Steve Shu on Management, Consulting, and Leadership

Three Prototypical Styles of Consulting

Recently I found myself describing (in somewhat abstract terms) how a particular consulting engagement should come together. The upshot of my argument was that given a particular statement of work, there are a number of "ways to skin a cat" and get an engagement team to gel. In this particular case, my feeling was that an engagement approach would be equally valid if the team shifted the basis of consulting towards one of the three prototypes I describe below (even if it meant shifting away from another). The three prototypical styles of consulting are the following:

1. Research-centric consulting- Key, detailed frameworks from brand management, business strategy, pricing, statistics, finance, etc. often form the backbone of the approach, and the consulting team can piece together a storyboard that tees up hypotheses, finds supporting or disconfirming evidence, and builds a case towards strategic options and recommendations. In this type of consulting, domain and industry expertise are somewhat less critical because a structured problem solving methodology underpins the approach. In terms of situational use as a pure style of consulting, this type of consulting may be prevalent in cases where a client lacks a rigorous approach or in cases where new businesses are being explored but where there are few role models.  
2. Expertise-centric consulting - In this type of consulting, a consultant brings to the table either or both domain and industry knowledge. For example, has the consultant helped to launch a mobile virtual operator before? Or does the consultant specialize in an expertise niche such as optimizing cross-media spending for mega brands using econometric approaches? Or has a consultant worked in brand litigation and expert witness cases related to marketing? Can the consultant bring forth an engagement structure that has been tested before in another situation?
3. Facilitative consulting - In this style, the consultant brings value to the table by bringing personal experiences and skills to the table. The consultant may also bring third-party perspectives which also add value. But the real value is in weaving together the consulting team and client team to solve the customer problem statement. For example, the consultant may conduct client interviews with separate functional groups within the client organization and with client customers. The consultant then organizes and normalizes information from the various interviews and develops strategic options and skeleton structures that can be used in iterative client meetings to refine & finalize strategy (e.g., by tapping into client expertise and having the consultant help with any subsequent research, analysis, and support). In my mind, the facilitative approach is akin to combining the skills of a general manager with a project manager. For more on the facilitative approach, please see a prior post of mine here.

The prototypical styles of consulting that I describe above are not mutually exclusive. Often engagements will have multiple aspects, although I've seen valuable engagements that are more pure within one prototype. I think that many consultants, general managers, and project manager types could benefit by understanding the consulting prototypes better. In some sense, they are like the primary colors for setting the tone and custom mixing a consulting engagement.

*********************************************************************************************************************

Please enter your email address to subscribe to updates on Steve Shu's blog. Thanks for subscribing!


Powered by FeedBlitz

Musings On Winning and Losing Moves Within Startup Situations Within Larger Companies

Though anecdotal, I've seen a slight rise in activity with companies looking to incubate new businesses or start-up climates within a larger company. These are challenging situations to get off the ground. Based on a mixture of consulting to a number companies in these situations and being involved with at least one of these situations as a manager within the company, here are some thoughts on winning and losing moves:

1. Structure: Having a start-up sponsor in name or position only (losing move) - Successful, external startups have managers that will fight to win, pave new ground, work out kinks, get the best resources, etc. If the sponsor is a senior executive that provides only oversight, does not push or provide guidance, and does not empower delegates, this could be a warning sign for an effort that will not bear fruit. If you have a start-up sponsor that provides political and boundary management only, then it might be a good idea (winning move) to get a powerful delegate that answers to the sponsor and can help to "fly cover" in the organization. Situations where cover may be needed include designing new marketing material, getting special access to the sales team, breaking new ground in the legal contracts area, and getting financial budgets approved outside of normal (overly conservative) control mechanisms.
2. Strategy & Goals: Failing to clearly articulate the ultimately goal and problem statement of the startup early on (losing move) - I guess an addendum to this might be making the strategy too complicated. For example, when faced with the startup options of creating new revenue, helping cross-sell other services within the larger company, reducing customer churn, or all of the above, I would tend to advise leaning away from trying to knock down too many of these at once. All options can be on the radar and should be part of early brainstorming & strategy sessions, but viewing the startup as a standalone business may be the best option of getting traction first.
3. Core Team Makeup: Failing to bring in new blood when new blood is needed (losing move) - At risk of disrespecting both large company employees and entrepreneur-types, these groups often don't understand one another. For example, entrepreneurs-types can lack respect for large company bureaucracy, but this is dangerous because buy-in and tapping into the resources (people, structure, assets) of a large company can be tremendous. On the other hand, large company employees can become accustomed to the culture, pace, and processes of existing businesses - these may be incompatible with aspects of a new venture. Bringing in new blood for a start-up within a larger company is often a winning move, and the resources need to be different & complementary.
4. Extended Team Resources and Horse Trading: Failing to capitalize on resources of the larger entity (losing move) - If entrepreneurial types are brought into the new business, there needs to be complementary intrapreneurs (winning move) that understand the structure of the large company and can help get things like data from business units within other areas of the company, identify potential A-team resources already within the company that can help (e.g., marketing, business development, project management, finance), or tap into key channels and partners external to the company (e.g., lighthouse accounts).

There are many more winning and losing moves to create startups within larger firms. What are your experiences? Where do you see pain points?

*********************************************************************************************************************

Please enter your email address to subscribe to updates on Steve Shu's blog. Thanks for subscribing!


Powered by FeedBlitz

Helpful Versus Hindering Lawyers - True Business Lawyers

Yesterday while getting some minutes on the elliptical machine, I was re-reading George Lois' advertising book, "What's The Big Idea". Two of the stories really cracked me up, and they led to write this perspective post on lawyers, more from a startup, venture, or new business initiative point of view.

The first story related to the incredible ad success surrounding Naugahyde (a synthetic, leather-like fabric or material), which had a fabricated, Nauga monster persona as part of the campaign. Click here for some pictures of the Nauga. George Lois, in true storytelling form, relates the whole positioning and art behind the Nauga solution. To make a long story short, he relates something to the effect that late in the game when the whole campaign is ready to roll, one of the lawyers raises a point to the effect of (off the top of my mind), "We're concerned that people may think the Nauga is a real animal ... as a consequence, people may be misled into thinking we are selling real leather."

To put things fairly, some forms of advertising (e.g., TV) must definitely be run by lawyer. But who in their sane mind would think that the Nauga was a real animal? Baffled, George relates conducting some primary interviews with regular people, and that the research turns up no one who is confused that the Nauga is a real animal. They think he is crazy for even surveying them. The Nauga goes through, and everyone is lucky that George was there.

The second story has a similar flow. It is related to the logo by Jiffy Lube (see here) and how at the last minute one of the lawyers raises the point that the logo might look like a phallic symbol (and be a showstopper). George disarmed with the laywer with a statement to the effect of, "I don’t know what your peepee is shaped like, but my peepee sure don’t look like that!”. The rest is history, and the logo went through.

I've worked with a number of lawyers, and I definitely prefer the types that help the business development, entrepreneur, & creator-types come up with solutions as opposed to finding every roadblock that will stop a deal. Just finding knowledgeable lawyers that can find holes and weaknesses isn't good enough. The great lawyers, in my mind, are pragmatic problem solvers and solution creators, in addition to being definitive experts in the law. The great ones can engage in a working dialogue and help to calibrate the business risk of pursuing different options.

*********************************************************************************************************************

Please enter your email address to subscribe to updates on Steve Shu's blog. Thanks for subscribing!


Powered by FeedBlitz

Consulting and Management Method: Finding And Relieving The Bottleneck

When thrust into a situation where either resources are constrained, there are competing management choices, and paths forward are unclear, I often find a consulting method of "finding and relieving the bottleneck" useful.

For example, suppose a startup is trying to figure out how to ramp up sales from its first (non-repeatable) deals. Or suppose a company cannot determine whether sales or operations processes are the primary lever for stabilizing revenues. Yet another case might be that there is an incubator unit within a larger company that is underperforming - how might you approach the problem of fixing the situation?

At its core, "finding and relieving the bottleneck" is an analytical method used in production and operations. There are a couple of predominant ways that I look at operations by default, the former being a more quantitative method involving system & process flows and things like Little's Law, and the latter (which I strongly recommend) method using visual inspection and interviews with client management. Here I'll address the latter.

So back to the case of ramping up sales for a startup, where its first deals are largely non-repeatable because they were unique and early in the learning curve. Suppose you have 1-hour with client management. How might you help to tease out how where to start looking for improvements?

In a nutshell, the bottleneck method approach might simply be organized around finding where one gets the biggest bang for the buck in terms of making a change. I might ask the client if they had another resource or an additional day in the workweek, which of the following would ultimately result in more sales:

• Refining Strategy - this might involve breaking the customer base into segments based on type and prospect awareness profile. Where's the lowest hanging fruit? What kind of marketing and sales material is each segment getting? If you had a choice to improve the marketing collateral or sales processes for the higher priority segment, which would you choose? Are there backlogs in the system (e.g., uncalled sales lead prospects), which would indicate bottlenecks? If you made the change, would it really address the end goal, e.g., getting more sales?
• Changing Management Approach - in many situations, entrepreneurs may make the first sales, but they often have problems transferring knowledge on how those sales are made. Alternatively, they may have problems letting go of other areas that could be delegated or outsourced (e.g., finance and accounting, inside sales, meeting scheduling, and/or field sales). Would it be helpful to have someone shadow key executives to distill the sales processes and real value propositions that various customers are buying? If we could clone key people to offload some of the burden, would there be enough prospects and deal flow to make things worthwhile?
• Adjusting Technology or Product - if the product were made less complex or if we simplified choices, would we get better yield and flow from the awareness to interest phase of the customer purchase process? Is there a way that we could get people to sample or experience the product before purchase to skip people past bottlenecks of overanalyzing things too much up-front?
• Obtaining Financing for Expansion- if you focus time on more sales versus financing for expansion (presuming company has sufficient sales), what would you do and why? What if choosing one path doomed the other? Would the chosen path still be worthwhile? What kind of results could we expect by financing a new online versus a physical market for services delivery?

Optimal diagnosis clearly involves a mixture of tools and approaches, but the bottleneck method is an important method to learn in consulting because it can be increasingly used in facilitative situations where a client has substantial implicit knowledge (and such knowledge must be better formulated explicitly and transferred for company operations to scale).

I've also used this method in management situations (as opposed to in consulting situations only). The method can be particularly good when troubleshooting a problem that cuts across functional areas.

What are your thoughts? Have you ever used this type of approach? If so, how effective was it for you?

Related Posts: A Perspective On Client Facilitation Skills and Crash Course Consulting Reading List

Update (9/19/09): Readers may also be interested in post by Seth Godin on the priority list.

*********************************************************************************************************************

Please enter your email address to subscribe to updates on Steve Shu's blog.


Powered by FeedBlitz

Operations Case Study: I Should Have Fixed The Car Myself Instead Of Going To Gaudin Ford In Las Vegas

Remembering a number of bad experiences with getting maintenance services at a car dealer, I tried to make the case to my in-laws that it would only take five minutes and ~$25/strut for two struts to fix the hatchback on my 2007 Ford Freestyle. There was likely a gas leak in one of the struts that was preventing the hatchback to stay up when I opened it. Simple fix, even for someone who knows practically nothing about cars. My in-laws said that the broken part should be covered by warranty and that I should just take it into one of the local, Las Vegas dealers. I resisted a bit, really for no good reason.

The real underlying reason why I didn't want to take my car to the Ford dealer ... I didn't want to be embarassed in front of my in-laws with poor customer service.

Unfortunately, Ford Motor Company did not disappoint me.

Actually, I should have heeded an initial warning from the one-star rating review out of five stars for Gaudin Ford. Nevertheless, Gaudin Ford is one of the largest dealers in Las Vegas.

Here's the play-by-play and the key events. See if you can find the operational process problems (if not, I suggest consulting Reengineering the Corporation from my crash course consulting reading list):

1. I call service department to see if they can take me at 9:30am
2. Phone operator for service department says "yes"
3. My father in-law and I drive the car 45 minutes or so to the dealer.
4. I get car there a little early, and the service manager does a casual inspection of the hatch issue as well as a walkaround of the car (e.g., to check depth of tire treads)
5. I get a printout saying that service is covered by the normal warranty and that I'll get the car back by the end of the day
6. Should be a quick job (my father in-law remarks). When will the car be done? Answer: something to the effect of probably late afternoon.
7. I ask whether they have the part to fix the hatchback. Service manager says that they should have it. If not, the parts warehouse should have it.
8. Well we don't want to hang around for 5-6 hours, so we ask if there is way to get transportation back home.
9. Gaudin Ford provides us transport back home, although we have to wait 30-40 mins longer than the original projection. Net-net ok so far.
10. No call back of status by mid-afternoon, so I call into service center to see where are things at.
11. Service manager says that there were a number of cars still in queue from previous day so my car hasn't been processed yet. Could I leave the car until tomorrow?
12. Thinking about transportation logistics, I say "ok", but I think to myself that they shoudn't have taken my job in the first place if there wasn't time to complete the job on time.
13. Next day comes - no calls by early-afternoon.
14. I call service center to see where things are at.
15. Service manager says that my car is just getting looked at.
16. I ask when will car be ready. Service manager says by 4:00pm.
17. I ask whether it can be done any earlier because I am in the area now (by chance) and it would be inconvient for me to have to come back much later. Service manager indicates that 4:00pm is the earliest.
18. My father in-law and I make the decision to drop me off at the dealer while we are in the area.
19. I arrive at the dealership and let the service manager know I'm there.
20. Thirty minutes or so pass, and the service manager tells me that they don't have the part and could I come back another time so they can order the part?
21. A bit frustrated, I'll tell him that I cannot since I have to leave town. I'll just take the keys and the car.
22. He says that he has to close out the job and that I'll be checked out at the cashier desk.
23. Forty-five or so minutes go by, and I wonder what's going on.
24. I visit service manager again, and he says that he'll check as to what's going on.
25. Thirty minutes or so pass, and I go to cashier desk. Cashier desk says that the checkout notice hasn't come yet.
26. I visit service manager again. He is surprised to see me. He says that he'll check what is going on.
27. I visit cashier desk again. Still no checkout notice.
28. I don't know what's going on. I'm baffled, and I'm trying to decide if I should go look for the car myself on the dealer premises. Could I be charged if I tried to steal my own car back?
29. I decide to stand there cluelessly for ten to fifteen minutes more, when the printout finally gets spit out of the printer.
30. I checkout with the cashier (no $ charges, just signature), present the papers to someone to get my car, and head off.
31. Dejected, I mentally prepare for when I will have time when I return to LA to have my car looked at.

So Ford disappointed me. Wasted my time. On top of it, the episode of poor customer service was in front of my in-laws (who have typically not bought American car brands, whereas I have practially always bought Fords).

The thought crossed my mind as to whether I should make a viral video about poor customer service, like was done with the video United Breaks Guitars.

That's shooting too big. Plus it's past my abilities as a musician.

My in-laws told me to Twitter the whole episode. They said that companies hate when you do "that sort of thing".

I'm not malicious, but I think a mini-case study is OK for a blog post.

In any case, I pose the question, "where did things go wrong?"

Interview On The Ethics Of Consulting

I was recently asked to do an interview at the consultant website, "Think Like A Consultant" on ethics & consulting. The full interview is posted here.

One question particularly of note was "What are the best ways to handle a client who appears to have unethical practices?" For that question, I responded as follows:

Fortunately, I have not been posed with many situations that are obviously troublesome. One area that comes to mind, however, is when a client asks a consultant to perform competitive intelligence, especially when soliciting for primary market information. Let’s say that a client has asked you to masquerade as customer and try to obtain information on a competitor (e.g., on pricing). Some company codes of ethics would strictly disallow this, as would many people’s personal ethical value system.

What I would try to do in these circumstances is to rework the problem statement and methods with the client. For example, perhaps the problem statement may be more about getting higher confidence in prospective pricing levels that the client is looking to put in the market as opposed to getting the exact pricing levels from the competitor. With the problem statement refined, you may find opportunities to solve the client’s problem in a more palatable way, such as through running focus groups with customers or industry distributors, conducting benchmarking studies, and other approaches.

Articulating and rearticulating problem statements are something fundamental to consulting and something which I've addressed before. For example, see here.

In any case, I'd be interested in feedback on the interview from folks. It is my third or fourth serious post in the blogpshere related to ethics, and I don't expect it to be my last.

*********************************************************************************************************************

Please enter your email address to subscribe to updates on Steve Shu's blog.


Powered by FeedBlitz

What The Entrepreneur And The MBA Taught One Another

Two topics that I frequently see discussed in online forums, blogs, and articles are entrepreneurship and MBA degrees. In such venues, perspectives and responses are often very polarized, and it would not be unusual to see different camps characterizing the relationship of entrepreneurship to MBA training as either highly relevant or highly irrelevant to one another.

Rather than taking an argumentative approach to distill relevancy, one of my former colleagues (Paul Brown, an entrepreneur & founder, PhD degree) and I share a few things below that we specifically learned from one another (with Steve playing the role of non-entrepreneur, MBA degree). The context is during an enterprise software startup that went from Seed financing to Series A corporate venture capital to Deloitte Rising Star to sale/merger over a period of five or so years.

Some key things Paul got or learned from Steve (my notes taken from discussion and correspondence with Paul):

• Level of professionalism added - Having an MBA-trained person on the team changed professionalism not so much in demeanor but in the total approach to business. The MBA perspectives complemented a very technical, software R&D organization that sold highly technical products.
• Concrete methods and processes added - As opposed to piling receipts in the corner of the room and calling the pile "our accounting books", having an MBA on the team introduced discipline and methods in finance, sales, competitive intelligence & benchmarking, Board meetings, etc.
• Business literacy added - Perhaps an understated item but by adding an MBA competency to the team it helped to make a difference in key company situations as to whether we were taken seriously or not by others (e.g., partners, investors, customers).

Key lessons that Steve learned from Paul:

• Business experimentation is part of the entrepreneurial spirit and approach - Although I may have paid lip service to this in the past, I recalibrated myself away somewhat from business role models where managers are expected to "know the right answer" a priori. When you are paving new ground as in an entrepreneurial venture, there is tremendous value in conducting safe tests (such as floating an idea with another entrepreneur or an industry veteran, presenting a new pricing plan to a niche distributor).
• There is value in tapering the need to make hasty decisions - Something that has always stuck with me for many years was something that I remember reading about the Harvard Business School training method. Students were pressed to make decisions and calls based on information (however limited) in a case study. In reality, this type of mentality is reinforced in many business school and business settings. The mentality is that one will always have incomplete information whether in a managerial, case study, etc. setting, and one needs to make decisions as a manager. Boom, boom, boom, done. Although I have not fully formulated my thoughts in this area, what I believe I learned from Paul was that the entrepreneur may benefit not from procrastination but by delaying critical decisions as long as there is time to either gather additional information, see activities play out, or let management team emotions clear. (I know - my idea is a bit convoluted in its current form, but I am onto something and will revisit).
• If you want to appreciate entrepreneurship truly, you must witness someone with total willpower, drive, and endurance - I don't think I need to say more here, other than Paul has these characteristics.

Paul, thanks for the lessons!

*********************************************************************************************************************

Please enter your email address to subscribe to updates on Steve Shu's blog.


Powered by FeedBlitz

My Experience With Teaching Ethics Session As Part Of Core Marketing Course

This past week I had a chance to teach an ethics session as part of a larger, core marketing course that I am teaching at Irvine University. I write this post to share my experiences on what worked and what didn't.

Now as context, about four years ago in 2005 I wrote a post on covering ethics as part of business school curricula, and to make a long story short, back then I didn't have a very comfortable opinion on how effective that type of training would be and whether students would want to pay for such training. I have since that timeframe (and based on comments from folks) augmented my opinion a little bit in that while I feel that ethics is something that should not be exclusive to business schools, it is something that leaders need to work with, and as such, is a fundamental topic for business schools to address.

That said, I am not quite comfortable with how I addressed ethics in this past week's session. Setting my effectiveness and student perceptions aside for the moment, here's the basic path that I took:

• Though I'm no business historian, I characterized the history of the revitalization of ethics in the business schools as falling into two mini-eras in recent history- One of these mini-eras started on the order of five to ten years ago and was driven by a lot of the corporate scandals, executive fiascoes (e.g., Enron), and need for better financial reporting (e.g., Sarbanes-Oxley). In this first mini-era, business schools introduced ethics into their curricula with some of them incorporating ethics into leadership courses with others taking ethics and spreading a little bit of those ideas into all courses. Waving my hands a lot, I cited Michael Lewis' piece, "The End" (Of Wall Street), the role of credit default swaps, and failure of ethics (among other things) being at the heart of the cause of the economic downturn. So I concluded that business schools can still do more. Mini-era two is taking place with MBA graduates taking part in the student-led MBA Oath, which has been going viral.
• I indicated that leaders need to be concerned with ethics - basically what I said above in that it is not the sole responsibility of business school students, but that we can further the practice of ethics.
• I promoted two key frameworks for analyzing ethical concerns- Both of these frameworks are from Chapter 4 of the McGraw-Hill Irwin textbook, "Marketing", 9th Edition, by Kerin et. al. One framework was the standard, 2x2 consulting-like matrix that broke ideas into 4 quadrants with (Ethical-Not Ethical on one axis and Legal-Not Legal on the other). We spent time discussing certain scenarios and whether they fell into one quadrant or the other. I argued that the legal axis was, in principle, more straightforward than the ethics axis, where the degree of overlap and misfit between individual, company, general business, and international ethical principles are more fuzzy and can require reconciliation whether by management, ethics officer or other. I cited Transparency International as a data point and source for international practices and norms for ethical conduct. The second ethical framework that we covered conceptually balanced profit maximization and shareholder value against items like environmental, societal, and other factors. Here I feel that the best management practices for balancing things are not so well-developed, but I struggle a bit with how this area should be advanced.
• I talked about ethical codes of conducts (as documents that need to be affirmed by employees in many companies) and associated online training programs - although I did not have example references or documents to point to off-the-cuff.

With respect to the big picture, I was able to cite a number of cases where companies (e.g., Body Shop, POM, BP) have made ethical and social concerns an essential part of their business and/or marketing strategy, but I think my ability to cite, crisp quantitative information could have been better. What are the costs of being ethical? What are the costs of not being ethical? Where does being ethical add to the bottom-line in terms of revenues, sales commissions, shareholder value, reduced churn, etc.? The answers I provided to these questions were either a bit long-winded or not available at the tip of my tongue.

In any case, if folks have thoughts on ethics, teaching ethics, receiving ethics training, etc., please feel free to share your stories. I am interested in what works and doesn't work for folks.

*********************************************************************************************************************

Please enter your email address to subscribe to updates on Steve Shu's blog.


Powered by FeedBlitz