Steve Shu on Management, Consulting, and Strategic Initiatives

A Peek At The Difficulties of Incubating New Initiatives Within Large Companies

Entrepreneurial situations in large companies differ from that of startups, yet one thing that they seem to share is that they often represent "hope" in one way or another. In the case of large corporations, these new initiatives can not only turn out to be profitable "ventures" but also boost morale and reward key employees through growth opportunities. Yet many of these new initiatives have difficulty getting off the ground. Frustration is common. This post provides a peek at some of the situations, complexities, and steps to resolution that I have seen.

First, here's a picture of a common situation in a large company faced with the prospect of starting a new initiative or business line:

• Perceivably significant yet amorphous business opportunity
• No money committed / no budget
• No or limited organizational resources
• Established products and sales & marketing channels
• Mature and complex business and product approval processes.

What adds a level of complexity to the situation (and sometimes leads to insanity for those working directly within the environment) is that:

• Venture requires substantial investment to ultimately succeed
• Finance cycle of start-up opportunities (opportunity timing) does not align well with the long, finance planning cycles of large companies (sometimes can be 14+ month delays!)
• Star players in the current organization have limited availability for the new organization
• Articulating and aligning on a business opportunity requires collaboration by many functions, and these functions are separate and overloaded in the current organization
• Sales and product development processes often need to be understood at more than the surface-level.

Here are some ideas for addressing many of the above issues:

• Recognize that it's not usually possible or desirable to speed up the process by cutting corners
• Break the process into smaller pieces to get rolling
• Search for the right sponsor and core team
• Secure a portion of time for each of the star players
• Give the employees a real chance to make things work 
• Consider getting a commitment for small amount of money to get rolling
• Start to articulate what the business opportunity looks like and document it
• Consider using a facilitator that can pull the pieces together, help layout program plan, and frame strategic issues and options
• Paint the vision for the org structure and build emotional attachment to the cause
• Involve those from sales and product development that will be eager to provide input and testing grounds
• Aim for pioneer sales and business development deals with lighthouse accounts (concrete wins)
• Rinse, refine, increase committment, and repeat.

It may take a leap of faith to get things started. But the leap of faith can be smaller than the temptation of the opportunity as a whole. Sometimes the keys are to look for forward motion and to take some initial steps as opposed to wanting to knock it out of the park too soon.

Let me know your thoughts and experiences!

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

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

Perspectives on “The 24-Hour Customer” (Strategy, Marketing, and Innovation Book) in Context of Marketing Segmentation

Adrian C. Ott, CEO and founder of Exponential Edge Inc., included me on her distribution list for an advanced reading copy of her new book, The 24-Hour Customer. I cannot say enough good things about this book. In my mind, the book is excellent for executives, strategists, marketing, and innovators. From a strategy perspective, the approaches are well-structured and remind me of timeless, Michael Porter-esque classics. Yet the book goes beyond the classics and uses examples in the book that are cutting-edge, modern, timely, and technology-rich. Above all, Adrian Ott provides an innovative treatment of customer segmentation based on their propensity to pay attention and spend time. She additionally sheds light on various tools that can be exploited specifically with respect to dimensions of time and customer values. In this post, rather than addressing an overview of Adrian Ott’s total approach, I’ll simply point out one of the key frameworks and cover why it renews and gives marketing segmentation the respect it deserves.

One of the biggest laments I hear from marketing professors at various universities is with respect to how students and undergraduates look at marketing segmentation. Marketing segmentation is about subdividing markets into subsets of customers that behave similarly or have similar needs. But the craft of identifying segments is often under-appreciated or rushed. My wife, a professor of marketing at the UCLA Anderson School of Management, has often characterized a segmentation “pecking order” to students:

Segment based on “why” customers purchase first. Then look at what they purchase, how they purchase, and who purchases. (The Why/What/How/Who marketing segmentation pecking order)

The biggest segmentation error that people tend to make is that they start with the “who” because it is the most salient. Suppose one wanted to have a business that sold roses. If you started with the “who” dimension, you might start with a marketing segmentation strategy that is focused on middle-class families in a metro area. But a better strategy is to start by thinking about “why” people purchase. By engaging in this research, you might unearth important consumer behavior and situational aspects. For example, many males buy roses last-minute because they need to improve prospects with a key relationship. “Last-minute” is a key reason why people purchase – hence the presence of roses in places like grocery stores, 7-Elevens, and entrepreneurial, street-side vendors.

With that perspective on common customer segmentation errors as backdrop, Adrian Ott’s book offers up a series of methods and tools for understanding and applying how time (and the scarcity of time) affects a company’s potential approaches to engaging customers. One key tool (the "Time-ographics Framework") that Adrian uses in her book is depicted below (image reproduced with permission of author and publisher):

The Time-ographics Framework relates a customer’s propensity to spend time with the propensity to pay attention. (Yes! It is focused on teasing out the details of “why” people really purchase!) The significance of the stratification Adrian uses is that in order to play in one quadrant, one often needs to develop separate and specialized strategies. For example, to play in the “Habit” quadrant, one often has to tie into regular routines that cue the customer. Adrian Ott cites the example of P&G’s Febreeze, which was a great product that initially failed in the market because people forgot to use it. Once P&G helped to tie the image of Febreeze with the notion of the daily task of tidying up a room, Febreeze turned the situation around into one of the fastest growing brands. As another example in the “Motivation” quadrant, Adrian Ott introduced me to the concept of geocaching (which I have since purchased software and taken up with my kids). At risk of selling geocaching short, geocaching is basically a worldwide treasure hunt and trinket exchange system where users use global positioning systems (GPS) on their mobile phones to locate hidden boxes all around us (yes, sometimes hidden everyday in parking lots, by restaurants, etc.). Services by http://www.geocaching.com enable people to use slices of time to embark on quick, mysterious adventures. My kids are “motivated” by the mystery to check on the position of geocaches near us. Sometimes we’ll take a 1000-foot detour to find a hidden magnetic Altoids box that someone has tacked on the back of a fire hose box (where we drop off some items and pick up things like foreign coins, coupons, etc.). To bring Adrian Ott’s framework back full circle, she addresses the challenges of products in each Time-ographics quadrant and key tools that can be used for each.

The 24-Hour Customer is a book with rich thinking. It is sure to become a definitive source for professionals with respect to time-strategies, very current company examples and case studies, and timeless treatment of a marketing segmentation area that has not been comprehensively addressed before.

Adrian, excellent work on the book!

Update (6/30/2010): Catchy teaser video on Time-onomics just released. Link here.

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

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

Book Review of “The New How” (Business Strategy Book)

It is atypical for me to write a book review for this blog, but Nilofer Merchant’s “The New How: Creating Business Solutions Through Collaborative Strategy” is very respectable contribution to both audiences of this blog and the process of strategy development in general. In particular, the book does two important things beyond other strategy books:

• it breaks down the ivory tower of centralized strategy and addresses, in detail, the roles and responsibilities that each employee must fulfill in the new model, and
• the book explicitly documents a collaborative process that one can use to develop strategy, a process which from my vantage point has only been addressed either through mentorship and transfer of tacit knowledge or in fragments within other documents.

The book divides strategy into two domains – 1) where a company competes, and 2) how a company competes. The premise of the book is that the former topic (where a company competes) is well-addressed by existing strategy books, such as those by Porter, Chan, Kim, and Mauborgne. Nilofer’s book addresses the gap in business texts regarding the latter topic, which includes day-to-day and quarter-to-quarter strategies, such as “how do we grow sales of product XYZ” or “how do we grow sales of division Y by Q%?”  As she writes, “One person’ strategy is another’s tactics. The unnecessary and fruitless war of what is tactics or strategy or execution must end.”

Part 1 of the book provides a call to action for individual employees and leaders. But the book goes further by providing specific responsibilities that each person must fulfill. Where I admire the book is in its approach to addressing each employee’s role. Whereas “older” methods of strategy may have been focused on executive management teams, this book provides context, terminology, and frameworks for educating a broader audience. As an aside, I am also struck by the fact that Nilofer does a good job of incorporating concepts of improvisation into the strategy development process, culture, and mindset of employees. Improvisation is especially a soft spot for me given my involvement with Business Improvisations, a collaboration between business academics and improvisation instructors which helps companies in areas such as innovation, leadership, teamwork, etc. through customized, experiential learning sessions.

Part 2 of the book goes into greater detail on process of strategy development. It breaks down the process into four major areas:

• Question Phase – articulating the problem scope and assessing the current state of the organization
• Envision Phase – creating options for the organization developing criteria that would be used to evaluate options
• Select Phase – using a “MurderBoarding” process to sort, tune, fix, etc. options
• Take Phase – creating accountability, identifying who does what, and getting down to interdependencies and execution.

Although the book goes into much greater detail on all of these areas (with specific examples, charts, tables, etc.), one of my favorite charts is the MurderBoarding overview chart (copyright image reproduced below from “The New How” via permission from Nilofer Merchant). I often find this part of the strategy development process to be at risk of falling apart – this part of the strategy process is inherently messy, and unless the team focuses on a disciplined reference framework (like the one here), it becomes too tempting and easy to try to cut corners. Look carefully at the chart and see if you have been tempted to cut corners in the process. For example, did you forget to test the idea in part before finalizing the strategy? Or did you forget to vet and refine the criteria used to evaluate a strategic option?

Even as an experienced management consultant and manager, I would highly recommend this book (I’ve also added it to my popular Crash Course Consulting Reading List). The book is practical and covers a body of knowledge that has been largely undocumented to date. Whether one explicitly uses the processes Nilofer describes, the book still provides a good framework for assessing how one is doing. This book is well-suited for corporate executives, strategic planners, general managers, and management consultants. It would also be good as a textbook to supplement strategy and/or consulting courses.

Feel free to let me know your thoughts!

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

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

How To Help Ensure Strategy Scorecards Don't Fail You

For many strategy engagements, a lot of attention is paid to the detailed analysis framework. For example, should a benchmarking framework be used? Or will that framework lead us down a path of mediocrity? Or perhaps value-chain or Blue Ocean-like analysis should be used here? What method should we use for prioritizing brand associations and rectifying brand image versus identity? Regardless of strategy technique, one key output of these efforts is often a scorecard summary. A scorecard is tangible. It can be like a report card that you got from school in elementary school. While the scorecard is important, it's important to not lose sight of how a scorecard is developed and what the scorecard could mean for your organization.

The figure below shows an illustrative scorecard for a company. The scorecard helps to identify strengths and weaknesses. In the scorecard below, I've also depicted areas where the company needs to make improvements (operational and tactical focus) and where the company needs to differentiate longer-term (strategic focus).

 
Traps with scorecards can happen with the processes before, during, and after the scorecard.

Common traps that can occur before the scorecard are:

• Failing to craft the problem statement properly
• Pursuing too narrow activities to solve the problem statement
• Falling short on involving a broad part of the organization in the assessment & strategy development process
• Getting the wrong mix of structured and unstructured methods
• Using the wrong tools for the job
• Having an inherently biased processes or failing to frame and address biases and limitations properly

Traps during the scorecard readout process include:

• Being too negative and demotivating an organization
• Not stepping back from the scorecard to look at the bigger picture
• Failing to educate new audience members about the context of the scorecard and the prior processes used to arrive at the scorecard
• Letting an organization rest on its laurels

(Very) common traps after the scorecard readout process include:

• Failing to develop specific action plans
• Not having a good follow-up and cadence for making progress

The picture below shows the logical context for an example scorecard process, and it is an important aspect often lost in the mix. Note that the process context for the scorecard is as important (if not more important) than the scorecard itself.

 
What are your experiences with scorecards? How can you use them more effectively?

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

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

The Business Plan Is Alive And Well But It May Not Be What You Think

As many times I have written a "business plan", it seems the flavor of it can vary quite substantially. I think the notion of this catches a good number of people by surprise. And why shouldn't that be the case? Many textbooks and templates seem to cover business plan outlines with relatively similar structures. My suspicion is that the perspective that gets lost in the mix is intent. The intent of a business plan affects its format and content dramatically (more than outline). For this post, I thought it would be good to share some perspectives on why the process and plan should vary.

Business plan as a process - The process of vetting ideas, getting buy-in, and achieving alignment is most important in these situations. Example situations are new business launches in larger companies (e.g., intrapreneurship). Business plans can often take the form of workshop sessions and Powerpoint documents as opposed to a traditional textual Word document. See a popular post of mine, "In Consulting The Process Is An Essential Part Of The Deliverable".

Business plan as a sales document - This situation is particularly appropriate for fund raising (e.g., angels, VCs). Key goals of the document are to establish trust with prospects, enable the investment idea to be shared via networks, and persuade people of the merits of an investment opportunity. Often need a mix of instruments here (Powerpoint & Word docs, napkin drawings, demo), depending on the team, industry, and phase of product development (e.g., technology feasibility, commercial feasibility, ramp-up).

Business plan as a hypothesis test or investigative framework - An entrepreneurial way of looking at a business plan is more as a framework or series of hypotheses tests. Questions may be: do customers really want product aspect A, do customers prefer this variation over that one, do customers perceive me as Y relative to my competitors, and will the dog eat the dog food? The business planning effort can be more organic than written and involve focus groups, customer prospect interviews, etc. But the framework process should be systematic in determining which hypotheses are true/false to prove out aspects the business over time.

Some other ways that come to mind are viewing the business plan as a communication tool, a dissertation (that must be closely inspected), debate tool, product development stage gate requirement, and RFP response requirement (e.g., for government grants).

How do you view you business planning efforts? To what extent could you benefit from new ways of thinking about them?

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

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

Using a “Frontier Chart” to Evaluate and Plan Project Portfolio Strategy

The introduction of new product or service lines into an existing customer base is a challenge that companies often face with new business development. Sometimes the opportunities can be readily quantified using traditional financial analysis (e.g., using net present value, scenario, and waterfall buildup methods). At other times, there may be hazards of trying to quantify an opportunity too early in the process before conceptual alignment of the stakeholders. For example, people can simply get stuck "in the weeds with the numbers".

In this post, I share a method that I have sometimes found useful as a first step in framing and getting alignment among parties (especially when looking at new product development situations involving platforms upon which multiple products or product lines can be built). To be honest, I am not sure if there is a name for the type of chart I describe below, but I call it a "frontier chart" (which is derived from investment portfolio theory from finance).

The basic idea is that there are a set of lower risk projects out on the left side of the chart which have more known (potentially lower) expected returns. In contrast, projects on the right side might have higher risks but also higher, expected returns. So as an example of a project on the left side, a software company may have early customer engagements with a straightforward, add-on product that it directly developed (say a GPS mapping tool). As an example of a project on the right side, that same software company may be looking to introduce new platform capabilities such that indirect, 3rd parties can develop applications (e.g., Apple's "there's an app for that"). The later project venture is more risky, but the payoff could be larger than the former project.

A key benefit of using a frontier chart is that it can help to get buy-in on the high-level things and projects that people tend to agree with. There will be plenty of time later to put on our "propeller hats" and get bogged down in detailed numbers and execution tactics.

The ability to facilitate a company's management team to move forward is priceless, and sometimes facilitation can be more difficult when introducing new products or services (which is outside of the core, day-to-day business). Consider using frontier charts and thinking about platform strategies (the latter which may be topic for another post).

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

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

Musings On Conducting Competitive Intelligence Ethically

Competitive intelligence (CI) is an activity done by a wide range of professionals ranging from marketers to product managers to consultants to strategic planners. Now I’ve held back for many years on posting on the subject of conducting CI ethically. I tend to be more on the conservative side, and by posting my thoughts on this subject publicly, I’ve had concerns that some clients and future employers would see me as too soft on the issue. Would a client shy away from hiring me because I was unwilling to go the “distance” to get a job done?

In spite of my concerns, I’ve decided to address the issue here. In my experience with the business world, I’ve seen the topic of ethics (in the context of CI) discussed much less frequently than I would have expected, and that should change. Here I’ll provide some examples of bread and butter methods and more infrequently used methods for conducting CI. People should feel free to comment on other methods they have used. I’ll also provide some examples of activities that I either think are questionable or outright unethical.

Here are some examples of ethical, secondary research methods for performing CI:

• Pulling annual reports and shareholder presentations on competitors from the web
• Analyzing securities and exchange commission (SEC) filings and financial statements
• Gathering marketing collateral information from trade show booths of competitors
• Obtaining industry reports from investment banks and/or financial institutions
• Reverse engineering the positioning focus of competitors from marketing collateral
• Searching through LinkedIn to analyze salesforce profiles and reverse engineer likely go-to-market methods
• Analyzing resumes of employees of competitor
• Using Google satellite to analyze geographic profile and size of competitor facilities
• Using Crunchbase or Techcrunch to analyze private companies
• Using Compete, Alexa, and other web services to analyze web traffic
• Analyzing advertising copy and positioning
• Purchasing third-party reports (e.g., Gartner, Forrester, Parks Associates) to round out research
• Looking through job postings by the company on the web

Here are some examples of ethical, primary research methods for performing CI:

• Interviewing a distributor that has experience with competitors and asking questions whether client’s proposed offer would be competitive
• Asking distributor to describe any non-confidential information that they would be comfortable sharing about either the competitor or distributor’s relationship with competitor
• Visiting retail outlets of competitor to infer go-to-market methods, assess general profile of locations, etc.
• Directly purchasing a competitor’s service or product
• Surveying salespeople within client organization to get their feedback on what they’ve run into with respect to selling against the competition
• Conducting focus groups with general customers to get their feedback on competitor’s products versus the client’s prospective offerings
• Obtaining general information by calling into a competitor’s call center

Finally, here are some examples of questionable or unethical methods of performing CI (and these topics come up somewhat frequently in my experience):

• Misrepresenting oneself as a potential customer of competitor in order to get pricing information not made generally public
• Asking a current distributor or employee of competitor to share proprietary information about competitors and violate non-disclosure agreements
• Interviewing a competitor’s employees for the sole purpose of gathering competitive information as opposed to intending to consider such people for direct hire

One problem that I see organizations run into is that they can get focused on one single issue. For example, they may say “I must know exactly how competitor XYZ is pricing”. This type of logic can be dangerous because it tends to lead to one solution. It may also tempt one to try to take unethical shortcuts. If the problem statement is reframed around “getting a better picture of whether my client’s market offer is competitive”, then this can lead to more flexible and varieties of solutions. Tools like conducting customer focus groups, surveying salespeople, etc. then become possibilities for solving the real problem at hand.

As a closing note, in a framework I alluded to in a prior post, one way to think about activities are to classify them in two dimensions: (ethical – unethical) & (legal-illegal). The other framework that I use for weighing ethical issues is to determine how I would feel if my activities were plastered all over major press outlets. Would I be embarrassed by my team’s or my personal activities? Posing that type of question is often a nice litmus test for good behavior.

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

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

Perspectives on Facilitating a Consulting Engagement Related to Business Development and Innovation

One of the projects I have been working on recently with a partner involves helping an incumbent software vendor explore new business opportunities and facilitating strategy direction with the leadership team. The project involves research & planning with culmination of a key phase being a go/no-go and a commitment of money for development. Innovation and business development engagements can be tricky to facilitate due to the cast of characters and specific nature of innovation problems, so I wanted to share some experiences with facilitating these types of situations.

First, here are some examples on how these projects can die out (e.g., before getting funded):

• Innovation is more radical and not incremental, and the primary decision-maker needs "numbers" as a first step to prove out the case for innovation (too much analytical, left brain early on)
• The team is diverse but cannot effectively develop a set of innovative solutions that range from incremental to more innovative (on either or both dimensions of technology and end-user meaning and associations)
• If the team can develop a range of solutions, the method of managing the portfolio is ineffective or mismatched with the type of innovation area (e.g., incremental innovation areas not researched in enough detail versus radical innovation areas not given enough breathing room)
• The method for more fully developing the innovation solution does not balance (based on the type of innovation) gathering information from current end-users versus a larger, ecosystem of industry players and participants beyond end-users

So we have the following as potential backdrop: a mix of left-brains and right-brains and a diverse team that may address primarily incremental innovations but that recognizes the need for more radical, game-changing innovations. Wherein lies the risk tolerance of the leadership team, we cannot yet articulate in concrete terms. Yet the goal is to get everyone on the same page and committed.

A common method of attack that I use for facilitating these types of engagements is to work from common ground to more specific ground and from right-brain (creative) appeal to left-brain (analytical) appeal and then back to teamwork. So the storyboard presentation for getting on the same page with respect to an innovation project may be:

• Review industry trends (facilitation strategy: develop common ground)
• Get on the table the high-level, company situation (e.g., via strength, weaknesses, opportunities, threats -> SWOT matrix) (facilitation strategy: develop common ground)
• Portray the potential innovation projects on a canvas that shows the current situation versus the potential future (facilitation strategy: develop common ground, but more targeted to right-brain)
• Portray the innovation projects on a conceptual frontier of risks versus returns (e.g., like here), sort of like an investment portfolio (facilitation strategy: develop common ground with segueway to left-brain)
• Provide deeper-dive summaries (e.g., ROIs where possible or at some more numeric info if that's all that can be done) on specific projects (facilitation strategy: develop more targeted to left-brains but provide offshoot points for open discussion with right-brains)
• Provide summary on the roadmap for tying everything together, identifying unknowns and open issues, and providing governance for individual innovation projects (facilitation strategy: develop trajectory for people to start working together before passing judgment on all projects)

In a prior post, I talked about the importance of articulating and rearticulating problem statements. That principle still applies, but in many strategy projects, there's also an element of facilitating a diverse set of people that cut across left- and right-brain problems. As consultants and managers, we need to think about that aspect as well.

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

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