Colleague Christian Sarkar drew my attention to two recent Harvard Business Review (HBR) articles that shed light on the way(s) innovation is being approached nowadays. To the best of my knowledge, none of the two articles has been written by an author who is associated with the Agile movement. Both, if you ask me, would have resonated big time with the authors of the Agile Manifesto.

The February 2009 HBR article How to Design Smart Business Experiments focuses on data-driven decisions as distinct from decisions taken based on “intuition”:

Every day, managers in your organization take steps to implement new ideas without having any real evidence to back them up. They fiddle with offerings, try out distribution approaches, and alter how work gets done, usually acting on little more than gut feel or seeming common sense—”I’ll bet this” or “I think that.” Even more disturbing, some wrap their decisions in the language of science, creating an illusion of evidence. Their so-called experiments aren’t worthy of the name, because they lack investigative rigor. It’s likely that the resulting guesses will be wrong and, worst of all, that very little will have been learned in the process.

It doesn’t have to be this way. Thanks to new, broadly available software and given some straightforward investments to build capabilities, managers can now base consequential decisions on scientifically valid experiments. Of course, the scientific method is not new, nor is its application in business. The R&D centers of firms ranging from biscuit bakers to drug makers have always relied on it, as have direct-mail marketers tracking response rates to different permutations of their pitches. To apply it outside such settings, however, has until recently been a major undertaking. Any foray into the randomized testing of management ideas—that is, the random assignment of subjects to test and control groups—meant employing or engaging a PhD in statistics or perhaps a “design of experiments” expert (sometimes seen in advanced TQM programs). Now, a quantitatively trained MBA can oversee the process, assisted by software that will help determine what kind of samples are necessary, which sites to use for testing and controls, and whether any changes resulting from experiments are statistically significant.

On the heels of this essay on how one could attain and utilize experimentally validated data, the October 2009 HBR article How GE is Disrupting Itself discusses what is already happening in the form of Reverse Innovation:

• The model that GE and other industrial manufacturers have followed for decades – developing high-end products at home and adapting them for other markets around the world – won’t suffice as growth slows in rich nations.
• To tap opportunities in emerging markets and pioneer value segments in wealthy countries, companies must learn reverse innovation: developing products in countries like China and India and then distributing them globally.
• While multinationals need both approaches, there are deep conflicts between the two. But those conflicts can be overcome.
• If GE doesn’t master reverse innovation, the emerging giants could destroy the company.

It does not really matter whether you are a “shoe string and prayer” start-up spending $500 on A/B testing through Web 2.0 technology or a Fortune 500 company investing $1B in the development and introduction of a new car in rural India in order to “pioneer value segments in wealthy countries.” Either way, your experimentation is affordable in the context of the end-result you have in mind.

Fast forward to Agile methods. The chunking of work to two-week segments makes experimentation affordable – you cancel an unsuccessful iteration as needed and move on to work on the next one. Furthermore, you can make the go/no-go decision with respect to an iteration based on statistically significant “real time” user response. This closed-loop operational nimbleness and affordability , in conjunction with a mindset that considers a “failure” of an iteration as a valuable lesson to learn from, facilitates experimentation. Innovation simply follows.

“Truly great leaders … recognize how silly it is to believe that … a leader is the key to an organization’s success. The best leaders understand that long-term results are created by all of the great people doing the work — not just the one person who has the privilege of being at the top.”

– Marshall Goldsmith, Leadership Isn’t About You

Bedre kan det da næsten ikke siges …

Information Technologists are quick to provide technical advice.

• The best phone
• The best methodology
• The best software

“The Best” is really only an opinion. An opinion based on a limited set of facts and a limited set of circumstances and a limited set of experiences. Yet, technologists tend to express “The Best” as the one and only option. The only option that should be considered. The only option that will work for ANYONE (in his or her humble opinion).

This is a very narrow view and can create more obstacles for anyone in the future. Why? Because you don’t have all the information. The Best is what worked for you and may not be the best solution for the person asking for advice. If it works out, great, you are considered a valuable source. If it doesn’t, well…that affects your credibility and destroys a link to not only the person you gave advice but to all those he or she talks to about the bad advice.

As I mentioned in the previous post, Harvard  Business Review had a quick article last month titled Approach Avoidance (Don Moyer). You can destroy your networking opportunities by giving bad (any advice that didn’t work for the person acting on it) advice or by not giving any advice at all. In both cases, you are not adding VALUE to the other person.

In the case we are discussing here, the problem with giving advice that turns bad is the advice YOU are giving is focused on YOU and not the other person. What you consider “The Best” may not be right for the other person.

Before giving advice, ask questions that will lead you to understanding his or her situation. If you still feel your recommendation is right, phrase it with a caveat: “This worked for my circumstances. It might work for you if you do a little more research on …” This approach acknowledges that no circumstance is exactly the same. You are acknowledging that you respect that his or her circumstances are different and many solutions exist. You are showing that you are thinking in terms of HIM or HER and not YOU. Now, you become a valuable connection.

Here’s a link to a great article by Andrew Mcafee from HBR Voices.

This article really got me excited, and I have a lot of things to say about it. Hopefully I can cram it all in here.

I completely agree with Andrew that content is no longer limited to that produced by a company. Consumers have found an easy way to express themselves through the means of social media. Hence, Andrew’s argument about it being an illusion to control  conversations about your brand holds good. While I don’t disagree with Andrew, I do think there are other ways to control brand conversations in the web 2.0 era. So I’m going to take a crack at explaining how one could actually not only control what people say about a brand but also influence it, in a positive way!

1. Understand your consumers’ subculture – their behaviour, identify key influencers and study them. Remember in school when you always looked up to the kid who was awesome at sports and always had the cutest girl in class as his girlfriend (I did!). Your brand needs to be him! (Apologies for a very male driven analogy…but school was hard!)

2. Once you’ve nailed down your brand’s essence, stay true to it….no matter what! When your consumers see you acting a certain way, using a certain vocabulary and behaving a certain way – they will choose to follow you, thereby becoming brand ambassadors.

3. Finally, be a brand asshole!

Think that your brand is the best in the world and that you know more about it than anyone else on this planet. This confidence will help ensure that only you (or your company’s key spokesperson) are taken seriously when it comes to news about the brand/product.

Think Steve Jobs (man, I was trying to avoid Apple’s example for once…but it always catches up to you!).

Mention “networking” to any technologist and he or she will think technical networking over people networking 98% of the time.

Harvard  Business Review had a quick article last month titled Approach Avoidance (Don Moyer). Networking is a skill. A valuable skill that will help everyone during good times and bad. Yet, networking is avoided by many…especially Technologists.

Technologists get involved in what he or she is doing and forgets to reach out to people (including past coworkers). Yet, when the technician needs it the most (after being laid-off), he or she gets involved in sending resumes and forgets to reach out to people (including past coworkers).

Is networking, as this article states, viewed as insincere or manipulative? In some cases yes. Especially if you reach out only when YOU need something.

Networking is an ongoing activity. One where you reach out and stay in touch with people you respect. Call someone just to see how he or she is doing with no agenda other than to stay in touch. Send an email with a link to an article that you know will be of VALUE (personal/business) to the individual. Network with the thought of the OTHER person in mind. Then, if you have a need for something, it will be easy to call them and ask for his/her advice. If you provided him or her with enough value, you will get something in return most of the time.

Start today and pick one person a week to chat with. Start with someone who calls you. Remember, the telephone works both ways.

Continuing on the 02.10.2010 countdown to 50…November 10. Actually the mini-celebration was held on November 11.

A small group of authors, speakers, and ministry folks were invited to a meeting with Dr. John Townsend (co-author of the best-setting Boundaries series). I was blessed to be a part of this gathering. As it turned out, all in attendance were women.

Allison Bottke, Victorya Rogers, Dr. John Townsend, Thelma Wells, Jody Capehart

Karen & Dr. John Townsend

Dr. Townsend started out by quoting  Harvard Business Review, to this group of female leaders and entreprenuers.

As a market, women represent a bigger opportunity than China and India combined.

Women now drive the world economy.

Globally, they control about $20 trillion in annual consumer spending, and that figure could climb as high as $28 trillion in the next five years. Their $13 trillion in total yearly earnings could reach $18 trillion in the same period. In aggregate, women represent a growth market bigger than China and India combined—more than twice as big, in fact. Given those numbers, it would be foolish to ignore or underestimate the female consumer. And yet many companies do just that, even ones that are confident they have a winning strategy when it comes to women. [Source: The Female Economy, Harvard Business Review]

Okay…so he had our attention. For the next hour he taught and discussed with us the six principles he’s found to help leaders of any size business be  ”Successful Leadership in Difficult Times.”

This message was timely and hit the bulls eye for me. I’d actually sent an email the night before this meeting to a friend asking questions to which Dr. Townsend answered. Amazing how God does that!

I look forward to getting a copy of his newest book, Leadership Beyond Reason: How Great Leaders Succeed by Harnessing the Power of Their Values, Feelings, and Intuition

About the Book

A human behavior expert reveals that what leaders know about themselves is more important than their leadership skills and job knowledge.

Who we are on the inside can determine leadership success more than what we do or what we know. In Leadership Beyond Reason, Dr. Townsend explores the critical role of the leader’s internal world, the world of passion, emotions, intuition, creativity, values, self-awareness, conscience, and spiritual life. Unveiling links between personal and organizational success or failure and the contents of a leader’s “heart,” the author shows that leaders excel not just through skill and smarts but by connecting with others using  competencies, like curiosity, attention, reality assessment, distortion detecting, relationship building, ownership, and living with ambiguity. This is the leadership book only a world-respected psychologist could have written, and it is revolutionary in its insight.

“I’m here to pimp my wife’s book” were the first words spoken by Jack Welch, when he presented alongside his wife, Suzy Welch, to an audience at the Indigo book store at the Manulife Center in Toronto, on April 27, 2009.

Jack was referring to Suzy’s new book, 10-10-10: A Life-Transforming Idea. (As an aside, 10-10-10 received poor reviews. I believe reviewers compared the book to Suzy’s first book, Winning, which she co-wrote with Jack. 10-10-10 is nowhere near the caliber of Winning, though I think Suzy targeted the Oprah Book of the Month Club audience with 10-10-10.)

Kevin Kane in Croatia, holding the Croatian edition of one of his favorite books, Jack and Suzy Welch's Winning

When I heard that Jack was coming to Toronto, I just *had* to meet him. This is Jack Welch, the man who was named “Manager of the Century” by Fortune magazine in 1999; who during his 20-year tenure as CEO of General Electric, from 1984 to 2004, increased GE’s market capitalization from $14 billion to more than $410 billion, making GE the largest and most valuable company in the world.

So what’s it like to meet the man in person? Jack entered the store with his wife, the much younger and stunning Suzy Welch. Suzy is the former Executive Editor of one of my favorite magazines, the prestigious Harvard Business Review. Suzy speaks with considerable authority and presence, and has a vivaciousness that initially made me wonder if she might actually upstage her husband.

But once Jack started answering questions, the words of Warren Buffett came to mind when Warren said, “When you talk with Jack about management, his energy and passion fill the room.”

Though Jack genuinely tried to let the evening be Susie’s show, he couldn’t help but oblige the audience by answering a few of their questions. Here are, at random, a few thoughts which Jack shared:

• Jack was challenged on whether his admonition to “follow your gut” might lead people to not consider important data in the decision-making process. Jack responded by relating “gut intuition” to “pattern recognition”: your gut identifies patterns of experience you’ve seen before, and intuitively hints you toward a correct decision based on your previous encounters. Jack advised us: “Don’t ignore your gut. Your gut is a legtimate data point. But combine your gut with additional data to make a better decision.”
• People naturally dismiss ideas from people they dislike, regardless of the merit of those ideas.
• Two questions Jack asked himself during his life and career: “What do you want people to say about you when you’re not in the room?” and “What would make you cry with regret on your 70th birthday?”
• On the economy, and the US government’s plan to “spend its way out of the recession”: “How are we going to pay back the debt incurred, when realistically, the US will grow at only 4-percent, we have more global competition than ever, and people have fundamentally become more frugal?”

I approached Jack after the question and answer session and asked, “Which idea is tougher to sell inside organizations – candor or boundarylessness?” (These are two concepts Jack strongly endorses in his books.) Jack’s eyes widened and he responded, “They are both as tough as nails to sell!” He looked at me intently and stated emphatically, “You have to reward these behaviors.” Discussing these ideas really got Jack fired up, and we shared stories about them for some length of time.

Then Jack started asking questions about me and my career. He took a keen interest in me, and he is very encouraging. He maintains a relaxed but focused attention when he speaks with you, and he projects a down-to-earth warmth and sincerity. He frequently makes funny remarks, and he even laughed at all my jokes. Even my girlfriend doesn’t get all my jokes, so clearly Jack is a very enlightened person from my perspective. Meeting Jack Welch reminded me of how gratifying an experience it is when you discover that a celebrity whom you have admired from afar turns out to be just as impressive and likable when you meet them in person.

1.

“The really outstanding leaders are people who first listen and get people to tell what they think and what they know. And then to put that all together for a higher order integration. That’s real leadership.” (Daniel Goleman, interview with Harvard Business Review)

Dan Goleman gives a beautiful explanation of what powerful listening can be and how it is, to me, the most effective tool in working towards change in interaction with people. Look through their eyes and see if you can envision the change you have in mind.

Genuine attention is a very intriguing source of energy. While engaging in interaction to change a certain situation I try to start for the assumption that I have no real solution. I may have my ideas, views and opinions, but the real solution for every interaction will be born in that interaction. Think of it as a little seed, planted somewhere in the ground we share beneath our feet. By caring for this ground and that particular seed, by paying attention to it instead of turning it into a battlefield, I may be capable of allowing something beautiful to grow out of our meeting.

Great leaders know how genuine attention can make small ideas grow into big changes. They also know that they can do nothing but enable the change, maybe also encourage it. But the real drive for change comes from within the seed, from within the person you’ll work with, from within everybody you engage with.

2.

“Leading effectively is, in other words, less about mastering situations—or even mastering social skill sets—than about developing a genuine interest in and talent for fostering positive feelings in the people whose cooperation and support you need.” (“Social Intelligence and the Biology of Leadership”, Daniel Goleman & Richard Boyatzis, Harvard Business Review September 2008)

What if your first assumption about someone you negotiate with is: “you have a talent to help me”? How would that change the way you see that person? How would that alter your conversation, your thoughts?

What if your first assumption about someone you coach/assist is: “you have a talent to help yourself”? How would that change the way you approach your client? How would that alter your questioning?

3.

“A more relationship-based construct for assessing leadership is social intelligence, which we define as a set of interpersonal competencies built on specific neural circuits (and related endocrine systems) that inspire others to be effective.” (Daniel Goleman & Richard Boyatzis)

Notice the word “effective”. Why are they saying effective instead of efficient?

Here’s a small exercise. Take the next thing you’re about to do after finishing reading this post. Try to figure out 7 ways to be effective. Now figure out 7 ways to be efficient. What’s the difference?

4.

“Mirror neurons have particular importance in organizations, because leaders’ emotions and actions prompt followers to mirror those feelings and deeds. The effects of activating neural circuitry in followers’ brains can be very powerful.” (Daniel Goleman & Richard Boyatzis)

In short, could you be the change you want to see in your company? Ok, I sort of borrowed that from Ghandi but can you really be that change? Or can you at least imagine what it’s like to experience that change?

Goleman and Boyatzis mention an experiment where one group received negative feedback but in a very positive way (smiles, laughter, …). Another group received positive feedback but the body language of the messenger was negative. Guess which group felt better and which felt worse? Right.

“And everybody knows that when people feel better, they perform better. So, if leaders hope to get the best out of their people, they should continue to be demanding but in ways that foster a positive mood in their teams. The old carrot-and-stick approach alone doesn’t make neural sense; traditional incentive systems are simply not enough to get the best performance from followers.” (Daniel Goleman & Richard Boyatzis)

Niin kurjalta kuin se tuntuukin sanoa, Paavo Väyrynen oli oikeassa. Tosin tämän lauseen suhteen- Nukutaan yön yli. Luin eilen illalla nukkumaan mennessä artikkelia uudesta Harvard Business Reviewstä. Artikkeli kertoi siitä, kuinka parhaimmat ja luovimmat ideat tulevat kun päivällä ottaa pienet nokkaunet, tupluurit eli nokoset. Jo ihan lyhyt aika parantaa ratkaisuntekokykyä. Itse voin vannoa tuon nimeen, sillä koko opiskeluajan tentteihinn lukiessa otin aina 15 minuutin nokoset, kun olin lukenut tunnin ja 45 minuuttia. Opin nopeasti ja keskittymiskyky oli hyvä. Jaksoin monta viikkoa lukea 8 – 9 tuntia päivässä.

Samaa väittää artikkeli. Esimerkiksi Uuden Seelannin lennonjohdon on todettu tekevän vähemmän virheitä, kun he varsinkin yövuorossa ottavat 40 minuutin unoset. Samaa väitti eräs Harvardin proffa ja konsultti. Hän tekee yleensä parhaimmat ratkaisut, kun on aluksi kuunnellut viisaita keskusteluja, sen jälkeen torkahtaa hetkeksi ja pitää kynää ja vihkoa vieressä. Kun herää torkuilta, niin monia asia on vain kirkastunut. Myös IT-firma nimeltä Google tarjoaa paikkaa missä työntekijät voivat torkahtaa hetkeksi kesken työpäivän. Itse olen huomannut jopa pienimmästä lapsestani, että jos hän torkahtaa automatkalla hetkeksi, riittää yleensä 5 minuuttia, niin johan sieltä tulee huimia ideoita.

Sen takia kyselen mitenkä sinun työpaikalla suvaitaan torkahtelut. Onko se kiellettyä ja epäsopivaa, mutta röökitaulolla käynti jopa kannustettavaa, varsinkin jos oma esimies polttaa.

Fraud, which includes employee fraud, is up an astounding 43% for fiscal 2008 – 2009, according to a poll by the Security Executive Council as reported in the Harvard Business Review.  It’s not surprising when you think about the number of people who are feeling an economic pinch or are concerned that their job is at risk. 

All business are under pressure to cut costs and are hesitant to invest in security.  Consider the plight of small to medium sized business.  These businesses are laboring under cost containment pressures and at the same time are most vulnerable to the risk of fraud.  For a medium sized business, employee fraud can be devastating and put the business at risk. 

Now might be the time to focus on investing in cash management best practices such as a lockbox for your cash receipts.

Check out this fascinating article from the Harvard Business Review called “Marketing Myopia”

Although it does not adress specifically the media industry, it DOES deal with formerly growing industries that are now losing pace and slowly dying.

Every major industry grows, peaks, and eventually dies. And there is no reason why T.V and mass media would have a different fate.

What’s more, every major industry has the same sense of exceptionalism that we do have in the media world: who has never heard beofre “People will always want to watch T.V or go to the movies, because it’s a community experience” . “People will always need to be entertained”  ”Entertainment is different“.

Well, remember 15 years ago when Kodak said people would always want to take their pictures on films so they could be shot on paper ? Today, Kodak is nowhere near the giant it used to be decades ago.And this will happen again and again to industries who don’t fundamentally question their business model and more importantly what their clients want- Including Media.

My favorite quote in this article is “The History of every dead and dying industry shows a self-deceiving cycle of bountiful expansion and undetected decay”

But it’s never too late, right ?

Peter Drucker (November 19, 1909–November 11, 2005) was a writer, management consultant, and self-described “social ecologist.” The Harvard Business Review honors Drucker’s contributions with a spread in its current November edition. The issue has a lot of interesting and insightful articles about the continuing relevance of his perspectives and wisdom in today’s turbulent times. 

Drucker’s Influence in Asia 

I remember my professor in the Asian Institute of Management who talked passionately about Peter Drucker’s perspective in business and management. Managers in Asia have described Drucker influence as essential in making their business successful and helping countries develop. Drucker frequently travelled to Asia, particularly Japan, throughout his life. He has profound influence there, not only as a management consultant to companies such as Toyota and retail giant Masatoshi Ito but also as a consultant to governments such as Japan, South Korea and China. 

Many influential and revolutionary ideas have run through Drucker’s career and writings. He preached about decentralization, simplification, impact of knowledge workers, management by objectives, customer service, corporate compensation, need for community, organizational business processes among others. I have chosen two out of Drucker’s many ideas to discuss: 

1. The Purpose of a Company Is to Create a Customer 

A company’s primary responsibility is to serve its customers. Profit is not the primary goal, but rather an essential condition for the company’s continued existence. There is only one valid definition of business purpose: to create a customer.”  – Peter Drucker

Profits come when customers continue to buy your products and services. That is the reason why Drucker’s perspective always pointed out the importance of putting customers first. A.G. Lafley, chairman of P&G board of directors, always sought out Drucker’s advice during his tenure as CEO of the company. He attributes their corporate principle to Drucker’s customer service principle that the consumer – not the CEO – is boss. P&G have made it their purpose to touch more consumers and improve more of each consumer’s life. By putting customers first, according to Lafley, they have nearly doubled the number served, from 2 billion to 3.8 billion; doubled sales and tripled P&G profits. 

2. Essential Condition for the Company’s Continued Existence 

“The need for planned abandonment – businesses have a natural human tendency to cling to “yesterday’s successes” rather than seeing when they are no longer useful.”  – Peter Drucker

Many companies focus on placing as many products and services as possible in the market and reap as much profits as possible. Their center of attention lies in what they have achieved in the past and what they are maximizing in the present. According Zhang Ruimin, CEO of the Haier Group based in China, sole focus on generating profits today could not ensure his company’s survival tomorrow. Early on, Haier’s profits were dwarfed by its competitors in China while Haier focused on quality. They could not compete with companies offering the same products in the market. But when supply-demand balance changed in China, according to Ruimin, lots of companies lost customers and went bankrupt overnight while Haier strengthened its position in the market. This is one of Drucker’s key principles – the assumptions on which the organization has been built and is being run no longer fits reality. Zhang Ruimin takes this to heart as a constant warning.  He wrote, “All decisions I make must be consistent with the ever-changing external environment. If they aren’t, the consequences may not emerge right away, but once the danger show up, it will be too late.” 

To read more about Peter Drucker’s perspectives and find out how his wisdom can help your company navigate these turbulent times, take a hold of the current November edition of Harvard Business Review with the headline: The Drucker Centennial – What Would Peter Do?

Photo courtesy of Harvard Business Review.

Here is an excerpt from an article Harvard Business Review’s Bronwyn Fryer posted at the Harvard Business bog. If you wish to read the complete article and/or sign up for daily alerts, please visit dailyalert@email.harvardbusiness.org.

Is listening important? “Yes, of course,” you say. But then why would anyone pay thousands of dollars to hear someone speak, and then not listen?

I recently attended the PopTech conference in Camden, Maine, a mind-bending affair attended by several hundred idea junkies, each of whom paid several thousand dollars to (ostensibly) hear what really smart people like Daniel Goleman, Dan Ariely, and Michael Pollan had to say.

* * *

The authors — who conducted several in-depth studies on listening skills — offered some tips for what they call “efficient listening,” by which they mean that the listener doesn’t wander off onto mental side-roads while someone else is speaking. They found that “good listeners regularly engage in four mental activities, each geared to the oral discourse and taking place concurrently with that oral discourse.” Those four processes are:

1. The listener thinks ahead of the talker, trying to anticipate what the oral discourse is leading to and what conclusions will be drawn from the words spoken at the moment.

2. The listener weighs the evidence used by the talker to support the points that he makes. “Is this evidence valid?” the listener asks himself. “Is it the complete evidence?”

3. Periodically the listener reviews and mentally summarizes the points of the talk completed thus far.

4. Throughout the talk, the listener “listens between the lines” in search of meaning that is not necessarily put into spoken words. He pays attention to nonverbal communication (facial expressions, gestures, tone of voice) to see if it adds meaning to the spoken words. He asks himself, “Is the talker purposely skirting some area of the subject? Why is he doing so?”

If you wish to read the complete article and/or sign up for Harvard’s daily alerts, please visit dailyalert@email.harvardbusiness.org.

s Review’s

Four habits of highly effective listeners:

1. The listener thinks ahead of the talker, trying to anticipate what the oral discourse is leading to and what conclusions will be drawn from the words spoken at the moment.

Although, I hate it when people vocalise this. It is distracting when someone constantly interrupts you and tells you either what you are about to tell them or, worse, what they think you are about to tell them.

2. The listener weighs the evidence used by the talker to support the points that he makes. “Is this evidence valid?” the listener asks himself. “Is it the complete evidence?”

3. Periodically the listener reviews and mentally summarizes the points of the talk completed thus far.

4. Throughout the talk, the listener “listens between the lines” in search of meaning that is not necessarily put into spoken words. He pays attention to nonverbal communication (facial expressions, gestures, tone of voice) to see if it adds meaning to the spoken words. He asks himself, “Is the talker purposely skirting some area of the subject? Why is he doing so?”

Very interesting stuff and something we can all work on.

via Is Listening an Endangered Skill? – HBR Editors’ Blog – Harvard Business Review.

Not so interesting but also kind of cool: this was posted using the funky WordPress “Press This” bookmarklet.

 Lindberg Revoredo
Consultor de marketing e publicitário
Articulista de HSM Management
lindbergrevoredo@yahoo.com.br

Se conhecessem e compreendessem e praticassem continuamente a prospecção para extrair a escala de valor desejado do consumidr e seu decorrente conceito de “versões” do produto, a Kodak não teria queimado o filme e as ferrovias americanas não teriam perdido o bonde

 Tópicos do artigo:

 Não é o produto que fica obsoleto, mas a “versão” / A versão não é o produto e o produto não é sua versão, ou uma de suas versões / O que a Kodak tinha em mãos (o filme) era apenas uma das várias versões que qualquer produto poderá ter ao longo do tempo / De posse da tecnologia, a 3M procurou encaixar seu produto na escala de valor desejado do consumidor para vários produtos / Pensar que a versão é o produto é o mesmo que fazer o chamado marketing do produto / Ironia das ironias: a Kodak inventou a máquina digital / A única função das empresas é vender o produto, não a tecnologia do produto / Por não conhecer o conceito de versões do produto as ferrovias americanas perderam o bonde / Mirar a escala de valor e pensar continuamente na próxima versão, garante a vitória na competição / Os programadores de computador são obrigados a praticar o conceito de versões do produto / De nada adianta praticar o conceito de versões do produto, sem prospectar a escala de valor desejado do consumidor / A mesma pedrinha com a qual David derrotou o gigante Golias, derrubou a poderosa indústria de relógios suíça / O fascínio paralisante da tecnologia já derrubou muitas empresas / O relógio de quartzo: confirmação do grande equívoco que é o conceito de “inovação” / O conhecimento da escala de valor desejado e seu decorrente conceito de versões do produto, cria as vantagens competitivas vencedoras / Por incrível que pareça, a indústria de chicotes para carruagens pode ter acabado pelo desconhecimento deste conceito / O Problema da Kodak não foi “falta de capacidade de adaptação” nem “incapacidade de se metamorfosear” como dizem as revistas, mas ignorância da ciência do marketing  / O desconhecimento do conceito e a excelência da versão do filme que durou 100 anos, ajudou a criar a ilusão de que ele não era apenas mais uma “versão”, mas o produto / Mas um caso da ignorância do conceito de ”versões” e de como uma tecnologia revolucionária pode fazer uma versão infinitamente melhor do (mesmo) produto mas de uma forma radicalmente diferente/ O primeiro processador de textos foi criado em 1983 e até 1996 a Olivetti ainda não percebia que aquela era uma nova e ultrarevolucionária versão de seu produto / Satisfazer continuamente os itens da escala de valor desejado do consumidor para seu produto, é o verdadeiro “modelo de negócios” de qualquer empresa / 

Não é o produto que fica obsoleto, mas a “versão” 

Neste tempo de concorrência em ritmo frenético que vemos hoje, as empresas se alternam, cada uma na busca de novas vantagens competitivas visando superar o concorrente, cada uma tentando satisfazer um item mais elevado, mais um item da escala de valor desejado do consumidor para seu(s) produtos e assim causando a obsolescência do produto do concorrente, cada empresa a sua vez, e a cada vez em menor tempo. Eu disse obsolescência do produto do concorrente? Não, a obsolescência não é do produto, mas da “versão” do produto fabricada pelo do concorrente.

Sem entendermos que o produto não é sua versão, que o produto é aquele que está descrito na escala de valor desejado do consumidor para cada produto e não suas versões que a cada vez que são criadas tentam satisfazer um número cada vez maior de itens da escala de valor desejado do consumidor para cada produto, jamais teremos uma ciência do marketing verdadeira, comprovada em fatos, eficaz.

A versão não é o produto e o produto não é sua versão, ou uma de suas versões

O conhecimento e compreensão deste conceito teria garantido à Kodak a manutenção de sua posição de liderança do mercado de fotografias e a teria livrado deste lamentável retrocesso que quase dizimou a empresa, como contam as revistas especializadas.

Segundo a revista Exame, recentemente a Kodak mandou implodir em sua sede , nos Estados Unidos, nada menos que 100 prédios que agora para nada servem.

Se ela tivesse, em primeiro lugar, conhecimento do verdadeiro nome de seu produto, dado pelo seu comprador, que é o único que conhece o verdadeiro nome de todos os produtos, o consumidor, que é “captura e impressão de imagens com a maior definição possível, com visão do resultado da captura e da maneira mais rápida possível, pelo preço mais baixo possível”, que ao final, é a síntese de todos os itens da escala de valor do consumidor para o produto fotografia.

O que a Kodak tinha em mãos (o filme) era apenas uma das várias versões que qualquer produto poderá ter ao longo do tempo

Se soubesse que o produto não é aquilo que ela tem em mãos para vender e sua tecnologia, mas apenas uma das várias versões que o produto terá ao longo do tempo, tentando satisfazer determinado número de itens da escala de valor desejado do consumidor, ficaria sempre antenada, prospectando e mirando diuturnamente a escala do consumidor e procurando satisfazer a cada dia itens de valor mais elevado ainda, e não com o olhar hipnotizado, fixo, para a versão do produto que ela tem em mãos e a tecnologia empregada nele, e permanecesse incansavelmente procurando (antes que o concorrente o fizesse), meios, métodos, maneiras (tecnologias) através das quais pudesse satisfazer de maneira objetiva, a cada dia, um item de valor cada vez mais alto da escala de valor do consumidor para seu produto, visando chegar atender toda a escala ( até o momento não se conseguiu tal feito para nenhum produto), e sempre, de posse do conhecimento da escala, e prospectando o consumidor para conhecer cada vez mais itens, sempre alerta, de prontidão, atenta a um novo item de valor descoberto e a um método, uma nova tecnologia que possa vir surgindo nos arredores ou dentro de sua própria empresa, para materializar a nova versão do produto que satisfaça a estes novos itens de valor desejado descobertos (ou ainda não. 

De posse da tecnologia, a 3M procurou encaixar seu produto na escala de valor desejado do consumidor para vários produtos

É possível, com uma versão de um produto criado por uma nova tecnologia de função ou aplicação ainda desconhecida, definida, encaixá-la em itens descobertos da escala de valor do consumidor de algum ou alguns produtos, como fez 3M com o náilon, por exemplo: procurando, encaixou sua descoberta em itens elevados da escala de valor do consumidor para vários produtos diferentes)

Pensar que a versão é o produto é o mesmo que fazer o chamado marketing do produto

E desviando assim, completamente a atenção da versão (o chamado marketing voltado para o produto) que tinha em mãos e fugindo desta maldição recorrente de pensar que uma das versões do produto que tem em mãos , é o produto completo.

Porém, ironia das ironias, e isso faz este triste case da Kodak ser um exemplo clássico desta falha que apontamos , é que ela própria foi a inventora da máquina fotográfica digital.e por não entender a escala de valor desejado do consumidor e o seu decorrente conceito de versões do produto (cada versão atende a um ou mais itens da escala de valor desejado, não a escala toda, portanto não é o produto completo, e por isso não se pode parar a busca de novas versões, para satisfação de mais itens desejados, antes do concorrente).

Ironia das ironias: a Kodak inventou a máquina digital

Compreendendo a escala e consequentemente as versões do produto que atendem os itens de valor da escala é possível fugir da maldição do fascínio paralizante que exerce a tecnologia empregada na versão, tão eficaz, mas que somente pode atender a uns poucos itens da escala de valor desejado do consumidor para o produto.

Vamos repetir: A empresa não vende tecnologia do produto ao consumidor e o consumidor não compra a tecnologia embutida na versão do produto. Mas o valor desejado que ela materializa.

Ao comprador não importa nem um pouco a engenhosidade do processo que possibilitou a satisfação de seu valor desejado.
Mas pelo que se vê, o vendedor, o fabricante tem sempre tendência a idolatrar a tecnologia e ficar preso a ela e consequentemente à versão do produto produzido através dela, enquanto o concorrente passa à frente com uma nova versão.

A única função das empresas é vender o produto, não a tecnologia do produto

Esquecendo o óbvio dos óbvios, que a função da tecnologia empregada, alta ou baixa, tem ao final uma relevância secundária no processo de comercialização, a venda de produtos, que é a única função de toda e qualquer empresa, como disse Peter Drucker.

Estas tecnologias que fascinam ( e existem muitas tecnologias realmente fascinantes mas que não servem para comercializar coisa alguma) Que permitem fabricar aquele engenho lindo e complexo, de funcionamento
Na maioria das vezes o fabricante se confunde e não reconhece uma nova versão do produto

impressionante, mas que não serve para nada, que ninguém precisa dele, que a ninguém interessa comprar. Como muitas vezes a maneira de fazer, a tecnologia, é diferente, o fabricante se confunde quando lhe é apresentada uma nova versão do produto que atende a mais itens de valor da escala, mas com uma forma de fazer radicalmente diferente.

A busca de tecnologia é um segundo movimento, após saber, através de prospecção, os itens de valor desejado da escala de valor do consumidor.

Por não conhecer o conceito de versões do produto as ferrovias americanas perderam o bonde

Um dos primeiros exemplos clássicos do desconhecimento da escala de valor do consumidor e consequentemente do nome verdadeiro do produto (que somente o consumidor sabe) que automaticamente nos remete para o conceito de versões do produto, foram as ferrovias americanas no início do século. Se soubessem da existência do conceito da escala de valor do consumidor, e prospectassem para conhecê-la, perceberiam que não vendiam trens, mas transportes, ou que, melhor ainda, que o comprador não comprava trens, mas transportes por quaisquer meios (quaisquer veículos).

Eles sabiam o que vendiam mas não o que o consumidor comprava, e este é o x da questão. O produtor, o fabricante saber o que vende não prospera a empresa, mas saber o que o consumidor compra. Sabedores do conceito, por simples dedução concluiriam que seus trens, aquele meio, aquele veículo usado para transportar pessoas, era apenas uma das “versões” do produto transportes que atendia a tão somente uns poucos itens de baixo valor da escala de valor desejado do consumidor para o produto.

Mirar a escala de valor e pensar continuamente na próxima versão, garante a vitória na competição

E se houvessem mirado continuamente, fixamente a escala de valor para o produto transportes e não a “versão” que tinham em mãos, veriam que naquele exato momento já estavam surgindo de todos os lados, várias novas versões deste produto (transportes) que atendiam a itens de valor bem mais elevados da escala de valor do consumidor, como o automóvel, o avião, etc., e já iriam se prevenindo contra obsolescência natural da versão do produto que possuíam, passando a investir, antes que ela chegasse nestas novas versões pelas mãos da concorrência que atendiam a mais itens da escala de valor, antes que concorrentes antigos ou novos o fizesse.

Os programadores de computador são obrigados a praticar o conceito de versões do produto

Existe um produto que por sua própria natureza, impede que seus produtores se confundam, que não compreendam o conceito de versões do produto, ainda assim incorrendo muitas vezes no erro de criar uma nova “versão” que não satisfaça novos itens da sua escala de valor do consumidor, por desconhecimento de como o consumidor compra, de sua escala de valor desejado para todos os produtos, que são
os programas de computador.

Porque a tecnologia empregada é basicamente a mesma, para que o negócio continue lucrativo eles são obrigados a criar uma nova versão do produto que atenda a itens de valor desejado cada vez mais altos, não somente para ter uma vantagem competitiva perante algum concorrente que surja, mas principalmente para a sobrevivência do próprio negócio.

De nada adianta praticar o conceito de versões do produto, sem prospectar a escala de valor desejado do consumidor

Como programas de computador são produtos que não quebram, não se joga no lixo, não há perigo de roubo, nem substituição de peças que deterioram, como não são como produtos tangíveis, físicos (carros, eletrodomésticos, etc.) que necessitam de uma recompra após um tempo de uso pelo desgaste ou envelhecimento das peças obrigando a uma reposição do produto, à compra de um aparelho novo em substituição ao velho jogado no lixo sem necessariamente ter sido criada uma nova versão, para que as vendas não cessem, e a empresa não abra falência, eles são obrigados a criar continuamente novas versões do programa que atendam a mais itens da escala de valor desejado do consumidor para este produto, e assim possam vender mais uma vez para o mesmo comprador (Para resolver este crucial problema, muitas empresas de informática não vendem a posse definitiva da versão do programa mediante um único pagamento, mas “alugam” as versões).

O conceito de versões está incrustrado, implícito dentro do seu processo de comercialização deste produto, em seu marketing, sendo portanto impossível ao seu fabricante não conhecer e não empregar o conceito de versões.

A mesma pedrinha com a qual David derrotou o gigante Golias, derrubou a poderosa indústria de relógios suíça

Outro exemplo aconteceu com a indústria suíça de relógios que foi destruída por uma versão deste produto criada com uma tecnologia que chamo de “desinovação”, e este case deixa mais uma vez bem claro o grande equívoco que é o uso da prática do conceito de “inovação” (a criação aleatória de novos produtos de alta tecnologia, como recurso de a empresa conseguir vantagens competitivas frente à concorrência). Um fragmento de um simples seixo rolado destruiu de uma só vez a poderosa indústria suíça de relógios (está parecendo a pedrinha que David usou para derrubar o gigante Golias).

Uma versão do produto relógio, usando uma tecnologia simplificada derrubou outra versão com uma tecnologia muito mais complexa, quando se pensa que o comum é acontecer o contrário. Um fragmento de seixo comum, substituiu com um grau de eficácia infinitamente maior, toda uma tecnologia complexa.

O relógio de quartzo: confirmação do grande equívoco que é o conceito de “inovação”

A nova versão para o produto relógio era tão simples e tão diferente na aparência e anulava totalmente a antiga tecnologia tão sofisticada, que quando foi apresentado aos representantes da indústria suíça de relógios eles disseram: “não tem corda, não tem mecanismo, não tem rubis, então não é relógio”.

A maldição do fascínio da alta tecnologia ajudou a impedir de ver a verdade: que o consumidor não compra tecnologia mas o resultado que ela cria, produz e se esse resultado satisfaz a itens de valor desejado de sua escala de valor para o produto. Ele não valoriza tal ou qual tecnologia. A ele pouco ou nada está importando a tecnologia empregada.

O fascínio paralisante da tecnologia já derrubou muitas empresas

Com um mínimo de lucidez, sem pesquisas do consumidor, perceberiam que o que importava era o grande valor desejado do consumidor para o produto relógio que a versão feita com o quartzo realizava em um grau jamais alcançado pela antiga tecnologia engenhosa: a precisão, a pontualidade na contagem, na marcação do tempo, e que aquela versão estava obsoleta pela nova, com menos tecnologia, mas infinitamente mais eficaz.

O resto da história todo mundo sabe. A indústria japonesa de relógios a quartzo dizimou a indústria suíça de relógios. Prova definitiva de que o comprador somente compra o seu mais alto valor desejado e não tecnologias.

O conhecimento da escala de valor desejado e seu decorrente conceito de versões do produto, cria as vantagens competitivas vencedoras

A filosofia inicial do pós-guerra da indústria japonesa de não fazer nada novo, mas fazer a mesma coisa melhor, ao final é uma percepção básica do conceito de versões do produto, o qual está atrelado e é decorrente, dependente, do conceito da escala de valor desejado do consumidor para todos os produtos e para determinada circunstância . De nada adianta fazer novas versões que não atendam a novos itens desta escala. É quase a mesma coisa que praticar o famigerado conceito das “inovações aleatórias”:criar produtos que a ninguém interessa comprar.

Por incrível que pareça, a indústria de chicotes para carruagens pode ter acabado pelo desconhecimento deste conceito

Por mais hilário que possa parecer, a indústria de chicotes para carruagem também acabou por desconhecimento da existência da escala de valor desejado do consumidor e de seu decorrente conceito de “versões” do produto.  Por mais absurdo que pareça, o chicote para carruagens é uma primeira versão do acelerador do automóvel, como o cavalo é uma versão anterior do motor, queiramos ou não.

Continuar ou não no ramo de “equipamentos para aceleração”, ou começar a fabricar o veículo todo (porque afinal de contas, mesmo fabricando um componente só, o chicote, ele queira ou não, está no ramo de transportes). ou criar um novo negócio, é apenas uma decisão administrativa, de avaliação das chances de poder competir no novo negócio ou não. Uma questão que tem a ver com a escala de valor do vendedor, não com a escala de valor desejado do comprador.

O Problema da Kodak não foi “falta de capacidade de adaptação” nem “incapacidade de se metamorfosear” como dizem as revistas, mas ignorância da ciência do marketing mesmo

Concluindo, não se trata de “falta de capacidade de adaptação” nem de “não conseguir se metamorfosear” nem “falta de capacidade de reconhecimento da obsolescência do produto” como falam as revistas de negócios se referindo à Kodak. Estas três expressões não são princípios da ciência do marketing, não dão um diagnóstico sobre o ocorrido nem sugerem uma solução para o problema.

O que ocorreu foi o desconhecimento da parte da Kodak do conceito de “versões”, nada mais. De não ter a consciência de que ela não possuía o produto, mas apenas uma das versões, que, concordemos,  atendeu por muitíssimos anos a itens elevados do consumidor para o produto fotografia, mas como ninguém conhece o último item da escala de valor de nenhum produto (a versão que materializa o produto completo, a escala completa) , ela não tinha a consciência de que sempre é preciso considerar apenas como versão, a versão mais recente, e portanto considerar que ela estará sempre sujeita à obsolescência.

E as primeiras versões, as versões anteriores ficaram tão distantes no passado(100 anos), o daguerreótipo por exemplo, e o fato de a versão do filme de celulóide ter atendido a inúmeros itens de valor desejado em relação às versões anteriores, o que concorreu mais ainda para a descompreensão completa do conceito de versões, de sua inevitável obsolescência, contribuindo para a completa ilusão de que eles estavam de posse da versão definitiva, da versão final do produto, que atenderia do primeiro ao último item da escala de valor desejado do consumidor para o produto fotografia.

O desconhecimento do conceito e a excelência da versão do filme que durou 100 anos, ajudou a criar a ilusão de que ele não era apenas mais uma “versão”, mas o produto

Para ilustrar, vamos lembrar alguns dos novos itens atendidos pela nova versão(máquina digital) sobre a anterior (o filme de celulóide)? O barateamento total dos custos, o tamanho do equipamento(portabilidade, um altíssimo valor desejado, veja o grande sucesso da Exilim), a qualidade (resolução) da foto (apesar de que o método anterior já era muito bom. O imediatismo da visualização do resultado. Atendido por um outyro equipamento usando a tecnologia antiga, mas com um custo alto; a duplicação da foto em papel a um custo baixíssimo por impressoras caseiras a jato de tinta ou laser. Etc. Tem que ter bola de cristal para antever tudo isso? Não, é preciso conhecer a ciência verdadeira do marketing, comprovada em fatos     e não oriunda de achismos. E de profissionais com conhecimento da ciência verdadeira,sensibilidade e dom. Todos os bons profissionais em qualquer áreas do conhecimento humano tem estas mesmas características.

Mas um caso da ignorância do conceito de ”versões” e de como uma tecnologia revolucionária pode fazer uma versão infinitamente melhor do (mesmo) produto mas de uma forma radicalmente diferente

Outro caso que mostra quão importante é ficar sempre de prontidão prospectando, extraindo e mirando diuturnamente, monitorando  a escala de valor do consumidor e procurando uma maneira, uma tecnologia para criar uma nova versão que atenda a mais itens da escala, ou observando alguma tecnologia que possa vir surgindo nos arredores e que de repente criem uma nova versão atendendo a tantos itens de valor desejado da escala de valor do consumidor, que a versão anterior pareça construída na idade da pedra, é o caso da máquina de escrever Olivetti e o computador com seu processador de textos.

Enquanto, totalmente desatenta pelo desconhecimento do conceito de “versões”, estava fazendo as chamadas “inovações incrementais”, pequenas melhorias (pequenas “inovações” de forma aleatória, não baseadas nas informações precisas da escala de valor) na versão antiga usando praticamente a mesma forma de fazer, a mesma tecnologia, uma nova tecnologia ultrarevolucionária vinha surgindo sorrateiramente e possibilitando criar uma versão (composta da parte física e do software) que de uma só vez atendia a itens inimagináveis de valor desejado que a versão anterior jamais poderia fazer e com uma tecnologia, uma forrna de fazer a mesma coisa de uma maneira deslumbrantemente e espetacularmente diferente , aumentando ao infinito as possibilidades de satisfação de uma quantidade imensa de itens da escala de valor desejado do consumidor para este produto.

O primeiro processador de textos foi criado em 1983 e até 1996 a Olivetti ainda não percebia que aquela era uma nova e ultrarevolucionária versão de seu produto

Do mesmo jeito que a tecnologia pode ter efeito paralisante diante da simplicidade tecnológica de uma nova versão, como no caso do relógio a quartzo, a alta tecnologia a mais das vezes produz uma versão tão revolucionaria na forma e no desempenho, que o fabricante jamais reconhecerá que aquela é apenas uma nova versão de seu produto, se não conhecer o conceito de “versões”. 

Em 1983 foi criado para a IBM o primeiro programa processador de textos, o Word 1. A Olivetti  continuou fabricando suas máquinas de escrever consideradas de design mais belo do mundo, e pensando que tinha o produto completo nas mãos e não apenas uma versão.

Reportagens contam que em 1996, 13 anos depois do primeiro processador de textos, demonstrando  uma total desatenção pelo advento do processador de textos, fato notório que estava acontecendo diante de seus olhos, ela estava ainda perdida com a obsolescência completa de sua versão do produto, (que comprovando mais uma vez sua ignorância destes princípios da ciência do marketing, ela chamava aquela sua pobre versão de seu “modelo de negócios”.

Satisfazer continuamente os itens da escala de valor desejado do consumidor para seu produto, é o verdadeiro “modelo de negócios” de qualquer empresa

O verdadeiro “modelo de negócios” de qualquer empresa é satisfazer  continuamente os itens da escala de valor desejado do consumidor por quaisquer meios, antes que o concorrente o faça, o que presume uma seqüência de versões, uma criando na maioria das vezes a obsolescência completa da outra. Este é um princípio basilar da ciência do marketing),  e por desconhecer o seu nome verdadeiro que é “equipamento para escrita da maneira mais rápida possível, com a máxima limpeza possível (sem sujar as mãos} com o menor e mais prático trabalho de revisão do texto, ( revisar o texto escrito sem rasgar papel e ter de reescrever tudo outra vez),  com a impressão do texto a mais rápida e mais limpa possível e viabilizada por qualquer método tecnológico” e que ela chamava de máquina de escrever.

I love the Net Promoter Score (NPS) and defend it regularly against criticism.  Many of the critics comes from the customer survey industry, who it must be said have a vested interest, a regular single question sort of makes they long annual surveys and expensive analysis redundant. My defence is primarily on the grounds of action – a monthly or quarterly NPS score is easy to understand and galvanises action in the company to improve. My experience is that if used with rigour it can live up to the title Frederick Reichheld gave the article in the Harvard Business Review where he first highlighted his thinking – "The One Number You Need to Grow." Using the NPS also allows for comparison across competitors and sectors, giving the score much more validity with staff and customers. I use to work at itlab and take some of the credit for starting them off on their NPS journey. When we began, the NPS was below zero and just as I left, the survey returned a score of 55. It is great to see their progress continues. Below is an extract from their quarterly newsletter. Well done people!

The magic number that keeps growing

As you know, we run a very tight ship when it comes to meeting standards and offering great service. That’s why we continue to use Net Promoter to measure our success.

The results from last quarter (53%) put us above software giants, banks and American Express! This time around we’ve managed to hit a truly world class 76%. This puts us right up there with global service leaders like Apple and Google, and leaves the average score across all sectors (37%) in the dust.

WordPress Tags: One Number,Net Promoter Score,Frederick Reichheld,Harvard Business Review,competitors,itlab

Related articles by Zemanta

Share this post :

Over the past month or so, I’ve been having a conversation with Iain Gray, Red Hat Vice President of Customer Engagement, about the ways companies engage with communities. I’ve also written a lot lately about common mistakes folks make in developing corporate community strategies (see my two posts about Tom Sawyer community-building here and here and Chris Brogan’s writeup here).

One idea we bounced around for a while was a mashup of community thinking and Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. For those of you who slept in with a bad hangover the day you were supposed to learn about Maslow in your intro psych class (damn you, Jagermeister!), here is the Wikipedia summary:

“[Maslow's hierarchy of needs] is often depicted as a pyramid consisting of five levels: the lowest level is associated with physiological needs, while the uppermost level is associated with self-actualization needs, particularly those related to identity and purpose. The higher needs in this hierarchy only come into focus when the lower needs in the pyramid are met. Once an individual has moved upwards to the next level, needs in the lower level will no longer be prioritized. If a lower set of needs is no longer being met, the individual will temporarily re-prioritize those needs by focusing attention on the unfulfilled needs, but will not permanently regress to the lower level.”

Maslow's hierarchy of needs

Now granted, the needs of a company are very different than the needs of a human being. At its very basic level, a company has a “physiological” need to make money. If that need is not being met, little else will matter. But in an ironic twist, this basic need to make money can actually hinder the company’s ability to make money if it is not wrapped in a more self-actualized strategy.

To explain what I mean, think about the last annoying salesperson who called or emailed you. Why were you annoyed? Probably because it was very clear to you that the salesperson was badly hiding his basic motivation to make money. He wasn’t talking to you because he valued you– he was talking to your wallet.

Now think about the best recent sales experience you’ve had. Mostly likely, this salesperson was being motivated by a higher purpose, perhaps something as simple as a desire to make you happy. Sometimes the most effective salespeople aren’t even in sales at all– like a friend who tells you about a new album you should buy, for example. Or sites like Trip Advisor, where you can learn about where to go on vacation from other folks like you.

When it comes to community strategy, most companies have trouble finding motivation beyond the simple need to make money– and the communities they interact with can tell.

Yet if you look at the greatest companies out there, you’ll find that they usually have a strong sense of identity and purpose– just like Maslow’s self-actualized people. Read anything by Jim Collins and you’ll see what I mean.

For a recent presentation, Iain developed a chart that looks a lot like the one below. And to embarrass Iain, let’s call it the Gray hierarchy of community needs.

The Gray hierarchy of community needs

Need level 1: Listen to the customer

Many companies don’t engage with community beyond their customers. So the most basic community model at the bottom of the pyramid is asking your customers what they want and then giving it to them. This model has been around for hundreds if not thousands of years. It’s pretty much common sense that a company would listen to its customers– they are your core community, since they are the ones that fulfill the basic corporate need to make money.

So at the bottom of the pyramid, any company that wants to have financial success must listen to its customers well, and then provide stuff that they want.

Need level 2: Listen to the community

More and more companies are now opening the aperture a bit wider than just their customers to include both customers and potential customers. And the new technology of the social media revolution makes this easier and cheaper to do at scale. Two good examples of sites where companies are listening to a community (without regard for how much the community members are actually paying the company, if anything) are My Starbucks Idea and Dell IdeaStorm.

These sites allow Starbucks and Dell to “crowd-source” their research and development efforts. The sites are useful for a simple reason– because there are a critical mass of people out there who care enough about these brands to want to help them do their R&D work for free. If we were all so lucky! Many small companies without critical mass of brand awareness and acceptance would fail miserably with this approach. But it works for the biggest companies because they have the brand strength to bring the community to them.

While this strategy is great for some, it is essentially a Tom Sawyer “paint our fence for us” scenario. And if, like Tom, you can get away with it, good for you. But if you want to build a deeper relationship with a community, you must go further.

Need level 3: Innovate through a community

At this level, a company takes things a step further. Rather than simply grabbing the best ideas from a community and then using them to innovate in their own products and services, the company creates a community that actively participates in the work of innovating.

One classic example highlighted in Eric von Hippel and Stefan Thomke’s HBR article Customers as Innovators: A New Way to Create Value is from what was formerly called GE Plastics. According to the article, GE Plastics allowed it’s customers access to its in-house knowledgebase, then allowed them to conduct their own trial and error experiments on the different types of plastics. This helped both the customers– who saved time and money– and the folks at GE Plastics, who saved themselves the expense of doing research on how the products could be used. Everybody worked together, and everyone won.

Some enterprising firms have taken this a step further, creating “communities for hire” that companies can put to work doing their innovation for them. Iain has done some research into this, and he has identified a few companies, most notably Idea Crossing and Innocentive, that will help organize a community of folks willing to innovate with you.

Idea Crossing helps companies harness the knowledge of academic communities to help them innovate. Innocentive does something similar, but takes it a step further by offering cash rewards from the companies seeking the help. The work attracts a broad range of participants from academics, retired subject matter experts, freelance consultants, scientists, and engineers. How successful has this approach been? Innocentive claims a community of over 180,000 participants working on 1,000 challenges with a total cash reward pool of $22M. Not bad.

Need level 4: Innovate within a community

In my mind, each of these approaches is still missing something that makes the open source community model so powerful: humility.

When it is truly doing things the open source way, a company doesn’t have to be at the center of the community, but instead can be a humble member of a community creating something greater than any one member.

As I’ve said before, I get excited when I see big companies focused not only on what they take from the table, but what they bring to the table. I love to see companies that aren’t afraid to be humble members of communities, rather than building the community around themselves.

The whole perspective changes when a company begins innovating within communities rather than trying to create communities around itself. The focus shifts from being about what the company wants to achieve to what everyone in the community wants to achieve together. There is a greater shared purpose that seems pretty self-actualized to me. I think Maslow would probably give us open source folks a high-five if he saw what was going on.

Plenty of people have written about the power of open source as a development model, and what it can create. But I think the open source way is also a powerful brand and cultural model that can create deep, meaningful connections between the company and the communities in which it participates.

Does this guarantee that a company participating in open source communities will make money? Absolutely not. Gotta take care of the basic physiological needs first before you self-actualize. But it is good to know that by participating in communities the open source way, a company might be on its way to achieving a greater purpose than just making money alone.

Professor McAfee’s new Blog: The Digitization of Business (rss)

Professor McAfee’s new Blog: The Digitization of Business (rss)

The rules have forever changed.

The release:

Social media require ‘Community Relations 2.0′

Boston College researchers find real-time advocacy challenges long-standing corporate practices

Chestnut Hill, Mass. (October 30, 2009) — The rise of social media and real-time advocacy have re-written the community outreach rules companies followed for decades. But many American firms are dragging their feet as they approach “Community Relations 2.0,” Boston College researchers report in the November issue of Harvard Business Review.

Gone are the days when controversial projects were rolled out strictly along the corporate timeline. A worker’s blog rant unveiled major problems with a multi-billion dollar Kaiser Permanente IT initiative, putting the company in the spotlight and on the defensive.

Today, a disgruntled customer can take the world stage, as did a frustrated cable subscriber who videotaped a Comcast repairman snoozing on the couch and broadcast the now infamous nap across the world via the Internet.

Social media such as Facebook, MySpace, Twitter and YouTube, as well as tens of thousands of blogs and wikis have exponentially increased the speed of formation of these communities and magnified their impact and reach, report Carroll School of Management professors Gerald C. Kane, Robert G. Fichman and John Gallaugher and co-author John Glaser, the CIO of Partners HealthCare.

“These new social media tools let people organize extremely quickly around any issue or event that inspires them,” said co-author Kane, an assistant professor of information systems at BC. “Within hours, these virtual communities can grow to hundreds of thousands, potentially reaching millions more in short order. Companies and organizations caught unprepared can find themselves in a media firestorm, just ask companies like Domino’s Pizza, Amazon.com, Comcast, and many others have.”

These online communities form quickly, according to the researchers, and can disperse just as fast. They’re leadership can change often. Yet mobile platforms – from cell phones to PDAs to laptops – keep members on the alert, ready to push the agenda or spring into action. These communities vary widely in purpose, membership and tone – from friendly and collaborative to openly hostile. The same tools have also played central roles in recent international events, such as the 2008 Mumbai Terror Attacks and the 2009 Iranian election protests.

But for companies in this brave new Community Relations 2.0 world, executives must know that these real-time communities differ from their online predecessors – such as listservs and message boards – in critical ways, namely:

• Deep relationships form quickly online and information can be dispersed without delay.
• Rapid organization allows these communities to mobilize hundreds of thousands of people in a few hours.
• Knowledge creation and synthesis take place in a far more deliberate fashion.
• Information filtering tools like search, ratings and keywords allow people to identify information that is important to them and then act accordingly.

   

Companies need to understand these new social media – their benefits as well as their risks – and devote strategic resources to engage these communities in genuine discussions. For example, many physicians from Partners HealthCare are active on Sermo, an independently operated network for physicians, and more than 3,500 employees have joined an informal and unofficial Partners community on Facebook. Many patients belong to the social network PatientsLikeMe. For Partners, these online communities represent strategic opportunities to interact with stakeholders on issues of common interest.

“Whether or not managers, leaders, or politicians even know the difference between Wikipedia, Facebook, or Twitter, they need to begin learning how to monitor and respond quickly to trends in these social media communities,” Kane said. “Doing so, they may not only prevent the spread of damaging information, but they may also find valuable partners in their organization’s mission. Companies like Dell, Starbucks and Kaiser-Permanente have moved beyond purely reactive strategies to proactively reach out to customers as an important resource for customer service, marketing, and new product development.”

Noted business author Tom Davenport has an article, “Make Better Decisions,” in the November issue of Harvard Business Review .  He describes the prevalence, in the business world, of what he calls “decision-making disorder,” but this also has real applicability to government.

Prof. Tom Davenport

He says decisions have “generally been viewed as the prerogative of individuals – usually senior executives. The process employed, the information used, the logic relied on, have been left up to them, in something of a black box.” He notes that, unlike other business processes, “decision making has rarely been the focus of systematic analysis inside the firm.” But, he notes, there are many opportunities to improve decision making, just as there are opportunities to improve other business processes.

He lists a series of useful books that are being widely read on ways to improve decisions, but concludes “few companies have actually adopted their recommendations.” Still, he confidently lays out four “I”steps that he believes can improve decision making:

• Identification of key decisions to be made. Without some prioritization, all decisions will be treated as equal. This probably means important decisions won’t be analyzed sufficiently before they are made.

• Inventory of factors that need to go into making key decisions. What the are roles, processes, systems, and behaviors your organization should be using to make effective decisions? It is important to establish a common language in your organization around how decisions are made.

• Intervention by top leaders. Leaders need to look not only at the decisions being made but also at how they would be implemented.

• Institutionalization of a decision making process. Organizations serious about making effective decisions invest in defining a process, developing the tools, and training their executives on how to use it effectively.

Davenport concludes: “Analytics and decision automation are among the most powerful tools for improving decision making,” yet he cautions that “multiple perspectives yield better results” and that managers should not “build into their businesses analytical models they don’t understand.”

I highly recommend 10 Must-Read Articles from HBR. The articles were written by Clayton M. Christensen, Michael Overdorf, Thomas H. Davenport, Peter F. Drucker, Daniel Goleman, Robert S. Kaplan, David P. Norton, Rosabeth Moss Kanter, John P. Kotter, Theodore Levitt, Michael E. Porter, C. K. Prahalad, and Gary Hamel, $29.95 and published by Harvard Business Press (2009).

The cost of this volume is about half of what the cost would be if all ten articles were purchased separately. There is also the matter of convenience: Having all of them assembled in a single volume. Each of these really is a “classic.”

The various HBR Article Collections save you time by synthesizing and distilling the essence of selected Harvard Business Review articles that, together, help you meet a specific management challenge. One-page overviews draw out the main points. Annotated bibliographies point you to related resources. Includes original HBR articles.

If you read nothing else, read these 10 articles from HBR’s most influential authors: 1) “Meeting the Challenge of Disruptive Change,” by Clayton M. Christensen and Michael Overdorf, explains why so few established companies innovate successfully. 2) “Competing on Analytics,” by Thomas H. Davenport, explains how to use data-collection technology and analysis to discern what your customers want, how much they’re willing to pay, and what keeps them loyal. 3) “Managing Oneself,” by Peter F. Drucker, encourages us to carve our own paths by asking questions such as, “What are my strengths?” and “Where do I belong?” 4) “What Makes a Leader?” Not IQ or technical skills, says Daniel Goleman, but emotional intelligence. 5) “Putting the Balanced Scorecard to Work,” by Robert S. Kaplan and David P. Norton, includes practical steps and examples from companies that use the balanced scorecard to measure performance and set strategy. 6) “Innovation: The Classic Traps,” by Rosabeth Moss Kanter, advocates applying lessons from past failures to your innovation efforts. She explores four problems and offers remedies for each. 7) “Leading Change: Why Transformation Efforts Fail,” by John P. Kotter, argues that transformation is a process, not an event. It takes years, not weeks, and you can’t skip any steps. “Marketing Myopia,” by Theodore Levitt, introduces the quintessential strategy question, “What business are you really in?” 9) “What Is Strategy?” by Michael E. Porter, argues that rivals can easily copy your operational effectiveness, but they can’t copy your strategic positioning–what distinguishes you from all the rest. 10) “The Core Competence of the Corporation,” by C.K. Prahalad and Gary Hamel, argues that a diversified company is like a tree: the trunk and major limbs its core products, branches its business units, leaves and fruit its end products. Nourishing and stabilizing everything is the root system: its core competencies.

El fantasma del ambush marketing se cierne sobre la Olimpiada de Londes

En un “conversation starter” (1) de la Harvard Business Review encuentro un tema relacionado con los Juegos Olímpicos y el “ambush marketing”. El marketing de emboscada consiste en una campaña de marketing que se sitúa gratis (es decir sin pago de derechos de auspicio) alrededor de un evento por cuya organización y desarrollo otros han pagado. Es normal que en eventos de mucha importancia el patrocinador exclusivo sea una sola marca lo cual provoca a las demás a buscar una manera de estar en el evento, sin pagar derechos de auspicio pero, al mismo tiempo, sin quebrantar la ley. Dicen que es una táctica tan vieja como el paso de una avioneta con una banderola colgando, sobre una playa atestada. Porque aunque no hay realmente un auspiciador específico en la playa —como no sea el municipio— la avioneta se está aprovechando de un público cuya presencia no financió en forma alguna

En el texto (Why Olympic Sponsorships Aren’t Effective), la autora, Kim Skildum-Reid, gran especialista en el tema, se pregunta si hay manera de proteger de los intrusos a los sponsors de los Juegos Olímpicos, que han hecho importantes inversiones. McDonald’s, por ejemplo, que lleva 33 años de sponsor olímpico es uno de los nueve patrocinadores del programa TOP (The Olympic Partners) en el que nueve sponsors globales pagan entre $900 y $920 millones de dólares para cubrir el periodo 2012-2014 entre los Juegos Olímpicos de Invierno de Vancouver y los Juegos Olímpicos de Londres. Y aún está por renovar su auspicio TOP de los Juegos de Invierno de Sochi en el 2014 y de los Olímpicos de Río en el 2016.

Kim Skildum-Reid ha escrito dos libros sobre el tema del ambush marketing

En el artículo del Harvard Business Review, la autora plantea defender los derechos de los sponsors de unos prácticamente inevitables practicantes del marketing de emboscada lo cual implicaría que se asumieran ciertas cuestiones clave.

• El ambushing es ante todo un desafío de marketing y no un problema legal. Por lo tanto los sponsors necesitan enfocar el tema de desarrollar la experiencia olímpica de manera más creativa y práctica.
• Auspiciar grandes premios (como los de la cadena de Hoteles Hilton, por ejemplo) quizás basados en lo singular de una medalla olímpica, no es la mejor manera de convencer al público, pues solo son significativos para un pequeño grupo: los ganadores. sería mejor crear premios mas que beneficiaran a millones de personas.
• Los mensajes auto-alabando su noble respaldo a los Juegos no venden nada, aunque sea una tentación hacer ostentación de las fuertes sumas que se aportan: no hay un mensaje de marketing en ello.
• La obediencia y el acatamiento a las autoridades olímpicas no puede tener una sola vía. Aunque hay un “ejecutivo de cuenta” que se ocupa de que cada sponsor lleve a cabo sus actividades en consonancia con los contratos firmados, habría que formar equipos de estrategas de alto nivel que trabajen desde muy pronto en las alternativas de utilización de los medios disponibles para levantar los niveles de creatividad en las propias autoridades olímpicas.
• Cada auspicio puede ser diferente. Un antiguo participante del patrocinio de los juegos dice que la experiencia resulta “como hacer gimnasia con una camisa de fuerza puesta”. Tratar de sacarle rendimiento a la inversión y hacer algo memorable pero encontrar resistencia en todas partes y terminar haciendo el mismo tipo de promociones que los demás sponsors.

Streacking como una manera de ambush marketing

Cree el autor que los sponsors deben meterse en las multitudes, cultivar contenidos generados por los propios fans y participar fuera de los confines de los Juegos, donde mucho de la acción se lleva a cabo. Y que los organizadores tienen que estar dispuestos a proporcionar a los sponsors los beneficios correspondientes. Yo me pregunto si ya es difícil manejar la participación dentro del marco de los juegos estricto, metódico y muy controlado, si no será más complicado hacerlo en el amplio espacio donde la supervisión y sobre todo la participación de los que practican el marketing de emboscada, es aún menos posible de controlar.

A fin de ilustrar la práctica del ambush marketing, me permito copiar aquí parte de lo que fueron dos correos a los “mercaderes”  originales, cuando este blog era un e-mail que circulaba entre un grupo pequeño y cerrado.

KFC y el Super Bowl XLII (Feb 2008, Phoenix, Arizona)

Kentucky Fried Chicken aprovecha su participación en el Super Bowl para exprimir la rentabilidad de una promoción para sus nuevas Hot Wings, usando las facilidades que le da la web para que la gente interactúe, haga vídeos y los cuelgue en la red. La promoción invita a bailar la danza del pollo, que ha sido relacionada con el nuevo producto.

Se supone que se  busca la mejor interpretación de la danza del pollo “the chicken dance“  a través de videos que el público cuelga en Youtube (donde ya el propio colonel Sanders, símbolo de KFC tiene su personal interpretación de la danza) y ofrece al ganador, una súper fiesta, para ver en casa y con los amigos el Super Bowl, valorada en $4,250. La fiesta incluye un menú variado de KFC (y en especial de las nuevas “Hot Wings”), una pantalla plana, una limusina para acompañar a los invitados, porristas para animar el evento y hasta servicio de limpieza posterior.

Pero la madre del cordero está en que KFC promete aportar $260,000, al fondo Colonel’s Scholars, que proporciona becas de estudios en nombre del jugador del Super Bowl que interprete el “chicken dance” en la zona final de la cancha (aquella en la que se anotan puntos con solo cruzarla y donde generalmente se celebran estos). Y ha retado a los jugadores a hacerlo. Una oferta difícil de rechazar en vista de que el premio es para una buena causa.

Como el tema ha corrido como pólvora por las redacciones y por la red, el público estará bien enterado y sin duda, puesto que en el Super Bowl la publicidad es quizás más importante que el juego en sí, interesado en ver la parte comercial con interés. Así que es probable que cada vez que un jugador de cualquiera de los equipos anote un punto, los ojos se centrarán en él para ver si empieza a batir “las alas” y caminar como un pollo. Y de una manera u otra, todo el mundo estará pensando en las nuevas  hot wings de KFC. Y si uno finalmente anota y baila, es probable que genere muchos  comentarios al respecto.

La idea me parece genial: tener un buen número de menciones “subliminales” por $260 mil, frente a los $2.7 millones de los 30″ y el interés pendiente casi permanentemente es un buen negocio se mire por donde se mire. Lo ético del tema es harina de otro costal.

No le ha gustado, sin embargo, nada a la NFL (la Liga Nacional de Fútbol Americano) que lo ha llamado “ Ambush marketing”(1), que es como se denomina a cualquier campaña que se desarrolle alrededor de un evento pero sin ningún pago por el patrocinio del mismo. A mi me parece estupenda y además altamente eficaz desde el punto de vista de la inversión,  difícilmente se pueda considerar ilegal. (El partido fue muy defensivo y se anotaron muy pocos puntos y finalmente ningún jugador se animó a hace el baile del pollo después de la anotación).

Li Ning "volando" hacia el techo del estadio antes de encender la llama olímpica

Li Ning y la XXIX de China 2008

He visto el nombre de Li Ning por aquí y por allá en días recientes sin registrar que se trataba del más importante atleta de la historia china: seis medallas olímpicas y el honor de haber llevado a cabo la carrera aérea que culminó con el encendido de la llama olímpica que la noche de la inauguración de la XXIX Olimpiada. Li Ning vestía esa noche la ropa atlética de Adidas, auspiciador del evento, aunque tiene su propia y próspera empresa competencia de Adidas y Nike sobre todo en China.

Es además, según Ad Age, el rey del ambush marketing. No dice el artículo por qué, pero es fácil de adivinar que ha sido por cosas como tratar de que el personal de la cadena china de tv CCTV5, usase un uniforme con el logo de su marca muy visible. Además, es evidente que el logo de Li Ning está más que inspirado en el swash de Nike (ver foto en el artículo de AP) y que su slogan “Anything is possible” es tan parecido al “Impossible nothing” de Adidas que simplemente es… exactamente lo mismo.

Pero lo que ha hecho noticia en estos días, y hoy lo trae Ad. Age, es una foto del equipo de basketball de España, usando un uniforme con la marca de Li Ning posando para un aviso de Seur (un courrier local) “haciéndose los chinos”, es decir, jalándose los ojos con los índices.

La foto la publicó The Guardian asumiendo que podría ser tomada por el país anfitrión como un gesto de desprecio hacia China y recordando que no es este el primer caso de racismo en el deporte español. Se refieren a los comentarios de Luis Aragonés a José Antonio Reyes, sobre Thierry Henry, en un entrenamiento de la selección española de fútbol o los insultos al piloto de Fórmula 1 Lewis Hamilton en el circuito de Montmeló durante unos entrenamientos previos al comienzo del Mundial de 2008. Además de algunos gritos imitando a los monos cuando juega un negro en el equipo contrario en algunos estadios.

La noticia fue repercutida rápidamente por The New York Times, incluso agregando que tal foto podía ser negativa para el objetivo de Madrid de acoger los Juegos Olímpicos de 2016 (otra de las candidatas es Chicago). Y algunos medios españoles afirman que la “preocupación” del NYT tiene que ver más bien con ensombrecer la imagen de Madrid como posible sede del 2016 a fin de favorecer a Chicago. (A la postre no fue elegida ninguna de las dos)

Li Ning ha sonreído y le ha quitado toda importancia a la foto asegurando que ni hubo intención ni se entiende como agravio el gesto de los jugadores. Otros personajes han opinado al respecto y la embajada de China en Madrid ha emitido una declaración formal declarado que el aviso publicitario “no es ni racista, ni ofensivo”.-

Mucho ruido, buzzing puro y muy barato. Con gran concentración en España —exculpada por el dueño de la marca y las autoridades chinas— de cualquier mala intención y ya auspiciada por Li Ning. Estupendo para que gente como yo, que no había oído ni del atleta, ni de su compañía, se entere de su existencia. Y mejor aún si como se dice en alguno de los comentarios los planes de la marca son lanzarse pronto en Europa empezando por… ¡adivinen! Sí. Justamente España, de cuya selección de basket tiene el auspicio de las camisetas.

Zapatilla de Li Ning, el swash es casi idéntico al de Nike

———————————

(1). Behind the breaking business news is often a management idea gone right or wrong. That’s where the Conversation Starter comes in. With this blog, we hope to shed new light on major events and trends in the business world by helping unearth the bigger ideas at work and discussing how those ideas are shaping our lives every day. We hope you’ll join the conversation.

Si desea suscribirse gratuitamente a Mercaderes Asociados pulse el botón