Transaction costs: The friction that comes from scaling.

 Transaction costs: The friction that comes from scaling.

 

Some great minds have worked in increasing the performance of management.

Einstein is one of them, although may not have known it when he said: ‘Everything should be made as simple as possible, and no simpler’.

Along the same lines, 20 years later Einstein’s mate Peter Drucker said a similar thing: ‘Much of what we call management consists of making it hard for people to work’

Never was a truer word said about the machinations and genuflections usually necessary to get anything done in any organisational bureaucracy.

Organisations evolved to give us leverage, no one person can build something as simple and today basic as a computer mouse. There is a huge pool of people who all contribute from the electronics to the physical formation and design of the thing. This pooling of resources allows us to scale. This is not a new phenomenon. We have been complicating our lives since we moved away from subsistence family level groups. This classic genealogy of a pencil: ‘I, Pencil’ by Leonard Reed was written in 1946, well after we started complicating our lives by fragmenting and specialising tasks to achieve scale.

The down sides are real.

The added transaction costs in scaling operations, necessary to manage all the divergent and disparate jobs that need to be done, go largely unreported. As a result, they linger like a fart in an elevator, making life a bit more complex and often unpleasant.

The basis of all the thinking that has been labelled ‘Lean’ is flow, a necessary pre-condition to profitable scaling.

How do you get things to flow, to manage to the constraints of the value stream, thereby focussing attention on the constraints in some sort of order to be able to address them progressively in the most productivity delivering manner.

Achieving flow is akin to deep cleaning the elevator. It removes the lingering residue of people creating friction, making life more complicated than it needs to be.

 

 

How do you foster ‘Radical Adaptability’?

How do you foster ‘Radical Adaptability’?

The old way of thinking and working in silos, based on organisation charts, is gone.

The key commercial question now is how to develop and commercialise innovative solutions to problems faced by individuals, and the wider community, faster and more efficiently than others.

We all know that we work better in small groups, differently but better, more productively. The problem is we have had imposed on us the structures originally conceived to enable scaling from cottage industries to mass manufacturing, where the benefits of scale outweighed the transaction costs incurred.

We have now reached a point where the worm has turned.

The transaction costs are greater than the scaling benefits, because of the transparency enabled by digital.

The nasty covid pandemic has accelerated the process of digitisation to the extent that we have consumed a decade or more of change in a year or so. Some have not made the change, and long for the return of the ‘normal’ way before covid. However, the truth is that we must go forward, we need to accommodate the new world as it is now by the way we collaborate.

For the last 30 years we have struggled with the growing inefficiency and resulting lack of engagement of employees down the organisation chart, driven by the remoteness from decision making.

We tried to fix it with various forms of matrix organisation, but we approached it from the old mindset of accountability and responsibility. ‘How can I be responsible for something over which I have no control????’ This question has loomed large on many occasions.

Matrix organisations with a silo management mentality do not work.

We need to embrace not just the ‘radical transparency‘ espoused by the likes of Ray Dalio, and Atlassian where it is a core value, but ‘radical adaptability’ to prosper.

Giving control and accountability for outcomes over individual workplaces to the people in them is the new way. Finding ways to speed up the process of change, to be able to adapt and innovate has become the path to commercial survival. We have been talking about it for ages, but trying to build it from a siloed mentality starting point will go nowhere.

The ‘radical transparency’ of Dalio will not suit everyone. You need to be a resilient personality to take and grow from the negative feedback. Recognising this, Dalio only hires what he calls ‘arseholes’, those who are resilient enough to take the feedback and learn from it.

A business with a culture of being ‘nice’, polite, keeping ideas and views to yourself, and not articulating those views and ideas to others, leads to the politics we see in most organisations. Things that are thought, and said privately, that will not be said publicly are corrosive of trust and collaboration.

Radical transparency needs an entirely different mindset.

That different mindset can lead to ‘radical adaptability’, as any idea is a good one until it is taken down by a better one, or by finding some flaw in the argument. By another name, in other circumstances, this is ‘Evolution’ or ‘Survival of the fittest’, and John Boyd’s OODA Loop at work.

Accountability & candour lead to collaboration, and collaboration is the key to growth in this new, digitised world, as it compounds effort and outcomes.

Header cartoon credit: WWW.Gapingvoid.com Highlights the challenges of enabling transparency. It is usually great for others, and in principle, but not for me!

4 rules to make you a successful dissenter

4 rules to make you a successful dissenter

 

Too often dissent is seen as just negative. Sometimes it is, particularly when the dissent is from a course of action that demands change, but even that can be useful.

The nature of dissent, when removed from becoming personalised, is usually hugely positive, as it opens conversation, points up otherwise glossed over weaknesses in an argument or proposal, and provides ‘safety’ for others to voice their views, dissent or otherwise.

These positive outcomes from dissent to an idea, proposal, or course of action, usually become consumed when the dissent is seen as an attack on the ideas, status or qualifications of the individual who made the proposal. In this case, it becomes even more important that someone speaks up, be the first, and it is a measure of leadership that those ‘in charge’ accept, and even encourage the dissent as a positive contribution to the process of decision making and risk assessment.

Dissent is the only real antidote to confirmation bias.

We see the factors that reinforce the views we already hold, while not seeing those that conflict. We all ‘suffer’ from such biases, it is an evolutionary tool that serves to maximise the cognitive capacity we have, but in business it can be terminal. I am sure there were those inside Kodak who thought the digital camera might be a good idea after Steven Sasson invented it, but they were not heard. Gary Starkweather, the inventor of laser printing inside Xerox, was almost fired, until someone in PARC, on the other side of the country recognised a good idea, unencumbered by the weight of the status quo, and the rest is history. Netflix blundered mightily when they tried to separate their DVD and nascent streaming businesses into two companies. CEO Reed Hastings later recognised his mistake in (unintentionally) allowing his voice to be the only one heard, and later put in explicit processes to enable dissent.

Dissent should be encouraged and made ‘safe’ for the dissenters.

However, when you are the dissenter, there are a few ground rules to follow.

  • Ensure the dissent is to the proposal, the facts or foundation assumptions, not the person making the proposal.
  • Base the dissent on arguable grounds, quantifiable outcomes, reasonable extrapolations based on robust assumptions, informed opinion, and experience.
  • Be very concise and clear
  • Use both narrative and facts to make your case, not just one or the other.

All progress depends on doing something differently.

The absence of dissent leaves the status quo as an unquestioned fact, from which no progress can be made.

Encourage, nurture, engage, and value constructive dissenters.

Header cartoon credit: Scott Adams and Dilbert. Again.

Will the Facebook Metamorphous just deliver another uglier duck?

Will the Facebook Metamorphous just deliver another uglier duck?

 

I cannot let the name change of ‘Facebook’, to ‘Meta’, go uncommented.

They are not the first to undergo a name change, for a range of reasons. Mostly they are to escape bad publicity, sometimes because it made some strategic sense to do so given the nature of the business had changed, and I suspect a few because of a brainfart in the boardroom.

Google changed to Alphabet, Philip Morris changed to Altria, Tribune Publishing (owner of several major newspapers in the US) changed to Tronc, then changed back to Tribune Publishing, (unexplainable) Blackwater changed to Xe Services, then on to Academi (no escape from a nasty history) Quikster changed to Netflix, and the list goes on.

Meta is an odd word, being self-referential, and often the first syllable of other words that mean change, such as metamorphose, and metabolism. It is also a word the few late teens I know use as an expression of surprise, or pleasure: even they cannot adequately define it.

Nearly 5 years ago, I wrote a post focussed on the ‘Moats‘ Facebook had built around itself. This latest move is one that adds a further dimension to the moat analogy, throwing a wide moat around the whole Facebook empire, while at the same time, attempting to separate the individual components of the castle inside the moat into (supposedly) more independent entities. It least, that may be the theory, although I see no change happening inside the moat, just more defence of the status quo.

Perhaps it is just a defensive move in response to the series of damaging leaks to the New York Times and other outlets by former senior executive Frances Haugen. Make the eggs that much harder for regulators to unscramble?

I watched Mark Zuckerberg explain the change in a video, and remain somewhat confused. He claimed the driver of the change was his vision of the future, and the technologies that will deliver it. I am very wary of that fluffy, tech friendly story. The current technologies and impact of all the Facebook stable of products are very similar. They collaborate to deliver some really nasty stuff kept hidden amongst the many useful tools. All this in the name of ‘connection’.

Will Meta take some of the pressure off Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg? I doubt it, but I also suspect if you asked Zuckerberg, and managed to get the truth out of him, he really could not give a toss.

 

 

The four parameters of your ‘Current Situation’ audit.

The four parameters of your ‘Current Situation’ audit.

 

The starting point of any review process is to define the current situation.

In every case, the trends are as important, and often more important than the immediate position, as they are often leading indicators of what might happen into the future that will impact your planning.

The trends give a picture over time of the success or otherwise of the organisation, which leads us to examine some areas in more detail than others, asking ourselves the ever-harder questions.

The four parameters are also cumulative and absolutely interdependent.

  • Strategic.

Under the ‘Strategic’ heading there is a wide range of areas for examination. The most obvious are:

Regulation.

No enterprise can survive, legally, if it is outside the regulations that control it.

Looking not only at the regulations that are in place now, but what might come down the pipe at you is important, in some cases critical.

For example: if you are exporting manufactured products into the E.U. it is likely that in the near future, there will be a tariff added to any that already exist to accommodate the imbalance between there being no carbon tax in this country, while there is one in the EU. In addition, the recent submarines decision will likely disrupt any movement towards increased access to the EU.

Competitive environment and your relative place.

What is the reality of your competitive position?

Being tough on yourself, ensuring conformation bias plays no role is important.

Strengths and Weaknesses are internal to the enterprise, while opportunities and threats are external.

Strengths and Weaknesses are always relative to those of your opposition, and/or what customers are demanding.

Just because you think you do a great job, and you may, it is not a strength unless it is a better job, in customers eyes than the opposition can deliver.

Similarly with weaknesses, if customers do not care, then why does it matter? Only consider weaknesses that impact on your competitive performance relative to the opposition, and to what the market is looking for.

Customers.

As Peter Drucker noted, ‘The purpose of a business is to create and keep a customer

Your business relies on them, they should be the centre of everything you do, think and say.

Understanding the nature, shape, and trends in your customer base, what needs you are meeting, what needs may be there that you are not meeting, why they are customers of yours, and not someone else’s, what they think about the service you deliver.

Customers must see the value you deliver, or they will walk.

Similarly, it is reasonable to ask yourself ’are they the customers we want?

Measuring customer ‘stickiness’ is the key to a successful business, so much so that if you did nothing else, it would serve you well.

Three measures I use:

Share of wallet. (SOW)

How much of the money a customer spends on products you could provide, do they spend with you? What is your share of their ‘wallet’?

This always opens very interesting thinking and discussions about the scope of the wallet. E.g., Imagine you are an insurance company with a big share of the car insurance market.

Should your wallet also include home, life, professional indemnity? Or do you niche even further to vintage and collectable cars?

These are the strategic decisions that need to be made before a marketing plan can evolve.

This analysis does not have to be confined to individual customers, it may be applicable to a cohort of very similar customers, to give you a SOW of a market segment.

There are some tough choices here, you have limited resources, and need to apply them where you will generate the greatest leverage.

Leverage is a word I use a lot. We all know what it means: doing more with less.

Customer retention, churn, and lifetime value.

How long do customers stay with you, how much do they spend?

Both measures are useful when applied to differing groups of customers, geographic, demographic, or any other parameter that defines the behaviour of a group.

You cannot do enough work in this space, the better you know your customers, the better able you will be to serve them, increase your share of their wallets, keep them as custumers, and have them refer you to their friends and networks, still the most powerful form of marketing there is.

Lifetime Value is a good measure, simply the sales to a customer X the average life of a customer.

Customer Pareto.

The 80/20 rule is immensely valuable. Measuring the profitability, revenue, or margin, perhaps the three of them, offers insights to performance and highlights areas for improvement.

A catch with this approach: it will tend to focus attention on the currently most valuable customers. However, most of your best customers started out as small first timers. Some will be more strategically valuable for one reason or another, so do not let the Pareto discard them prematurely.

Market competitiveness.

Michael Porters competitive analysis tool has passed the test of time.

It is a little outdated now as the complication of all the new digital channels adds complexity, but the tool remains extremely useful.

There is no business where there is not some value in thinking through the competitive forces driving your industry.

Product & market lifecycle.

All products go through a lifecycle, of some sort.

Launch, growth, maturity, decline.

Even a failed product has a life, albeit a short one.

Businesses go through a similar lifecycle, it always holds, in one way or another.

It is a useful tool to consider at which point individual products, product groups, markets, and businesses are situated, and the pattern of their growth and decline.

Where would you put EV cars on this graph? Mobile phones? Cigarettes?

Occasionally a product, or business bucks the trend, and comes back, the product changes in some way, and finds a new lease of life.

The BCG tool is well known. It is a tool through which to consider your product portfolio.

A dog, to be euthanised. A cow, to be milked, A star, to be nurtured and protected

Who knows, it will become a dog, or a superstar, you must decide what to do with it in terms of marketing investment.

Business model.

Your business model, is the means by which you turn your value proposition into revenue.

Clarity about your business model, and how to optimise the mechanics is a key component of considering your current situation, and how best to leverage it.

The strategies that will work for one model may not work for another.

E.g., The wholesale model is becoming redundant, as the net has opened the communication channels and opportunities for buyers and sellers to collaborate, and manage ordering and logistics, a role wholesalers used to fill.

Two sided and subscription models are the ones that have flourished with the net. eBay, Airbnb, Netflix, Amazon prime, all the SaaS software you use.

You must be clear about your business model, as experience suggests that two different Business models sitting under the one roof is very uncomfortable and creates friction.

  • Financial.

Every business requires money to operate, the ‘Working capital’ of the business.

Every business also has some fixed costs, even home businesses. Insurance, power, communications, and so on.

Every business that has any sort of manufacturing, from a simple transformation to complex manufacturing has the cost of goods sold, plus the equipment and labour necessary to do the transformation, as well as the fixed costs of factories. The processes to forecast and manage your money need to be robust and subject to continuous improvement.

Budgets.

Given we are talking about the future, we know it will not be as we expect, so the budgets flowing from your forecasts will be wrong, question is by how much, how well do we adjust, and how much did we learn on the way through.

I strongly favour rolling budgets, usually 3 months, which parallel rolling marketing review, and forward planning.

You have in effect two reporting dimensions.

Financial accounts.

The financial accounts are the ones we see in every annual report. There are statutory formats, lists of required information, and the definition of how varying situations will be treated. They are for public consumption, analysis and comparison, and come in three standard sections: Cash flow, Profit and Loss from trading, and the Balance sheet.

Management accounts

These are the reports used internally to manage the business.

They use the same raw data, and the same 3 core reports as the financial accounts, but go much deeper, and have an entirely different purpose.

The management reports are what you use to allocate resources, track their application, monitor the financial outcomes of the decisions you take, and manage the assets, tangible, and intangible, of the business.

For SME’s, the most important measure is your cash flow. Without cash, you are dead, so a detailed understanding of your cash position is essential.

Hidden within the management accounts are the seven financial levers that should be measured and managed. Price, Volume, COGS, Overheads, A/c Receivable, A/c payable, and inventory.

  • Operational.

Businesses are usually structured vertically. However, customers interact with businesses horizontally.

A customer has no interest in how you are organised, and how you work, their only interest is in having the product they paid for perform up to or beyond expectations, in relieving the itch they feel, solving the problem they have.

Putting the customer at the centre of your efforts, which is where they need to be in order to be successful, means that you focus on the horizontal, external customer experience, not the internal, vertical organisational experience.

Forget this basic fact at your peril.

Businesses are made up of a series of processes. Order to delivery, Cash to cash, Raw material to finished product, Acquisition of and retention of customers, and others.

Every one of these processes is critical.

  • Culture.

Culture is most often defined by repeating Michael Porters assertion that: “culture is the way we do things round here.” However, this leaves the question of what drives the way things are done.

Performance management.

The manner in which KPI’s are allocated, and usually they are financial KPI’s that dominate, is a critical consideration, as they are often in conflict, driven by functional considerations of no interest to customers.

For example. If your factory manager’s KPI’s are all about the efficient running of the factory, with no allowances for the downtime, experimentation, and pilot runs, that are necessary during the product development stage, you will have trouble getting a new product that is OK on the development bench validated through the factory.

This always leads to problems in the market.

A similar scenario comes from many salespeople, they often do not report to marketing, but are crucial in the marketing plan implementation.

Overlooking ‘Culture’ in the preparation and execution of a plan often sounds the death nell at execution time.

Flow.

Imagine a river, running unimpeded by rapids, narrow bits, waterfalls, and varying depth along its path.

It looks leisurely, smooth, but more water passes through than a similar river with all the impediments.

The latter just looks busier, more activity, turbulence, conflicting paths around the impediments.

Processes in a business are similar.

Smooth processes that hand a task over, one person to the next, one part of the process to the next at the critical time, with the minimum of disruption, the better.

More gets done.

Flow is a state that comes from a place of communication, collaboration, and continuous improvement.

All are enhanced by tools, but in the end, you need people to work together, communicate and continually improve to achieve that state.

Flow is an outcome of a positive egalitarian culture.

One of the most common problems I see in businesses as I wander around is constant never-ending firefighting.

That happens because adequate, repeatable processes are not in place,

Next time you walk into a new office, or factory, look for Flow.

You will know it when you see it and know further that this is a place with whom you want to do business.

Flow can be seen and felt, and it can also be measured by cycle time and throughput.

Culture is an outcome of all the interactions, big and small people have with each other.

‘The way we do things around here’

It is therefore critical that you hire the right people.

You can measure engagement, and how happy and fulfilled people are. A useful rule is to

Hire slowly, fire fast, and with great care. When you must terminate someone, it will have a profound impact on them. It is vital that you do it with empathy and make the landing for them as soft as possible. This will aid them immensely, but as important, is the impact on those who are left.

If they see the departed as a valuable member, they will be wondering if they are next. ’Why not me’ survivor syndrome, is a powerful psychological force. If they see the departed as a good riddance, the fact that you did it with empathy will also be noted and bind the remainers closer to the business.

Besides, when you feel you have to fire someone, it is usually your mistake in hiring them in the first place.

A further good measure is how time is spent. Keeping timesheets is not what this is about, it is a cultural behaviour that you leave time, block it out in your diaries if that works for you, to give your self-time to see what is around you. Most in modern businesses are so busy they do not allow the time to look up, observe, and see the opportunities that may pop up. We are so busy we miss them, confirmation bias dictates what we do see, so act deliberately to remove that inherent bias from time to time and look up.

For many SME’s, the opportunity to go to industry trade shows, forums, and formal networks of peers is a great way of doing this. Chance then can catch up with you.

Keep the bias to action without which you will get nothing done, but make the time to look around with clear eyes, meet new people, as opportunities are always attached to people, they do not float around looking for a place to land.

Bias for action, must be part of the culture.

Ask yourself the question ‘Do I really need more information, or do I need to simply act on what I have

Most decisions are reversable so long as you have good feedback loops and are prepared to recognise early that a course of action is not going to deliver expected results.

Marketing is always about making choices with incomplete information, do not allow yourself to be paralysed by the missing pieces, act and be prepared to back away, having learnt something new. Bias for action is a cultural thing, demonstrated by the leadership.

The secret sauce of a successful business is to have a successful culture, one that ensures that everyone knows that what they are doing today is correlated and contributing to the long-term achievement of the mission, strategic objectives, whatever you choose to call it. Every person understands the contribution they are making today, for that long term achievement of the goals.

Defining your current situation is like having a detailed map of the block of land you intent to build on before you start designing the house. The better the map, the more functional and useful the house design will be.

Take the time, and make the effort to do it well. An independent set of eyes always helps.

 

 

 

What do Einstein’s theories have to do with your job?

What do Einstein’s theories have to do with your job?

Most manufacturers seek to cut costs, a reasonable response to the increasingly tight margins available in all but very few manufacturing enterprises.

There is an alternative, hard to see and act on, but viable.

It involves thinking about the paradox that exists in manufacturing.

As automation has increased, and costs driven down by the reliability of machines doing repetitive work, jobs have not disappeared, but they have changed shape and location. The value added previously by people doing manual manufacturing tasks have moved somewhere else.

Value is a parallel to Einstein’s theories of relativity.

Matter does not disappear, it changes form under some sort of pressure, and moves somewhere else.

Value, similarly, does not disappear, it moves somewhere else. It cannot be destroyed, but when it moves, there are winners and losers. Think about all the value supposedly destroyed by mergers and acquisitions in the last 30 years, very few have lived up to the hype used to justify the change. Shareholders have lost, but those buying assets at less than replacement cost, and those benefiting from the exit of larger businesses have picked up value in many ways.

Again, value has not been destroyed, it has just moved.

If this is true, the task of manufacturing management is not to cut costs, but to extend capabilities.

It seems to me there is a progression happening.

Machines take on repetitive tasks, increasingly more complex over the last 50 years. They are now moving towards cognitive tasks, with the development of AI. It is in its early stages, but the shift appears to be real as I see the evolution. Again, the jobs of people in cognitive tasks will move somewhere else, they will not disappear.

The somewhere else seems to me to be towards social skills, untouched by automation. However, I suspect in 30 years that will no longer be true, but by then I will be gone, and someone else can worry about it.

Unlike the sci-fi of Netflix, this is not an inevitable dystopian outcome, it is a tool that is there to be understood and managed for the greater good.

Business leaders that see the differences and can manage the shape of them will win in the marketplace of the future, others will, well, move somewhere else.

Pity our political leaders seem unable to grasp the idea that change, and commercial evolution is a value adding outcome, that in the long term will be beneficial, while sticking to the status quo, betting the house on it remaining so, is the way to oblivion.

Header cartoon courtesy Tom Gauld in New Scientist.