Optimising does not always deliver results: Re-frame.

Optimising does not always deliver results: Re-frame.

Dec 13, 2017 | Change, Innovation, Strategy

Lean thinking, and the lean toolkit have changed the manufacturing landscape around the world. The elimination of waste in processes is now standard practice in every successful business, and the tools of Lean, 5 why, 5S, and all the rest play a key role, and have been successfully migrated into functional areas outside operational ones.

However, like any tool, you have to have the right one in your hand to effectively address the situation in front of you, and lean tools are not always the best ones.

Lean is largely about optimising the existing processes by elimination of steps that add  no value, the elimination of waste.

However, when applied to strategy development they are not useful in many circumstances.

Had the Taxi industry applied a 5 why analysis to their industry, they would not have come up with something like Uber. They would have cleaner taxis, drivers who know their way around, quicker response times, and a way to address the shift changeover lag. To come up with an Uber required the industry to reframe the source of value they create for customers, who want to get from point A to Point B in the least possible time, at the least possible cost, while being kept fully informed. A 5 why or alternative popular tools like a SWOT would not have given them the answers that led to Uber, they needed to reframe the industry entirely from the perspective of the customer.

The problems of the taxi industry were not solved by Uber, they entirely reframed the value proposition to customers.

Innovation is a particular challenge for lean thinkers, as it is always messy, risky, ambiguous, and a long way from optimised. However, it is an essential part of commercial evolution, without which we would end up in a homogenised world.

How boring would that be?

Photo credit Jon Swansan Via Flikr

Red flags to business failure.

Red flags to business failure.

Dec 11, 2017 | Change, Governance, Management

The November 2017 issue of the magazine of the Australian Institute of Company Directors (AICD) contains a very insightful and useful article by Phil Ruthven dealing with the industry cycles that IBIS research has been cataloguing for 40 years.

Ruthven makes the observation that while industry cycles are crucial to success, the risk they pose is only 1/3 of the risks faced by businesses, the other 2/3 are internal risks, in short the quality of their management.

No real surprise there, but seeing it in black and white, with supporting numbers from a source as credible as Ruthven is disturbing.

ASIC has developed a list of the impending signs of insolvency, no surprise, as they deal with that situation every day. High on the list is poor cash flow, absence of a business plan, disorganised internal finances, inadequate cash flow forecasting and budgeting, board dysfunctionality, customer and supplier complaints, and growing liabilities.

Again, no  surprises in this list, I have seen them all regularly over the last 25 years of working to improve SME performance.

I have my own checklist, broken into 4 categories: Financial, Operational, Strategic and Revenue Generation, against which I assess performance. It is a quick and dirty tool that over the years has captured the main culprits of underperformance, the red flags to insolvency.

It is reproduced in summary form below.

Strategic.

  • Unclear undifferentiated position in primary markets
  • Lack of investment in ‘Environmental research’
  • Absence of an innovation mindset
  • Absence of any differentiating Intellectual Capital
  • Lack of clear alignment of operations and strategic priorities
  • Wrong CEO and/or governing body
  • Poor cultural drivers
  • Poor strategic, operational and tactical planning and ‘After Action’ Review processes

Operational

  • Ambiguous lines of responsibility and accountability
  • Absence of a continuous improvement mindset
  • Absence of performance management and review systems
  • Unreported customer and supplier complaints
  • Absence of DIFOT management and measures
  • Digital naivety

Financial

  • Erratic and unforecast cash flow
  • Poor management of debtors and creditors ledgers
  • Inadequate budgeting and financial performance management
  • Disorganised and/or inaccurate numbers
  • Tightly held financial and operational performance reports
  • Growing debt
  • Lack of financial understanding amongst management

Revenue generation

  • No defined ‘ideal customer’
  • Uncontrolled distribution channels
  • Lack of end consumer contact and feedback
  • Disorganised lead generation and conversion  processes
  • Absence of customer profitability and Share of wallet measures

For some time now I have been referring to the marketing and Sales functions collectively as ‘Revenue Generation‘. To my mind the functional separation that is usual is redundant in this fast moving world where the demarcation between the two is both blurred and irrelevant to customers, so should be eliminated.

This list is not a template, it is a compendium of headings that typically require investigation. To the extent that there are numbers available, they are very useful, and the absence of numbers also offers an insight into what is going on. I also make observations based on the conversations I have, and set about weighting of the various factors. Two however always are at the top of the list.

The absence of routine and pro-active cash management is a very strong signal of trouble to come, as is a disorganised, and in B2B businesses, often absent revenue generation processes that go beyond being reactive to whatever walks in the door.

Any one of these 26 factors will result in under-performance, that can lead to insolvency, but a combination of them is toxic.

 

Indifference is the killer of businesses.

Indifference is the killer of businesses.

Dec 7, 2017 | Branding, Change, Marketing, Small business

 

Successful small and medium sized businesses are always on the lookout for opportunities, which can be a problem.

All businesses, and especially small ones do not have the operational and management ‘bandwidth’ to take on too many opportunities, they lose focus and end up being mediocre in the market that made them successful in the first place, as they compromise in order to enable the coverage.

In this terrific cartoon and accompanying commentary, Tom Fishburne relates the contrasting stories of the Mini, one of the most successful cars ever designed, and the Pontiac Aztec, voted one of the worst ever, despite being in front of the demand curve at the time and therefore in a great position to be truly successful.

The problem can usually be distilled down to indifference.

People buy things to solve a problem, scratch an itch. Sometimes that is a simple thing associated with what will I eat tonight, and sometimes it is a personal thing associated with self-image. When it is the latter, creating a situation where there is indifference, where the purchase decision is not driven by a strong emotion, you will end up failing.

Strategy is all about making choices. It is not just a matter of determining what you will do, it is also a matter of determining what you will not do. It is this  latter dimension of choice that always causes the most problems in coming to a conclusion, there is always that bit of green on the other side of the fence.

‘Find a niche and own it’ should be the mantra of every business, but particularly every small business. Be very, very good at a few things rather than average at a number of things.

A former client has a dominating position in a niche servicing the underground coal market in Australia. A dying market if ever there was one. There are several strategic options: expanding into underground coal internationally, and/or expanding into adjacent hard rock mining operations leveraging some of their technology that is relevant to the challenges faced. As there are limited funds available, choices need to be made. Not easy.

One of my mates is a baker, a creative and driven bloke who has successfully built a business servicing the ‘high end’ market in a major city. His business partners now want to expand by expanding operational capacity in order to service the ‘medium’ market  where there is indeed far more volume, but also more competitors with spare capacity, so it becomes a question of price.

Over 40 years of marketing, I have never seen a situation where the dilution of the value proposition benefits the marketer. Customers are not silly, they make judgements on a range of rational and emotional considerations, and they do not consider your operational and financial priorities in those judgements.

 

Cartoon credit”: is again a wonderful Tom Fishburne production

 

The evolving Push & Pull of the supermarket business model.

The evolving Push & Pull of the supermarket business model.

Nov 30, 2017 | Change, Marketing, retail, Strategy

Established supermarkets around the world work from a pretty similar, well-honed playbook. The current business model of supermarket retailers is all about scale and leverage applied to their supply chains, and offer of range and price to consumers. While there are many variations in the detail, in principal  they  are pretty much the same, a ‘Push’ business model.

By contrast, the rapidly evolving ‘E-Tailers’ exemplified by Amazon and Alibaba are pull models, relying on customer engagement to activate the sales process.

When you look  closely at the business models of Amazon and Alibaba, the gorillas in the E-tailing space, there are significant differences. Amazon still at some point in the chain physically handles the products they are selling, and they do often take ownership at some point, while Alibaba at no time touches or owns the products, all they provide is a platform for the exchange to take place, and they make a commission on the transaction.

The established retailers are driven by the core assumption of the 20th Century that price of the product, range, and location of the store will be the dominant factors in determining customer loyalty, which are both supply chain factors. By contrast, the models of the e-tailers are truly customer centric. The value chain is driven by the demands of the customer, which can be influenced, if not completely managed once enough data on the individual is available.

The difference from a strategic perspective is the technology required to drive them both.

It seems to make sense that the existing supermarkets will be setting out to match the customer centricity advantages of their digital competitors, while retaining the advantages bestowed by their control of the supply chain.

How do they do that?

Not easy, but increasingly becoming not just possible, but a reality. By combining their supply chain knowledge with the customer information being collected on store cards, the geolocation capabilities of mobile devices, and social ‘Big data’, supermarkets could find themselves in a position to ‘flip’ some of their revenue from Push to Pull.

Imagine the situation where Mrs Bloggs is driving on her way to pick up the kids at after school care  having finished work at her part time job.  She sometimes stops at the supermarket to do a top up shop for the household commodities, and to buy some fresh produce to cook for dinner. The supermarket  data base knows this routine, and what Mrs Bloggs usually buys from the information collected via the store card she uses.

The algorithms in the store database sends a message to Mrs Bloggs informing her of the price discount they have on a product she may not usually buy, but which they have a surplus at her local store, and the dinner prep bundle for a meal for which she sometimes buys the ingredients. In one case, there will be no discount, why discount something that is a normal sale, keep that discount dollar for a situation where it will generate incremental sales, or can be charged back to a supplier.   The alternative offer is discounted based on the stock turn and availability of the product that needs to be sold quickly. The algorithm also sends a complementary message to Bill and Betty Bloggs, waiting to be picked up, as it knows Mrs Bloggs is driving, so kid pester power is engaged.

Push to Pull.

The strategic development of our grocery markets has been cyclical.

I can still remember as a very young boy going with Mum to a number of stores to buy the groceries. In each one there was a counter and someone who took the order and assembled it from stock to which the customers had no access.  Then came the steady development of the supermarket, which increasingly leveraged the scale of the stores and their control of the supply chains to push product at consumers, and making a margin from the suppliers via retail shelf ‘rental’ and pocketed promotion fees.

The emergence of Amazon et al over the last decade has put some power back in the hands of the consumers, and they are using it, with many households now combining a visit to the supermarket with various forms of on line purchase and delivery. We are going back to the one on one model, but replacing the trip to the store, pantry management, and all the other things my mother used to do, with technology.

Those combinations will continue to evolve, driven by consumers.

Pull winning out over push.

 

Amazons Australian warehouse is finally open: so what?

Amazons Australian warehouse is finally open: so what?

Nov 28, 2017 | Change, retail, Strategy

 

So, Amazon opened its first fulfilment warehouse in Australia last Thursday, to the sounds of the incumbent retailers either telling us that they will have no effect, or just not acknowledging the appearance of a giant shadow on the landscape.

Back in 2015, Whole Foods founder John Mackey waved off Amazon, observing that groceries were a step too far for them. Pity for him he was absolutely wrong, and now works for Jeff Bezos

Does that sound like Gerry Harvey recently?

It seems to me that the most valuable warehouse Amazon has is not  the new behemoth outside Melbourne, but the data warehouse that has been capturing our digital footprints for the last decade.

Last Christmas, my wife of 35 years was moaning that she did not know what to get me, while Amazon was regularly making suggestions of things I might like, and they were usually pretty good suggestions based on the data they collected. In one sense at least, Amazon knows me better than my wife.

Scary, but just another example of the value of data.

Via Amazon Web Services, the biggest in the cloud services business, and growing like crazy, Amazon has their hands around the throats of a huge pile of data on all of us. Add to that the data facebook, Linkedin, Pinterest, Twitter, and all the rest have on us that can be leveraged, and the world of boring old retail in a shop is no longer.

Harvey Norman has a current market capitalisation of $A4.3 billion, Coles about 18 Billion, and Woolworths 35 Billion, and all are struggling. Amazon has a current capitalisation of almost $US1.6 Trillion, (a trillion is a million, million, I had to look it up to be sure) and rising steadily,

Amazon is more than a huge retailer, it is a collection of businesses and dreams that spans a huge range of activities and interests of Jeff Bezos, who has built this giant in 21 years from a simple book selling landing page in 1996.

We always think about on line as being about convenience and price, but it is more than that, it is an immersive experience, we are becoming ‘digital natives’. Our addiction to the screens and devices is advancing at a rapid rate. Nir Eyal documents the means by which we become ‘addicted’ to technology, but as a suggestion, ask your teenager to switch of the notifications on their phone, and there would be a revolution.

So, digital has become immersive, but is that not the real and under-utilised competitive advantage that Bricks and Mortar retail currently has? You can go into a store, touch, feel, try on the stuff, see how it looks in real life, it is a tactile experience.

What will happen as AI and VR explodes onto the scene, you may be able to try on clothes at home, change sizes, colours, combinations, how immersive will that be??

The reality is  that Amazon could buy Woolies and Coles out of petty cash and barely notice the bump in their cash flow. The same could be said about Alibaba, China’s answer to Amazon, that is in fact bigger on most measures, but is an entirely different business model, so is unlikely to venture into the space Amazon is carving out.

Last Thursday was no more than just another day, the opening of Amazons warehouse, just another small brick in the wall Amazon is building. We all knew the opening was coming, but it is just that the pace is picking up, and the retail incumbents are being left behind, as our lives change.

 

Photo credit: Tony Webster via Flikr.

5 questions that might save Australian manufacturing

5 questions that might save Australian manufacturing

Nov 23, 2017 | Change, Management

 

The news that Murray Goulburn would be acquired by Canadian dairy giant Saputo, taking out the largest of the few remaining Australian owned  FMCG manufacturing businesses is not welcome, while probably an inevitable  result of the failure of Australian management and our institutions to meet the challenges of change and globalisation. It leads me to consider what is next for manufacturing and specifically FMCG manufacturing in this country.

It is not a pretty sight, coming on top of the final closure of the car industry a few weeks ago.

Having said that, manufacturing that will be profitable and provide the foundations of our economy for the rest of the 21st century will look nothing like the manufacturing we grew up with, so my greater concern than the demise of what we had, is how grossly unprepared we seem to be for what is coming.

The tsunami currently washing around our ankles seems to have three  characteristics:

  • The gigantic increases in the volume of data available to us, should we be willing and able to collect, communicate, analyse and leverage it via the analytics and business intelligence tools emerging in parallel.
  • New forms of machine/human interface being driven by touch and voice.
  • New ways of transferring the digital tsunami into the physical world, by means such as robotics, artificial intelligence,  augmented reality, and additive manufacturing.

It seems to me that we are ready for none of these except in isolated pockets, inhabited by a few really smart people unwilling to be drowned, and prepared to bet the farm on the future.

So, the questions to be faced by those who will either survive, or more likely emerge from the rubble (assuming the ‘policy-makers’ do not stuff it up entirely) may be something like the following:

1. How can we capture and make better use of information. The currency of the 21st century is information, but by itself, it is just lead in the saddlebags. What counts are the insights and leaps of logic that can be gained from the information that leverages it into useful knowledge that can be monetised.

2. Which strategic questions should we be asking ourselves? Which questions will offer the opportunity to make the right choices and develop the insights into what may happen next, as the value of using the past as an indicator of the future is long gone?.

3. What might the new business models look like? It is certain that the business models of the past are as redundant as a Model T in an F1 race, so we need to be actively developing and testing a new breed.

4. What sort of capabilities will be needed to compete sustainably? Where are we going to find, train, and retain the people with those vital capabilities? The tools and technology are increasingly becoming commoditised, the people who use them will be the differentiator. At the core of this question is how we manage the education of our kids. it seems to me that education is viewed as a cost to the budget, a line item to be argued and manipulated with a short term focus, rather than as an investment in future prosperity, which by definition will be generational. We need to teach our kids to think, to be critical and analytical, while trusting their instincts and domain knowledge, and if we fail in that, we will have failed completely.

5. How do we collaborate? This question has caused many sleepless nights to date and we still have no real idea beyond the clichés and academic prognostications. Australians are lousy at collaboration, we see the bloke next door as the enemy, or at least someone to be avoided, you certainly do not invite them to dinner, and to date your daughter. However, we need to get over this and be prepared even to collaborate with competitors in some areas, and the regulators need to get used to the idea by taking a broader view of the definition of competitive advantage.

All this is a long way from the demise of the Australian FMCG industry, as I have variously  chronicled in these pages, but it is also tangled up with our collective failure to see the future through any lens that gave us the insights necessary to dodge the hand grenade of change, and take advantage of the subsequent explosion.

Only by questioning the status quo, recognising it will not be an indicator of the future, and genuinely setting out to make the often radical changes necessary will Australian owned manufacturing survive as a significant contributor to our continued prosperity.