Can we learn from Mite Hockey?

30 12 2009

In youth hockey, the youngest  group (6-8 year olds) is called mites.  Watching a mite hockey game, especially with the players in their first games, is a unique experience.  Watching a kid on a breakaway is everything, an amalgam of excitement, anticipation, worry, dread.  You feel like you can chew off all your fingernails from the time the play starts to when the play ends.

Why? Purely the speed in which the play happens.  It takes too long.

Think about the speed of change within an organization.  If it takes too long, it probably doesn’t happen.  We talk about burning platforms, or Machiavellian-like beheadings.  Employees don’t like change, but what they really don’t like is the not knowing what the other side will look like.  So why do we draw this stage out?

  • Why do we take forever to move some projects?
  • Why do we announce reorganizations, and then take months to make it happen?
  • How much artificial time do we add to a number of the things we do, and what is the value of that time?
  • What is the impact if act twice as quickly as the day before?

If you need to get something done, get the right minds on it, have a discussion and be done with it.





Predictive Analytics, Business Intelligence, and Strategy Management

9 12 2009

I was having a discussion with one of my clients this week and I thought he did a nice job summing up Predicative Analytics.

So in the World According to Reed (WOTR) – “queries answer questions, analytics creates questions.” My response was “and Strategy Management helps us to focus on which questions to answer.”

Reed Blalock is exactly right, traditional BI is about answering the questions we know. Analytics is really what we create with data mining – we look for nuances, things that might give us new insight into old problems. We use human intellect to explore and test. And yes, there is a little overlap. But what is really happening is that we have a different level of human interaction with the data.

BI is about history, analytics attempts to get us to think, to change, and idealistically to act.

The danger with both of these is that they can be resource intensive. Neither tool, or mindset should be left to their own devices. What is needed is a filter to identify the priority and purpose. This is where strategy management and scorecarding comes into play. We have built out massive informational assets without understanding where, when, and how to use it. We have pushed out enormous reporting structures and said “it’s all there, you can find anything you need” yet we scratch our heads when we see adoptions levels are low.

What we have typically not done all that well is build out that informational asset by how it helps us be more productive along product lines, divisions, sales region, etc. We have treated all dimensionality the same. Why, because it was easy. The BI tools are tremendous in how quickly you can add any and all dimensions.

“But because you can, doesn’t mean you should”

As we built out these data assets, we did not align them to performance themes.  We have gotten better with some key themes, like supply chain management, and human resource management, but what about customer performance?  We might look at sales performance, but that is a completely different lens than customer performance.

How do we determine which assets to start with…what assets do we need to be successful 3-5 years from now, or what are our biggest gaps to close today.  Think about customer value, or employee satisfaction (and that doesn’t mean more HR assets).  Think about your gaps in Strategy.

How often do we discuss…

  • Are our customers buying more or less frequently?
  • What are our best, and better customers doing?
  • What are the costs associated with serving our least profitable customers?
  • Where are our biggest holes in understanding?




People will…

25 11 2009

People will do what they like, or what is easy if they do not understand priority or value.  The hard stuff is messy.  There is too much risk in the hard stuff…





Analytics Process

23 11 2009

Over the last couple of months I have been writing about a handful of US Economic Indicators.  While I have reviewed these over the last few years of my life, I had not done so on a regular basis.  This inconsistent and let’s call it a casual curiosity lead to never really understanding the implications behind the numbers.  Sure I could talk about them, but I could not leverage them.  While not an expert by any means, I can see a lot more now than I did when I started this blog series.

This is similar to ad-hoc analysis without purpose.  We do something once and create a little hype.  When we don’t have any vehicle to take advantage of the newly found ideas, the idea dies as does the learning.

Think about the process of how you handle ad-hoc analytics within your organization:

  • Do you have the right minds constantly looking for new issues?
  • Or, do you put the right minds on solving issues when they arise?
  • Can you name your best analytical minds?  Are they assigned to thought leadership and problem solving?
  • Do you use your analytical minds to challenge the knowledge levels of others?
  • How do you foster new thinking?

 

Consistency breeds familiarity, and familiarity breeds knowledge





The Death of the Dissenting Opinion

16 11 2009

Typically, the person with the shortest shelf life within an organization (either in terms of politics or employment) is the team member willing to pose the question, “Is this the right thing?”

  • Why do we demand everyone line up and support management philosophy?

I know organizations don’t set this as a mandate, and it is probably more an example of personal politics, but it is amazing how destructive this mentality becomes. Why are we so worried about having someone in our business ask critical questions?

The are obvious examples when we need someone to play the role of the Devil’s advocate.

  • Would tobacco products have been created with such strong addictives?
  • Would Nasa have launched the shuttle Challenger?
  • Had the US intelligence agencies worked together, might we have stopped at least one of the fateful 9/11 planes?
  • Would Enron still be an energy giant today if we listened to employee concerns?

We love good debates, so why not embrace the power of dissenting opinion?  Collect all the feedback and you probably have a stronger argument for moving forward.  In the end, you can still continue an initiative or program.  When we politically assassinate the people with a strong voice, we send a message to agree or be rendered ineffective.  This evolves into a “yes” culture and we risk leading lemmings.





The Cost of Infrastructure – Environmental Scanning (Blockbuster vs. NetFlix)

12 11 2009

Last week in a workshop I was asked the question about Environmental Scans and Strategy Management.  The challenge was probably long overdue.  When I was first drawing up my framework on Performance Management, I specifically wanted to call out questions about how we look at the market.  I felt I had seen too much insular thinking within companies with the risk being much too high.  We need to be looking at the market on a regular basis, perhaps not with high frequency.

Let’s roll back the clock on the movie rental business to 1990.  In almost every suburban strip mall was a mom and pop, or small chain movie rental store.  We were able to rent a movies and watch them in the comfort of our on home.  There was no DVR (though if we could figure out the VCR we could have taped movies), there were not 427 premium movie channels, and cable was still in its infancy.  Over the next decade, Blockbuster moved in and wiped out almost everyone else in the industry – “opening one store every seventeen hours” (Wikipedia – no reference).  We loved the new model, and the fact that our membership card worked even when we were on vacation.  If we went back and looked at the analyst reviews, I am sure they had glowing views of how this was the model for the future.  Viacom jumped in and bought the business for $8.4 billion in 1994.

Oh, how internet time flies.  NetFlix with no brick and mortar costs jumps into the game (not to mention DVR, Pay-for-View, TiVO, etc) and what was once valued as a $8.4 billion dollar business was spun back off for a fraction of its original purchase price.  Today Blockbusters market cap is ~$160 million (compared to NetFlix $3.2 billion) and it continues to loose money.

What happened…you can spin this a number of ways:

  • They were too tied to their infrastructure
  • They were slow to react, or never really understood the threat before it was too late
  • They thought they were too big to fail

They were a great business model, let’s take a cottage industry and scale it.  And it worked great for a decade.  How do you think they would answer the question about the relevance to a more rigorous environmental scanning process?

Just think, perhaps even one conversation about “what would happen if someone figures out how to deliver movies via the internet” might have saved Blockbuster.  I know, I know, this could never happen to you as this was an isolated incident.  Think of the travel industry, General Motors, Enron, Compaq, CompUSA, TWA – and I am sure you could add 20 more…

Companies, like the products they often make, have shelf lives.  If we are not thinking of new ways to reinvent ourselves, it is highly likely someday we will become a “where are they now” business case.

  • What do you specifically do to challenge status quo?
  • When was the last time you had your best minds come up with the next generation business models?
  • When was the last time you identified the 3 largest threats to your business?
  • When was the last time you had a 3rd party provide a critique of the market you are in?




Survival and Adaptability – Hot Arple Pie

20 09 2009

I noticed an ad today absolutely worth noting…it simply and succinctly said:  “Does your marketing suck?”

At first I was shocked and appalled, but the more I looked at it I found myself compelled to click on the ad.  Who in there right mind would start an ad that way – probably someone willing to try something different.

It also jostled an old memory from one of marketing professors about a similar incident.  As he was driving to a client one day he passed a sign that said “Hot Arple Pie.”  He knew it was an apple pie, and was not really all that interested in apple pie, yet the sign got him thinking enough that he turned around to actually see if it was “apple” or “arple.”  And as you guessed it, 30 miles and one sale later and it was confirmed “Hot Apple Pie.”  And 20 years later, I am still thinking about “Arple Pie”

So back to “Does your marketing suck?”  It was catchy, adversarial, and in the end it moved me from unknowing to slightly informed. Perhaps in this case, the ends certainly justified the means.

Take a look at your marketing material:

  • Does it intrigue?
  • Does it invite action?
  • Is it any different than your competition’s?
  • When was the last time you changed up your marketing campaings, slogans, taglines, etc?
  • Can you afford for your programs to perform at the rate they are performing?
  • Would you consider your company competitive in terms of adaptability?

Interestingly enough, once I clicked on the ad I was taken to the company’s home page where I found a great quote:

“It is not the strongest species that survives,

nor the most intelligent;

but rather the most adaptable to change.”

Charles Darwin