Nov 18, 2024 | Governance, Innovation, Leadership, Strategy
The latest economic complexity rankings put out by Harvard were recently released. Australia dropped from 93 in the world to 102. One place ahead of Yemen, one behind that manufacturing innovator, Senegal.
I had missed the report until an article in the auManufacturing LinkedIn group brought it to my attention.
The best that can be said about Australia’s drop from 93 in the previous ranking to 102 in this current ranking is that we have made possible the performance of the 101 countries that are above us.
This includes such stunners as Bangladesh at 100, Honduras at 97, Uganda at 96, and the home of Voodoo, ranking as one of the world’s poorest countries, Benin at 99.
To be fair, the ranking methodology struggles to adequately quantify the benefits accrued by services in its calculations. This compromises the ranking of Australia which has an advanced but hard to count services sector, while exporting mostly commodities, which is easy to count.
Nevertheless, while politicians are ensuring the public debate (aka playground squabbles) is around irrelevancies like the chairman’s lounge, long term challenges in education, aged care, housing, equality of opportunity, and economy wide productivity go uncontested.
Take education for instance.
This is a very substantial sector generating billions in economic activity by educating the children of our Asian neighbours. Many see it as a road to residence, which will benefit our economy doubly, as they have paid for their own education. However, many return home, enabling the ‘connections’ highlighted in the report as critical to complexity to be made. Meanwhile, for our own kids, we have continued to make getting an education more expensive to the point where it is becoming unaffordable in the absence of parental support.
In our wisdom, we are in the process of ringbarking this pathway to complexity.
How stupid can we be?
I recall in 1980 then Singapore PM Lee Kuan Yew warning that Australia was destined to become the ‘White trash of Asia’. It seems his warning is coming to pass.
PS. November 22. This ‘Visual Capitalist’ graph of the 30 largest exporters came into my feed today, adding some flesh to the bones of the index. The make-up of exports of several of them should lead to some deep thought. For example, Holland, Switzerland, Belgium, even the battered UK, where there are no hydrocarbons or minerals in the mix, outrank our commodity driven export mix. This is a solid indicator of the ‘complexity’ to which we should be building.
Nov 13, 2024 | Branding, Innovation, Strategy
One of the five costs in your business, in most cases, under recognised, under managed, and misunderstood, is Opportunity cost.
Doing A, means we cannot do B.
It is not always such a binary choice.
Opportunity cost is impossible to calculate with any precision, as it is forecasting the outcome of something you did not do, an opportunity forgone. It is however a critical component of any consideration of the manner in which the available capital of a business is deployed.
It is also driven by the strategy, which is another calculation of the shape of the future, and how you can optimise the leverage your resources deliver.
Commonly used models like discounted cash flows and the more demanding internal rate of return calculations are commonly used by accountants to make the choices between differing capital allocation options. Unfortunately, they both rely on cash forecasts, which are at best fragile. When the strategy calls for ‘innovation’ cash forecasts are usually over-optimistic, and the timing is wrong, so that beyond a ‘pin the tale on the donkey’ analysis, often grossly misleading. Such techniques favour doing more of the same, with at best incremental improvements. Deploying capital towards riskier uses means these calculations are less and less valid, putting off the risk averse amongst management, which is most of them.
We have a fantastic example facing us right now.
Intel used to be the dominating producer of semiconductors. ‘Intel inside’ remains one of the best known and respected brands around, and yet, Intel has fallen radically from grace.
Since the glory days, when they dominated the market, and had customers lining up to place orders years in advance, they are now struggling for relevance. The value of the business as reflected in the share market has plummeted, along with their market share in a market that continues to explode in volume and value.
Arguably, Intel should still be in the position now held by Nvidia, current market cap 3.64 trillion, and rising like a kite in a hurricane. Intel, while still worth over a billion dollars, is small by comparison.
Any calculation of the opportunity cost of strategic choices made in the past by Intel would make shareholders kick their cats. Intel delivered astronomical profitability resulting from then CEO Andy Gove making the choice to move away from memory chips and pioneer the semiconductor market. The emergence of the PC in the 90’s made Intel one of the biggest and most profitable businesses ever seen. They then missed the move to chip sets designed to enhance gaming, which doubled as the enablers of the exploding AI market.
At least Intel shareholders can feel better, as the missed opportunity club is a very large one, with some distinguished members.
Note: the graph in the header is the Intel stock price. $1 in 2000 is now worth $1.83 adjusted for inflation. In other words, the current year low price of $19/share is worth just over $10 in 2000 dollars after inflation. This is in a market Intel used to dominate, and that has exploded over the last 5 years, with Nvidia grabbing the chocolates. That is the opportunity cost intel has suffered.
Nov 7, 2024 | Analytics, Management, Marketing, Strategy
How do you anticipate the reactions of competitors to your initiatives?
First you must understand them holistically and well. The better you understand them, specifically the strategic and tactical frameworks they work with, the better able you will be to anticipate and respond. You should also reflect on the leadership of your competitors, as their behaviour drives their decision making.
11 questions to ask yourself and your team:
- Will they react at all?
- Will they see and understand the strategic and tactical drivers of your actions?
- Will they feel threatened?
- Will mounting a response be a priority?
- What options will they actively consider?
- Do they have the right mix of resources to respond meaningfully?
- Which option are they most likely to choose?
- How many moves ahead do they look: do they play draughts or chess?
- What metrics do they use that will influence their decision making?
- What are the lead times required to respond effectively?
A final and key question in this volatile environment that is often missed:
- Who might emerge to be a competitor, who could change the dynamics of your market that currently would not be classed as a genuine competitor?
Commercial history is littered with failures to see the possibility of a disruptive new competitor emerging from left field.
Anticipating competitor reactions to your initiatives is a competitive superpower.
It enables you to strike at their weak points, and repel their advances at minimum cost to you, while having them consume resources for no result.
The downside of focusing on competition is that your customers do not see the world as you do. They are looking for the supplier who best addresses their need, solves their problem, or scratches their itch.
Those who spend their time looking over at their competition are risking taking their eyes away from their current and future customers. Lose sight of your customers, and one way or another, you will be eaten!
Oct 8, 2024 | Analytics, Innovation, Strategy
Have you ever been in a situation where you just ‘know’ a course of action is right?
No data, no detailed scenario planning, you just know.
I have.
Where does that confidence come from, and is it justified?
Have you distinguished between genuine intuition, based on experience and knowledge, and the overconfidence that can arise from a lack of awareness of one’s limitations?”
In my experience which includes choices that have been both very good, and very poor, there are two qualitative drivers of those good choices.
Significant domain experience.
This experience does not come from being around for a while, it comes from taking action many times, and learning from the outcomes, resetting, and trying again.
For example: a seasoned chess grandmaster can often intuitively anticipate the best move without consciously calculating every possible outcome, drawing on years of experience and pattern recognition.”
Learning from analogy.
When you see a course of action succeed in other domains that have some similarity to your own, you can infer that the success may be repeatable in yours.
For example: The introduction of disc brakes in cars came from their development for use in stopping aeroplanes when landing.
In a world increasingly dominated by data, it’s crucial to remember that while numbers provide valuable insights, they should not be blindly trusted. True wisdom often lies in the delicate balance between data-driven analysis and the intuition honed through experience and learning from mistakes.
Chess is a game where a grand master has a store of intuition gathered and sorted by years of practice that is leveraged instinctively when playing.
Sep 9, 2024 | Governance, Leadership, Strategy
Amongst the tsunami of gratuitous advice on the web about how to manage remotely, whether you be the team leader, or a team member, there is a critical piece missing.
Depth of strategic thinking.
Regular and managed team video gatherings, as well as a range of individual catch ups for assistance, follow up, mentoring, and all the other things that go on, are tactical.
Particularly in times of crisis and high stress, it is sensible and natural to focus on tactical execution. However, tactical can only take you so far, and in the absence of a strategic framework, can lead you astray quickly.
Consider breaking out specific sessions for the discussion of the strategic issues and questions that emerge. They remain in place irrespective of the current crisis, whatever that may be.
Strategic depth is not something generated in a series of quick meetings. It requires data, forecasts, scenarios and deep discussion and contemplation by people who know the box from the outside, as well as from the inside.
These deeper questions of strategy usually reside in the ‘very important but not urgent‘ basket. In the absence of being addressed, they will be forgotten. Worse still, they will be over-ridden by short term tactical outcomes that would not have been allowed to evolve with sensible strategic oversight in place.
We are social animals, our best work is done when people get together, and together look to solve problems and pressure test assumptions. This takes time and human engagement. Verbalisation of ideas, questions, and explanations is only a small part of ‘Communication’. Face to face, there are a myriad of non-verbal nuances and contextual contributors to ‘communication’ that are lost over Zoom or Teams.
Failing to accommodate these human interactions will destroy your capacity to generate the insight necessary for deep and productive strategic thinking.
Header credit: Tom Fishburne at Marketoonist. Thanks again for encapsulating a difficult idea in a cartoon.
Sep 6, 2024 | Governance, Leadership, Strategy
Opportunity cost.
The mistakes you make of Commission are the ones by which performance is judged. They show up in a profit and loss and balance sheets of businesses. However, when you pass up a golden opportunity that turns out to be a winner, that ‘cost of potential profit’ does not show up anywhere.
It is a mistake of omission, not commission.
Those of us who failed to buy Apple shares when they were less than a dollar in 2003, and similarly, NVIDIA shares when they were $1.30, might see a missed opportunity. Both now trade at well over 100 times those prices.
However, such mistakes are acceptable when the opportunity is outside what Warren Buffett calls a ‘Circle of competence’. This is the area where you have the expertise to understand the opportunity being offered, but fail to accept it.
In the case of Apple and Nvidia, they are both outside my circle of competence. Therefore, I did not know enough to recognise the opportunity. Had I been immersed in the IT industry it might have been clearer.
Buffett’s seven rules for successful investing, summarised, are:
- Hire only intelligent people with integrity.
- Pay attention to facts, not emotions.
- Buy wonderful businesses, but not ‘cigar butts’
- Buy only stocks you understand.
- Seize the opportunity.
- Don’t sell because of price fluctuations.
- Buy stocks below what they are worth.
Passing up an opportunity that turns out to be something you should have grabbed, with the benefit of hindsight, means you have failed to give yourself an adequate answer to one, or more, of three simple questions.
- How much cash would the opportunity deliver to you?
- When are you going to get it?
- How sure are you?
Buffett and his late side-kick Charlie Munger are widely seen as geniuses. I suspect Mr Buffett would be embarrassed by that label. He might respond that all he did was follow the simple 7 rules, something most cannot do.
