Aug 15, 2022 | Leadership, Strategy
Strategy is an exercise of informed fortune telling.
What will happen if we do this? Is that better than if we do that? How will others react, do the ducks really all align the way they seem to?
A thousand questions we set out to answer to allocate our resources to best leverage the outcomes we plan/hope will emerge.
It is a messy business, full of uncertainty, mistakes, dead ends, and outright failures, most of which we hear little about. Instead, we hear a lot about the few successful exercises in strategy, the few that work as hoped, or as is usually the case, not as planned, but great outcomes.
We read about the success because people can analyse them with the benefit of hindsight, which delivers to those developing the strategy, some level of prescient certainty that they almost never deserve. Fact is, your strategy will never be spot on, the magic is in the ability to adjust on the run, while achieving the outcome for which you planned.
The strategic process benefits from being subjected to informed and critical thinking being applied to the inputs, both quantitative and qualitative. The greater the level of critical thought and diverse thinking that can be brought to bear on a strategic challenge the better.
The context of strategy implementation is always different to the context in which you do the planning, simply because it is the future, and things evolve in unpredictable ways.
I expect that in about 12 months there will be a rush of erudite papers and articles reporting on successful Corona instigated transformations. These will make the protagonists look like they had great foresight others lacked, when in fact, while they ended up with the lollies, they were as confused and muddled as the rest of us during the lolly fight.
They had the benefit of hindsight to clean up their bedrooms before anyone came along for a look.
Strategy is messy because it lacks hindsight
Aug 10, 2022 | Innovation, Leadership, Strategy
When are the funds for an innovation initiative generally available?
At the beginning of a project.
When are the funds for an innovation project generally needed?
Increasingly towards the commercialisation, or completion of a project.
To me, this usual pattern of financial resource availability is arse about.
At the initiation of a project, the resource needs are peoples time, lab space, and the commitment from senior management., The need for financial resources is usually limited. However, it is this time that projects need to gather momentum, which means financial resources and forecast outcomes are included in budgets, and formal planning processes. The best way to ensure a project is supported is to ‘boost’ the promised returns and shorten the lead times.
Unfortunately, this locks in expectations that have impacts on the way projects proceed.
A project that promises 25% IRR in 18 months will almost always win the resources race over a project that forecasts 30% IRR in 5 years. This sort of financial analysis is how choices are usually made, ignoring the strategic implications of the differing projects. This is because we have not found a way yet to reliably tell the future, and immediacy is a powerful motivator.
On top of that you have the favouring of evolutionary ‘innovation’ over ‘revolutionary’ innovation.
Most successful businesses become successful by incrementally improving products and processes over time, and are prepared to spend money to keep the evolution going. The challenge of this is that it crowds out the revolutionary innovation, the ones that have the potential to change markets, rather than just do more of the same but just a bit better.
The examples of these abound.
When I was working for Cerebos in the early 80’s, we marketed a muesli under the brand ‘Cerola’. It was in the days when there were only a few breakfast cereals on the market, unlike today. Similarly, confectionary was less fragmented. We came up with the notion of a muesli bar, a ‘healthier’ snack than anything then available, with the convenience and taste of confectionary for kids lunch boxes. We did extensive product development, several pilot plant trials, and a little market research. In the early stages I had done a forecast profit and loss, timeline, and we had established the capital costs necessary for the changes to the existing muesli line. These were included in the Cerebos budgets as project ‘M’. The numbers were modest, but at the time, pushed as far as I felt comfortable. When it came to the final go/no go decision, the project was binned, as the forecast IRR based on my modest sales forecasts did not meet the hurdle. A year later, Uncle Toby’s came out with pretty much the same product and positioning, and did my annual sales forecast in the first month. Opportunity missed, and lesson learnt.
Kodak, that well known exemplar of the missed opportunity, not only invented the digital camera in 1975, they brought out the first viable digital SLR, the Kodak DCS-100 in 1991. While it was bulky, and expensive, it was the first. In 1994 Kodak supplied Apple with the ‘Apple QuickTake’ manufactured in China to a Kodak design. Also in 1994, Kodak brought out the NC2000 designed for photo-journalists.
So, Kodak did not miss the digital camera revolution, they led it, but simply failed to see beyond the boundaries of the photography business model as it had evolved over the previous century. They saw innovation as an evolutionary process, not revolutionary, as that carried the risk that their existing hugely profitable model would become redundant. None of the senior management over that time wanted to fund the risk of shooting the cash cow upon which they all depended.
Cerebos by contrast were shackled by a short-term focus on an unrealistic financial expectation that ignored the strategic value of the opportunity to generate sales, and also to open a new market that carried and solidified the Cerola brand.
In both cases, a huge opportunity that emerged from the fringes of their markets were subjected to a muddle headed and front-loaded financial calculation, ignoring the strategic implications of the opportunity.
Header source: The extensive StrategyAudit ‘slide bank’ built up over 30 years.
Aug 8, 2022 | Innovation, Marketing, Strategy
Black and white thinking is easy, there is right and wrong, you decide which side of the fence you are on, and stick to it.
Luckily, life is not like that. Life is a mass collision of colours, ambiguity built on ambiguity, built on uncertainty. That is what makes it interesting, and worth living.
Following the previous post that offered 9 strategies for more impactful decisions, it seemed appropriate to observe that the great advice in that post is useless in the absence of being able to see a problem from a number of perspectives.
In other words, see all the colours.
Most problems we face in strategy development are wicked ones, where there is no obvious right and wrong answer, where there are nuances on top of nuances, second order impacts, and where definitive data is hard, if not impossible to find.
Thinking in a binary manner means that you dismiss all these opportunities for creativity because it is somehow inconsistent with your existing views.
This also means you lose sight of most of the stuff from the alternative choices, which is where the richness usually hides.
Differences of opinion cause tension, discomfort, and room for conversation which become challenging for a binary thinker.
Thinking and then communicating in a nuanced way is an enormously valuable skill.
Relationships that last can accommodate the differences caused by the grey areas. It requires that you can hold seemingly inconsistent ideas in your mind at the same time.
Binary thinking means you cannot hold those conflicting ideas.
The question every time in a disagreement, is the extent to which the tension created by differences in opinion are healthy.
We are used to seeing things in a binary manner, it is the automatic response, but we need to find a way to manage the inconsistency and ambiguity. We need to be flexible, as well as being driven by the rules.
The biggest challenges we face have the need to be able to dance with the facts, what works today, may not work tomorrow.
Overdoing structure removes the flexibility, and the opportunity to see things that may become important.
We think most problems can be solved, that is the base assumption we always have, but the conventional wisdom does not always work.
As a kid I lived on the beach, surfed a lot. The water pushed into the beach by the waves needs to get back out somehow, so you have ‘rips’. The area that allows the water to return from the beach. When surfing, you go with the rip, it will take you out, try and swim against it, you will just get tired and make little or no progress. You need to be able to swim at an angle, use the rip to take you out, then move across towards where the waves are.
This skill works in problem solving, finding bits of a problem that are resolvable, like getting a single wave in a session in the surf, you get the thrill of that great wave, use the rip to take you back to catch the next one. It is a process
Tension between people who hold differing views is healthy when managed well. This is when there is a recognition that there is no right or wrong answer to a wicked problem, just the better choice at this point. Then the differences in opinion can better hold the outcomes of the decision to account, it will increase the opportunity to pick up the problem molehills before they become mountains.
Ambiguity and bias can be used constructively.
Embrace your opposites. It indicates you recognise there are differences, give permission to voice the unfamiliar perspective. This is the opposite to just having people with you that agree, then there is no tension, no opportunity to see the differing perspectives.
One side of any question is rarely completely right, and the other completely wrong, we must be curious to see the reasons that the others see it differently.
This is how we produce creative new options that reflect life.
Header cartoon credit: Tom Gauld in ‘New Scientist’ magazine.
Jul 11, 2022 | Change, Innovation, Strategy
When you look over commercial history, there is a cycle in scale.
A new industry emerges, then scales using the capital captured to build production and productivity, which in turn leads to scaled volumes, fed by sales and marketing dominance. At some point, a ‘tipping point’ of some sort emerges and industry fragmentation and change occurs.
Out of the fragmentation emerges a new set of products/services that renew the cycle of scale.
Perhaps the first modern industry that emerged from cottages, leveraging scale and branding, was Charles Darwin’s uncle, Josiah Wedgewood. The industry he created established a global dominance that lasted to 1940. After the war, Wedgewood was replaced by a host of cheaper, more utilitarian products emerging from a reconstructed Japan, and other low cost suppliers.
Early in the 20th century, there were hundreds of companies building their versions of horseless carriages. Henry Ford launched the first Model T in 1908, and built a further 15 million by 1927, almost squeezing out everyone else. Those that remained in the US merged to survive and became General Motors, evolving to be for a while, the biggest company in the world. They dominated until the mid 1970’s when the Japanese, followed more recently by Korean suppliers, almost destroyed them.
By the end of the 20th century there were few legacy car companies left. They are now in the throes of being disrupted by a new generation of electric cars. The incumbent manufacturers completely missed the emergence of battery stored electricity as a replacement for the internal combustion engine, leaving an open playing field to Tesla.
Today, Tesla is the biggest auto company in the world by market capitalisation, bigger than the value of the next 10 manufacturers combined. In terms of unit sales, Tesla is a relative minnow, demonstrating the capital markets view of the power of the trend towards EV’s. Few remember that cars and trams were run on batteries in the earliest days of ‘motorised’ transport.
You can track similar trends in all major industries. Media, communications, heavy engineering, retailing, technology, the only things that vary much are the speed and amplitude of the cycles, which are now accelerating at an unprecedented rate.
Picking where your industry sits in the cycle is an important strategic consideration, as it offers some insights about the types of investments required to stay competitive over the long term.
Jul 8, 2022 | Innovation, Marketing, Strategy
A former client has been providing engineering services to the fossil fuel industry for decades. Having breakfast with him a while ago, he expressed the view that the prospects for the industry in which his business competes, and thus his business are dismal.
He is right, so long as he continues to see his current capability set through the perspective of how the business has operated in the past.
The challenge is to position yourself to take advantage of opportunities as they arise. Emerging technologies of various types are opening substantial opportunities for which his business has deep capabilities, but which are hiding in an alternative perspective of how those capabilities can be leveraged. Changing the strategic frame through which they are seen provides a path forward.
The challenge of the future is to reposition yourself quickly towards the point at which there is real, monetised value to be added.
You must be prepared to make early bets on those opportunities with the best odds of success in the medium term with a minimum of information by which to make those decisions. Equally, you must be prepared to walk away from the sunk cost when new information emerges which reduces the odds of the expected success.
Stripped back to basics, you must set yourself up so that as clarity emerges you are in a position to accelerate into it.
In my younger days I spent half my life on a surfboard. In a big swell, the position on the wave you took after the take-off was critical. Done right, you were able to accelerate out of the bottom turn into the fastest part of the wave, and, hopefully, make it through the break above you. Get the timing of the bottom turn just a bit wrong, and ‘Wipeout!
It is the same in business, positioning yourself going into uncertainty in the manner that puts you in the best position to accelerate out as it becomes clearer will be the difference between those who make it, and those who do not.
Photo credit: John Morris via flikr
Jun 30, 2022 | Change, Strategy
Promoting change is a major strategic and management challenge. Most will accept that change is a necessary ingredient in survival, but most will also hope it is the other bloke who changes, and they can continue in in their comfortable cocoon.
There are three ways to initiate and lead change, all based on behavioural psychology.
Incrementally.
When you ask people to make minor changes, and provide the background information so the changes seem reasonable, people will usually be prepared to make them. Minor change, on minor change, compounds to significant change is what seems like a short time when you look backwards.
You are not taking people too far out of their comfort zones by making these minor changes.
Anchored.
‘Anchoring’ is a core technique in negotiation that is fed by ‘fixing’ on the first number mentioned. In a negotiation over wages for instance, you often see what amounts to an ambit claim, a huge increase over what you are actually prepared to accept. The process then becomes one of compromising, meeting somewhere in the middle. The higher the starting point, the higher the ‘middle’.
Catalytic event.
When something happens that is an attention grabber, it can be used to demonstrate that the status quo is simply not viable, and change is a necessity of survival. This can be used at an individual and corporate level. Management jargon often uses the term ‘Pivot’.
Steve jobs did it on returning to Apple, by radically reducing the product range, and focussing resources on the ‘Mac’ and development of what became the iPod. Bill Gates executed the biggest ‘Pivot’ in corporate history in 1995 when he realised that the internet really was something big to come, and that Microsoft had almost missed the boat. Gates wrote a memo to all staff that instigated the pivot that in an instant, turned Microsoft 180 degrees.
On several occasions over the years as a contract manager and ‘change-agent,’ I have deliberately generated a catalytic event. On each occasion, corporate survival was at stake, and significant change was essential. Under normal circumstances, the scale of the changes necessary would have been untenable in the absence of the catalytic event.
The management challenge to successfully making change, whichever strategy is used to make those changes, is to ensure they will ‘stick’ after the initial pressure is removed. The tendency to revert to the previous status quo is always very strong.
