Increasingly, people don't even make their first touch with your business via your web site. iPhone users, and the soon-to-explode Android phone users, as well as all the other "smartphone" (or mobile device) users learn about your business from a very small screen that brings in small bits of information that is largely text. They often go to a PC and search a traditional web site only every few days. So how is your information presented? Is it largely graphical, with embedded objects that don't show up well (or at all) on a mobile device? Is it lengthy HTML pages that requires scrolling on a phone?
Increasingly, people looking for you will blow off traditional web pages in favor of easier to access and read information. You may hate the 140 character Twitter limit – but it's becoming a standard (the new "elevator pitch.") So is your on-line impression being driven by web developers, or by mobile device developers? Is your on-line environment all about driving people to your web site – which may never happen – or are you effectively connecting with them via Facebook, et.al. and informing them without asking them to go to your environment? Are you letting users control their access to your information, making it easy for them, or are you trying to control their behavior — and putting off many?
There are many reasons to think that in 2010 how people acquire business information will shift from traditional web sites to social media sites. First impressions, and a lot of the decision making process, will come from Facebook, Linked-in and Twitter. Is your business positioned for this shift?
Pepsi recently made a decision that appears forward-focused rather than following tradition. Pepsi is abandoning Super Bowl ads in favor of spending more on-line. MarketingDaily.com reports in "Compete: Pepsi's On-line Push a Smart Play" that Pepsi is reaching more people at a lower cost by investing in on-line marketing. Despite the historical role Super Bowl ads have played for big consumer products companies, Pepsi's decision is positioning the company to better connect with more users and drive more sales. Coke's decision to remain with traditional advertising looks increasingly expensive – and out of step with how people really make purchase decisions today.
Smart companies are already making changes to reach the tidal wave of people relying on social media. They are building a strong impression, and business applications, that help them grow using environments like Linked-in, MySpace and Facebook. And they employ people to keep their Twitter communications clear and strong.
So is your business taking actions – making implementations – that will support where the market is headed in 2010? Are you putting yourself where the customers and recruiting targets are? Or are you trying to do more of the same better, faster and cheaper?
by Adam Hartung | Nov 29, 2009 | Current Affairs, Disruptions, In the Rapids, Leadership, Openness, Web/Tech
Cisco is an admirable company. In the high tech world, few survive half as long as Cisco. Even fewer maintain growth and profitability. Cisco's willingness to obsolete its own products has been a stated objective which has helped the company keep on top of new technologies and products, growing to $36B. It's Disruptive when you are compelled to obsolete your own products. Most companies make the mistake of trying to sell products too long, trying to extend profitability by selling the product while winding down development. They fear launching new products which might "cannibalize" an existing product. As a result, competitors leapfrog their products and by the company admits things are obsolete it's too late – and the business is in deep trouble.
Now Cisco is working to keep growing by utilizing a Disruptive organization model. Headlined "Cisco's Extreme Ambition" has BusinessWeek overviewing the distribution of decision-making power to 48 different councils. Instead of a traditional hierarchy, the councils can make decisions about products themselves, thus shortening the decision process and the time to get new products to market or make acquisitions.
Cisco competes in at least 30 markets. Staying on the leading edge in that many businesses requires rethinking how to organize. Especially when you know it is critical to keep Disrupting your organization to bring forward new products which can keep you competitive. By distributing decision-making this organizational model overcomes traditional Lock-ins that could slow down Cisco
- Now strategy can be developed for the markets, built on multiple scenarios (perhaps even competing scenarios), overcoming monolithic strategy processes that are too confining and do too much option narrowing
- Hiring, including executives, won't require everybody look alike. Different kinds of people allows for alternative thinking and different sorts of decision processes – as well as different decisions
- The structure can form to the market needs – rather than being dictated from an insider perspective. By organizing to the market need each council is more likely to keep close to emerging needs
- Investments are made at a lower level, reducing the "big bang" investments that Lock-in organizations to monolithic technologies or products
- Internal experts don't gain too much power, which often limits the technologies and markets pursued.
Maintaining its willingness to remain Disruptive is critical to the ongoing success of Cisco. This new organization model is allowing Cisco to enter the lower margin server business, for example, which would be (and has been) escewed by a more centralized decision making. By focusing the organization on markets, Cisco can keep finding new ways to compete — and set new metrics for measuring itself market-by-market. And Cisco can more quickly and easily set up White Space projects to continue pursuing new market opportunities. All it has to do is add another council!
by Adam Hartung | Nov 22, 2009 | Defend & Extend, General, Openness
There's no doubt that many more people are looking for jobs than there are those hiring. As a result, organizations offering jobs can find themselves flooded with applicants. Several are complaining about how hard it is to find "the right person." Reality is most companies have been struggling to find "the right person" for a long time. It just wasn't as obvious.
According to The Wall Street Journal "To Find Best Hires, Firms Become Creative." Yet, these creative ideas are largely about finding new ways to restrict the number of people getting into the hiring funnel. Increasingly, asking potential employees to carry more cost of the hiring process. And often putting employees through a longer (sometimes days) battery of interviews. Yet, it is unclear that these new hurdles are helping organizations hire "the right person" any more often.
In today's changing marketplace, "the right" people are often those who can help the organization adapt. They think laterally about what is happening in the market, and how to develop creative solutions. They rely less on their historical experience, and more on their scenarios about the future. They pay a lot of attention to competitors, and push for decisions that leapfrog competitive actions. And they aren't afraid to Disrupt historical ways of behaving and recommend white space projects where new things can be tried. They don't try to Defend & Extend the company's Success Formula. Instead they seek improved results.
But that is not how hiring processes are designed. They focus on developing tight requirements. With so many applicants now, the focus is on making very, very tight requirements so resumes can be sifted efficiently for specific experiences. But this approach means hiring requirements are based on what history has dictated was needed. They reflect what the company used to do, how it used to hire, what previous employees did that supported the old Success Formula. Job requirements rarely look forward, instead they try to find homogeneous individuals who are like people that succeeded in the past. Usually by reinforcing the old Success Formula. They are out to find candidates who want to Defend & Extend the Success Formula, not evolve it to better results.
Most hiring organizations even have an "ideal prototype candidate." This goes down to specifying the type of degree, and the university attended. It may well include specifying a geography where the candidate was raised. Common certifications. A preferred set of previous jobs that are like what others have been through. These approaches are all about yielding candidates that look alike – not different. In most companies, an employee from Google. Amazon or Apple – very successful companies – could not get through the first round.
Then the prolonged interviews. These simply force candidates to be like the people doing the interviews. Rafts of studies have been done on interviewing, and they always return the result that interviewers like people who are like themselves. The interviewer has a sense of what they think made them successful – education, experience and problem solving approach. And they simply look to see if the candidate is like them. If the interviewing goes on for days, they even look to see if the candidate orders food like them, drinks like them, has the same approach to mornings or working late. The long interview approach merely ensures that candidates are more likely to be just like existing employees.
These approaches are about finding candidates that have a good "initial fit." But if the organization is in need of adapting to changing market conditions, is that the employee you really need? All the people at the old AT&T were much alike – but that company still didn't survive deregulation. The people at most airlines are much alike, yet outside of Southwest the airlines don't make any money. GM had an "ideal employee profile" yet the people leading the company could not deal with market shifts that sent the organization into bankruptcy.
Today your organization might well need new employees who are not like previous employees. They may well need different education. Different experiences. Work in different industries. And different approaches to problem solving. With so many available candidates, is your approach to hiring helping you find people who can help your company grow, or is it trying to find the kind of people who reinforced the old Success Formula? Are you hiring for the future, or searching for people like you hired in the past?
by Adam Hartung | Nov 12, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, In the Rapids, In the Swamp, Innovation, Leadership, Openness, Television, Web/Tech
The Myth of Market Share by Richard Minitar is one of those little books, published in 2002 by Crown Business, that you probably never read – or even heard of (available on Amazon though). And that's too bad, because without spending too many words the author does a great job of describing the non-correlation between market share and returns. There are as many, or possibly more, companies with high profitability that don't lead in market share as ones that do. Even though the famous BCG Growth/Share matrix led many leaders to believe share was the key to business success. Another something that worked once (maybe) – but now doesn't.
"Moto Looks to Sell Set-Top Box Unit" is the Crain's Chicago Business headline. Motorola's television connection box business is #1 in market share. But even though Motorola paid $11B for it in 1999, they are hoping to get $4.5B today. That's a $6.5B loss (or 60%) in a decade. For a business that is the market share leader. Only, it's profitability + growth doesn't justify a higher price. Regardless of market share.
Kind of like Motorola's effort to be #1 in mobile handset market share by cutting RAZR prices. That didn't work out too well either. It almost bankrupted the company, and is causing Motorola to sell the set top box business to raise cash in its effort to spin out the unprofitable handset business.
On the other hand, there's Apple. Apple isn't #1 in PCs – by a long shot. It has about a 14% share I think. Nor is it #1 in mobile handhelds, where it has about a 2.5% market share. But Apple is more profitable than the market leaders in both markets. Today, Apple's value is almost as high as Microsoft – historically considered the undisputed king of technology companies.
Chart source Silicon Alley Insider 11/12/09
While Microsoft has been trying to Defend & Extend it's Windows franchise, its value has declined this decade. Quite the contrary for Apple.
Additionally, Apple has piled up a remarkable cash hoard with it's meager market shares in 2 of 3 businesses (Apple is #1 in digital music downloads – although not #1 in portable MP3 players).
Chart Source Silicon Alley Insider 11/11/09
"While Rivals Jockey for Market Share Apple Bathes in Profits" is the SeekingAlpha.com headline. Nokia has 35% share of the mobil handheld market. It earned $1.1B in the third quarter. With its 2.5% share Apple made $1.6B profit on the iPhone. While everyone in the PC business is busy cutting costs, Apple has innovated the Mac and its other products – proving that if you make products that customers want they will buy them and allow you to make money. While competitors behave like they can cost cut themselves to success, Apple proves the opposite is true. Innovation linked to meeting customer needs is worth a lot more money.
Bob Sutton, Stanford management professor, blogs on Work Matters "Leading Innovation: 21 Things that Great Bosses Say and Do." All are about looking to the future, listening to the market, using disruptions to keep your organization open, and giving people permission and resources to open and manage White Space projects.
If your solution to this recession is to cut costs and wait for the market to return – good luck. If you are trying to figure out how you can Defend & Extend your core – good luck. If you think size and/or market share is going to protect you – check out how well that worked for GM, Chrysler, Lehman Brothers and Circuit City. If you want to improve your business follow Apple's lead by developing thorough scenario plans you can use to understand competitors inside out, then Disrupt your old notions and use White Space to launch new products and services that meet emerging needs.
by Adam Hartung | Oct 20, 2009 | Current Affairs, Disruptions, In the Rapids, In the Swamp, Leadership, Openness, Web/Tech
Can you believe a BusinessWeek headline like "Dell's Extreme Makeover"? We read about turnarounds and makeovers all the time. Only most of the time they don't turn, and they don't get made over. Most companies cut a lot of costs, make a lot of promises, but keep on doing the same stuff. They get worse. They get acquired, or they fail. And readers of this blog know that I've long chastised Dell as an example of a Locked-in company with little hope of turning around.
But, I'm changing position today. There's a LOT of the right stuff happening, and the seeds are being sown, doing what really works, for Dell to be a good future story.
Scenario planning for the future:
- Michael Dell admits in the article that he stuck to his original Success Formula of supply chain expertise feeding direct sales too long. He admits that future success requires a new Success Formula. Specific future scenarios aren't disclosed, but it is apparent that the company does not expect future markets to look like the markets of 1995-2005.
Focus on Competition:
- Management says Dell is "not trying to become like the competition"!! That is great, because winners do new and different things. They don't try to copy/catch existing competitors.
- Dell did not chase Apple into opening its own stores. Good move. Dell isn't Apple, and can't win trying to be like Apple.
- Dell was previously obsessed with its top, big customers. Big corporate accounts. It slavishly built a business trying to please the top 10%. Now Dell is winning by putting considerably more attention on customers it previously ignored: consumers, small business, medium business and government. This not only balances the company, it keeps Dell from chasing Locked-in customers into the same old fox holes.
Disruptions:
- Michael Dell has replaced 7 of his top 10 direct reports. That's a huge step in the right direction. GM should follow that lead!
- Dell has defied its old "direct to customer" mantra by taking consumer products into retail stores! The added cost to do that, and new skills required, must have shaken buildings at the Texas headquarters campus.
- A new head of design developed options customers could specify for their consumer computers. Manufacturing said it would violate the supply chain efficiency so "NO." Michael Dell over-rode the manufacturing group and said "do it." He reinforced that efficiency would not save Dell. Manufacturing would have to adjust to innovations for Dell to succeed.
- The company has reorganized away from products (how almost all tech companies structure – including Apple) and installed a new structure organized around MARKETS!! What a great way to quit being product-push and become market-learn!
White Space:
- A board member said that after eating dinner with Michael Dell he could see that this"journey at Dell is just in its first or second inning." Although not much White Space was discussed, this implies some big things are being discussed and planned for the future.
- The article says Dell is preparing to launch smart phone sales soon. This is critical, because smart phones are part of the market shift away from PCs. Dell has a lot of learning to do in that market to be part of the shift.
This is not a "done deal." I wish I knew more about Dell's scenario planning – to be sure the company has switched to planning for the future and away from planning from the past. And I really wish I knew more about what White Space is being planned. Because we know you can't transition by changing the big organization all at once. The behemoth needs some wins it can use to lead the migration. And seeing White Space projects, with a group shepherding them into the lifecycle, is a really critical step to follow-up the many Disruptions.
So things could still go badly for Dell. But they WON'T go as badly has they went from 2005 to 2007. From this one article, the first interview with Michael Dell since he took the reigns back in 2007, it is clear lots of the right things are happening to move Dell from the Swamp backinto the Rapids. There is improvement happening, and The Phoenix Principle looks to be in early implementation stages. If Michael Dell and his team stick with it, this could be a big winner for your portfolio!
by Adam Hartung | Oct 16, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, General, Innovation, Leadership, Openness
"Everyone talks about the need for innovation these days, but they especially talk about why businesses are so bad at it." That's the opening line from my newest column "The Myth of Efficiency" at Forbes.com. Today businesses seem to be struggling with innovation – preferring instead to cut costs and pursue efficiency. But we now know that the foundation for cost cutting as a route to better returns is based on faulty – in fact mythical – claims by Frederick Taylor and his devotees of "scientific management." Read this article if you ever wondered about the value of cost cutting compared to innovation – and learn why so many people "default" to actions that never make things better.
My column cites a great New Yorker article entitled "Not So Fast" on the faulty foundations upon which scientific management – and subsequently much of business education – is based. For an even deeper read into the mythical bases of Taylor and his crew pick up a copy of The Management Myth: Why the Experts Keep Getting it Wrong by Matthew Stewart (2009 W.W. Norton) available via the link at Amazon.com.
This is timely, because "Defining talent needs, managing costs central to workforce planning in 2010" is the headline from Mercer's own website about it's recent survey showing that the #1 factor in planning for human capital next year is managing cost!! How are we to grow out of this recession when people are cost obsessed? Especially now that we know cost cutting has no foundation as a basis for improving or sustaining returns? Certainly we now have good reason to challenge conventional wisdom as espoused in books like Cut Costs + Grow Stronger recently published by HBS Press.
If you are confronted with picking between cost cutting or innovating read this article, because your "gut" just might have been developed on faulty assumptions – leading you to make the wrong decision.
by Adam Hartung | Oct 14, 2009 | Current Affairs, In the Rapids, Innovation, Leadership, Openness, Web/Tech
"Samsung Seeks Some iPhone Magic" is the Wall Street Journal headline. Hand it to the Korean company to demonstrate how to make money out of market shifts. Not only is Samsung looking to add more capability to its mobile handsets – the obvious Defend & Extend action – but the company is developing applications for all its products to get into new, emerging markets. It is now adding internet capability into almost all the devices it designs, makes and sells.
Recognizing the market Challenge, in 2008 Samsung set up a White Space project with permission to explore just how it could coordinate software and content for cell phones. But quickly the team recognized this charter was not sufficient permission. They went back and asked to extend their opportunity development to everything Samsung makes (or considers making.) By making sure it had the right permission to really think broadly about the opportunities, this White Space team made sure it could really accomplish the greatest gains.
Kudos to the company for resourcing this effectively. Samsung did not reach into the different business lines and ask each one to devote "some" resource onto this project. That approach usually ends up getting almost no attention until year end when people remember this was on the checklist for bonuses. Instead Samsung dedicated resources – money and people. And Samsung made this into a business unit which is intended to make a profit!! This isn't just an experiment – a lab – it's White Space that is intended to figure out new opportunities, as well as the business model which would make these new innovations profitable.
Samsung is a company historically known for manufacturing skills, supply chain management and lower cost. Yet, it is showing that regardless of size (Samsung is one of the largest companies in Korea and one of the world's largest electronics companies) or history any company can establish White Space to connect with market shifts and introduce innovation.
Do you have White Space in your company? Or are you relying on your old Success Formula to return you to previous growth rates and profitability? What are you doing to take advantage of market shifts – like what's happening with iPhones, Kindles, Tablet devices and other innovations? You might want to take a tip from Samsung and set up some White Space with permission and resources to investigate how you could participate in market shifts to make more money!
