Jul 26, 2023 | Change, Innovation
Differentiation has regularly been trotted out as the core of success. In the absence of some sort of differentiation to a target market, all you have is price. It is an argument that I have used for 50 years.
Problem is, it is only half the story.
Differentiation must come from somewhere.
Usually, we tend to stop at some sort of mechanical or electronic additional feature, seeing those as desirable for the customer. If we are to follow Clayton Christianson’s theories, the absence of those same features that just clutter up the product from a different but unrecognised market might be the key.
In either case, there is a missing element in the usual articulation surrounding the development of a differentiator that in some way adds value to a customer.
Insight.
What is it that makes us realise that the current product configuration, business or distribution model, pricing and feature matrix is inadequate?
From somewhere comes an insight: ‘a clear, deep, and sometimes sudden understanding of a complicated problem or situation, or the ability to have such an understanding’.
Fortunately for the few who are thought leaders rather than the followers of the newest model, idea or shiny thing, insight will not come from any of these. It may come from observing the behaviour of the real outliers, and an understanding of the unusual things that drive their behaviour, or it might come from a diverse set of brains coming at a difficult problem from a range of differing perspectives. It may come from connecting a few practises that exist in other places with an unmet need, or opportunity in an unrelated field. The point is, it will not come from an effort to collect and analyse historical data that is presented to a 3-day offsite strategy session as the basis for their strategic discussions, the objective of which is to produce a glossy strategic plan.
Insight. The question remains how do you mould the culture of your enterprise such that it is able to produce this usually hidden key to success?
Header cartoon credit: Dilbert and Scott Adams.
Jul 20, 2023 | Change, Customers, Innovation
Contrary to the myth, the customer is not always right.
However, the customer should always be heard.
You learn a lot from customers, particularly the ones who leave, are dissatisfied and complain, or who exist at the fringes of your market, or even in a market you had not considered.
As a marketer I have always advocated the notion that the good stuff happens on the fringes. As the saying goes, ‘every good idea starts as a heresy’, so hearing the heresy is a core part of being able to respond to new stuff.
There are a lot of tools the hear what is being said on the fringes, tools to track every interaction with your brands, good and bad, and everyone should be heard.
Years ago, I tried to persuade the people in the pork industry’s peak body that they should be spending some time and marketing resources engaging with those growing organic, and heritage breeds of pigs, and got laughed out of the place. They noted that 99.9% of the pork grown was the result of intensive farming, where cost was the absolute driver.
The real competition to the domestic industry was located in those well-known cheap labour countries of Denmark and Canada, and these fringe Australian organic and heritage growers were irrelevant. Besides, the existing major Australian producers were contributing most of the industry marketing funding via matched levy.
Those few loonies with different ideas out on the fringes with tiny volumes only contributed a dribble to the kitty funding advertising and a nice lifestyle for employees in Canberra. This is close to the sources of part of their funding, and political power, but totally removed from growers and the markets they served, but very comfortable.
As a result, an opportunity for growth and profitability has been missed.
Or has it?
Jul 17, 2023 | Change, Governance, Leadership
Executing a culture change in an organisation is the first port of call in most improvement projects. Sometimes it is a minor task, often it is the major one.
There have been libraries written on the challenges of culture change, from ‘The 10 best ways to’ blog posts to great books that point us to new ways of thinking and dealing with the challenges.
I have contributed my share.
The common feature of all these is that it is very easy to talk about, very hard to do.
However, having done this continually over many years as part of almost every project, changing culture is a task that can be broken down into its component parts, and done bit by bit.
Culture is the word we use to describe the collective ‘The way things are done around here’. The clue is in the word ‘Done’.
Getting things done requires a process.
That process can be as organised and repeatable as a written process that is always followed, to the seemingly random, chaotic scrambling to get the necessary activities completed that I see most often.
Either way, there is a set of activities that must be completed, one way or another, in a sequence that can deliver a product to a customer, for what they are prepared to pay.
Individual activities can be isolated and subjected to improvement techniques. Improving the processes, as a focus of activity of all people involved in them, with the support and engagement of management will over time improve performance, and ultimately culture.
Culture is an outcome of the performance of processes, and how those performing them feel about themselves, and their place on the hamster wheel.
Digitisation makes this a bit easier, as we can track process performance in real time, rather than as in the past, collecting data, doing some analysis and cause and effect thinking, then make another change to test the outcome. This used to take weeks, perhaps months, but in some cases can now be done almost on the fly.
Like almost everything, our view of the time frame necessary for effective culture change has been shortened in most peoples’ minds. However, it seems to me that the time necessary for a robust culture change is one of the few things that has not accelerated in this digitised world.
I wish the incoming Governor of the reserve bank good luck in her culture change challenge, the body politic will be watching with a gimlet eye for early and rapid signs.
Cartoon credit: My thanks to Scott Adams’s avatar Dilbert
Jul 10, 2023 | Change, Strategy
As a kid in the sixties, some of my friends had extensive record collections, mostly albums, but also singles of the ‘hits’ from albums. The Beatles dominated, Sgt Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band selling millions of copies when released in 1967, and was still selling millions into the 70’s.
In 1963 Phillips introduced the compact cassette, portable, and it offered the choices of fast forward and replay. I can remember carefully taping favourite songs from the radio to make personalised ‘playlists’. Sales built rapidly, then took off when the Sony Walkman was introduced in the early 80’s.
Meanwhile, Philips had been developing the CD, born in their labs in 1974, and by 2000, held 96% of all sales of recorded music.
Again, parallel development was happening, and the digital audio format called MP3 was born in the late 90’s. This format enabled the conversion of music into a digital file that could be shared. Up popped Napster and similar sites, from which you could download music for free, in breach of copyright, but free.
Meanwhile Apple had made MP3 players sexy by putting ‘A thousand songs in your pocket’ with the iPod. The music industry, tightly held by a small number of large corporations sued, and won, but it was a pyrrhic victory, as Pandoras music box had been opened. As a side note, the sight of an industry body suing to ensure that their product was not distributed is a touch unusual.
Then along came Apple, again, with iTunes and its multifunctional devices we still call phones, followed by more streaming devices and services. Spotify changed the face of the industry, again, and the fight became the more traditional marketing fight for your attention, and money
You can follow a similar path with the development of the movie industry, motor cars, aeroplanes, computers, electricity, and many others.
The point is, the seeds of destruction are planted well before the visible disruption occurs. The timelines we typically think about when considering disruptive innovations are much longer when you step back and look at the lead-up changes that prepared the ground for the disruption.
What is happening in your industry that could bite you on the arse?
Jul 5, 2023 | Change, Demand chains, Innovation, Strategy
All the recent focus of industry development, Control of IP, and sovereign manufacturing, has been on High tech.
Should we, or perhaps why don’t we, look to areas where we have dropped the ball in the past, but still have the opportunity to shape world markets, built capability, and diversify our economy.
Should we be looking at some of the obvious, but perhaps boring stuff that can make a significant difference, and where we already have a huge head start.
This race towards the newest shiny thing is fun, generates a lot of press releases, is exciting, attracts attention, as well as capital and competition, but is it the whole game?
In years gone past, Australia supplied a huge percentage of the world’s wool.
We grew it, and processed it through the many stages to the production of yarn, and exported the highly value added product to the world.
No more.
We have been supplanted as the number 1 producer by, you guessed it, China. We proudly, for now, occupy second place in the production stakes. China also is the biggest importer of Australian greasy wool, which they then process and gain the huge value add that the processing stages contribute.
I do not have all the numbers, but the current mean fibre diameter of the Australian clip is 20.8 microns, (AWPFC numbers) which is significantly less that the average of other major producers. At the extreme, production of wool at 13-15 microns is very small, requiring very considerable skill, animal husbandry, and investment in genetics. However, that investment is returned with huge price premiums paid by high end fashion manufacturers. That fine wool sells at auction for up to and sometimes more than $150/kilo, 15 times the average.
Australia’s share of world fine wool production is upward of 80%.
Why is it beyond our capability to capitalise on such a premium position, based as it is on 150 years of experience, a continuing production advantage in the preferred raw product, and many millions of dollars on R&D?
Australian Wool Innovation has been pissing around for the 30 years I have been watching, and from time to time dipping a toe into the water. They have wasted growers money and matched funding from the public purse, while failing to build a sustainable industry value chain that builds Australia’s competitive position. Making excuses, and generally having a fine old time has been the outcome of their efforts.
Having just read the latest strategic plan I can find, that sorry situation is not going to change.
As part of the National Reconstruction Fund, should we revisit old friends like wool that despite the best efforts of the last 40 years, we have failed to kill off? Surely that level of resilience requires some examination and consideration for rebuilding the supply chains that delivered many of the foundations of the prosperity we still enjoy. Such an effort would tick 5 of the 8 priority areas nominated in the reconstruction fund legislation.
13 years ago in a post I asked ‘Where next for wool‘. The question needs to be asked again, and this time we should be expecting some sensible answers.
The header graph is the average price of greasy wool over time. You can see the impact of the wool industry pricing model that ended in tears in July 1995, leaving a huge inventory of unsold wool that screwed the market for a decade. As with all averages, the graph hides the huge opportunity that has been facing us for years, which we continue to ignore.
Jun 30, 2023 | Change, Lean, Operations
Several years ago I became aware of ‘Wrights law‘. In the 1930’s, Theordore Wright an aero engineer proposed that: ‘For every cumulative doubling of units produced, costs will fall by a constant percentage’. This insight came from observing the performance of his own factories building aircraft during the thirties and over the course of the war.
While I do not have the numbers, intuitively after 50 years of observation, it holds very true.
That truth seems to hold over any manufacturing I have seen and read about, unlike its much better known sibling Moore’s Law. Gordon Moore observed the increase in the number of transistors that can be stuffed onto a silicon chip in a given period of time, and predicted that a doubling of numbers would hold consistently over the long term.
Therein lies the significant difference that manufacturers have come to rely on.
Moore’s law refers to technology improvements over time.
Wright’s law refers to the manufacturing cost reductions that come with scale.
I would suggest that the cumulative impact of the combination has had a potent effect on manufacturing costs of everything from the manufacture of simple widgets to solar panels, to the cost of human genome mapping. Wrights Law applies as scale builds, and technology provides a catalyst to a tipping point that radically alters the growth curve, after which the graph finds a new normal in the relationship between volume and cost.
Australia for lack of leadership, foresight and capital has shied away from the investment required to light that catalytic fire many times in the past.
A primary example is solar panels. We have known for a hundred years that solar energy could be harnessed. As a kid I used to burn leaves, paper, ants, and occasionally myself, with a magnifying glass. However, it took researchers at the UNSW to invent PERC (Passivated Emitter and Real Cell) technology in 1983 to kick off Australia being the international leader in Solar cell technology. Funding and the foresight to commercialise could not be assembled here, so the technology was used to develop the manufacturing industry in China, where Wright’s law has facilitated the growth of a dominating share of the world market for wafers, cells, and completed solar modules.
Forecasting manufacturing costs is at the core of every successful manufacturer. While in the early stages of commercialisation there will be a host of variables you need to be able to model, understanding the relationship between your cost base and scale will remove a significant weight from your shoulders when planning capital requirements.
Australia again finds itself on the cusp of being an international leader in Quantum computing, biotechnology, Hydrogen sourced energy, and rare earth extraction and value addition. Let’s not allow ourselves to be distracted this time, we may not get another chance.
Successful economies all have one thing in common: they manufacture stuff others want to buy. Australia’s history is littered with great ideas, and technical innovations that are commercialised elsewhere for lack of foresight, leadership and capital. We would be desperately stupid to let it happen again!
