May 30, 2023 | Change, Innovation, Marketing
In this new world of marketing, being reshaped by Artificial Intelligence, how should those concerned with the longevity and salience of their brands respond?
Innovate.
AI is really good at looking at what has happened in the past, but has yet to develop a crystal ball to tell the future. Marketers key responsibility is to tell the future, then shape the resource allocation decisions their enterprises make to best leverage what they think will happen. No future comes in a linear fashion, but AI can only reflect in a linear way, in response to the algorithms on which it was trained.
Strategise.
Strategy is a game of choice, where what you will not do is at least as important and often more so than what you will do. Again, these choices are based on what you think might happen, and as noted, these are never linear choices. Strategy in a world being homogenised by access to data will be more fundamentally important than ever.
Manage Communication structures.
Yesterday’s world was dominated by silos. The simple fact is that customers do not care about your silos, only how you deliver value to them. Enterprises have evolved hierarchical silo structures as the most efficient way to allocate and manage resources. That remained true until the mid-nineties, and most enterprises still have not got the memo. Today, even any hint of silos and barriers to communication internally, and more importantly with customers, will lead to a rapid and fiery death at the hands of data and its scribe, AI.
Remove marketing complexity.
The last 20 years have seen a multiplication and fragmentation of communication channels to customers and consumers, along with the inevitable silent middlemen and rent seekers who just siphon off dollars with little or no value add. The complexity of the choices and channels has created a situation where the analysis of the value of marketing expenditure is little short of a children’s guessing game. This is despite and partly because of because of the plethora of options and tools. The only way to address this complexity is to cut the gordian know and simplify, simplify, and then simplify some more. In other words, marketing focus driven by strategy. Easy to say, hard to do.
Generate attention.
The main game of being relevant in a huge homogeneous crowd is to first generate attention. You do that by being different, and being different with a big dose of energy being injected into the differences that are relevant to customers and consumers because they solve real problems, delivering them real value.
If you do all that, while leveraging the capabilities of AI, and digital systems generally, it will be your competitors that struggle, while you are ahead of the game.
Header cartoon credit: Tom Gauld
May 24, 2023 | Change, Innovation, Strategy
Dr. Geoffrey Hinton, often labelled ‘the Godfather of AI’ left his ‘home’ at Google so he could ‘freely share his concern that AI could cause the world serious harm’.
The idea of AI is not new. Philosophers and mathematicians through the ages have been speculating and writing about things we would now count as part of the foundations of AI.
Jonathan Swift gave the Lilliputians ‘the Engine’, Thomas Bayes built his probability framework that is still used every day, and Nicola Tesla built a radio-controlled boat for the 1898 New York exhibition controlled by what he called, ‘a borrowed mind’, and the first paper that recognised the potential neural symmetry with our own brains was publsiesh in 1943.
Alan Turing proposed what became known as ‘The Turing Test’ in 1950. This generated a surge of activity, culminating in three academics hosting a workshop at Dartmouth College in 1956. This workshop is now seen as the ‘kick-off’ of AI research, much as the Solvay conference in 1927 was the catalyst to the nuclear research that led to ‘the bomb’ in 1945.
From that workshop, great minds have been busily stuffing the AI equivalent of Pandora’s Box until Pandora, in the form of Open Ai’s ChatGPT opened it in November 2022, and let the whirlwind rip.
As in the fable of Pandora, one of the most enduring of the ancient Greek allegories, once the box was opened, despite all efforts, there was no stuffing the evils back in the box. Luckily, Pandora had also been created with beauty, intelligence, and tellingly, curiosity, which led to her opening the box.
This is as it is with AI.
There is the evil we all see, centred on the rapid destruction of the status quo in all corners of our commercial, private, and public lives. The beauty may be harder to see in the short term, but will become obvious in the longer term, after all, the last thing to escape Pandora’s box was ‘hope’.
If nothing else, it will be exciting, and for some, the source of significant new leverage that can lead anywhere.
Header credit: Dall-E with the instruction: ‘Create a painting of Pandora opening the box allowing the evils to escape, in the style of the ancient Greeks’
Apr 29, 2023 | Change, Innovation
30 years ago tomorrow, April 30, 1993, the public internet was born with the announcement by the European Organisation for Nuclear Research that they would publicly release the HTTP protocols that would change the world. These protocols had been created by Tim (now Sir Tim) Berners-Lee for use by academic and defence facilities and had been very tightly held. On April 30, 1993 they were posted on what would become the world’s first website and were to be freely available to all.
10 years ago, I posted a happy 20th message.
Leading up to that momentous release of the HTTP protocols, providing the initial foundation for today’s internet, the US department of defence had created the ARPANET (Advanced Research projects Agency Network) in 1969. The first email message being sent by Ray Tomlinson who first used the @ symbol to separate the recipient’s name from the network address to himself in 1971. By 1983 there was general agreement on the standards for communication on the internet, the TCP/IP (Transmission Control Protocol/Internet protocol), and in 1985 the first domain, Symbolics.com was registered, which remains live today.
Once publicly released, the standardised protocols saw a mobilisation of innovative resources from around the world, resulting in rapid development of uses and tools.
Mosaic, the first popular web browser was launched in late 1993, and later was renamed Netscape navigator, and Yahoo launched in 1994. Microsoft launched their competitive search tool Explorer in 1995, later incorporating it free into Windows, leading to the move by the Clinton government to take action under the antitrust laws in 1998, resulting in an order to break up Microsoft. This order was later lost on appeal, significantly due to the evolving dominance of Google as the preferred search engine. Amazon launched in 1995, Google in 1998 and amongst the wave of tech IPO’s in 1999 was Napster, the first peer to peer file sharing service.
From the launch of Wikipedia in 2001, we again had a wave of launches, most of which failed, but a few became the unicorns that changed our lives, Facebook 2004, YouTube 2005, iPhone 2007, Instagram 2010, and so it continues.
The most recent inflection is obviously the explosion of AI tools since the release of ChatGPT in November 2022.
If you extrapolated from this birthday out to the next milestone, the 40th, the only thing we can say for sure is that you would be wildly, massively wrong. That happens every time such an inflection point is reached. Extrapolation is useless, instead we need to experiment and innovate, a continuous process that will take us in completely unpredictable directions.
I hope I am around to see it.
Apr 17, 2023 | Change, Innovation, Strategy
Over the years I have helped a number of start-ups. Almost all have been single or a few people who have a drive to start something they own, where they can call the shots, and be away from the dead hand of corporate bureaucracy. Sometimes this has been a formal assignment, more often, the result of a series of casual conversation in cafes, networking meetings, and at BBQ’s.
Across these conversations, there have been some consistent themes,
They focus too much on the little things that do not matter much in the long run.
Logo, company name, design of the proposed website, details that do not make or break a new business. At the early stages, these things can be easily changed, modified, and often are dumped.
What this does is take the attention away from what really does matter. Clearly defining the product and/or service to be provided, who is the most likely ‘ideal’ customer, why they should buy from you rather than elsewhere, and how they communicate with them about the value they can deliver without wasting resources. These are the things that matter. Their common characteristic is that they are qualitative, hard to measure, and they evolve.
Evolution happens on auto pilot, make it positive.
Things change, often they change while you are not looking, and only become evident with the benefit of hindsight, by which time it is sometimes too late to do much. The other side of the coin is that evolution also applies to the good things. The task of a new company is to set the guiderails so that the good stuff outweighs the bad. Alignment of all personnel and outside stakeholders is vital in this process, as the pressures will be coming from all sides. And like a child learning to walk, you need to have some of those guiderails in place, or you will wander off in random directions. I call it having a robust, deeply considered strategy.
Imposter syndrome always plays a role.
Unless you are a sociopath, imposter syndrome will grab you from time to time, you will feel out of your depth, wondering why everyone is looking to you for direction and confirmation. It will feel like that first time on a big public stage, dread about what is to come. When you look back, assuming you have done the preparation, you will recognise it for what it really is, a test, and a great learning opportunity.
Spreadsheets are liars.
Most businesses start with some sort of plan, most often articulated via a business plan template and a few spreadsheets. If you are looking for outside finance, these will be mandatory. However, I have never seen a spreadsheet or written plan that accurately reflects what actually happens. Most are nice, comfortable extrapolations of continuous growth along a predictable path. The growth of every successful business looks like a game of snakes and ladders. 3 steps forward, and whoopsie, 2 backwards. The trick is to ensure the steps upward and forward outweigh the falls. Sometimes this simply does not happen, and the snake hole swallows those who fall into it. Spreadsheets never allow for the ‘snake-holes’
Internal Vs External.
Most start-up failure comes from two sources. Firstly, from the lack of cash management. To my mind, there is no greater sins that not being proactive with cash, a simple set of disciplines often ignored. The second is because they have neglected the management of their customers by looking inwards, managing the inevitable personal and process friction that occurs, rather than looking at how they can add value to their customers. Customers do not care about your internal challenges, they are paying you to release them from theirs.
People are your greatest asset, and liability.
A business without people is just a scrawl on a piece of paper. A ‘micro-business’ which is what almost every business is at birth, can be strangled by one poor choice. Equally, that one choice can be the making of you. In the early days, when everyone is acting in all sorts of roles, you need people who are self-reliant, resilient, and happy to ‘muck in’. They are very hard to find, and even harder to keep when you do find them. Equally, when you think you have found the one, only to realise they are not as advertised, which is what they were doing during the interview, remove them quickly. A wrong employee at an early stage can become toxic very quickly. Sometimes that person is great at what they do, are seen by others to be vital, but they are a pain in the arse for some reason. Experience tells me that the benefits of what they are good at are usually outweighed by the hidden costs of them not being aligned with the rest of the team, and its objectives.
Being seduced by opportunity.
That old cliché of working in the business instead of on the business is almost always true in the early days. You will be swamped from all sides by problems as well as opportunities, both of which will radically dilute, if you allow it to, that characteristic of successful start-ups: focus. Plan for what comes next, focus your very limited resources on the key drivers of that outcome, and eliminate everything else. This is never easy, but is absolutely necessary.
None of this is easy, if it was, everybody would be doing it.
The failure rate of start-ups from the corner coffee shop to high-tech gizmos is very high.
Finding the right sort of outside ‘reality check’ advice and input that delivers true value is perhaps the eighth challenge, which so many get wrong, but which can change the outcome dramatically.
Header credit: Arrived via my new AI mate Dall-E
Apr 5, 2023 | Change, Culture, Innovation
Never before has the need for creativity been more critical.
Never before have set about crushing creativity before it has a chance to bloom more than we do now.
My nephew is dyslectic, always had trouble at school, with teachers, sitting still, and anything that required him to read and write. In a parent-teacher interview when he was about 12, my sister was distraught and angry to hear that her son, who had by then built a computer from bits and pieces, powered by a cobbled together solar panel on the roof, would be lucky to progress beyond being a day labourer.
He was lucky. After scraping into a regional university with a practical focus, he earned a masters degree in electrical engineering, got bored, and went back and did medicine. He is now an ophthalmic surgeon, restoring sight in the footsteps of Fred Hollows.
Had his practical talent not been recognised by an academic with a long life of non-academic experience behind him, my nephew may have continued tinkering in the garage while making his living on a production line. What a waste that would have been.
How many like him have we wasted?
How many like him will we continue to waste as we dose up the kids who cannot sit still in school, or colour between the lines, with Ritalin?
Back in 2008 an executive coach named Wayne Burkin wrote a book called ‘Wide Angle Vision: beat your competition by focussing on Fringe suppliers, Lost customers, and Rogue employees’. The title says it all.
Creativity and the resulting change does not come from those who can colour between the lines, always behave in a disciplined manner, are prepared to do as they are told at all times. It comes from the outliers, the originals, the rebels, as Steve Jobs noted, those who ‘Think Different’.
Seth Godin’s remarkable essay introducing us to the ‘Purple Cow’ resonates even more now than when it was written back in 2003. Paragraphs 5 and 6 should be reproduced and stuck on every wall of every room that ever has a student of any kind in it, and every office of anyone seeking to be a leader.
Never have we needed those who think different to have their hands on the wheel of the companies and institutions that together make up the economy, and will shape our kids futures more than we do currently.
Header cartoon courtesy of gapinvoid.com
Apr 3, 2023 | Innovation, Lean, Management
The double entry bookkeeping system we are familiar with, or should be, has been around for millennia. In the form we now know it, double entry bookkeeping was codified by Franciscan monk Luca Pacioli, a collaborator of Leonardo da Vinci in a mathematics text published in 1494.
It remained largely unchanged, just increasingly complex until the 1920’s when Alfred Sloan, the king of General Motors for 50 years developed the system of management accounts we still use, with standard product costs as a foundation.
As the ‘lean manufacturing’ movement, pioneered by Toyota, extended throughout the western world from the late 70’s onwards, the system of standard costs became increasingly problematic.
It tends to set in stone the assumptions that are built into the standard product costs, rather than using them as a basis for continuous improvement. Even worse, management KPI’s tend to be centered around functional silos that have little to do with the overall productivity of assets in delivering value to customers.
I have been subjected to ‘stalking’ variances, those that seem never to go away, but persist in defiance of management edict many times. The easiest way to get rid of them is to adjust the standard. Not very smart, but accepted practice and often the only way to achieve KPI’s in a corporate environment. It also has the effect of hiding opportunities for improvement, and ensuring reliable data is not available in real time. In parallel, we have increasingly digitised operational processes by multimillion dollar installations of MRP (Manufacturing Resource Planning) and its more expensive sibling ERP (Enterprise Resource Planning) systems. These tend to set in stone standard costs and variances down to the micro transaction level contained in work orders, which complicates and adds cost to the reporting and management processes without adding value for customers.
One of the core ideas of Lean is ‘Flow’ which is at odds with standard costing systems. Standard costing gives precedent to operational efficiency at individual stages in a process, rather than flow through a whole system, ignoring varying capacity and efficiency constraints. This results in several usually uncomfortable conflicts.
Two examples:
- Lean seeks to reduce inventory of all types, raw material, work in progress and finished goods, seeing it as a cost, tying up working capital. Traditional accounting treats inventory as an asset, and when a Lean project reduces inventory, it reduces the current assets in the balance sheet, giving a misleading perception of financial performance.
- Lean focusses on capacity utilisation and ‘Flow’ through the processes necessary to create a product. Capacity is the key operational constraint, but does not appear anywhere in the general ledger other than by inference, as a function of capital invested, the calculated value of inventory, and unit sales. Delivering capacity is only of value when that capacity is used to add value in some way, usually by producing more product from the same fixed cost base. Standard costing ignores this reality of operational management.
There are no easily GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Practice) conforming measures for calculating immediate capacity utilisation, and flow, and no sensible calculation of actual product costs on a short term basis that conforms to the standard cost model. A second set of measures, which use the same data base as GAAP accounting, but in different ways is necessary.
While it will take work to set up these alternative measures, once deployed they will reduce the reporting workload and error rates inherent in the highly transaction based standard cost models, delivering both utility and accuracy to operational reporting and analysis. Deployment is however not like installing an ERP system, it is a process of continuous improvement.
Setting out to implement a Lean accounting environment in the absence of collaboration and mutual understanding at the senior executive level, is akin to climbing Everest in a t-shirt. Success requires a complete change of mindset from that taught by most accounting institutions where the concentration is on financial and reporting compliance, rather than gathering and critically analysing the information that enables better management decision making and continuous improvement.
Header credit: Nick Katco from ‘The Lean Accounting CFO’
