Jan 14, 2021 | Change, Management
It is new year, all those resolutions going to waste!
It seemed a timely spot to suggest how we can change outcomes, as it is those we want to change, we just call them habits reflecting the action.
Let’s pick one of the most common: ‘I will stop smoking’.
The usual outcome is that we fail to stop smoking, despite wanting to, resolving, and trying often. It is expensive, and not good for us, but it is a ‘habit’ that is extremely hard to break.
I know, I successfully stopped smoking, for a day or two, at least monthly for several years. Then I stopped, successfully, no drugs, not hypnotherapy, no doctors’ orders, now almost 40 years ago, when a packet of Dunhill 20 was still well under a dollar a pack.
What I realised so long ago, was that there were triggers that set up the urge to light up. The phone ringing at work, after a meeting with my then boss, having a beer (that could happen any time) and several others. My strategy was to substitute the habit of lighting up with something else, a substitute habit that satisfied and then replaced the craving for a fag.
Once I had figured out the substitute, and ensured the new routine was in place, it was actually pretty easy after the first few days.
The challenge is to find that new routine that can replace the nasty habit, and build it to the point where it effectively substitutes for the habit you want to stop. Obviously, if you want to lose weight, stopping eating chocolate cake by substituting it for ice cream is not going to do you much good.
The reward of the new routine has to be real, and related to the cue.
Part of the reward I gave myself was semantic. Sounds silly, but it helped.
I never said I had given up smoking, which implies a cost of some sort. Instead, I told myself, and others, that I had taken up non-smoking, which implies a reward, and attracted the support of those around me for the short time it was necessary. Quickly, I became one of those boring former smokers who pontificated about how easy it had been to become a non-smoker.
It is a simple psychological process.
Identify the cue, substitute the nasty habit with a ‘reward’, create a new routine that works to the same cue.
The simple cue substitution process works, whatever ingrained behaviour you are trying to change, personally, or in a group in a commercial context.
Don’t be afraid of it, embrace it.
Good luck with that resolution!!
Thanks again to Scott Adams and Dilbert for the header cartoon
Dec 2, 2020 | Change, Strategy
When do you quit, let go of the sunk cost?
How do you decide when to quit? It is a hugely important component of deciding how and where to allocate your scarce resources.
Quitting, and taking the ‘hit’ is also much harder than just planning. There are always sunk costs involved, and every psychologist will tell you that the pain of a loss is far greater than the prospect of a gain. Then there is ego, credibility and self respect at stake. In a corporate environment, many avoid mistakes, or at least conceding a mistake has been made, as that can have a detrimental impact on career prospects, bonuses attached to KPI’s, and the perception of those around. you.
No matter the size of the enterprise, from the corporate monoliths to the garage operator, there is a reluctance to admit mistakes and move on.
You cannot change the past, but you can learn from it, and move on, if you choose to do so..
It is not being a quitter, it is sensible strategic leadership
The good thing about being at the point of strategic quitting, is that you have actually taken action, done things, and hopefully learned from them, so that the next action you take will be better informed.
What we need is less strategic planning, and more strategic doing, and part of that is being prepared to quit, learn, and move on.
Strategic quitting is a fundamental part of strategic success, embrace it.
Again, Dilbert has the last word, thanks to Scott Adams.
Nov 27, 2020 | Change, Strategy
‘Snowmobiling’ is a term created by Col. John Boyd, USAF to describe the process of pulling down a set of existing items, drivers, or perceptions, and putting them back together in an entirely different way, simply not seen by anyone else, just because it is different, and outside the expectations.
Existing views generate a confirmation bias that ensures that information that confirms those existing beliefs is used as confirmation that the current situation is all there is. Contrary information is either not seen, or dismissed as irrelevant, unreliable, or ‘fake’
The Snowmobile is the result of such a process of disrupting existing perceptions and barriers that made quick, convenient low-cost movement around snowfields a tough problem.
It is the result of breaking down the mechanics of a motor bike, a sled, a jet ski, and a tracked vehicle for rough terrain, and putting them back together in a different form that gives you mobility on the snow.
One of the great outcomes of Covid, which will change forever many of the pre-existing business models, is that is has become the catalyst for widespread Snowmobiling.
I live in Sydney’s inner west. There is Snowmobiling everywhere I look.
For example, the closure of restaurants and cafes was terminal for many, but increasingly, they started delivery via a number of means. Then, a few went a few steps further, breaking down the restaurant experience into its component parts, and putting them back together in a variety of ways.
You can now have your favourite restaurants deliver a pack with all the ingredients for a menu pre-cut, and ready for the pot, along with a USB stick with the specific cooking instructions for that recipe. You want some matched wine, easy. Others have one of the apprentices come to your home, and do all the cooking and service for you, providing everything bar the atmosphere of the restaurant. Then they clean up and take it all away.
Snowmobiling.
Are you doing it, or are you allowing the confirmation bias of the way it was dictate the manner in which you conduct your business?
One of the classic strategy questions is: “What business am I in?”
At a time like this as business models of all types are being not just disrupted, but thrown against the wall, and reassembled in entirely different ways, it is time to ask yourself the question again.
“What business am I in?”
Header photo courtesy DevilDucMike via Flikr
Oct 22, 2020 | Change, Innovation, Strategy
We are all looking for ways to increase the competitive leverage we can bring to bear. It is tough to find the sources of that leverage, and then apply it effectively in aggressive and often homogenised markets. However, there is a thought process that few have ever heard of that delivers such an outcome.
Observe, Orient, Decision, Action, or ‘OODA Loop’ is a competitive thought process articulated by Col. John Boyd, the maverick American fighter pilot, engineer, and scientist, who revolutionised the practise of aerial warfare’, and indeed warfare full stop. His nickname in the Airforce was ‘40 second Boyd,’ reflecting his bet, that he could beat any other pilot in a simulated dogfight in under 40 seconds. It is said, nobody ever collected from him.
Observe: is more than just seeing what is around, it is a process of absorbing all the information available, and synthesising it with the context from which the information emerged. For example, while the 2008 financial meltdown was a surprise to most, the signs of financial fragility were there, for those who were looking for the right messages, hidden in plain sight amongst the hyperbole and emotion of what appeared to be a never ending bubble.
Orient: is a process of applying domain knowledge and experience with the observations made. Continuing the 2008 meltdown example, those few traders who saw the mismatch between the mortgages being written, and the ability of those who were getting them to repay the loans, oriented themselves to take advantage when the bubble did burst. Such a meltdown seemed obvious to the few who were looking, when they observed the mismatch between the assumption of ever increasing prices, employment uncertainty, and the herd mentality that prevails.
Decide: Based on the observe and orient phases, choices need to be made, risks assessed,
and a decision taken.
Act: This is simply executing on the decision, from which point, the cycle starts again.
Boyd’s OODA loop is a framework for creating tactical advantage. As he put it: ‘To enable you to operate inside the oppositions ability to respond’.
The ability to respond is driven by the speed with which you are able to collect and analyse information, to come up with a tactical response, and implement, absorb feedback, reorient and go again. Given that the decision is almost always based on ambiguous and incomplete information, the tendency is to hesitate, seek other information, look for alternatives, seek reassurances and permission, this all takes time.
Boyd saw the winning process as increasing the tempo of the cycle, thereby getting ‘inside’ the oppositions ability to respond effectively, leaving them vulnerable, and beaten. The example he continuously used was the ‘kill ratio’ of US fighter jets ‘dogfighting’ against the Russian MIGs in Korea, which was 12:1, being whittled down to almost 1:1 by the end of the Vietnam war. Partly this was the result of better training of the MIG pilots, but significantly it was because the quicker, lighter MIGS, although less well armed and protected, could get ‘inside’ the manoeuvrable envelope of the US fighters, and shoot them down.
For an SME competing against larger, better resourced competitors, being able to move quickly and decisively, orienting assets and resources towards that opportunity, actively leveraging it, then ensuring that the lessons that emerge are incorporated into a learning loop, delivers victory.
Case Study.
In 1985 the yoghurt market in Australia was in its infancy. Australians did not consume much yoghurt, it was a fringe product, consumed by a small number, with limited retail distribution, manufactured by local state based dairies, largely as a means to give shelf life to raw milk, that promised better margins than butter, cheese, or dried milk powder.
French brand Yoplait was launched from a modern purpose built plant in Victoria, and changed all that almost overnight. The market boomed, as a result of a good product, and better advertising and marketing by Yoplait, which completely dominated the booming market nationally in a very short time.
Ski yoghurt was produced under licence in several states by local dairies, and prior to Yoplait was a significant brand amongst the group of brands available in the then small market.
After the Yoplait launch, Ski was relegated to relative insignificance nationally.
The licensee in NSW, Dairy Farmers Co-Operative Ltd, took the aggressive step of investing in a new dairy foods plant in western Sydney, closing the 100 year old plant located in the inner Sydney suburb of Ultimo. Part of the investment was to produce yoghurt by a continuous process, packaged into form fill and seal cups to compete with Yoplait.
Over the course of the next 6 years, Ski overtook Yoplait, by firstly taking over the licences in every state, to deliver operational scale to the Sydney plant, then embarking on a series of product and packaging innovations, backed by marketing support, that created a tempo of very successful new product launches that Yoplait, being controlled by a French company working through a licensee, and having an inflexible manufacturing plant could not match.
Ski inserted itself well inside the operational speed of the Yoplait licensee, executing product launch after product launch, some minor, some very major, that altered the dynamics of the industry, and was able to dictate the terms on which the marketing battle for consumers minds was played.
The battle was won on the basis of that agility in product development, and ability to bring products to market quickly, and be on to the next thing before Yoplait had time to respond.
Subsequently, both brands lost focus, ceased to invest in the long term health of their brands and innovation, instead, drinking from the sugar hit of tactical price promotion demands by supermarket chains, they shrivelled in size and no doubt profitability.
Sep 18, 2020 | Change, Governance
Gas, it seems is the way forward, according to the Prime Minister.
It seems to me that the conflicted debate about the evolution of our energy sources between fossil fuels and renewables, who wins and who loses, is more about the deployment of capital, and the beneficiaries of that deployment, than anything else. Platitudes about consumer energy prices, offering manufacturing the opportunity to have power at competitive rates is all very fine, and correct, just a few decades slow in coming.
For the whole of the 20th century, the geopolitical landscape around the world was driven by fossil fuels, and perhaps to a lesser extent other extractive industries.
The enterprises, public and private, made their owners and leaders rich by extracting profits, most often rewarding themselves for the largess provided by geography and to a lesser extent, politics and luck. They were, and continue to be an extraordinarily powerful force, often below eye level of the general public. Communities and the individuals in them have benefited from these industries, but not nearly as much as those that control them.
Now, the economic worm has turned, and renewables are becoming rapidly more economically viable, the extractive fossil fuel industries are being squeezed. As the battle for market share has intensified, we see the price of oil has dropped dramatically, and productive assets and their supply chains are being increasingly stranded.
The current oil price is around $40/barrel and under significant downward pressure, while at the same time, extraction is increasingly capital intensive, as the ‘easy oil’ is running out. This combination of downward price pressure, increasing competition from other energy sources, and increasing capital intensity is a harbinger of a wave of bankruptcy as the higher cost wells are closed as uneconomic. I am old enough to recall the very real concern about ‘Peak Oil’ back in the seventies, when the world was supposed to be running out of the stuff. Now the price in dollars is almost the same as it was 30 years ago.
Ref https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/crude-oil
Listen to the discussion of the modest resurgence of US manufacturing, the low price of fuels comes up, particularly natural gas as the driver. Gas is now at about 2.40/MMBtu, the same price it was back in the early nineties, a sixth of the price 15 years ago, having undergone a roller coaster ride.
This would appear to me to be commercially unsustainable. Gas is (as I understand it) even more capital intensive than oil, as gas wells generally do not have a long life before the resource is exhausted, and therefore need a return in a very short time frame to justify the investment risk.
This is before the environmental risk is considered. I have absolutely no expertise in this area, but have heard a very knowledgeable source describing the fracking process as: ‘being like locking the exit doors in a multi story building , and yelling fire, then watching where the leaks occur as the pressure builds’. In areas of sensitive geology, this is unlikely to have any positive impacts at all, particularly after the gas has been released, and the gas company moved elsewhere to repeat the exercise.
(Gas is measured in BTU’s, or British Thermal Units, which is the quantity of heat content in a fuel. 1 BTU is the quantity of heat required to heat a pound of water by 1 degree Fahrenheit when the water temperature is at 39 degrees Fahrenheit. A MMBtu is 1 million BTU’s)
Then there is coal, a similar roller coaster, and currently below the prices of 20 years ago. There are many grades of coal, some less price sensitive than others, but they all share similar characteristics as being dirty, and now cheap, under the cost of production of all but the most productive mines.
Then you have the cost of renewables, dropping by huge amounts over the last decade, photovoltaic by over 80%, less for wind .
(CSP is concentrated solar power) Graph https://www.irena.org/newsroom/articles/2020/Jun/How-Falling-Costs-Make-Renewables-a-Cost-effective-InvestmEnt
Of course the numbers depend a bit on who you use as a source, and what sort of granularity on the data you are seeking, but the trends are unmistakeable.
At some point, fossil fuels will become completely uneconomic, and we are probably not far from that point. When that happens, investment will cease, the ownership of these entities will pack up, having extracted all the returns that can, and move on. What will be left is the massive clean-up bill.
Who will be paying the clean-up bill?
We will, taxpayers, the public, from whom the fossil fuels industries have already extracted super profits from the jointly ‘owned’ resources.
I am not a green lefty by any means, but am concerned at the legacy being left to my children and more specifically my grandchildren. It is them that will carry the greatest burden of the clean-up.
There are many people with the chops necessary to speak on these topics from a point of expertise, I am little more than a concerned observer. However, the science is unequivocal, and there are paths to improvement.
Barry Jones when Minister for science in the Hawke government keynoted with Al Gore in a 1984 an ‘Ozone layer’ summit in London, sponsored by the darling of conservatives, Maggie Thatcher. This led to the Montreal Protocol, an international agreement to ban the manufacture and distribution of CFC’s. They were replaced by HCFC’s, which did less damage, and have been subsequently replaced again by chemicals with even less impact. Perhaps I am being cynical, but I see the profits of chemical companies driving this change, rather than the need to act for the general long term good. Nevertheless, the science has been undisputed by experts for almost 40 years.
It seems that so far, there are insufficient numbers in the halls of political power listening to scientists, unless it suits them to do so, as in the current Corona crisis.
I cannot believe it is because they are stupid, or blind, rather that they comply with that wry observation made in varying forms by several including Upton Sinclair: ‘It is useless to argue with a man whose opinion is based upon a personal or pecuniary interest’
Somehow, we need to poke a lighted stick up the arses of those who continue to push for the retention of fossil fuels as a core of our energy mix and export income. In the absence of any action to make change, we will be in even deeper trouble than I think we are.
Sep 14, 2020 | Change, Governance, Management
‘5 why’ is a tool often used to understand the real cause of a problem. Finding those real causes is often like peeling an onion: one apparent problem or more often symptom of a problem, leads to another, to another, until the root cause is clear.
Often however, we make changes in the absence of a compelling problem, usually to take advantage of an opportunity, or simplify/optimise some sort of process. In those cases, I have often seen the onion reverse itself.
You end up with unintended consequences.
A pack change that confuses existing customers, a change of supplier for a better price that has consequences for operational efficiency; a product feature added that customers said they wanted that added to unanticipated production complexity, and so on. I have suffered from several of these unintended consequences of seemingly sensible, well considered and pro-active changes.
Before any change, exercise a ‘Reverse 5 why’. Look for the wider consequences that may be caused by the change, and take the impacts into consideration.
Move a few steps back, and ask yourself; are there any impacts from this change? How will other functional responsibilities, customers, supply chain partners, be affected? What unintended consequences may occur?
It is very easy to become close to a project, and proceed to implementation without taking a ‘helicopter’ view of the potential impact beyond the immediate context of the change. Once you start doing it, taking that extra moment, which is usually all it takes, it becomes an integral part of an automatic due diligence process undertaken before making a change.
Building an automatic ‘Reverse 5 why’ into your planning processes will identify risk, and build the confidence of others with a veto in the projections you will have done to support the change.
b
