Archive for the ‘Strategy’ category

What are your customers really buying?

September 12, 2008

f you take a closer look at the list of areas for discussion when starting to craft a vision statement, you would notice that our list begins with “customers.”

So what are your customers really buying?

It seems like a simple enough question. Yet it is at the core of designing your marketing and strategy. It requires you to have an in-depth, pinpoint knowledge of what your customers think and feel they are purchasing rather than what you think you are selling. It is from the point-of-view of your customers only that the question is of any value.

Everyone says they have the best, most reliable, highest quality, most complete array of features at the lowest possible prices! No one is out there saying that his product is expensive, narrowly featured, of low quality, and only marginally useful! Since everyone makes the same claims, you can be certain that your customers are not reacting to the claims. Your customers must, in fact, be reacting to something else. Your customers are reacting to something personal.

McDonald’s is not selling hamburgers. Domino’s is not selling pizza. McDonald’s sells speed (fast food) but also fun and nutrition. Domino’s sells time. Your value becomes much clearer – once you’ve looked deeply at what your customers are buying. Yet, making that determination was not as easy as it seems in retrospect, or as you’re about to discover when you participate in this process.

You are about to engage in creating the benefit of your product or service expressed as your Unique Selling Proposition. That proposition should not be trivial. In fact, the more emotionally based or financially based these benefits are, the better. If you can get in both, you’ve hit a home run! Which emotions? Hope, fear, love, happiness, fitness, value. This is where you want to head.

Once you begin to think this way, it will alter how you represent what you do.

I had the privilege of hearing a presentation from two of the foremost business coaches, Jay Abraham and Chet Holmes. Jay and Chet had an interesting way of framing and expressing the work that one does so that its value is both clear and intriguing to the listener.

Imagine that you’re sitting on an airplane and the person next to you asks, “what do you do?” You say, “I do this.” (Sell donuts, clean carpets, etc.) While that is true, it is not what the product is to the buyer. The buyer only buys what the product does for him or her. You want to define what you’re doing in terms of teh best outcome in order to get the response, “Gee, how do you do that?”

You could be cleaning carpets when you sell that vacuum cleaner or perhaps what you really do is this, “I show people how to clean their houses in such a way that they have a perfectly healthy, dust free, microbe free environment.”

“Gee, how do you do that?”

Do you write software or do you “build solutions that change and uncomplicate people’s lives, creates possibilities for them to make them more money than they thought they could make, and allows them to spend more time with friends and family.”

“Gee, how do you do that?”

“I provide people with extraordinary vacations that they talk about for the rest of their lives.”

“Gee, how do you do that?”

If you just say, “I run a vacation resort,” or “I clean carpets,” or “I write software,” people will probably say, “That’s fine.” But, as Jay and Chet said, they’ll also probably wish they never asked and return to reading the airline magazine.

Living into Your Vision

September 10, 2008

Author and management consultant Peter Block once defined a vision as “a dream created in our waking hours of how we would like our lives to be.” In fact, the word “vison” comes from the Latin word “videre” which means “to see.” It is a picture of the future that we wish to create.

When creating a vision, it is important to articulate it in the present tense. There is a certain dissonance and even a feeling of being uncomfortable when you say you are “something” and you know that you are not. If a vision is expressed in future terms (i.e. “we will do this”), it becomes too easy to say that capability is far into the future and we don’t have to begin thinking, feeling or doing anything that is consistent with our vision.

Feeling uncomfortable when creating a vision is actually the way that one should feel. Noted management guru, Tom Peters, called creating a vision a very “messy artistic process.”

So how does one go about creating a vision – or as I like to refer to it, your personal “impossible dream?”

One begins by asking this question – What would we like to see our company offering, providing or meeting five years from now as it relates to…?

  • Customers
  • Services
  • Organization and employees
  • Professionalism
  • Facilities
  • Productivity
  • Financial structure
  • Standards
  • Partnerships / Synergisms
  • Communication
  • Education
  • Not for Profits should add in “Community Needs” and “Volunteer Organization”

Here are some other questions to ponder:

  • What would you personally like to see your organization become?
  • What kind of customers would it have?
  • What sort of processes might it conduct?
  • What reputation would it have?
  • What contribution would it make?
  • What sort of products or services would it produce?
  • What values would it embody?
  • What mission would it have?
  • What would its physical environment look like?
  • How would people work together?
  • How would people handle good and bad times?
  • If you had this sort of organization what would it bring you? How would it allow your own personal vision to flourish?

Answering these questions will allow you to begin to see clearly what needs to be done.

And isn’t that what having a vision is all about?

An Appreciation: On the Passing of Dr. Michael Hammer

September 7, 2008

It was with great sadness that I read today of the passing of Dr. Michael Hammer. Dr. Hammer was one of the seminal thinkers and authors in the management consulting industry and influenced me and so many others.

As co-author with James Champy of “Reengineering the Corporation,” he espoused that many of the problems with how companies operate were due to processes that were bloated, inappropriate or simply just ineffectual. As CEO of an IT consulting company, Flash Creative Management, at the time, this resonated deeply with my partner, Yair Alan Griver and me. This led us and our company on a journey that would result in us redefining our business.

Initially, we shifted Flash from being a software development company to one that looked first at the processes that our automation efforts would impact.  Our consulting practice and our team of very talented and committed professionals began to study reengineering in earnest and, needless to say, the impact that we had on our clients grew significantly.

By applying automation and technology after evaluating and redesigning processes, we were able to produce dramatic results. In some cases, this resulted in product design and delivery shrinking from months to weeks and from weeks to days.

Intellectually, Dr. Hammer’s and Mr. Champy’s works prompted us to create and codify best practices for creating visions, redesigning process, implementation planning and improvement strategies, to name but a few. And for me personally, it helped to begin the education process regarding how to develop business strategies as I learned that understanding strategy is the pre-requisite to creating effective processes. As mentioned in an earlier post, the vision of what a company wishes to become is fundamental to all business design.

Over the years, Dr. Hammer needed to respond to criticism that streamlined and automated processes eliminated jobs. He took the position that if a business was not competitive; all jobs within the business were at risk. If you subscribe to the belief that to be successful your business must add a value that your competition does not, it becomes very easy to align with Dr. Hammer’s way of thinking. Efficiency and cost reduction by streamlining processes and aligning actions with strategy are sure ways to make certain that your business is more competitive.

The world has lost one of the most profound thinkers of organizational design. Fortunately, he leaves behind an impressive body of work and many disciples who will build on his teachings.

The Four Questions You Must Answer and The Importance of Your Vision

September 4, 2008

It’s time then to get down to the more practical aspects of creating a business strategy.

Fundamentally speaking, every strategic plan must answer these four questions and they must be answered in this very logical progression:

  1. Who are we?
  2. What are we?
  3. What do we want to be?
  4. What can stop us from getting there?

The answer to the first question is articulated in the mission and vision of the company. The mission states what business we are in and what we do and provide for our clients.

However, it is the vision of what the company hopes to become that establishes the strategic direction for the organization. An effective vision lays out a future about what the company hopes to become. It typically is uncomfortable, much like clothing that is too big because it doesn’t fit who we are today. (I still remember that as a child, my Mom would always say “don’t worry, you’ll grow into it.” Visions are just like that.)

The vision states the value that we are ultimately committed to providing to our clients, employees, stockholders and even ourselves. It motivates us to stretch beyond where we are today.

Establishing a vision first is critical because it becomes our corporate compass. It sets a direction and destination for the company. The tactical options that we choose to implement must propel us towards reaching that destination, and so, the vision helps us to make intelligent choices. When opportunities present themselves we are able to evaluate them in a context of whether it moves us forward and whether it moves us forward more effectively than the other options that are available to us.

It is important to recognize that understanding the vision is a requirement for every member of the organization. If you subscribe to the belief, as I do, that every job in a company is meaningful – otherwise why do it or pay someone to do it? – then you must conclude that every employee will be expected to make choices on behalf of the company. The greatest tool that we may provide to our people is the vision as it will provide the context for so many decisions.

A vision is very different from goals and objectives. Goals and objectives are predictions of what we are going to accomplish or do in the next weeks or months or quarter to get to our vision. The vision though must come first as it is the foundation for goal setting that is based in the future and not in the past.

On Choosing Vice Presidential Candidates and Strategic Thinking

August 31, 2008

The recent selection of Delaware Senator Joe Biden to be the Vice Presidential running mate of Democratic Presidential Candidate Barack Obama and the selection of Alaska’s Governor Sarah Palin to serve in a similar capacity by Republican Presidential Candidate John McCain are extremely interesting when perceived through the prism of strategic thought and principles. In fact when viewed in this strategic context, one could easily argue that both presidential candidates made an inappropriate choice in the selection of their running mates.

Senator Obama, a self-proclaimed candidate of change who has also been characterized as lacking experienced chose a Washington insider. Senator Biden, a career politician with 30 years of Washington political experience, was selected to compensate for the perceived weaknesses in Senator Obama’s “resume.” Senator Biden adds foreign policy know-how to another perceived limitation in Senator Obama’s background.

By selecting Governor Palin, Senator McCain, a self-proclaimed candidate of experienced leadership who had also been characterized as someone who would continue the older and more established status quo approach to governing this country, hoped to alter perceived limitations in his background. To counterbalance this perception, he chose Governor Palin, an individual who is younger than Senator Obama, is also a reformer who is not part of the Washington establishment yet is someone who lacks the experience and foreign policy expertise that would make her a clear-cut choice.

In making these choices, the two presidential candidates and their parties have blurred the distinctions between their two messages. The Democratic change agent is in partnership with the insider while the Republican man of experience is in partnership with someone, who like his Democratic rival, is light on accomplishments.

While both presidential candidates have legitimate reasons for selecting their running mates, these reasons fly in the face of more traditional strategic thinking.

Most people think of strategy as optimizing what they already do and being the best at it. This leads them to conclude that there is a singular best way to compete.

However, strategy is really about choosing to differentiate one’s product, service or brand from one’s competition. By doing so, they encourage choice and their appeal to a particualr consumer or constituency.

In the business world, failing to differentiate one’s brands, products or services from one’s competitors creates destructive competition. When there is no perceived differentiation, the only distinction becomes price. Price competition is never sustainable and is typically unwinnable.

Which brings us to why these two leaders might have made their respective choices.

For one possibility, we can turn to a book called “The Discipline of Market Leaders” by MichaelTreacy and Fred Wiersema. These two authors assert that all businesses must at least maintain threshold levels regarding key elements that a customer requires. As an example, if price was above the threshold level of what a consumer might be willing to pay, the other elements of value would not matter in the selection process. The consumer would eliminate the choice simply because it did not meet the threshold level.

It is therefore very possible that Senator Obama felt that his leadership experience was below the threshold level that the electorate might be willing to accept. Senator McCain might have believed that it was critical that he counterbalance his role in Washington with an outsider in order to compete effectively.

Still, it remains to be seen how the electorate will respond to the choices made by the two presidential candidates to blur rather than accentuate their differences.

The Art of War and the Art of Battle

August 22, 2008

The goal of a business strategy is clear-cut:

Win the customer’s preference and create a sustainable competitive advantage, while providing sufficient return for owners or, in the case of a publicly held company, the shareholders. A strategy defines the direction the business will take and positions it to move in that direction.

A strategic plan outlines how the war will be won. It defines the critical hills that must be taken. With that information in hand, the generals must determine how the resources – people, equipment, finances, timing and focus – will be allocated. If those resources are insufficient or lack the ability to win the war, the leadership must plan to supplement its army.

The allocation of these resources and the timing for deploying them is in essence the art of battle. It is how we will win the war. In business, we refer to this as the tactical or operational plan.

One of former President Dwight David Eisenhower’s favorite sayings was “In preparing for battle I have always found that plans are useless, but planning is indispensable.”

At the World Business Forum in New York City, New York City Mayor Rudolf Giuliani said, “You have to be prepared for the worst things that can happen in order to get people through things. My mentor in the Attorney General’s offices said that I should always prepare four hours for every hour I planned to spend in court. When you’re prepared, the unanticipated is just a variation on the anticipated.”

Mayor Giuliani recounted that at the turn of the millennium, the entire world undertook massive preparations for what was termed the Year 2000 problem. Private and public sector leadership were concerned that all computer systems would no longer function accurately when the calendar turned from 1999 to 2000 because of the way that calendar years had been coded. There was a widespread concern that banks would no longer have access to funds, patient age records in hospitals would be completely inaccurate, traffic systems would cease to work and even prisons would find themselves without secure systems.

Billions of dollars were spent to recode software applications, and still, there was a widespread fear that catastrophe loomed somewhere as certainly, some application must have been overlooked. To be certain, The Mayor challenged his management team to create extensive plans to ward off this possible catastrophe. In effect, he charges his management to plan for an eventuality where New York could no longer function.

On January 2nd, 2000, leadership throughout the world breathed a collective sigh of relief. There was no computer-spawned catastrophe and while there were some inconveniences, these inconveniences were quickly remedied.

Mayor Giuliani might have felt that this massive investment in contingency planning might not have been all that valuable, given the limited scope of the challenges that appeared in January 2000. After all, nothing significant happened. But, as he explained, it was our Y2K preparations allowed us to be ready for September 11th, 2001 when an unthinkable tragedy brought New York to a standstill.

Indeed, it is difficult to anticipate the exact scenario and match the plan to the anticipated circumstance. Yet, the very act of planning provides us with the means by which we can anticipate responses and adjust our actions accordingly.

Why doesn’t every company have a strategy?

August 15, 2008

Over the course of my career, I’ve had the honor of providing strategic guidance to small companies as well as to many of the more recognized corporations in the United States. In many cases, the smaller companies (less than $100 million in sales) do not have a formalized written strategy.

Logically speaking, it would seem that every organization would want to have a strategy and a tactical plan defined and shared throughout the organization. Truth is though, many middle market firms don’t, and in many larger firms, if a strategy is in place, it is not shared.

The first question to ask then is why don’t all organizations prepare a strategic plan?

The second is why isn’t leadership comfortable with delivering and sharing their strategic and tactical plans with their own people?

I’ve concluded that the primary reason that many companies do not create a strategic plan is not because leadership does not want to have this map but rather it is not versed in how to create one. In short, leadership would create a strategy if it could – it just may not know how.

This is because most companies evolve from a good idea executed and promoted effectively at the right time and place. As entrepreneurs, we are not taught about alignment between strategies and tactical plans or how to build a tactical plan that supports a strategy.

Instead, we build something or offer a service for a particular client. It is received well and we think someone else in a same or in a related industry might value it as well. More often than not, that is how a new business is born.

There isn’t a formal discussion about trends in the industry, where competition fits, what the compensation plan should reward or how the company should react to various scenarios or changes in the business environment. It is simply about doing something well and then adding another feature or tweaking the existing product or service – if another client wants a slightly different kind of solution.

As to why strategies aren’t shared even when they are created, I think that there are a lot of reasons for that.

To begin, I think every leader relies on his or her own credibility to effectively lead. If a strategy proves to be ineffective – and sometimes the strategy can be correct but the wrong people are in place to implement it – the leader feels that it diminishes his or her stature and therefore the capability to lead. (Surprisingly, even if the strategy does not “work” out of the box, having one improves the leader’s stature – more on that in my next post.)

In some cases, there is a paralyzing fear, that someone will share the strategy with a competitor. That’s a real concern but not only can that risk be mitigated,  it is also a risk that must be taken.

In either case, however, the leaders of these organizations are not fulfilling one of their primary responsibilities: developing the next generation of leaders. They are, therefore, putting their companies at risk.

Questions to Ponder:

  1. Why do you think some companies don’t have a formal written strategy, and for those that do have one and don’t share it with their employees, why do you think that is so?
  2. How would you address those concerns?