Mar 28, 2024 | Leadership, Small business, Strategy
Success of an SME means they have crossed that shark filled river where most SME’s fall over.
They have sufficient scale to employ functional personnel to address the day to day running of the business, and are returning the cost of capital and a bit more to the owner.
For some this is a level of comfort that is satisfactory, but to most who have strived to get across that river, it will not be enough, they are of a personality type that will be looking for the next challenge.
So where should they look?
Do yourself out of a job.
When you can go away for 3 months and wonder why nobody missed you, the business has reached the point where you are no longer needed daily. Accept that and get a life, or knuckle down to scale the business. For many that might mean becoming a non-executive chairman, staying engaged, but well away for the week-to-week challenges. You have created a manager system and ‘bench’ that does that. Leverage it.
Identify the industry constraints.
Every industry has a set of constrains that are rarely even noticed, they are just the edges of the status quo. Every useful innovation that has evolved, has done so by addressing a constraint that few, if any had even seen. The outcome of this insight is to deliver the opportunity for significant value addition.
The exempla was Steve Jobs. He saw the constraints in personal PC’s when he saw the work being done at Xerox Park developing a Graphical User Interface. When deployed in the Mac, the GUI changed Apple from a hobbyist into a leading PC. He repeated the magic with the original iPod, then the iPhone, and the App store. Each of them operated in an existing environment, with existing technology that could be deployed in ways that removed the accepted industry constraint, changing the face of that industry. You do not need to be a huge organisation to do this. In my local area there is a plumber who guarantees his work, and guarantees the time he will turn up to do it. Failure to address either means the client does not pay. He charges a significant premium, and now has a number of vans on the road, simply because he redefined an existing constraint in this local area.
Identify and remove internal constraints.
As with an industry, every business has a range of internal constraints that together become the culture and status quo in that enterprise. There are always opportunities to do things better, but are often overlooked, by simply not being seen, or miscategorised.
A former client removed an internal constraint and added 10% to his gross margin overnight by doing so. The business, a medium size in his industry had kept three suppliers of the core item in his manufacturing operations holding roughly equal share of his business, for roughly equivalent products. There was little to no internal competition, each of the suppliers did so from their price list, while maintaining very friendly relations with the MD and purchasing manager. We instituted a competitive bid for a guaranteed 80% of the purchases, with the remaining 20% to go to the runner up as a consolation prize, and ‘backup’ to the major supplier. The cost reduction that came from that relatively simple exercise dropped straight to the bottom line.
Currently the evolution of AI is creating huge opportunities for enterprises to deploy tools that will optimise existing processes and enable scaling at little or no added cost. There is a learning curve, an investment required, but not engaging means you will quickly fall behind competitors, while ignoring the opportunity to go quickly past them.
Build performance consistency.
For those with a view to one day selling the business they have built, there is no substitute for being able to show consistency of performance over time.
Even when an exit is not even contemplated, seeking ways to build consistency has the result of simplifying an enterprise which almost automatically adds margin and cash.
To build performance consistency takes time and effort. It requires a combination of being ‘in the weeds’ implementing processes that recognise and address tactical and operational improvements daily, and taking a ‘helicopter’ view that enables strategic positioning. This combination is easy to say, hard to do.
A buyer is buying two things, both of which are extremely valuable, irrespective of the inclination to exit the business:
- Optimise the existing business processes and infrastructure,
- Map the path that best delivers future cash flow.
Demonstration of positive performance consistency on both these parameters will give you back time, and optimise the buying price if and when you exit.
Header credit: My thanks to Hugh McLeod at gapingvoid.com
Feb 29, 2024 | Change, Leadership, Marketing
If you asked a room full of marketers if marketing had changed in the last decade, you would get most of them telling you it had changed radically.
On the surface it has, the digital revolution has taken marketing by the neck and given it a great big shake.
There has been an explosion of sales, media, connection, and payment channels, customers are more wary, and do their own research before a marketer knows they are in the market. So called ‘content’ has almost infinite reach, but the frequency is rubbish, as there is so much digital noise, and so much competition for attention, that most of it is the digital equivalent of yesterday’s fish wrapper from the newspaper obituary section. The investment in marketing technology to manage all this has also exploded.
There is a welter of research and opinion that confirms the notion marketing has changed, some by very credible organisations.
I asked myself the question again, after stumbling across this report by Adobe, one of those credible organisations that supports the ‘yes’ vote, and came to a partly different conclusion.
Marketing has changed, absolutely, at the tactical level. The means by which marketers create and deliver a value proposition, then turn it into a transaction is unrecognisable from just 5 years ago. However, tactical implementation is just a small part of the pie.
Organisationally, marketing has changed a bit. Generally, it is still a function in a group of functional silos that reports to a CEO. A range of new titles have emerged, Chief Marketing Officer, Chief Engagement Officer, and so on, but that does not change the essential reporting and accountability of those in senior marketing roles. The marketing organisation in large enterprises has also siloed, now there is digital, customer service, technology, and a range of other functional roles within marketing not present 5 years ago.
Strategically, marketing has changed little if at all. The role of marketing is to tell the future and adjust the value proposition to customers ahead of the changing preferences and behaviour. That has always been the case, and remains so.
The only strategic change I can see is one of leadership.
In the past, marketing has generally been a passive corporate player, relegated to the role of managing one of the largest expenses in the P&L. Now the value of enterprises is so much more in the hands of intangibles, that marketing is increasingly demanding a seat at the big table. This requires that marketers are able to lead their peers and boss. Unless they can achieve this position of leadership, they will remain the simple gatekeepers to one line in the P&L, rather than being responsible for the future health of the enterprise.
Look at it from the top down.
Marketing has changed little strategically, but strategy is by far the most important component.
It has changed organisationally, and while it is important, in most areas, it is not a game changer.
Tactically, marketing is unrecognisable, but who really cares. Tactics are short term, able to be changed in real time as the situation evolves. Marketers need the organisational capability to be able to change in real time, but the impact of failing to do so is limited.
The marketing groups that will be successful into the future are the ones that are successful leaders of their organisation. To achieve this role of leadership, they must be able to identify the priority areas for investment and activity, as well as being able to remove the organisational constraints that operate in every enterprise, that are not directly accountable to marketing.
Well, they are not accountable until marketers are in the corner office, which should be happening more and more as they are the future tellers. Those who currently occupy that office are usually the engineers, lawyers, and accountants who are good at reading the past in the data, and hoping the future looks similar.
Who is next in your corner office?
Feb 5, 2024 | Change, Leadership, Strategy
‘Going digital’ sounds easy.
Sadly, it is not.
Almost every company I visit or work with needs, to one degree or another to be aggressively moving down the path towards ‘digitisation’.
Just what does ‘digitisation’ mean?
For most of my clients it means automating some or all of the existing processes driven by bits of unconnected software and spreadsheets, liberally connected by people handing things over.
It is a mess, and there is not one, or even a suite of digital measures that will address the whole challenge, despite what the software vendors sprout.
The world is digitising at an accelerating rate, so keeping up is not only a competitive imperative, it is a strategic necessity. Never more than now as ChatGPT burst onto the scene, compressing everything, and making the ‘digitisation’ drive one of life and death.
On of my former clients is a printing business, an SME with deep capabilities in all things ‘printing’ that enabled the company to be very successful, in the past. Their capabilities are terrific, cutting edge, if we were still in 1999.
If I use them as a metaphor for most I work with, there is a consistent pattern.
- They did not see Digitisation as an investment in the future, rather it is seen as an expense.
- There was no consideration of the application of digital to their product offerings, beyond the digital printing machines, and services beyond those that made them successful 20 years ago.
- Their business model, beyond what is demanded by the two biggest customers, who between them deliver 34% of revenue, has not changed.
- They have not considered digitisation of operational processes, beyond a 25-year-old ERP system. The system has not been adequately updated, and they only use a portion of the existing capability.
- They have not modified their organisational and operational culture to meet the changed expectations of their customers, and the market.
No digitisation effort can succeed without the support of an operating culture that encourages ongoing change. Organisational processes can be modified by decree, but they will not stick. It takes everyone in the boat to be pulling in the same direction, in unison to make progress. This takes leadership, and a willingness to be both vulnerable internally, and a strong ability to absorb the stuff from outside. The leadership group must ‘get out of the building’. Not to smell the roses, but to see the lie of the land, and understand where the opportunities and challenges are hiding.
Coming to this point, where there is a recognition that change is no longer a choice, is where you are given one point out of a possible 10. Now you need to do something about it all to have a shot at the following 9 points. A daunting prospect for most.
The process has 5 easy in principle steps:
- Map the existing operational processes so you know what to change, and where the gaps/opportunities are hiding..
- Map and change the mindset of the people, so you understand the extent of the challenge.
- Take small and incremental steps along a path that all understand leads to a digital future, which means that a lot of collaborative planning has been done.
- Ensure that there are the necessary opportunities for all stakeholders, but particularly employees to grow and change with you. Those that choose not to, also choose to work elsewhere. There are no free rides.
- Ensure the resources of time and money are allocated uncompromisingly to the long-term outcomes. It is just too easy to put aside something that is important but not urgent, for something that may seem to be urgent, but is not important to the transformational effort.
As noted, since the public release of ChatGPT in November 2022, the time before the liquidator comes around for those who choose not to change has compressed radically.
Most, if not all SME’s beyond the digital start-ups now cropping up like mushrooms after rain, will need outside expertise.
Consider that help to be an investment in survival, not a cost.
Header cartoon credit: Tom Fishburne at Marketoonist.com
Jan 26, 2024 | Change, Governance, Leadership
January 26 again, and out come the strident calls for it to be changed, in one of many ways, as well as the equally strident voices calling for no change.
To me it seems to be just nonsensical chatter.
In any event, January 26 is a confection. Prior to 1935 it was generally known as ‘first landing day’, which it was not, or Foundation Day, which rates as a ‘maybe’. It was only in 1935 that all jurisdictions used the label ‘Australia Day’. If we must change it to satisfy the noisy few who get hot under the collar, the sensible option would be May 9, which is the day the first federal parliament met in Melbourne in 1901.
We should be discussing more important things.
Climate change leading to floods, fire, with pestilence to follow. Another mouse plague perhaps? The impacts of climate change are there for all to see. They are more pronounced than the most pessimistic scientific opinion of a decade ago, and yet at the government level, little is being done beyond lip service and press releases. Private capital is making all of the relatively modest investment occurring, I suspect contrary to our long term best interests.
Covid has not gone away. What about the next pandemic, are we prepared better than we were when Covid announced itself to the world? I see few if any steps that act as ‘insurance’ against the impact of the next pandemic. Press releases will not stop it, when it arrives.
Generative AI has changed our world. I confess to being excited and confused at the same time by the explosion of AI. It is such a game-changer, it feels a bit like watching the industrial revolution happening at warp speed. Depending on who you listen to, true AI, meeting Alan Turing’s test will emerge anywhere between a decade hence, and ‘probably never.’
We are now in a knowledge economy. This is a term thrown around for years, but for the first time for me at least, it really sticks. It begs the question: what is the basic unit of production in the knowledge economy? How do we measure it, organise for it, pay for it in an equitable and sustainable manner, and critically, how do we optimise the utility of the time we allocate to any task.
The impact of the last digital revolution was articulated by Moore’s law, the compounding time frame of which was 18 months. If we apply the same logic to AI, the compounding time frame seems to be about a week. This will result, if it continues, in a logarithmic acceleration of AI tools surging way ahead of the hardware that delivers the physical outcomes. Therefore, the processes that currently consume the time of people will be in the gun, with the hardware lagging. Instinct, experience, in a phrase, knowing where to look to join the dots will be the critical leverageable capability for the good jobs and career paths.
The pressures the explosion of AI brings to the foundations of our country are profound. In our public discourse, these challenges are not being touched on in any way. We prefer to argue about the current but completely unimportant populist nonsense that is irrelevant to the country we leave to our grandchildren.
As an aside to any discussion of AI, there should be conversation about the coming deluge of litigation surrounding copyright. As Newton observed of his breakthrough ideas, he ‘Stood on the shoulders of giants’. Did that standing involve plagiarism under our current laws? Did Da Vinci’s most famous illustration, ‘Vitruvian man’ involve breach of ‘copyright’ of the work of Roman engineer Marcos Vitruvius Pollio? (I ignore for the sake of the debate that the sunset in copyright would have well and truly expired on Vitruvius’s original work). Creativity is a collaborative and experimental process always using the shoulders of others. How we align that reality to the current copyright laws designed for a non-AI world will be a lawyers feast, and a nightmare for the rest of us in the coming year.
The Geriatric election in the US will be impacted by AI. Putin is a capitalist, reputed to be the richest man in the world, but nobody knows where all the money (or bodies) hide. However, he does understand ROI. He can spend $10 billion getting his red headed, narcissistic, sociopathic mate re-elected, and cut off the supplies to the Ukraine that way, or spend $100 billion crushing the armies of the Ukraine, and wearing all the current contributors, distracted as they are by the conflagration in Gaza, down to the point where they back away. While the US election is half a world away, and totally out of our control, the outcome will have an impact on our economy, foreign relationships, and perhaps our way of life.
Our foreign policy is conflicted as never before. We have the China hawks yelling at the doves, while China is our major trading partner, upon whose goodwill our current standard of living rests. In parallel, we are committed to a program of procurement of nuclear powered submarines to protect us from that same vital trading partner. When/if they arrive, they will operate in shallow seas to our north, entirely inappropriate for nuclear powered boats that require very deep water in which to ‘hide.’ That ignores the probability that by the time they arrive, there will be sub detector drones available in Bunnings, and the barrier of building from nothing a nuclear industry to support them was not, after all, insurmountable.
Meanwhile, there is armed conflict in Europe and the Middle East, both of which have the potential to suck us deeper into a morass that makes Afghanistan look like a Sunday school picnic.
The taxation system is a dogs breakfast needing urgent and complete reconstruction. Such a sensible step is way beyond the reach of either of the major political parties, driven as they are by institutions that demand maintenance of the status quo for their own selfish reasons. The lack of voter appetite for change, despite the obvious gaping holes in the system ensures that no real change will happen until there is a genuine crisis.
Last week the PM reaffirmed the legislated tax cuts would come into force as legislated. This was a surprise to me, as I believed there would be changes, aimed more at the bottom end of the income scale. On Monday he flipped, and let everyone know there will be some changes, which will consume much of the political capital he has left. Despite being very modest cosmetic changes, nobody will be satisfied. The various aid and welfare agencies will be wondering aloud, where this government lost its social conscience, as the changes will not go far enough, and the opposition will run around yelling, again, that the sky is falling. Michele Bullock will have pencil poised, ready to point out that inflation will not be helped by the injection of money into the economy.
The housing crisis, one of our own making, will not go away irrespective of how many press releases and Band-Aids are sent around. It is a systemic challenge driven over the last 25 years, and treating it as anything but is a nonsense. Commentator Alan Kohler, who has a way of deconstructing the babble of economists, bureaucrats and politicians into common sense wrote a quarterly essay that contains plenty of sensible comment. If you have an hour, this webinar is useful. Alternatively, this precis on the Michael West media site gives a very good summary in a relatively short read.
Meanwhile the alternative Prime Minister is urging retailers to stock piles of Australia Day ‘merch’ that does not sell. This trivial matter, which is none of his business anyway, is not a contribution to the acknowledgement that we live in a great place, currently celebrated on January 26. It is just a shallow, meaningless, populist, and cynical appeal to grab a fleeting headline, and enrage some who live at the shallow end of the gene pool.
A decade on from this 2013 Australia day post, the observation that in the future, the core challenges to our society I saw then, education, research capability, diminishing manufacturing capability, and the flogging off of our national estate remain. Absolutely unchanged.
Have we not learnt anything?
Jan 22, 2024 | Leadership, Strategy
Tempo.
Everything in life has some sort of tempo to it.
The change of the seasons, the cycles of our lives, the routines we follow often without thought, and the planning/execution cycles in our public, private and business lives.
What has changed dramatically over the last decade or so is the tempo of change. Our commercial, social, and political environments have had a huge dose of steroids injected, radically disturbing the placid status quo that has prevailed. The status quo is now fighting for its life, using any means at its disposal.
Some of this tempo acceleration has been driven by the now obvious impacts of climate change.
2023 was the hottest year on record, climate scientists are now muttering that their worst-case scenarios of a decade ago now look conservative. We are fighting fires and floods simultaneously on multiple fronts.
We are also fighting wars on multiple fronts, all of which have the potential to spread like a viral pandemic.
Much of the balance of the tempo acceleration has been driven by the digital revolution of the last 15 years. The release of ChatGPT into the wild in November 2022 makes what has gone before looking modest.
Look around, those businesses that have done well over the last few years are those that were able to pivot quickly, evolve their business models, and take advantage of the opportunities opened up by the suddenly changed circumstances. Those that fell on hard times were those that for one reason or another, often reasons outside their control, were unable to make those changes.
Once change gets rolling, it builds up momentum, and the tempo of change becomes a real thing. It drives activity, pushing aside many of the objections raised in less heated circumstances. The outcome is that you end up dealing with trade-offs and probabilities in entirely different ways, the impact on individuals and their own agendas seems to be diminished, caught up in the tempo of change.
Tempo, the word of 2024
Header credit: Dave Grohl working up a sweat belting out the tempo for Nirvana
Jan 15, 2024 | Collaboration, Leadership
‘Do not ever patronise me again.’
Those words are seared onto my brain, coming from the mouth of a new boss many years ago.
I had not long been employed and wanted to make an impression. Therefore, every conversation was a combative one, a conversation I set out to win, seeing that as a way to impress.
As the conversation which took place in my office ended, the new boss for whom I had quickly built a strong regard, stood up and walked out. He turned around just outside the door, and walked back a couple of paces, and uttered those words.
‘Do not ever patronise me again’.
He then turned on his heel, and walked out.
I was both astonished, and very concerned. It was only after a painful re-run and examination of the conversation that I realised he was right.
I had, completely unwittingly, patronised him.
What had driven that destructive behaviour?
It took a while for me to understand my own behavioural characteristics. In those days I went into every similar conversation with a point of view that I was prepared to defend aggressively. While I was always prepared to adjust my position in the face of good arguments, this was deeply hidden. In addition, I failed the most significant test of a good debater.
I failed to listen.
My ‘tin-ear’ did not hear a word that was said in any context other than: ‘with me or against me’.
No such thing as active listening, understanding the basis of a differing view, or reflecting on the quality of the foundations of my own.
Later that day I did go into the boss’s office and apologise, acknowledging my mistake, and thanking him for bringing it so painfully to my attention.
We worked together very productively for a decade after that incident in two different companies. We had many debates, and rarely was the outcome black and white, right, and wrong. It proved absolutely that two heads are always better than one, assuming the heads are aligned to the same objective.
Header acknowledgement. My thanks to Dilbert and Scott Adams.
