Kategoriat
Uncategorized

Dell: Play Nice But Win

🔵 Mies arbitraasin takana! Hauska tarina miten Dell aloitti elämänsä erilaisella PC-arbitraasilla ja kuinka hän upgreidasi IBM:n tetokoneita lääkäreiden sekä lakimiesten tarpeisiin.

✅ Hyväntuulinen ja jopa hauskasti kirjoitettu kirja, jossa joka toinen luku palaa Dellin alkujuurille ja joka toinen luku kertoo kuinka Dell-yhtiö ostettiin pois pörssistä. 

✅ Erityisen tarinasta tekee jännitysnäytelmä kuinka Carl Ichann yrittää hiillostaa Delliä nostamaan ostotarjousta 13,5 dollarista 14 dollariin.

✅ Tätä kirjaa ei kannata lukea silmät ymmyrkäisenä oppiakseen lisää bisneksestä. Tarkkaan havaitsemalla kirjasta saa puristettua Dellin bisnesfilosofian, joka on:
– Dellin liikeidea oli myydä suoraan kuluttajille siihen aikaan kun muut pc-valmistajat myitä jakelijoiden kautta.
– Myyntiosaamisen rakentaminen oli Dellin kasvukaava. ”Building sales capacity has often been key to our growth in market share.”
– ”Cash is king”-oppi toistuu kaikissa nopeasti kasvavissa yrityksissä. ”Almost all the revenue that came in went right into payroll and parts, and our bank credit in Austin was stretched very thin—in reality, far thinner than I knew.”
– 24 päivän hyvä nyrkkisääntö. ”My rule of thumb gleaned from hard years of experience was that you need funding for at least twenty-four days of sales.”

✅ Mitä Dell on oppinut uransa aikana?
+ Carl Ichann on roisto.
+ Kuinka regulaatio meinasi kaataa Dellin, koska eivät tienneet PC-laitteiden tarvitsevan ”Class B FCC”-hyväksynnän.
+ Miten ”Dell Dude”-mainoskampanjalla tehtiin rahaa. “While personal computer sales were down 31 percent – our market share rose 16.5 percent.”
+ Motto: ”Sayings don’t create success, but we do have a saying at Dell: Failure is not an option.”

✅ Mitä Michael Dell odottaa tulevaisuudelta? 5G-verkkoja.

🔴 ”My parents had a saying for when my brothers and I went out to play street ball with our friends: “Play nice but win.””

Kategoriat
Uncategorized

Rumelt: Crux

🔵 ”Analysis paralysis”. Ensimmäinen strategiakirja, joka markkinoi toimintaa ennen analyysiä. 

✅ Kirjan tavoite on muuttaa strategia ratkaisukeskeiseksi, jossa voimavarat käytetään ongelman juurisyyn löytämiseen. ”Understand the power of challenge-based strategy and the power gained by finding the crux of the challenge.”

✅ Rumeltin ohje on tehdä ”twiitinmittainen” strategia eli kirjoittaa kahdessa minuutissa lause, joka sisältää ehdotuksen toimenpiteeksi tai toiminnaksi. Esim. ”There Is No Substitute” (Porsche).

✅ Kirjan pääviesti on, että ”Lopeta tuottaminen ja aloita ratkominen”. Strategioissa huomioidaan liiaksi sosiaaliset paineet – pääomamarkkinoiden tarve saada lukuja, annoskateus kilpailijoiden strategioihin, perinne tuottaa mittavia Powerpointteja ja niin edelleen.

✅ Kun strategiatyö aloitetaan ongelmien (lue haasteiden) ratkomisesta, niin silloin strategiat rakentuvat organisaatioiden tarpeista eikä ulkopuolisista paineista.

✅ Rumelt suosittelee analyysityökalujen käyttämistä vasta kun ongelmat on tunnistettu ja sittenkin etsimään vain havaittuun ongelmaan sopivan työkalun. Esimerkiksi:
• Capital budgeting kun pitää päättää investoinneista.
• BCG matrix kun pitää arvioida tuottavatko eri liiketoiminnat yritykselle kasvua vai kassavirtaa.
• Disruption theory kun pitää päättää miten reagoidaan kilpailuun ja onko joku emergentti liiketoiminta kaappaamassa markkinaosuutta,

✅ Kirjassa suositellaan myös muita strategiatyökaluja kuten – Value-chain analysis, Willingness-to-pay modeling, Multinomial logit models of competition, McKinsey’s 7S framework, The Blue Ocean Strategy Canvas, Scenario development, Benchmarking, Product life cycle, Root-cause analysis jne. Näitä työkaluja hyödyntäessä pitää huomioida, että ne rakentuvat eri oletuksiin ja pieneen määrään muuttujia. Alkaako kuulostamaan ”Analysis paralysis” -koktaililta?

✅ Kirja jakautuu kolmeen osaan:
1. osassa esitellään ratkaisukeskeisen strategian työn idea ja kieleke (crux) kirjan nimen mukaan. Mikä on crux? Se on kallionkieleke, jonka kalliokiipeilijän pitää pystyä ohittamaan ja Rumeltin mielestä strategiatyön ydin on löytää yhtiön kieleke ja keksiä keinot miten ohittaa se. / Diagnosis
2. osassa kerrotaan kuinka ongelmia voi diagnosoida ja siinä hän paneutuu erityisesti kilpailuun. / Guiding policy
3. osassa mietitään miten kielekkeen (crux) voi ohittaa ja etuja, joita yhtiöllä on. / Coherent action

✅ Miten käytännössä pitää toimia ratkaisukeskeisessä strategiassa?
“What is going on here”-tyyppisellä kysymyksellä voit diagnosoida tilanteen. 
Löydä kieleke. 
Luo järjelliset keinot ohittaa kieleke.

🔴 “Without action the world would still be an idea.” Georges F. Doriot (INSEADin perustajia).

Kategoriat
Uncategorized

Ball: Metaverse

🔵 Kävitkö katsomassa ABBA:n keikkaa Lontoossa? Jos kävit, niin tiedät jo mitä Metaverse on. Et tarvitse siis tätä kirjaa 🤩

✅ Neal Stephenson keksi sanan metaverse Snow Crash-kirjassaan (1992) ja sillä hän tarkoitti virtuaalista maailmaa, joka käsittäisi kaikki elämän osa-alueet.

✅ Twiitinmittaisesti sanottuna Metaversellä tarkoitetaan seuraavan sukupolven internettiä, jonka perusteet kumpuaa pelimaailmasta.

✅ Metaverse-kirjan tavoite on kuvata epäkypsän ja jopa hype-käsitteen sisältö sekä saada lukija mielikuvittelemaan, että minkälaisia vaikutuksia sillä on hänen liiketoimintaan. Kirjoittajan mielestä käsillä on kymmenien triljoonien dollarin arvoinen markkina. 

✅ Luettuasi kirjan tiedät, että AR, VR, ML ja pilvipalvelut ovat elementäärinen osa Metaverseä. Huom! Kaiken ei tarvitse olla 3D:tä.

✅ Mitä Metaverse käytännössä on?
• Bisneskäyttäjän näkökulmasta esimerkiksi Microsoftin Metaverse-tuoteportfoliossa on Azure, Teams, HoloLens, Xbox, LinkedIn, Minecraft, Microsoft Flight Simulator ja tietenkin Halo.
• Kuluttajalle se olisi esimerkiksi pelata yhdessä Epicin Fortnitea, katsoa yhdessä elokuvia Netflixistä tai mennä ystävien kanssa virtuaaliselle Tesla-koeajolle, jonka jälkeen Facebook tykittäisi Polestar-mainoksia ihan simona ja kaikissa kanavissa.
• Metaversessa tarvitaan myös uudet laitteet, joita voisivat olla esim. Holo, Occulus, Google Glass, iRobot/Amazon. Ja matkapuhelimista tulee kannettava serveri käyttäjän erilaisille laitteille.

✅ Mutta missä on web3 tai lohkoketjut? Web3 ei ole sama asia kuin Metaverse eikä tarvitse 3D:tä. Se on vieressä kulkeva kehityspolku. Blockchain on vuorostaan tapa siirtää valtaa alustoilta käyttäjille.

✅ Milloin Metaverse on totta? Satya Nadellanin mukaan se on jo täällä, Bill Gatesin mukaan 2-3 vuoden päästä ja Mark Zuckerbergin mukaan siitä tulee mainstremia 5-10 vuoden päästä. Abban mukaan jo eilen. “Turn world into an app canvas” (Satya Nadella).

✅ Bisnekset, joihin Metaversellä on annettavaa:
• Opetus 
• Lifestyle-tuotteet (Oura, Peloton)
• Viihde (Netflix, Supercell)
• Ihmissuhteet (Tinder)
• Muoti (Gucci)

✅ GAFAM-segmentisistä sijoituksia Metaverseen tekee eniten Facebook, keskimäärisesti Amazon ja vähiten Google sekä Apple. Microsoftilla on jo melko hyvin positioitunut portfolio.

✅ Kirja kysyy, että kuinka online- ja offline-maailmojen osuus tulee muuttumaan. Verkkokaupan osuus on nyt länsimaissa noin 20-30 %, etätyön osuus on ollut kasvussa koronan jälkeen, teollista tuotantoa virtualisoidaan jne. Toinen fundamentaalinen kysymys on identiteetti ja mitä identiteettiä hyödynnetään milloinkin. Kolmas eli kuinka eri virtuaalisten maailmat verkkovierailut hoidetaan. Viimeisin eikä vähäisin eli pitkään huulilla pyörinyt kysymys NFT-roolista (non-fungible tokens) jäsentyy kun mietitään omistuksia eri virtuaalisissa maailmoissa.

🔴 Mark Zuckerbergin mukaan “the hardest technology challenge of our time may be fitting a supercomputer into the frame of normal-looking glasses.

Kategoriat
Uncategorized

Hastings & Meyer: No Rules Rules

Kirjasta

Tämä on kiehtova kirja, jossa on hyvä konsepti. Kirjana se eroaa amerikkalaisesta bisneskirjallisuuden genrestä ja ennustan sille hyvää sijoitusta Financial Timesin kirjakilpailussa, jossa se kisaa mm. Samsungin ja Instagramin tarinan kanssa.

Minkälainen kirja oli?

Kirjan konsepti on onnistunut toteutus. Kirjan ovat kirjoittaneet Erin Meyer – professori, ja Reed Hastings – Netflixin toimitusjohtaja. He purkavat Netflixin kasvukaavaa sekä menetelmiä vuorovetoina. Hastings kertoo toimeenpanosta ja Meyer teoretisoi taustoja. Toiseksi kirjassa ei ole normaali yhtiön glorifiointia tai pelkästään puusilmäistä liiketoiminnan voitonjuhlia. Kolmanneksi – kirjan teemat kantavat loppuun asti. Toisinaan bisneskirjojen ydin on kerrottu kirjan ensimmäisen 30 % aikana. Loppu kirjasta kuluukin sitten todisteluun sekä toistoon. ”No Rules Rules”-kirjassa tätä ei tapahdu.

Olen myös haistavinani Jim Collinsin oppeja kirjasta. Ja miksei olisi koska Netflix on uusiutunut monissa internet-liiketoiminnan aalloissa – alkaen pöytä-pc aikakaudesta tänne tekoälyn esisoittoihin.

Start-up -kirjaksi se jättää jälkeen kaiken pitkäpiimäisen selostuksen kuinka vaikeaa oli rahoituksen järjestäminen, hallitustyöskentelystä sekä miten yhtiö oli hilkulla ajautua konkurssiin, mutta pelastui raikkaalta tuntuvan Immelmannin silmukan ansiosta. 

Tämän sanottuani, niin kirjasta kannattaa lukea suurella mielenkiinnolla Hastingisin sekä Blockbusterin toimitusjohtajan kohtaaminen. Se on herkullinen kohtaaminen. Siis tarina kuinka Netflix tarjoutui Blockbusterin ostettavaksi, mutta he torjuivat yritysosto mahdollisuuden. #fail

Mitkä ovat kirjan keskeiset ideat? 

Ennen ensimmäistäkään oppia tai ideaa, niin tärkeää on tunnistaa, että Netflix on kolme kertaa onnistunut uudistamaan liiketoimintakonseptia ja kaikilla kerroilla he ovat onnistuneet siinä. Miten?

  1. Netflix aloitti internet-palveluna, joka postitti asiakkailleen DVD-elokuvia.
  2. Netflix siirtyi suoratoistopalveluksi.
  3. Neflix ryhtyi julkaisemaan omia elokuvia sekä sarjoja.

Tähän ei kovin moni start-up ole yltänyt. Tämän veroista orgaanisen kasvu-uraa voi löytää esimerkiksi Amazonista sekä Applesta. Mutta Google sekä Facebook polkevat vielä samaa polkua.

Viimeisimmän kasvun ajurina on ollut omat sisällöt. Vuosi 2015 ja Stranger Things oli käännekohta Netflixin omalle tuotannolle. Aikaisemmin he olivat lisensoineet yksinoikeudella muiden sarjoja. Vuonna 2015 he ostivat käsikirjoituksen, mutta ryhtyivät tuottajaksi itse. Studiosta alkaen. Strager Thing julkaistiin 2016 ja samana vuonna se pääsi Golden Globe -ehdokkaaksi.

Hastings sekä Meyer nimeävät kolme tekijää, joka tekee Netflixistä erityisen:

  1. Ihmiset. Yrityskulttuurissa arvostettiin ihmistä yli prosessin.
  2. Innovaatiot. Painotus oli innovaatioissa yli tehokkuuden sekä
  3. Byrokratia. Sääntöjä sekä tarkkoja ohjeistuksia oli vähän.

Nämä yhdessä johtivat lahjakkuuskeskittymään. Netflixin kasvukaava on siis:

Ihmiset + Innovaatiot + Ei-byrokratia = Lahjakkuuskeskittymä

Selittäviä tekijöitä on Netflixin kyvykkyys luoda liiketoimintaa trendeissä. Ensimmäisessä aallossa he rakensivat liiketoiminnan internet-tilauksiin, kun kilpailijat toimivat kivijalkaliiketoiminnassa. Seuraavassa vaiheessa he ottivat käyttöön streaming-teknologian jakelutieksi. Ja viimeisin on ollut oma sisällöntuotanto.

Suomi mainittu! …. Blockbuster’s story is not an anomaly. The vast majority of firms fail when their industry shifts. Kodak failed to adapt from paper photos to digital. Nokia failed to adapt from flip phones to smartphones. AOL failed to adapt from dial-up internet to broadband.

Mainitsemisen arvoinen tekijä Netflixin tarinassa on suora palaute. Sillä he tarkoittavat, että kaikki saavat ja antavat välittömästi palautetta toistensa toiminnasta. Se korjaa nopeammin prosessia kuin yksikään työpaja. Mutta miten se saadaan toimimaan ilman, että ihmisten tunteita loukataan ja, että se toimii kehittävänä, niin on salaisuus jonka vain netflixläiset ja heidän yrityskulttuuri tietää. Kirjan pitkistä selityksistä huolimatta.

”Increase candor. Talented employees have an enormous amount to learn from one another. But the normal polite human protocols often prevent employees from providing the feedback necessary to take performance to another level. When talented staff members get into the feedback habit, they all get better at what they do while becoming implicitly accountable to one another, further reducing the need for traditional controls.” 

Ja kun suora palaute korjaa toimintaa, niin voidaan poistaa säännöt sekä ohjeistus:

”Reduce controls. Start by ripping pages from the employee handbook. Travel policies, expense policies, vacation policies—these can all go. Later, as talent becomes increasingly denser and feedback more frequent and candid, you can remove approval processes throughout the organization, teaching your managers principles like, “Lead with context, not control,” and coaching your employees using such guidelines as, “Don’t seek to please your boss.””

Miten Netflix syntyi? Netflixin syntyhistoria on hyvä kertoa lyhetämättömänä:

“In the 1990s, I liked to rent VHS videos from the Blockbuster down the street from our house. I’d take two or three at a time and return them quickly to avoid late fees. Then one day I moved a pile of papers on the dining room table and saw a cassette that I’d watched weeks ago and forgotten to return. When I took the movie back to the store, the woman told me the fee: $40! I felt so stupid.”

Reed Hasting perusti Netflixin, koska koki saavansa huonoa palvelua sekä innostuivat Amazonin saamasta menestyksestä. Plus heillä oli lakupääoma aikaisemmasta yrityskaupasta.

Kuinka Netflix yhdisti pisteet? Niitä on kaiken kaikkiaan 10 ja omalla tavallaan se on kirjan punainen lanka. Connecting the dots….

  1. Tyrmäävät työkaverit

THE FIRST DOT This is the most critical dot for the foundation of the whole Netflix story. A fast and innovative workplace is made up of what we call “stunning colleagues”—highly talented people, of diverse backgrounds and perspectives, who are exceptionally creative, accomplish significant amounts of important work, and collaborate effectively. What’s more, none of the other principles can work unless you have ensured this first dot is in place.

  • Suora palaute sekä auktoriteettien haastaminen

THE SECOND DOT If you have a group of people who are highly talented, thoughtful, and well-meaning, you can ask them to do something that is not at all natural but nonetheless incredibly helpful to a company’s speed and effectiveness. You can ask them to give each other loads of candid feedback and challenge authority.

  • Poista säännöt ja lopeta ohjeistaminen

THE THIRD DOT Once you have a workforce made up nearly exclusively of high performers, you can count on people to behave responsibly. Once you have developed a culture of candor, employees will watch out for one another and ensure their teammates’ actions are in line with the good of the company. Then you can begin to remove controls and give your staff more freedom. Great places to start are the lifting of your vacation, travel, and expense policies. These elements give people more control over their own lives and convey a loud message that you trust your employees to do what’s right. The trust you offer will in turn instill feelings of responsibility in your workforce, leading everyone in the company to have a greater sense of ownership.

  • Maksa markkinoita parempaa palkkaa ja pidä lahjakkuuskeskittymä tiiviinä.

THE FOURTH DOT In order to fortify the talent density in your workforce, for all creative roles hire one exceptional employee instead of ten or more average ones. Hire this amazing person at the top of whatever range they are worth on the market. Adjust their salary at least annually in order to continue to offer them more than competitors would. If you can’t afford to pay your best employees top of market, then let go of some of the less fabulous people in order to do so. That way, the talent will become even denser.

  • Luo sekä toteuta luottamusta.

THE FIFTH DOT If you have the best employees on the market and you’ve instituted a culture of open feedback, opening up company secrets increases feelings of ownership and commitment among staff. If you trust your people to handle appropriately sensitive information, the trust you demonstrate will instigate feelings of responsibility and your employees will show you just how trustworthy they are.

  • Poista päätöksenteko ja annan ihmisten omat bisnespäätöksensä.

THE SIXTH DOT If you have high talent density and organizational transparency firmly in place, a faster, more innovative decision-making process is possible. Your employees can dream big, test their ideas, and implement bets they believe in, even when in opposition to those hierarchically above them.

  • Jokaisella työntekijällä on oikeus ”pito-testiin”

THE SEVENTH DOT The Keeper Test has helped to elevate the talent density at Netflix to a level rarely seen in other organizations. If each manager considers carefully, on a regular basis, whether every employee on the team is indeed the best choice for that position and replaces anyone who isn’t, performance across the organization soars to new heights.

  • Varmista, että suora palaute toteutuu

THE EIGHTH DOT If you’re serious about candor at some point, you do need to implement mechanisms to assure candor happens. With just two institutional processes you can ensure that everyone gets candid developmental feedback at regular intervals.

  • Vapaus päättä

THE NINTH DOT In a loosely coupled organization, where talent density is high and innovation is the primary goal, a traditional, control-oriented approach is not the most effective choice. Instead of seeking to minimize error through oversight or process, focus on setting clear context, building alignment of the North Star between boss and team, and giving the informed captain the freedom to decide.

  1. Sopeuta kulttuuria.

THE LAST DOT … FOR NOW When giving feedback with those from your own culture, use the 4A approach. But when giving feedback around the world, add a 5th A: The 4As are as follows: Aim to assist Actionable Appreciate Accept or decline Plus one makes 5: Adapt—your delivery and your reaction to the culture you’re working with to get the results that you need. We still have a lot to learn about integrating our corporate culture into our growing number of offices around the world. At most QBRs, we have at least one discussion about corporate culture. As the majority of our future growth is outside the US, we increasingly focus these discussions on how to make our values work in a global context. What we’ve learned is that in order to integrate your corporate culture around the world, above all you have to be humble, you have to be curious, and you have to remember to listen before you speak and to learn before you teach. With this approach, you can’t help but become more effective every day in this ever-fascinating multicultural world.

Suora palaute, jolla on positiivinen tavoite. Negatiivissävytteisellä palautteella ei ole sijaa.

“That’s when we coined the expression “Only say about someone what you will say to their face.” I modeled this behavior as best I could, and whenever someone came to me to complain about another employee, I would ask, “What did that person say when you spoke to him about this directly?” This is pretty radical. In most situations, both social and professional, people who consistently say what they really think are quickly isolated, even banished.”

Koska tutkimuksen mukaan vain suora palaute auttaa ihmistä saavuttamaan parempia kuin tuloksia kuin pelkkä kannustava palaute:

“In a 2014 study, the consulting firm Zenger Folkman collected data on feedback from almost one thousand people. They found that, despite the blissful benefits of praise, by a roughly three-to-one margin, people believe corrective feedback does more to improve their performance than positive feedback. The majority said they didn’t find positive feedback to have a significant impact on their success at all.”

Valmentamisesta tuttuja tilastoja:

“Statistics from the same survey: 

⁃ 57 percent of respondents claim they would prefer to receive corrective feedback to positive feedback. 

⁃ 72 percent felt their performance would improve if they received more corrective feedback. 

 ⁃ 92 percent agreed with the comment, “Negative feedback, if delivered appropriately, improves performance.”

Miten aloittaa suoran palautteen antaminen?

  • Esimiesten pitää ensin oppia ottamaan palautetta alaisiltaan, jonka jälkeen on mahdollista antaa omalle tiimilleen palautetta.

“The first is not the most intuitive. You might think the first step for cultivating candor would be to begin with what’s easiest: having the boss give copious feedback to her staff. I recommend instead focusing first on something much more difficult: getting employees to give candid feedback to the boss. This can be accompanied by boss-to-employee feedback. But it’s when employees begin providing truthful feedback to their leaders that the big benefits of candor really take off.”

Palautteen antaminen pitää olla osa agendaa:

”The first technique our managers use to get their employees to give them honest feedback is regularly putting feedback on the agenda of their one-on-one meetings with their staff. Don’t just ask for feedback but tell and show your employees it is expected. Put feedback as the first or last item on the agenda so that it’s set apart from your operational discussions. When the moment arrives, solicit and encourage the employee to give feedback to you (the boss) and then—if you like—you can reciprocate by giving feedback to them.”

Muista palautteen antamisen hetkellä antaa ihmisten tuntea, että on hyväksyttävää antaa palautetta:

”Your behavior while you’re getting the feedback is a critical factor. You must show the employee that it’s safe to give feedback by responding to all criticism with gratitude and, above all, by providing “belonging cues.” As Daniel Coyle, author of The Culture Code, describes them, such cues are gestures that indicate “your feedback makes you a more important member of this tribe” or “you were candid with me and that in no way puts your job or our relationship in danger; you belong here.” I speak with my leadership team frequently about displaying “belonging cues” in situations when an employee is providing feedback to the boss, because an employee who is courageous enough to give feedback openly is likely to worry, “Will my boss hold it against me?” or “Will this harm my career?” A belonging cue might be a small gesture, like using an appreciative tone of voice, moving physically closer to the speaker, or looking positively into that person’s eyes.”

Miten Netflixillä annetaan palautetta?

1. AIM TO ASSIST: Feedback must be given with positive intent. Giving feedback in order to get frustration off your chest, intentionally hurting the other person, or furthering your political agenda is not tolerated. Clearly explain how a specific behavior change will help the individual or the company, not how it will help you. “The way you pick your teeth in meetings with external partners is irritating” is wrong feedback. Right feedback would be, “If you stop picking your teeth in external partner meetings, the partners are more likely to see you as professional, and we’re more likely to build a strong relationship.” 

2. ACTIONABLE: Your feedback must focus on what the recipient can do differently. Wrong feedback to me in Cuba would have been to stop at the comment, “Your presentation is undermining its own messages.” Right feedback was, “The way you ask the audience for input is resulting in only Americans participating.” Even better would have been: “If you can find a way to solicit contributions from other nationalities in the room your presentation will be more powerful.” 

Miten Netflixillä vastaanotetaan palautetta?

3. APPRECIATE: Natural human inclination is to provide a defense or excuse when receiving criticism; we all reflexively seek to protect our egos and reputation. When you receive feedback, you need to fight this natural reaction and instead ask yourself, “How can I show appreciation for this feedback by listening carefully, considering the message with an open mind, and becoming neither defensive nor angry?” 

4. ACCEPT OR DISCARD: You will receive lots of feedback from lots of people while at Netflix. You are required to listen and consider all feedback provided. You are not required to follow it. Say “thank you” with sincerity. But both you and the provider must understand that the decision to react to the feedback is entirely up to the recipient.

Miten Netflixillä poistettiin säännöt, ohjeistukset sekä rajoitteet? Lomaoikeudet poistettiin ja pomot näyttivät esimerkkiä lomalla olemisesta sekä kertoivat aktiivisesti mitä tekivät lomillaan. Kannustivat kaikkia samanlaiseen toimintaan.

Vapauksien antaminen tuo vastuullisuutta:

  • GIVE FREEDOM TO GET RESPONSIBILITY
  • ACT IN NETFLIX’S BEST INTEREST
  • GREAT GAINS: FREE, FAST, AND (SURPRISINGLY) FRUGAL

Ennenkuin saa poistettua kaikki hallinnolliset reunaehdot, niin pitäisi olla firma täynnä dream teamia:

”Once you have developed a culture of candor, employees will watch out for one another and ensure their teammates’ actions are in line with the good of the company. Then you can begin to remove controls and give your staff more freedom. Great places to start are the lifting of your vacation, travel, and expense policies.”

Miten määrittelet dream teamin? Dream teamin määritelmä on “the success of Netflix is founded on these types of unlikely stories: small teams consisting exclusively of significantly above-average performers—what Reed refers to as dream teams—working on big hairy problems.” 

…. ja sitten toteutetaan ”Rock-tähti -periaatteella”:

”But, as an engineer, I was familiar with a concept that has been understood in software since 1968, referred to as the “rock-star principle.” The rock-star principle is rooted in a famous study that took place in a basement in Santa Monica. At 6:30 a.m. nine trainee programmers were led into a room with dozens of computers. Each of them was handed a manila envelope explaining a series of coding and debugging tasks they would need to complete to their best ability in the next 120 minutes. Millions of keystrokes have since been devoted to discussing the results on the internet. The researchers expected to find that the best of the nine programmers would outperform his average counterpart by a factor of two or three. But of the group of nine, all of whom were at least adequate programmers, the best far outperformed the worst. The best guy was twenty times faster at coding, twenty-five times faster at debugging, and ten times faster at program execution than the programmer with the lowest marks. The fact that one of these programmers would so dramatically out-perform another has caused ripples across the software industry ever since, as managers grapple with how some programmers can be worth so much more than their perfectly adequate colleagues. With a fixed amount of money for salaries and a project I needed to complete, I had a choice. I could hire ten to twenty-five average engineers or I could hire one “rock-star” and pay significantly more than what I’d pay the others, if necessary.”

Väärin. Hastingsin mukaan Rock-tähti -periaatteen suhdeluku on lähemmäs 100-kertainen eikä 20-kertainen…..

Isot palkat….

”Big salaries are good for innovation.” People are most creative when they have a big enough salary to remove some of the stress from home. But people are less creative when they don’t know whether or not they’ll get paid extra. Big salaries, not merit bonuses, are good for innovation.

Differoituminen….

“Many imagine you lose your competitive edge if you don’t offer a bonus. We have found the contrary: we gain a competitive edge in attracting the best because we just put all that money into salary.”

Vinkki vitonen. Läpinäkyvyys videään myös työpaikkatarjouksiin…. ”Then we told all our employees they should start taking those calls from recruiters and tell us what they learned. Patty developed a database where everyone could input the salary data points they received from calls and interviews.”

Erilaistua voi monella eri tavalla….. The rule at Netflix when recruiters call is: “Before you say, ‘No thanks!’ ask, ‘How much?’”

Tiedätkö kuinka monta salaisuutta ihmisellä on? 13 salaisuutta, joista viittä hän ei ole koskaan paljastanut kenellekkään. Mutta salaisuuksien voima on, että ne ovat salaisuuksia kunnes ne eivät enää ole salaisuuksia…. STUFF OF SECRETS = SOS: 

“SOS will be our term (not a Netflix term) for information you might commonly choose to keep quiet because it would be dangerous to divulge. Sharing the information might lead to a negative judgment, risk upsetting people, cause mayhem, or break up a relationship. Otherwise we wouldn’t feel an urge to keep it to ourselves. SOS information at work might be things like the following: 

 ⁃ You are considering a reorganization and people might lose their jobs. 

 ⁃ You’ve fired an employee but explaining why would hurt his reputation. 

 ⁃ You have “secret sauce”: information you don’t want to leak out to your competitors. 

 ⁃ You made a mistake that could hurt your reputation, maybe ruin your career. 

 ⁃ Two leaders are in conflict, and if their teams knew, it would lead to unrest.

 ⁃ Employees could go to jail if they share certain financial data with a friend.” 

Organizations are full of SOS. Every day, managers grapple with the questions: “Should I tell my people? And if so, at what risk?” But keeping quiet brings risks too, as Reed’s fear and falling productivity at Coherent Software demonstrated all those years ago.

Kun Netflixillä tehdään päätöksiä, niin niiden pitää olla hyviä. Hyvä päätös on:

⁃ “A solid grasp of the context, 

 ⁃ feedback from people with different perspectives, and 

 ⁃ awareness of all the options.”

On Netflix tehnyt virheitä(kin). Esim. Qwikster…..

We now say that it is disloyal to Netflix when you disagree with an idea and do not express that disagreement. By withholding your opinion, you are implicitly choosing to not help the company: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dDAbdMv14Is

THE KEEPER TEST:

IF A PERSON ON YOUR TEAM WERE TO QUIT TOMORROW, WOULD YOU TRY TO CHANGE THEIR MIND? OR WOULD YOU ACCEPT THEIR RESIGNATION, PERHAPS WITH A LITTLE RELIEF? IF THE LATTER, YOU SHOULD GIVE THEM A SEVERANCE PACKAGE NOW, AND LOOK FOR A STAR, SOMEONE YOU WOULD FIGHT TO KEEP.

Mitä meidän pitäisi tehdä kirjan perusteella?

Hastings ja Meyer haluavat huomioida, että heidän ajatuksensa ja menetelmät eivät sovi kaikkeen. Esimerkiksi he mainitsevat:

“With this in mind, you can consider your objective carefully before deciding when to opt for freedom and responsibility and when rules with process would be a better choice. Here are a set of questions you can ask in order to select the right approach: 

⁃ Are you working in an industry where your employees’ or customers’ health or safety depends on everything going just right? If so, choose rules and process. 

⁃ If you make a mistake, will it end in disaster? Choose rules and process. 

⁃ Are you running a manufacturing environment where you need to produce a consistently identical product? Choose rules and process.”

Eli meidän pitää…. “But now, with the growth in importance of intellectual property and creative services, the percentage of the economy that is dependent on nurturing inventiveness and innovation is much higher and continually increasing.”

Mitä minun pitäisi itse tehdä? 

Koska tutkimuksen mukaan vain suora palaute auttaa ihmistä saavuttamaan parempia tuloksia kuin pelkkä kannustava palaute, niin ryhtyä antamaan suoraa palautetta positiivisella tavoitteella. Sitä minun pitäisi tehdä – enemmän.

Yhteenveto

Kuusi Sanaa kirjasta: ”We hire you for your opinions”……. ”Every person in that room is responsible for telling me frankly what they think.”

Kategoriat
Uncategorized

Collins & Porras: Built To Last

Kirjasta

“This is not a business book, but a book about building enduring, great human institutions of any type.”

Minkälainen kirja oli?

Kirja kertoo ”Visionary Companies”- tai kirjan mukaan ”Built To Last”-yhtiöistä. Se pyrkii vastaamaan kysymykseen, että “What makes the truly exceptional companies different from the other companies?”

”Built To Last”-yhtiöille tunnusmerkillistä on:

• $1 in the visionary companies stock fund would have grown to $6,356

Kun muut yhtiöt ovat:

• $1 in the general market fund would have grown to $415 on December 31, 1990

Ja verrokkiyhtiöt:

• $1 invested in the group of comparison companies would have grown to $955

”Built To Last”-yhtiöit ovat tuottaneet siis 6x-tuoton verrokkiyhtiöihin verrattuna ja 15x-tuoton kaikkiin yhtiöihin verrattuna.

Mitkä ovat kirjan keskeiset ideat? 

Kirjan parasta antia ja keskiset opit tiivistyvät 12 myyttiin:

  • MYYTTI: Parhaat yhtiöt syntyvät parhaista ideoista. Todellisuudessa vain pari yhtiötä on syntynyt hyvän idean ympärille.
  • MYYTTI: Johtajat ovat visionäärisiä ja karismaattisia. Käytännössä harva menestyvä johtaja on korkean profiilin karismaattinen henkilö.
  • MYYTTI: Yhtiöt ovat olemassa vain maksimaalisen liikevoiton takia. Kauppakorkean oppien vastaisesti menestyvät yhtiöt ovat ensisijassa olemassa muita tarkoitusperiä varten.
  • MYYTTI: Menestyviä yhtiöitä yhdistää samat arvot. Arvoista huolimatta, niin tärkeintä on kuin syvästi yhtiössä uskotaan omaan ideologiaansa ja kuinka tiukasti niitä noudatetaan käytännössä.
  • MYYTTI: Vain muutos on pysyvää. Todellisuudessa arvot eivätkä ydin ideologia ole vaihdettavissa – ne ovat pysyviä.
  • MYYTTI: Blue-chip -yhtiöt pelaavat varman päälle. Käytännössä menestyvät suuryhtiöt voivat ottaa suuriakin askelia, kun se on perusteltua.
  • MYYTTI: Menestyvät yhtiöt ovat unelmatyöpaikkoja. Mutta kun ne eivät ole. Parhaat yhtiöt sopivat vain sen arvoja kannattavia ihmisille.
  • MYYTTI: Menestyvät yhtiöt ovat myös nerokkaita strategiasuunnittelijoita. Päinvastoin – ne vasta tuurilla seilaavatkin.
  • MYYTTI: Ulkopuoliset johtajat ovat autuus. Vaikka todellisuudessa menestyneipiä yhtiöitä kipparoivat pääsääntöisesti talon omat kasvatit.
  • MYYTTI: Parhaat yhtiöt keskittyvät kilpailemiseen. Totta, mutta ne kilpailivat itsensä kanssa – ei muita vastaan. 
  • MYYTTI: Et voi pitää ja syödä kakkua samaan aikaan. Niin paradoksaalista kuin se onkin, niin parhaat yhtiöt tekevät sitä.
  • MYYTTI: Manifestoimalla visiota olet visionäärinen yhtiöt. Ja kun ei sekään pidä paikkansa.

Ydinkysymys on, että mistä tunnistaa yhtiön, joka menestyy yli ajan. Vastaus on, että vertaamalla BTL-yhtiöitä verrokkiyhtiöihin tunnistaa menestyksen.

Built to Last-listojen tekeminen on hankalaa, koska nekin yhtiöt saattavat kompastua omaan historian painolastiin. Esimerkiksi Motorola on huuhtoutunut unholaan.

Ainoa neuvo, joka johtaa menestykseen on, että perustua yhtiö äläkä anna periksi. Esimerkiksi HP:n tai Wal-Martin perustajille ei ollut ideaa mitään ideaa.

Minkälaisia ne tavoitteet sitten olivat Built to Last-yhtiöissä?

  • Ford halusi demokratisoida autoilun.
  • Boeing halusi rakentaa suihkulentokoneita.
  • Merck halusi tehdä hyviä lääkkeitä ihmisille.
  • Walt Disney halusi tehdä koko illan piirretyn elokuva.
  • IBM rakentaa 360-tietokoneen.
  • USA tehdä miehitetyn lennon kuuhun.

Mistä tunnistaa ”Built to Last”-yhtiön?

  • Niillä on joku elämää suurempi tavoite, jota ne toteuttavat.
  • Sitä työtä tekee ihmiset, jotka uskovat tavoitteeseen.
  • Ne tekevät paljon pikkujuttuja ja onnistuvat joistain kokeiluista kasvattamaan yhtiötä.
  • Yhtiötä johtaa talon omat kasvatit.
  • ”Good Enough Never Is” eli kun mikään ei riitä.

Yksi epäloogisuus kirjassa on. Aikaisemmissa kirjoissa Collins on juhlistanut ajatusta kuinka tärkeää on systemaattinen ja looginen käyttäytyminen. Hän on mm. verrannut Etelänavan valloittaneen Amundsenin ja Scottin tutkimusmatkaa, jossa Amundsen onnistui alkeellisen yksinkertaisella menetelmällä valloittamaan Etelänavan kun Scottin retkikunta hyödynsi edistyksellistä teknologiaa.

Jim Collinsin mielestä maailman paras yhtiö on 3M. Collinsin perustelut 3M:lle on, että siellä on käynnissä jatkuvasti paljon pieniä asioista, joista voi kasvaa isoja…. Onko tässä vaara fokuksen puuttuminen? On, mutta 3M osasi mutatoida liketoimintaansa toisin kuin muut.

Bisneskirjojen rotanloukku on, että kuvitellaan niiden tarjoavan yhden yleisen kasvukaavan, jota noudattamalla suoriutuu voittajaksi. Kasvukaava on yksilöllinen kuin allekirjoitus eikä sitä voi kopioida. Ratkaisevaa, että onko yrityksessä – henkilöstöllä ja johdolla, kykyä panna toimeen se yksilöllinen kasvukaava (volitio). Saavatko he aikaiseksi niitä asioita mitä etenee tulee. Siksi 3M.

Miten legendaarinen 3M:n Post-it -lappu syntyi? ”Indeed, the ubiquitous Post-it notes present just one more example of 3M living according to the philosophy that you often get to where you’re going by stumbling, but you can only stumble if you’re moving. Post-it coinventor Art Fry described: One day in 1974, while I was singing in church choir, I had one of those creative moments. To make it easier to find the songs we were going to sing at each Sunday’s service, I used to mark the places with little slips of paper [but they would flutter out at just the wrong time, leaving me frantic]. I thought, “Gee, if I had a little adhesive on these bookmarks, that would be just the ticket,” so I decided to check into . . . Spence Silver’s adhesive.”

Kirjan perusteella minun mielestä paras yhtiö on Merck. Miksi? “Medicine is for the patient; not for the profits. The profits follow” (George Merck)

Kirjan salainen viesti on siis siinä, että tehdään asioita eri tavalla kuin muut – mutta paremmin.

Huom!!!!! “We deliberately chose not to write a “ten-step program” style of book. It would have been a terrible disservice to our readers and our research. Indeed, the last thing a visionary company would ever do is follow a cookbook recipe for success, any more than Michelangelo would have bought a paint-by-numbers kit. Building a visionary company is a design problem, and great designers apply general principles, not mechanical lock-step dogma.”

Mitä meidän pitäisi tehdä kirjan perusteella?

Tutkitaan miten asiat syntyvät?

1. Teet itsellesi joku tarpeellinen idea. Post-it -lappu, Telkku.com, YouTube

2. Katso mitä teknologia mahdollistaa. Instagram, Boeing 707.

3. Kun idealla syntyy myös teollinen tarve kaupallistaa se. Auto, matkapuhelin tai tietokone joka kotiin.   

Mitä minun pitäisi itse tehdä? 

Mikä voisi olla sellainen idea, jolle on tarve joka kodissa. Minun oppini kirjasta on siis opetella miten tunnistan idean. Käytän joko viiden ”miksi”-kysymyksen menetelmä tai hyödynnän Kiplingin ”Six honest serving-men” -menetelmä. 

Viisi “miksi”-menetelmä. “One powerful method for getting at purpose is the “Five Whys.” Start with the descriptive statement, “We make X products” or “we deliver X services,” and then ask “why is that important?” five times.

”Six honest serving-men” -menetelmä:

“I KEEP six honest serving-men

 (They taught me all I knew);

Their names are What and Why and When

 And How and Where and Who.”

Yhteenveto

Kuusi sanaa:

  • “Growth is a gambler’s game.”
  • “Do it. Fix it. Try it.”
  • ”Hire good people, and leave them alone.”
Kategoriat
Uncategorized

Lafley: Playing to Win

Kirjasta

Kirja on Procter & Gamblen toimitusjohtajan kertomus yhtiön muutoksesta ja siihen johtaneesta strategiasta.

Minkälainen kirja oli?

Mistä kirjassa on kyse? Lafley perustaa näkemyksensä Michael Porterin Competitive Strategy-kirjaan. Yritys rakentaa kestävän kilpailuedun “deliberately choosing a different set of activities to deliver unique value.”

Miten toteuttaa strategiaa? Luodaan sellainen strategia, jossa kerrotaan mitä yritys tekee ja erityisesti, että mitä se ei tee. Lafleyn kasvukaava on siis valintoja, jotka tuottavat pysyvää arvoa asiakkaalle. Päättää. Tehdä asioita toisin. Luoda arvoa.

Mitkä ovat kirjan keskeiset ideat? 

Tultiin voittamaan eikä pelaamaan on kirjan pääsanoma. Kirjan paras anti on mitä toimitusjohtajan _ei_ pidä tehdä?

  1. Tehdään strategiasta visio, koska visio ei tarjoa ohjausta eikä mitään tiekarttaa tulevaisuuteen. Visio harvoin jos koskaan tarjoaa vastusta, että missä liiketoiminnassa ollaan. Saati, että visio kertoisi kuinka luodaan arvoa, josta asiakas on valmis maksamaan.
  2. Tehdään suunnitelma, jossa strategia kuvataan taktiikkana.
  3. Kielletään stragian pitkäkestoisuus ja halutaan toteuttaa ns. emergenttiä strategiaa, jossa reagoidaan markkinamuutoksiin.
  4. Optimoidaan vallitsevaa olotilaa – eräänläinen status quon jatkumo.
  5. Keskinkertaisuuteen vertaamalla kilpailijoihin – tehdään kokoelma parhaimmista käytännöistä ja toteutetaan niitä.

Parhaat yhtiöt päättävät voittaa eivätkä pelkästään pelata.

Lafleyn pelikirja on:

  • Viisi vaihtoehtoa,
  • yksi kehystarina ja
  • ainoa prosessi.

Ne viisi vaihtoehtoa ovat:

  1. Voitontahto.
  2. Pelikenttä.
  3. Miten voittaa.
  4. Ydinosaaminen.
  5. Johtamisjärjestelmä.

Michael Porterin pysyvä kilpailuetu tuo yritykselle ylivoimaiset tuotot ja sitä Lafley haluaa lukijan ymmärtävän. Seuraavaa gurua lainataksemme, niin yhtiön tarkoitus on luoda asiakkuus – the purpose of an organization is to create a customer (Peter Drucker). Voittaminen on ainoa asia, jolla on merkitystä ja se on menestyksekkään strategian ydin.

Välillä pudotaan amerikkalaisten outoiluun: “Many handheld phone manufacturers, for example, would say they are in the business of making smartphones.” <= Mr. Lafley – “do you mean mobile phones?”

Strategia on kuvaus miten voitetaan “strategy is a way to win—and nothing less.”

Paljolti Lafleyn tarina on kertomus perinteisestä liiketoiminnan kehittämisestä – segmentointia, asiakasymmärrystä, hinnoittelututkimuksia, kuluttajakäyttätymistä ja niin edelleen.

Positiivista on, että kirjan pääväittämiä mietitään useammasta näkökulmasta kuin pelkästään P&G:n kannalta. Se on hyvää perspektiiviä ja harvinaisempaa lähestymistapaa amerikkalaisissa bisneskirjoissa.

Yksi mieleenpainuvimpia sanontoja on – “Choosing where to play is also about choosing where not to play.”

Kaiken internet-liiketoiminnan kehittämisen keskellä Lafleyn tarina on hyvä muistutus siitä, että vielä 95 % BKT:stä muodostuu internetin ulkopuolella. Jonnet ei tiedä…😊

Strategiatyön kuoleman laakso on:

  1. Ei tehdä valintoja, vaan pelataan vähän kaikilla kentillä.
  2. Yritetään ostaa itsensä ulos kilpailusta, jossa ei pärjätä koska ei käytetä aikaa riittävästi nykyisen liiketoiminnan mahdollisuuksien hyödyntämiseen.
  3. Hyväksytään, että nykyiset valinnat ovat vääjäämättömiä ja niitä on mahdotonta muuttaa.

Miten Lafley määritteli P&G:n? ” It built brands that became leaders in their segments.” Ja miten:

1. Consumer-centric,

2. Concept-led, and

3. Designed to delight consumers.

4. The best agency partners and won numerous awards

5. Built product portfolios that expanded and strengthened its consumer user base.

Low-Cost Strategies: Alemmat kustannukset kuin kilpailijoilla…. ”In cost leadership, as the name suggests, profit is driven by having a lower cost structure than competitors do.”

Esimerkiksi Marsin kasvukaava oli: Halvempi tuotanto + halvemmat materiaalit + ostettu hyllytila. Tai Dellin kasvukaava oli: Tuotanto + myynti + jakelu = halvemmat hinnat.

Mutta sen strategian heikkous on, että vain yksi voi olla halvin.

Differentiation Strategies: Differoituminen = asiakkaan kokema arvo on korkeampi…. The alternative to low cost is differentiation. In a successful differentiation strategy, the company offers products or services that are perceived to be distinctively more valuable to customers than are competitive offerings, and is able to do so with approximately the same cost structure that competitors use.

Tärkeä muistutus meille kaikille on, että kaikki menestyksekkäät strategiat perustuvat jompaan kumpaan – hintajohtajuus tai differoituminen.

Miten ajaa kumpaakin strategiaa?

  • In other words, life inside a cost leader looks very different from life inside a differentiator. In a cost leader, managers are forever looking to better understand the drivers of costs and are modifying their operations accordingly.
  • In a differentiator, managers are forever attempting to deepen their holistic understanding of customers to learn how to serve them more distinctively.
  • In a cost leader, cost reduction is relentlessly pursued, while in a differentiator, the brand is relentlessly built. Customers are seen and treated very differently. At a cost leader, nonconforming customers—that is, customers who want something special and different from what the firm currently produces—are sacrificed to ensure standardization of the product or service, all in the pursuit of cost-effectiveness.
  • At a differentiator, customers are jealously guarded. If customers indicate a desire for something different, the firm tries to design a new offering that the customers will adore. And if a customer leaves, the departure drives a stake in the heart of the firm, indicating a failure of the strategy with that customer.

Arvot ja strategia ohjaavat toimintaa…. If, as a customer, you say to Southwest, “I really would like advance seat selection, interline baggage checking, and to fly into O’Hare not Midway when I go to Chicago,” Southwest will say, “Great, you should try United Airlines.”

Where-to-play and how-to-win choices do not function independently; a strong where-to-play choice is only valuable if it is supported by a robust and actionable how-to-win choice. <= Kasvukaavan….

Yrityskaupoista. Paras yrityskauppa on kahden kannattavan kesken…. “Unlike a lot of acquisitions, it wasn’t a successful company buying an unsuccessful company. It was a successful company buying a successful company.”

Pikku vinkki: Tee visuaalinen kuvaus yrityksen käyttöjärjestelmästä, joka kuvaa yrityksen kilpailuedun. Käyttöjärjestelmä koostuu tekemisistä/osaamisesta: Käyttöjärjestelmä…. An activity system is of no value unless it supports a particular where-to-play and how-to-win choice. Kysy: onko käyttöjärjestelmäsi – erottuu muista (distinctive) ja puolustettavissa (defensible). P&G:n käyttöjärjestelmän pilarit läpäisevät koko yrityksen…. vähän niinkuin kerrostalo – jossa kaikkialla on keittiö, eteinen, kylpyhuone jne. Ne vain ovat eri järjestyksessä….

Mitä tulevaisuus tuo tuollessaan Lafleyn mielestä? VUCA-ympäristön: Volatile, Uncertain, Complex, and Ambiguous. Ympäristön, jossa kasvu hidastuu ja muutoksen nopeus kasvaa.  

Haluatko voittaa kuin Lafley? Jos kyllä, niin kysy nämä kysymykset:

1. Have you defined winning, and are you crystal clear about your winning aspiration?

 2. Have you decided where you can play to win (and just as decisively where you will not play)?

3. Have you determined how, specifically, you will win where you choose to play?

4. Have you pinpointed and built your core capabilities in such a way that they enable your where-to-play and how-to-win choices?

5. Do your management systems and key measures support your other four strategic choices?

Lafleyn inhokkistrategiat ovat:

1. Pesee ja linkoaa -strategia. The do-it-all strategy: failing to make choices, and making everything a priority. Remember, strategy is choice.

2. Don Quijote -strategia. The Don Quixote strategy: attacking competitive “walled cities” or taking on the strongest competitor first, head-to-head. Remember, where to play is your choice. Pick somewhere you can have a chance to win.

 3. Waterloo-stratregia. The Waterloo strategy: starting wars on multiple fronts with multiple competitors at the same time. No company can do everything well. If you try to do so, you will do everything weakly.

4. Kaikille kaikkea -strategia. The something-for-everyone strategy: attempting to capture all consumer or channel or geographic or category segments at once. Remember, to create real value, you have to choose to serve some constituents really well and not worry about the others.

 5. Pilvilinna-strategia. The dreams-that-never-come-true strategy: developing high-level aspirations and mission statements that never get translated into concrete where-to-play and how-to-win choices, core capabilities, and management systems. Remember that aspirations are not strategy. Strategy is the answer to all five questions in the choice cascade.

6. Ohjelmajohtaja-strategia. The program-of-the-month strategy: settling for generic industry strategies, in which all competitors are chasing the same customers, geographies, and segments in the same way. The choice cascade and activity system that supports these choices should be distinctive. The more your choices look like those of your competitors, the less likely you will ever win.

Mitä meidän pitäisi tehdä kirjan perusteella?

Miten Lafley tunnistaa voittajastrategian:

1. Erottaudu kilpailijasta. An activity system that looks different from any competitor’s system. It means you are attempting to deliver value in a distinctive way.

2. Asiakkaat fanittavat. Customers who absolutely adore you, and noncustomers who can’t see why anybody would buy from you. This means you have been choiceful.

3. Kilpailijoista. Competitors who make a good profit doing what they are doing. It means your strategy has left where-to-play and how-to-win choices for competitors, who don’t need to attack the heart of your market to survive.

4. Vapaa kassavirta. More resources to spend on an ongoing basis than competitors have. This means you are winning the value equation and have the biggest margin between price and costs and the best capacity to add spending to take advantage of an opportunity or defend your turf.

5. Vierestä viedään. Competitors who attack one another, not you. It means that you look like the hardest target in the (broadly defined) industry to attack.

6. Odotukset. Customers who look first to you for innovations, new products, and service enhancement to make their lives better. This means that your customers believe that you are uniquely positioned to create value for them.

Mitä minun pitäisi itse tehdä? 

Tärkeä muistutus meille kaikille on, että kaikki menestyksekkäät strategiat perustuvat jompaan kumpaan – hintajohtajuus tai differoituminen.

Yhteenveto

Tuurilla ne isotkin laivat seilaa: ”And every so often, some luck doesn’t hurt.”

Kategoriat
Uncategorized

Cusumano: Business of Platforms

🔵 Muistatko miten Keltaisten sivujen liiketoimintamalli syntyi? 


✅ Kirjan keskeinen oppi on – menestyvän alustan pitää yhdistää kysyntä ja tarjonta, luoda verkostovaikutus ja ratkaista muna-kana -ongelma. Verkostovaikutus on liiketoiminnan onnistumisen kannalta keskeisessä roolissa.


✅ Alustatalousliiketoimintamalleja on kahdenlaisia – innovaatio (iTunes) ja transaktio (Google haku) 


✅ Innovaatioalustat ovat tuottavia, koska: 1. Ihmiset ovat valmiit maksamaan alustapalvelusta (Spotify). 2. Se saa osan kumppaneiden myynnistä (AirBnB).


✅ Innovaatioalustan neljä virhettä – hinnoittelu, luottamuspula, ylimielisyys kilpailijoihin ja liian myöhäinen markkinoille tulo.


✅ Transaktioalustat ovat tuottavia, koska: 

1. Yhdistävät kysynnän ja tarjonnan (matchmaking). 

2. Alentaa kustannuksia (reducing friction).

3. Täydentävät palvelut (complementary).

4. Täydentävät teknologiat (technology sales). 

5. Mainonta.


✅ Tulevaisuuden kilpailu siirtyy kahteen segmenttiin. 

1. Älykaiuttimet. <= KEHITÄ OMA ÄÄNISOVELLUS.

2. Kuljetuspalvelut.  => PERUSTA YRITYS, JONKA ALUSTAPALVELU TARVITSEE.


⛔️ Tiedettiinkö me jo kaikki tämä? Meh.


P.S. Keltaisten sivujen liiketoimintamalli oli, että annettiin puhelinluettelo ilmaiseksi kuluttajille ja yritykset maksoivat näkyvyydestä. Samanlaiseen verkostovaikutukseen alustatalousyhtiöt pyrkivät.

Kategoriat
Uncategorized

Michael Wade et al: Orchestrating Transformation

About the book

Oh boy! This is the BIG book of transformation. After this there is no need to read any other books about digital transformation. Unless Wade et al. will write something new about digital transformation.

The companies that have not already been subject to serious digital competition will benefit from this book. The companies that would most benefit from learnings of the book are B2B and engineering companies or public organization.

The book is written to business leaders, executives and Chief Digital Officers. This is your book if you want to avoid “the danger of becoming a corporate irrelevance”. Do not be a “Queen of PowerPoint.” Become the master of digital transformation.

“When you’re finished changing, you’re finished.” (Ben Franklin)

What are the key learnings?

“Transformation is not an event; it’s an essential and perpetual task of leadership.”

The key learnings are

–      “A second wave of disruption is upon us. This wave is focused not only on digitizing products and services, but also on business models, processes, and value chains“.

–      Now it’s your turn. “Companies that were easy targets for digitalization – media, financial and telco’s, have already gone through the digital disruption.”

–      The third wave is around the corner. Watch out technologies such as RPA, ML and AI.

“Orchestrating Transformation is less about what the best companies do better than anyone else. Instead, it’s largely about what everyone gets consistently wrong—and how to fix it. This book proceeds from a simple premise: most companies are not successful in digital business transformation.”

Digital business transformation involves much more than technology.

Definition of Digital Business Transformation is “organizational change through the use of digital technologies and business models to improve performance.”

–      “The objective of digital business transformation is to improve business performance.

–      Digital business transformation is based on a digital foundation.

–      Digital business transformation requires organizational change – change that includes processes, people, and strategy.”

Orchestration

“The concept of orchestration to contend with the connected nature of change. By embracing the networked nature of organizations, and the challenge of changing what is highly connected, we reframe what the execution of a digital business transformation program means (continuous and holistic) and increase the chances that it will ultimately succeed.”

Transformation dilemma

“We call this the “transformation dilemma” of today’s incumbents. Organizational characteristics of today’s market incumbents

–      scale,

–      interdependence,

–      dynamism.

“Why the “entanglement” of these characteristics makes it nearly impossible to achieve success in digital business transformation using traditional change methods.”

“Today’s incumbents are missing the growth hacking factor, because “the vast majority of organizational change efforts fail. Estimates vary, but failure rates range from 60 to 80 percent and don’t seem to improve over time.”

“Digital transformations fail so frequently that we’ve met many executives who are hostile to the very term “digital,” or who have made any phrases containing “transformation” verboten because of the word’s perceived connotations of hype, frustration, and fiasco.”

Why? Many company leaders don’t understand the problem they face. “Simply put – things change a lot:

–      Scale. Companies are awash in huge volumes of “things that need to be managed”

–      Interdependence. The things that need to be managed are interrelated, and the effects from any one action are felt throughout the organization in ways that aren’t easy to predict.

–      Dynamism. The things that need to be managed, and the environments (market, regulatory, etc.) in which they operate, are constantly evolving. The need to do things differently is a constant competitive reality.”

Cult of synergy

“Often, companies respond to interdependence by separating things into different units. This approach, known as “departmentalization,” gives a certain team the authority to establish (“own”) a standard for how something is done. At first glance, the approach makes sense as an antidote for complexity. However, it also contributes to the balkanization of companies (i.e., silos), undermining the biggest value of interdependence: synergy.

“A lack of synergy is a major contributing factor in why most transformation programs fail to deliver their expected returns.”

Tales on unexpected

–      Gray Wolf Effect. “One example involves the return of the gray wolf to Yellowstone National Park. 7 By 1926, all gray wolves, the natural “apex predator” in Yellowstone, had been exterminated. In the mid-1990s, gray wolves were reintroduced into the park, and scientists soon observed how their predatory habits affected the entire food chain and overall biodiversity of the region. The reintroduced gray wolves killed and ate the park’s elk population. In turn, the reduced number of grazing elk allowed for the growth of more vegetation. This increase in plant life and its root systems then increased the stability of riverbanks and, ultimately, changed the paths followed by the park’s rivers. (To ecologists, this phenomenon is known as a “trophic cascade”).”

–      Cobra Effect. ”This phenomenon is sometimes referred to as the Cobra Effect. The term originated in the British Raj in 19 th century India. The British government, concerned about the proliferation of venomous cobras in Delhi, offered a bounty to citizens who killed the snakes. Unfortunately, local residents reacted to this incentive by modifying their behavior in an unanticipated way: they began breeding cobras that could be killed for money. When the government realized that citizens were gaming the system, they shut down the bounty program. This prompted the citizens to free their now-worthless snakes, significantly increasing the cobra population.”

–      Black Swan Effect of course.

Four types of change

1.   Plain Old Change.

a.   “This is functionally autonomous, incremental change. The goal of change is straightforward, and the resources needed are limited and well-defined within a particular functional area or group. For example, if the advertising department opts to shift investment in newspaper and television media to online ads, that’s their purview. It doesn’t significantly impact, and isn’t contingent upon, other parts of the company. This type of change represents most of the management effort focused on implementing changes. It’s pretty run-of-the-mill and doesn’t involve extensive cross-functional considerations. It also doesn’t require changes to a company’s overarching strategy or business model.”

2.   Blanket Adjustments.

a.   “This is highly entangled, incremental change. Here, a company makes a tweak or calibration—introducing new enterprise-wide hiring rules or a global expense management system—that affects many different stakeholders in all parts of the organization. These adjustments frequently collide with highly entangled structures and, as many of us have experienced, can be challenging to implement. Nonetheless, the extent of change isn’t large. There’s no essential change to the kinds of value the company creates for customers, how it makes money, or its overall competitive position.”

3.   Smart X.

a.   “This is functionally autonomous, major change. The changes are big, but they don’t have a company-wide focus. When you hear about projects like “smart supply chain” or “smart real estate,” these are examples of Smart X change. This doesn’t mean, however, that Smart X change is a breeze to achieve. Although the change may be limited to a single function, it can be ambitious in scope. A “smart factory,” for example, could involve a complete revolution in how manufacturing processes are performed. This certainly qualifies as “major change.”

4.   Digital Business Transformation.

a.   ”This is highly entangled, major change. This type of change is the focus of the DBT Center in general and this book in particular. Recalling our earlier definition of digital business transformation as “organizational change through the use of digital technologies and business models to improve performance,” we can see that this type of change is considerably different from the others. It combines high levels of scale, interdependence, and dynamism with the need to make fundamental changes to the entire organization in the service of a new strategic direction. It means making changes to business models and customer value creation to address disruptive competition. It may also involve value creation with third parties (i.e., through platforms).”

Guiding objectives

“What’s more, too many transformations are disconnected from:

–      Customer value creation,

–      Business models,  

–      Strategies of the company.”

“We refer to these three elements together as guiding objectives. Guiding objectives are a set of clearly-articulated aims that serve as the point of departure for effective execution of a transformation program. (However, they are not the company’s “digital strategy”; see sidebar.)”

Three common denominators in modus operandi for succeeding in transformation are:

1.   Cost value. Disruptors create value for customers through lower costs or by creating some kind of economic gain.

2.   Experience value. through customer experiences that are faster, more convenient, more personalized, and so forth.

3.   Platform value. By creating connections that did not exist before, such as between a buyer and a seller, or between a teacher and a student.

Smash the paradigm

“In the past, as described in Michael Porter’s classic Competitive Strategy, firms focused on one of two main competitive orientations: cost leadership (what we refer to as “cost value”) and differentiation (what we call “experience value”). 2 Porter’s point is that companies pick one or the other: you can be Walmart (cost value) or you can be Burberry (experience value). But you don’t try to do both at once—doing so would be a recipe for disaster (by the way, there were not platforms as we think of them today back when Porter wrote his book). Companies like Uber, and all of the most disruptive companies, smash this paradigm with their ability to create combinatorial disruption that customers can’t get enough of.”

Case Fujifilm. “Fujifilm recognized the digital threat to its core market in analog cameras and film. As far back as the 1980s, both companies anticipated declining sales of photographic film and paper and launched successful digital camera offerings. By 1999, Fujifilm was the world leader in digital camera sales. By 2003, however, the disruption in digital photography deepened with the introduction of smartphones with built-in multi-megapixel cameras. At Fujifilm, film sales fell off a cliff. They dropped by one-third within a year, and photo labs reported an 80 percent decline in processing jobs for consumers. After decades of growth, Fujifilm’s revenue reached a peak in 1999 at $13.6 billion. Shigetaka Komori, who became CEO in 2003 (he was also named chairman in 2012), had to respond: “At first I thought that color film wouldn’t disappear quickly, but digital stole it all away in an instant.” This is a common sentiment for executives who have the misfortune of encountering value vampires—disruptive competitors who permanently undercut the viability of a market. In 2001, film accounted for two-thirds of Fujifilm profits. By 2017, it was less than 1 percent. Komori and his team restructured the organization, reducing its distribution, research and development, and management costs. Significant job reductions, factory closings, and other cuts helped decrease the company’s cost base by more than $5 billion. Fujifilm diversified and retreated into a few niche markets where value vampires (Apple and the Android-based smartphone makers) had no intention of following: high-end digital imaging machines, enterprise document solutions, and (unexpectedly) cosmetics.

Strategic Response Playbook – Four strategic options

1.   Harvest: Maximizing Returns from a Disrupted Business

2.   Retreat: Strategic Withdrawal

3.   Disrupt: Creating New Customer Value

4.   Occupy: Winning in a Disrupted Space

Harvest

Harvest is a defensive strategy designed to maximize gains from an at-risk or declining business. Harvest strategies frequently begin with “blocking tactics,” drawing on the benefits of incumbent status with customers, partners, regulators, opinion-makers, and providers of capital. These countermeasures are intended to slow the disruption or buy time for an incumbent to come up with a more appropriate response.

Harvest shouldn’t be equated with failure. It’s the natural progression of a mature business confronting commoditization, customer attrition, margin compression, and other unpleasantness arising from digital disruption. Leaders who are clear-sighted enough to accept this are best positioned to steer their organizations through the transition. An example of a global incumbent adopting a Harvest strategy is Avon Products. 4 Founded over 130 years ago in New York, the company uses a direct, social-selling channel: 6 million “Avon Ladies” form an independent salesforce of micro-entrepreneurs who go door-to-door to offer women cosmetics, fragrances, jewelry, and health supplements.

Retreat

“There are two main components to a Retreat strategy.

–      Retreat emphasizes withdrawal into a market niche that serves a small subset of existing customers with specialized needs. Usually, the niche is a market the incumbent has dominated in the past and, in most cases, is an expert at managing for profitability. The niche market often requires a level of experience value that is hard for disruptors to deliver.

–      Market exit is the second component of a Retreat strategy, and choosing the right time to exit is a critical decision. Too early, and you risk leaving money on the table. Too late, and the value has disappeared. Fujifilm sold many of its core assets in film and paper production while they still had value, channeling the proceeds into new business lines.”

Disrupt

“A Disrupt strategy focuses on creating cost value, experience value, and platform value for customers using digital technologies and business models in a new way. Becoming a disruptor requires a mix of deep customer and competitor insights, innovative thinking, strategic experimentation, capability transfer and building, and careful investment. As a result, many incumbents find disruption very difficult. For example Casper and Endy’s success is the result of their rigorous focus on providing value to customers. Buying a mattress through traditional channels can be a painful experience.

Occupy

“While a disruption can be achieved through cost value or experience value or platform value, a successful Occupy strategy normally requires combinatorial disruption. Only by combining all three forms of value can an organization prevail in the disruption battle for any length of time. The main problem with Occupy is that incumbents are often on unfamiliar terrain. Sleep Country Canada…. Far from retrenching, the company is aggressively investing, improving cost controls and inventory levels. <= LeanLeap

Sleep Country Canada is also “disrupting the disruptors,” emulating the market-changing innovations that underpin the value of Casper and Endy’s offers, while continuing to wield its physical stores presence and greater bargaining strengths. It launched an easy-to-deliver mattress-in-a-box called Bloom, 36 allowing it to participate in a fast-growing segment of the market. 37 The company has always offered a 100-day satisfaction guarantee but is benefiting from the market awareness that online competitors’ marketing efforts are creating.”

Establishing Guiding Objectives of a Transformation

“What should we do first in our transformation program?” The answer is: start by establishing guiding objectives.”

“Drawing on our research into digital transformation journeys, we have built a simple tool called “20 Questions” to help organizations prioritize strategic responses.

“Certain strategies in the Strategic Response Playbook are employed more than others:

–      Retreat strategies are less frequent, in part because, as we observed in our earlier book, leaders are reluctant to pursue them (out of fear they will be perceived as signposts of deficient leadership) and because, even though market entry and exit rates are accelerating in the Digital Vortex, “wrapping up” a business is not a daily occurrence for firms.

–      Disrupt strategies are not something companies embark on frequently or lightly. They tend to be radical departures from what the company has done in the past and require a different model for market formation, incubation, and scaling. Most incumbents are not good at Disrupt strategies because they imply being first to market, often with a small subset of early-adopter customers.

–      Harvest. More commonly, big, traditional, prosperous companies concentrate their efforts on Harvest and Occupy. The former means playing defense, and usually involves a lot of cost optimization, streamlining, and specialization. #Lean

–      Occupy. The latter means playing offense, but after a value vacancy and a market disruption have already materialized, allowing the incumbent to be a “fast follower” and compete based on its unique strengths. #Leap”

“Experience value and platform value are the most common value-creation focuses for big companies pursuing a Disrupt strategy. However, any one of the three forms of value can be the basis of Disrupt.”

“In Occupy, incumbents need to deliver all three forms of value to keep customers from migrating to competitors who are similarly targeting the value vacancy—and to secure the continued status of market leader.”

“The three components of guiding objectives—customer value creation, business models, and strategy—cannot be developed sequentially. To frame execution, they must be considered as an integrated whole.”

Case Intuit. “In doing so, Intuit adopted an Occupy strategy: the launch of an advantageously priced TurboTax cloud offer quickly displaced the desktop version of its tax software. 5 Intuit was willing to cannibalize its own product to build a large market share with a cloud-based product that ensured much more loyalty from customers. This prevented a competitor, Microsoft, from capturing a significant portion of the market with its Microsoft Money software. In fact, Microsoft interrupted that offer and stopped supporting it altogether after 2011.

In late 2017, the company began its next strategy refresh cycle. Seeing data analytics, AI, and machine learning as the new disruptive capabilities likely to impact customer experiences, Intuit mobilized over 100 teams to review research on trends and customer feedback. Based on this, Ko and the management team identified eight major macro trends driving massive societal and economic shifts. In response, the company is reallocating $1 billion—roughly one-fourth of its operating expenses—to address these opportunities. Under the leadership of Al Ko, Intuit’s recurring strategy refresh is becoming a repeatable process. Using knowledge and best practices from the past two iterations in 2012 and 2017, his team is codifying them in the company’s operating rhythm. The process of revisiting the strategy and assessing its progress is now fully represented in the company’s one-and three-year planning cycles, and in operating reviews. But Ko insists that regardless of how repeatable the refresh has become, there’s no substitute for revisiting a massive list of trends and opportunities regularly and stress-testing ways to create more value for customers. Intuit provides a compelling example of how transformation is an essential and perpetual task of leadership. Investors seem to like the results of Ko’s “maniacal focus” on strategy refresh, and the execution that has followed. Intuit’s market capitalization has increased by roughly 600 percent since 2010, compared with some 250 percent for the Nasdaq overall.”

The company’s transformation ambition

“Another important concept that is related to, but distinct from, guiding objectives: the company’s transformation ambition. This is simply a statement that outlines the company’s overall change goal. The transformation ambition aggregates the strategic intent of all the guiding objectives that span the company’s divisions or businesses.”

PRISM

“Good transformation ambitions have a few consistent characteristics. They act as a “prism” that focuses and directs the organization’s energies.

Precise – no room for interpretation.

Realistic – all can credibly see the company actually pulling off.

Inclusive – It needs to be relevant to everyone in the company, from top to bottom.

Succinct – It must be something the average employee can easily remember, almost a rallying cry.

Measurable – everyone can define progress in his or her own way.

Case Cisco. “The transformation ambition of 40/40/2020 was not a commitment to Wall Street, but rather a kind of unofficial, universally understood “north star” for the company. was a shorthand leaders used to describe a future standing in which the company would garner 40 percent of its revenue from recurring (subscription-based) sources and 40 percent from software by the year 2020 (the company’s 2021 fiscal year).”

“A powerful faction among the executive team, which must include the CEO and the board, is needed to overcome resistance to change. A CEO and board, backed by cooperative leaders, must establish an unambiguous stance supporting the transformation ambition.”

“Metrics also play an important role in the ongoing management of a transformation program, quantifying and tracking progress (or the lack thereof) against guiding objectives and the transformation ambition. One CDO told us, “We invest heavily in measurement to drive accountability. Data means there is nowhere to hide. If you’re not on side, there won’t be a sliver of daylight.”

The Transformation Orchestra

Silos are the enemy of transformation. Especially with digital transformation where the ownership is not clear. The Transformation Orchestra is:

Go-to-Market Section

1)   Offerings: The products and services your company sells.  

2)   Channels: How products and services reach customers (i.e., route to market).

Engagement Section

3)   Customer Engagement: How your company engages with its customers.

4)   Partner Engagement: How your company engages with its partner ecosystem.

5)   Workforce Engagement: How your company engages with its employees and contract staff.

Organization Section

6)   Org Structure: The structure of business units, teams, reporting lines, and profit and loss centers (P&Ls).

7)   Incentives: How workers are compensated and rewarded for their performance and behavior.

8)   Culture: The values, attitudes, beliefs, and habits of the company.

Demonstrating that the focus should be on eight elements (not three, not 40) is liberating.

Orchestration Competencies

What do you need to bridge guiding objectives and execution?

1. Customer journey mapping is a needed competency.

800!!!!!! “Customer journey mapping means achieving a detailed understanding of customers’ experiences from the beginning to the end of their interactions with an organization. The proliferation of digital channels is changing how companies approach this mapping. Consider today’s typical multichannel retailer. Shopper interactions once comprised a small handful of possible journeys. But taking into account new channels, including mobile, online, wearables, and in-home devices (e.g., Amazon Echo), we’ve calculated that today’s shoppers have more than 800 unique variations of possible shopping journeys.”

Case Nespresso journey. “Lamblard suggested that e-commerce and user experience (UX) will increasingly focus on removing friction points across the customer journey. “The future of UX is no UX,” he said, and “e-commerce checkouts will vanish.” To accomplish this omnichannel reality, Nespresso aims to eliminate all unnecessary steps from the customer journey by leveraging data and personalization at scale. (For example, when future customers shop in a boutique, they will simply choose their coffee and then leave.) Examples of digital capabilities that may facilitate this seamless journey include subscription ordering models, AI, automation, and peer-to-peer commerce. Nespresso has motivated its channels to work together by harmonizing cross-channel employee incentives. (This makes the company not only a prime example of customer journey mapping, but of orchestration that combines multiple “instruments”.)”

2. Business model design is a complementary competency.

“Key to business model reinvention is a keen understanding of customers’ expectations and what they’ll pay for. Management consulting skills in strategy and business modeling (e.g., the Business Model Canvas) are important here, as is an understanding of customer value creation. How are other firms—especially disruptive competitors—creating cost value, experience value, and/or platform value for customers?”

“Competitive intelligence also plays a big role in understanding how the market is evolving.”

“The creation of a center of excellence around design thinking and user experience has definitely been a critical construct for us to evolve and develop.”

“Understand THE state of the ORGANIZATION.”

3. Business architecture is a competency that helps orchestrators to mobilize organizational resources and assemble transformation networks.

4. Capability assessment, including the availability and readiness of resources.

Build Synergy

Companies undergoing large-scale digital transformation are often places of confusion. A lack of both a clear vision and a shared narrative to describe the company’s transformation efforts frequently prevents people from taking decisive action. For these reasons,

5. Communications and training is a key orchestration competency.

6. Incubation

Orchestrators should also provide (6) incubation and scaling platforms . Platforms are great for creating market change, and they are critical in driving organizational change as well. They are particularly useful in generating synergies and as scaling engines.

7. Internal venture funding focused on innovation and transformation.

“No one listens to a cost center.”

“You’ve got to have financial means to be an attractive business partner.” For a midsized company, this funding might run to a few million dollars. For a large global incumbent, it could be in the tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars. These funds should be ring-fenced for efforts that promote cross-functional outcomes.”

8. Agile

Finally, when it comes to accelerating a transformation program, practitioners must be adept at (8) Agile ways of working. Agile plays a core role in how transformation programs in general—and transformation networks in particular—run.

Case ING. “Employees were asked to reapply for positions structured according to an Agile approach. ING divided the workforce into 350 “squads,” each with a maximum of nine employees. Each squad owned a specific customer-focused business objective, and included workers from multiple disciplines, such as IT development, product management, marketing, and distribution. The squads functioned as “self-organizing” units, each setting its own direction, tasks, prioritization, and strategy for accomplishing its goals. The squads were coordinated using a formal approach, including “chapters” to connect members of the same discipline across different squads, and “tribes,” which were groups of squads working on related missions. Agile coaches were embedded in the squads and tribes to facilitate the process and drive the cultural change needed to succeed in this new way of working.”

Organizing for Orchestration

“Although organizations are fairly evenly divided about whether “digital” should be a centralized or a distributed responsibility, our research shows that when it comes to managing digital transformation, 84 percent of organizations have established a dedicated or specialized group. For almost half of companies, digital is integral to every manager’s job. However, this is not true for transformation, where more than eight in 10 companies recognize that transformation can’t be added to managers’ day-to-day activities, but instead must be aggressively driven in a targeted way.”

“Leaders would do well to bear in mind this important distinction, which we’ve stressed throughout: digital and transformation are not the same thing.”

A centralized transformation group can quickly become its own silo.

“By the same token, a diffused model can also slow down execution. Things can get lost in translation. Wheels can get reinvented.”

“In many large and midsized organizations, coordinati grow like mushrooms as teams (separately) invest in program management roles that get tied up ensuring that other groups have visibility into their work, and that they, in turn, understand how the work of other groups pertains to their own. Former Google CEO Eric Schmidt referred to these workers as “glue people”—employees “who sit between functions and help either side but don’t themselves add a lot of value.” Glue is helpful in binding things together, but unhelpful when it makes things immovable.”

“Multiple executives are “responsible for overseeing digital transformation” in the company, even though a dedicated transformation group exists. In fact, an average of 3.3 different leaders.”

To CDO or to not CDO?

The chief digital officer role has emerged as one of several key leadership roles in digital business transformation. Three main types of CDOs and their share are:

1)   The Customer Experience Maven (25 %)

2)   The Artist Formerly Known as the CIO (66 %)

3)   The Agitator (10 %)

The Customer Experience Maven.

The first type of CDO is focused predominantly in the areas of marketing, communications, e-commerce, customer engagement, and product development. Many of these CDOs come from a chief marketing officer role or from the advertising and creative industries. This CDO frequently views digital primarily as a way to position and strengthen the company’s brand and to interact with customers. A key focus may be adding digital capabilities to existing products (e.g., placing a sensor on a refrigerator, putting a computer screen in a car).   

The Artist Formerly Known as the CIO.

The second type of CDO drives digital primarily from an IT perspective, much as the chief information officer has done in years past. Often, there is little change in the charter of the role, meaning the executive has oversight of the company’s IT but gets a new business card. Sometimes, this is very superficial. The “D” is viewed as trendier than the “I,” which, fairly or unfairly, carries certain baggage in terms of perceived value and skills. Indeed, CIOs as a profession have experienced a “crisis of relevance” in recent years, as business executives consistently cite lack of strategic alignment and innovation as challenges they see in IT leadership. In some circles, there is a belief that if the company hires a CDO, it’s because the CIO has not done his or her job. CDOs are basically CIOs with a title change or a modest enlargement of their responsibilities.

The Agitator.

The third type of CDO is hired not just as a “digital” leader, but to be a gadfly—to challenge received wisdoms and entrenched approaches—and in some cases, as one executive put it, to “blow up the business model” of the company. Many of these CDOs come from startup or management consulting backgrounds. Here, the focus is on major changes to firm strategy and helping the company make money in new ways, usually in response to disruptive competition and/or changing customer demands. This often happens when executive leadership wants to pursue offensive strategies like Disrupt or Occupy.  

The New CTO: Chief Transformation Officer

“This position should be invested with an orchestration charter and responsibility for how the transformation program is executed. The CTO should be responsible for mobilizing organizational resources and enabling their connections. He or she should act as the company’s synergy creator. In the words of one practitioner, “Every action I take can’t just knock over the next domino. It has to knock over 10 or 12 dominoes.” Ideally, the CTO will report to the CEO.”

“Every manager should understand digital and seek to apply it to his or her area of responsibility. But transformation should be driven by a single leader—the chief transformation officer.”

“One key lesson we’ve learned is: let leaders lead. Allow the people who’ve made your company successful to do what they do. Of course, if they’re not performing or are actively trying to undermine the leadership consensus (constantly revisiting and challenging the transformation ambition, for example), they should be replaced. But leaders also have influence and expertise. The company needs their buy-in and engagement for major changes to work.”

“Most organizations and their leadership structures are geared to operate the business, not transform it. Most leadership teams are not there to be change agents, but to deliver results. These results tend to be framed in the here and now—meeting shareholder expectations or addressing the urgent demands of today’s customer.”

“Don’t expect everyone to be orchestrators of cross-functional outcomes. Make that someone’s full-time job—someone who can transcend silos, unstick log jams, and focus outside the immensely difficult task facing all other leaders in the company: operating the mainstream business efficiently and effectively.”

 “If someone’s not complaining about you, you’re not being innovative enough.” (CDO Rob Roy / Sprint)

How should we change according to the book?

“Action: Make the chief transformation officer responsible for orchestrating the company’s digital business transformation, mobilizing organizational resources and enabling connections among them, but create shared accountabilities and joint KPIs with the business for results. The rest of the business should focus on implementing digital capabilities and driving change in their respective areas.”

“Action: Ensure that the executive team consistently reinforces the direction of the transformation, along with their explicit expectation that managers and individual employees plan, invest, and execute in ways that support this direction.

“Action: Create an appropriately sized internal venture fund that can accelerate cross-functional efforts and business outcomes.”

“Action: Document major digital initiatives occurring across the business to create visibility and potential synergies. The orchestrator, however, shouldn’t try to “own” these projects.”

“Action: Make the customer the centerpiece of your company’s digital business transformation. Work backward from how you intend to create new or improved value for the end customer.”

“Action: Create transformation networks consisting of multiple instruments to address transformation challenges. Keep each transformation network small, agile, and focused on a highly specific transformation challenge. This makes measuring the progress and impacts of the change easier.”

“Action: Encourage the CTO to build a strong rapport with division and functional leaders; rather than competing with the business, the transformation office should be seen as a source of innovation, agility, and speed.”

“Action: Keep the transformation office focused on incubating new processes and better capabilities. Transition ongoing management of these processes and capabilities when they reach maturity to the business. The transformation office should remain engaged to adjust the outputs over time.”

“Action: Ensure that the CTO works with other key leaders, particularly the CIO and the assigned transformation leads, to increase the overall level of digital business agility in the company—its foundational capacity to change. This involves creating weak connections among organizational resources that provide new or relevant information, as well as strong connections that create the trust and cohesion needed for a connected approach to change.”

What should I personally do?

Study these….. “Digital technologies including AI and automation, IoT, 5G, and blockchain will profoundly impact companies in the years ahead.”

AI & automation: “It’s not inconceivable that we reach a point in the not-too-distant future where AI is used to orchestrate transformation networks of robots and other intelligent systems to deliver on the organization’s guiding objectives. Already we are seeing signs of orchestration and “resource programmability” coming to the world of IT, where analytics, telemetry, cloud, and virtualization technology allow organizations to shift bandwidth or compute resources, or to establish new policies or access rules, on the fly across a vast footprint of technologies.”

IoT & 5G: “The growth of IoT and the launch of 5G are setting the stage for the level of connectivity within organizations to skyrocket. IoT and 5G will enable organizations to obtain a real-time high-definition view of their people, data, and infrastructure, allowing organizations an unprecedented and detailed understanding of their resources and how they are working together (or not). These technologies will drive tremendous growth in data, which will allow companies to uncover hidden patterns of poor resource utilization that beget inefficiencies or hinder value creation. Better data heralds the possibility of better decision-making.”

Blockchain: “Blockchain and smart contract technology have the power to transform both intra-company and inter-company operating processes, including supply chain, legal, finance, human resources, and sales. For example, blockchain technology could be used in HR to verify employment history and training credentials, while it could transform payment processing and contract management in finance and improve traceability in a company’s supply chain. An orchestrator could simply program a smart contract to execute an organizational change, transmitting money or information automatically when triggered.”

Summary

The book in six words – “Silos are the enemy of transformation.” 

Kategoriat
Uncategorized

Alfred P. Sloan: Vuoteni General Motorsissa

Kirjasta

Saako aloittaa valittamalla? Tässä kirjassa on huono suomennos, IMHO. Erinomaisen hyvän kirjan lukukokemus häiriintyy, koska suomennos on vailla mielekästä yhteyttä yrityselämän keskeisiin termeihin. ”Executive board”, ”kick off”, ”opportunity” ja ”decentralization” sanat ovat kääntyneet esimerkiksi seuraavasti ”toimeenpaneva toimikunta”, ”avauspotku” ja ”hajautus”. Käännöstyö on tehty 1960-luvulla, jolloin johtoryhmä, mahdollisuus tai kick-off eivät kuuluneet suomalaisen liike-elämän sanavarastoon. Tästä voidaan oppia kuinka tärkeää on onnistunut käännöstyö. Siihen kannattaa siis panostaa!

Minkälainen kirja oli?

Alfred P. Sloanin kirja ei pääse tietokirjojen top10-kirjojen joukkoon, mutta on lukemisen arvoinen kirja. Annan kirjasta lukusuosituksen.

Kirjoittaja ei ole halunnut tehdä itsestään numeroa tai hakeutua parrasvaloihin 88-vuotiaana. Sloan on selkeästi kirjoittanut kirjan jakaaksensa osaamista tuleville sukupolville sekä selittääkseen General Motorsin kehittymistä.

Yleisesti ottaen voisi luonnehtia GM:ää aikanaan innovatiiviseksi yhtiöksi. Esimerkiksi osamaksurahoitus lanseerattiin kuluttajakaupassa heti ensimmäisen maailman sodan jälkeen jo 1919. GM:ssä tunnistettiin, että henkilöautosta tulee yleisin kulkuväline ja keskiluokka tulee määrittelemään ostovoimallaan tyylisuunnat. Samoin GM:ssä lähdettiin hyvin varhain tekemään loikkaa ulkomaille eli kansainvälistymään yritysostojen kautta mm. Vauxhallin avulla Iso-Britanniaan ja Opelin kautta Saksaan. Ja mikä tärkeintä – myyntitoimintaa pidettiin arvossa arvaamattomassa.

Kirjassa on paljon ja pitkiä kuvaksia GM:n liiketoiminta-alueista, yrityshistoriikista sekä muista yritysjohtajista. Ne ovat mielenkiintoisia kirjan tunnelman kannalta sekä muistutuksena, että liiketoiminta ei ole aina ollut sitä mitä me teemme nykyään.

Meille suomalaisille mielenkiintoinen kuriositeetti on, että kirjassa esiintyvät Eliel ja Eero Saarinen. He suunnittelivat GM:n kampuksen Detroittiin.

Mitkä ovat kirjan keskeiset ideat? 

Alfred P. Sloan aloitti yhtiön palveluksessa vuonna 1918 ja vuonna 1956 hänet nimitettiin johtokunnan kunniapuheenjohtaja. Tuohon uraan mahtui siis operatiivista johtamista 23 vuotta ja hallitustyöskentelyä 43 vuotta.

Kirjan tärkein oppi löytyy seuraavasta lauseesta eli ”hyvä liikkeenjohto perustuu keskityksen ja hajautuksen yhteen sovittamiseen, eli yhteinäistetysti valvottuun hajautukseen”. Suomentaja on todennäköisesti joutunut hieman arpomaan mitä Sloan on tarkoittanut. Koko kirjan ajan Sloan on tarkoittanut, että johtamisjärjestelmä ja tukitoiminteet pitää olla keskitettyä, mutta operatiivinen johto pitää olla liiketoimintayksiköissä. Hänen mielestä keskitetty johtamisjärjestelmä mahdollista kasvun johtamisen, mutta onnistuminen tehdään liiketoimintayksiköissä. Yhteiset tukitoiminteet varmistivat kannattavuuden, niin että esim. jokaisen automerkin varastoarvot eivät rasittaneet tasetta tai että keskitetyn osto-organisaation kautta saatiin volyymihyödyt. Sloan oli isojen ja vahvojen liiketoimintayksiköiden mies. Siis hyvinkin moderni tapa organisoida liiketoimintaa.

”Kun kilpailijat noudattavat esimerkkiämme – siinä on liikemiehen mitali” (Herbert M. Gould)

Sloan rakensi kasvuyhtiötä. Kirjan sivuilla rakentuu kuva optimistisesta keskustelijasta, joka haki kasvua ja kannattavuutta. Sekä mikä tärkeintä onnistui kummassakin tavoitteessa. Sloan myös oli hyvin huolellinen yhtiön maksuvalmiuden kanssa, jopa nykypäivänä tarkasteltuna liiankin huolellinen.

Sloan rakensi GM:ä yhtiön sekä työntekijöille että osakkeenomistajille. Osakkeenomistajat suorastaan kylpivät osinkosateessa, myös niinä vuosina kun tulos ei olisi mahdollistanut osinkojen täysimääräistä maksua. Niinä vuosina Sloan hyödynsi vahvaa kassaa. Työntekijät nauttivat pohjoismaista hyvinvointivaltiota parempaa sosiaaliturvaa työskennellessään GM:n palveluksessa. Palkkaus- ja palkkiojärjestelmät olivat läpinäkyviä ja työntekijöitä pidettiin osana liikkeenjohtoa. Melko tasa-arvoinen työyhteisö.

Ja miten hän teki rakensi kannattavan ja kasvavan GM:n? Selvästi Sloanin tärkeimmät tekijät johtamisessa olivat:

1)   Motivaatio,

2)   keskustelu ja

3)   mahdollisuus.

Sloan näkee että motivaation taustalla on kannustinpalkkiot, keskustelulla varmistetaan sitoutuminen ja mahdollisuudet syntyvät liiketoimintavetoisesta organisaatiomallista.  

Bonusten maksaminen rahana tai osakkeina oli Sloanille tärkeä perusprinsiippi. Hän jopa sanoo palkkiojärjestelmän poistamisesta – ”saattaisi hyvinkin tuhota yhtymän liikkeenjohdon hengen ja organisaation”. Kirjaa kirjoittaessa Sloan oli johtanut GM:ä 45 vuotta ja oli melkein 90-vuotias miljonääri. Tuskin siis puhui omaan pussiinsa, vaan ajatteli yhtiön parasta.

Tänä päivänä on tarkoituksellista synnyttää ideat yhdessä ja niistä valita ratkaisut, jota organisaatio voi noudattaa. Mutta Sloan edusti osallistavaa johtamismallia ja hän halusi saada ihmiset sopimaan yhdessä päätöksistä. Hän uskoi, että siten on syntynyt keskitasoa parempia päätöksiä. ”Johtavilla henkilöillä on usein voimakas houkutus tehdä päätökset itse ilman joskus rasittavaa keskustelun prosessia, mikä edellyttää ideoiden myymistä muille”. 

Strategiasta….

Sloan siteeraa melko paljon kahta miestä – William S. Durant (Buick) ja Henry Ford. Heidän erot olivat Sloanin mukaan ilmeisesti – Ford oli keskittäjä ja Durant hajauttaja. Samoin Ford oli halpuuttaja, kun Durant perusti kaiken differointiin (mallien kuin tekniikan). Yksi mainitsemisen arvoinen tekijä Durantin ajattelussa oli, että hän uskoi yhtenäistettyihin alustoihin osien tai varusteiden osalta. Näistä kahdesta strategiassa Ford onnistui ja Durant ajautui konkurssin partaalle. Durantin raunioista nousi GM ja osa hänen perinöstään jäi elämään mm. differoidulla tuotetarjoomalla.

Sloanin strateginen päämäärä oli vain ja ainoastaan tuotto pääomalle. Sitä hän kutsuu ”liikkeenjohdollisen ajatteluni perustekijäksi”. Pääoman tuottoon Sloan uhraakin paljon ajatuksia, sivuja sekä luettelee monipolvisesti kuinka paljon GM on tuottanut osinkoina omistajilleen eri aikakausina.

”Muistakaa kohtuus kaikissa yhteyksissä”

Johtamisesta… Sloanin mukaan hyvä johtajan ominaisuudet ovat:

·     Arvovalta, mutta ei hierarkiaan perustuva.

·     Kunnioitus saavuttaakseen luottamuksen.

·     Toimialaosaamista.

Johtamismalli:

1)   Liiketoiminta-alueet pitää olla hyvin määritelty,

2)   keskusorganisaation yhtenäistäminen,

3)   valvonta kuuluu pääjohtajalla,

4)   pääjohtajan alaisten määrän rajoittaminen, jotta jää aikaa ajatteluun ja

5)   osaamisalueiden kehittämiseen pitää osallistaa liiketoiminta-alueet.

Liikeideasta ja liiketoimintamallista….

Sloan näki, että GM:n positio toteutuu differoimalla tuotteet – Chevrolet, Oakland (Pontiac), Oldsmobile, Scripps-Booth, Sheridan, Buick ja Cadillac. Kaikki automerkit positioituivat eri kohderyhmille. Chevy halvempaan tuotekategoriaan ja Cadillac yläkvartaaliin. Vastaavasti liiketoimintamallina oli rakentaa tuotteita kaikissa hintaluokissa.

Hinnoittelustrategia oli kolmiportainen:

1)   Hintapisteitä halvimmasta kalleimpaan.

2)   Hintakartassa ei saanut olla aukkoja.

3)   Hinnat eivät saaneet olla päällekkäisiä eri tuotemerkeille.

Myynnistä….

”Piirimyyjän…. Hyvinvoinnin on oltava yhtymän tärkeimpiä kysymyksiä.” Sloan arvosti korkealle myyntityötä. Hän kiersi jälleenmyyjien luona, perusti heille erillisen hallintoneuvoston ja riitatapauksia varten oman sisäisen lautakunnan. Tämän lisäksi hän hoidatutti GM:n kustannuksella piirimyyjien kirjanpitoa sekä teetätti ennustemalleja eri alueiden kysyntäpotentiaalista. Ja selkeästi jälleenmyyjät arvostivat Sloanin panosta, koska he keräsivät Sloanin säätiölle 1,5 mUSD.  

Liiketoimintaa piti analysoida kilpailun, kuluttajien, teknologisen ja ilmeisesti kannattavuuden kautta. Samat periaatteet kuin tänään.

Lempeydestä…..

Ketteringin kuparimoottorin kehittämisen yhteydessä nousi esiin sympaattinen episodi. Charles Kettering niminen innovaattori kehitteli ilmajäähdytteistä moottoria, jossa oli kuparirivat. Työ ei sujunut hyvin ja Kettering alkoi masentua. Lääkkeeksi siihen syntyi neljän johtoryhmän jäsenen kirjoittama kannustuskirje. Kettering toipui tukikirjeen ja jatkoi kehitystyötään. Ehkä toinen suora lainaus kuvastaa myös Sloanin toimintaotetta – ”minusta oli miellyttävää istua noiden loistavien miesten joukossa”.

Sloan ei kirjoittanut kirjaa itsestään, mutta väistämättä myös hänestä rakentui selvä mielikuva. Hyvin kuvaavaa oli, että hän lahjoitti jälleenmyyjiltä saamansa 1,5 miljoonaa dollaria nimeänsä kantavalle säätiölle, jonka tarkoitus oli edistää syöpätutkimusta. Säätiö on muuten nyt kasvanut 1,3 mrd USD arvoiseksi. Melkoinen filantrooppi.

Mitä meidän pitäisi tehdä kirjan perusteella?

Kirjan laajuuden huomioiden sanoisin, että Sloanin johtamisperiaatteet kannattaa monistaa omaan toimintaansa:

1)   Liiketoiminta-alueet pitää olla hyvin määritelty,

2)   keskusorganisaation yhtenäistäminen,

3)   valvonta kuuluu pääjohtajalla,

4)   pääjohtajan alaisten määrän rajoittaminen, jotta jää aikaa ajatteluun ja

5)   osaamisalueiden kehittämiseen pitää osallistaa liiketoiminta-alueet.

Mitä minun pitäisi itse tehdä? 

Lukea Henry Fordin elämänkerta.

Yhteenveto

Kirja kuudella sanalla –  ”En koskaan anna käskyjä – minä myyn ajatukseni liiketovereilleni, jos onnistun”.

Kategoriat
Uncategorized

Collins & Hansen: Great by Choice

About the book

I just the love Mr. Jim Collins and his research team has conducted. No man on earth has made as much as Mr. Collins to help leaders to stay on track. The current business systems wouldn’t be the same without his insights, creative writings and evidence based analysis. We can easily promote Jim Collins to the same category as Peter Drucker.

“One should… be able to see that things are hopeless and yet be determined to make them otherwise.” —F. Scott Fitzgerald

What are the key learnings?

Key question… “What does it take to build a great company?”

This is the recipe…. “Bill Gates didn’t just get a lucky break and cash in his chips. He kept pushing, driving, working:

1)   staying on a 20 Mile March;

2)   firing first bullets, then big calibrated cannonballs;

3)   exercising productive paranoia to avoid the Death Line;

4)   developing and amending a SMaC recipe;

5)   hiring great people;

6)   building a culture of discipline; never deviating from his monomaniacal focus—and sustained his efforts for more than two decades.”

1 THRIVING IN UNCERTAINTY

Meaning of the book…. “All of this led us to a simple question: Why do some companies thrive in uncertainty, even chaos, and others do not? We began the nine-year research project behind this book in 2002, when America awoke from its false sense of stability, safety, and wealth entitlement.”

“We selected on performance plus environment for two reasons:

1)   First, we believe the future will remain unpredictable and the world unstable for the rest of our lives, and we wanted to understand the factors that distinguish great organizations, those that prevail against extreme odds, in such environments.

2)   Second, by looking at the best companies and their leaders in extreme environments, we gain insights that might otherwise remain hidden when studying leaders in more tranquil settings.”

FINDING THE 10X CASES

“We spent the first year of our efforts identifying the primary study set of 10X cases, searching for historical cases that met three basic tests:

1)   The enterprise sustained truly spectacular results for an era of 15 + years relative to the general stock market and relative to its industry.

2)   The enterprise achieved these results in a particularly turbulent environment, full of events that were uncontrollable, fast-moving, uncertain, and potentially harmful.

3)   The enterprise began its rise to greatness from a position of vulnerability, being young and/ or small at the start of its 10X journey.

The crucial question is “What did the great companies share in common that distinguished them from their direct comparisons?”

Leaders…. Entrenched myth: Successful leaders in a turbulent world are bold, risk-seeking visionaries. Contrary finding: The best leaders we studied did not have a visionary ability to predict the future. They observed what worked, figured out why it worked, and built upon proven foundations.

They were not:

·     more risk taking,

·     bolder,

·     more visionary, and

·     more creative than the comparisons.

They were:

·     more disciplined,

·     more empirical, and

·     more paranoid.

Innovation…. “Entrenched myth: Innovation distinguishes 10X companies in a fast-moving, uncertain, and chaotic world. Contrary finding: To our surprise, no. Yes, the 10X cases innovated, a lot. But the evidence does not support the premise that 10X companies will necessarily be more innovative than their less successful comparisons; and in some surprise cases, the 10X cases were less innovative. Innovation by itself turns out not to be the trump card we expected; more important is the ability to scale innovation, to blend creativity with discipline.”

Speed….. “Entrenched myth: A threat-filled world favors the speedy; you’re either the quick or the dead. Contrary finding: The idea that leading in a “fast world” always requires “fast decisions” and “fast action”—and that we should embrace an overall ethos of “Fast! Fast! Fast!”—is a good way to get killed. 10X leaders figure out when to go fast, and when not to.”

Change…. “Entrenched myth: Radical change on the outside requires radical change on the inside. Contrary finding: The 10X cases changed less in reaction to their changing world than the comparison cases. Just because your environment is rocked by dramatic change does not mean that you should inflict radical change upon yourself.”

Luck…. “Entrenched myth: Great enterprises with 10X success have a lot better luck.  Contrary finding: The 10X companies did not generally have more luck than the comparisons. Both sets had luck—lots of luck, both good and bad—in comparable amounts. The critical question is not whether you’ll have luck, but what you do with the luck that you get.”

Peter Drucker taught, “the best—perhaps even the only—way to predict the future is to create it.

2 10XERS

“Victory awaits him who has everything in order—luck people call it. Defeat is certain for him who has neglected to take the necessary precautions in time; this is called bad luck.” —Roald Amundsen, The South Pole

“Amundsen’s philosophy: You prepare with intensity, all the time, so that when conditions turn against you, you can draw from a deep reservoir of strength. And equally, you prepare so that when conditions turn in your favor, you can strike hard.”

“Unlike Scott, Amundsen systematically built enormous buffers for unforeseen events.”

“A single detail aptly highlights the difference in their approaches: Scott brought one thermometer for a key altitude-measurement device, and he exploded in “an outburst of wrath and consequence” when it broke; Amundsen brought four such thermometers to cover for accidents.”

DIFFERENT BEHAVIORS, NOT DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES

“We’re not saying that 10Xers lacked creative intensity, ferocious ambition, or the courage to bet big. They displayed all these traits, but so did their less successful comparisons. So then, how did the 10Xers distinguish themselves?

1)   Control: First, 10Xers embrace a paradox of control and non-control. On the one hand, 10Xers understand that they face continuous uncertainty and that they cannot control, and cannot accurately predict, significant aspects of the world around them.

2)   Fate: On the other hand, 10Xers reject the idea that forces outside their control or chance events will determine their results; they accept full responsibility for their own fate.

10Xers then bring this idea to life by a triad of core behaviours:

·     Fanatic discipline,

·     Empirical creativity, and

·     Productive paranoia.

FANATIC DISCIPLINE

“Both Kelleher and Lewis, like all the 10Xers we studied, were nonconformists in the best sense. They started with values, purpose, long-term goals, and severe performance standards; and they had the fanatic discipline to adhere to them.”

(if you’re a hammer, everything you see looks like a nail).

EMPIRICAL CREATIVITY

Like scientists….. “CEOs of the 10Xers were like scientists. Working based on the data and evidence.”

“Social psychology research indicates that at times of uncertainty, most people look to other people—authority figures, peers, group norms—for their primary cues about how to proceed.

10Xers, in contrast, do not look to conventional wisdom to set their course during times of uncertainty, nor do they primarily look to what other people do, or to what pundits and experts say they should do. They look primarily to empirical evidence.”

“But the 10Xers had a much deeper empirical foundation for their decisions and actions, which gave them well-founded confidence and bounded their risk. The 10Xers don’t favor analysis over action; they favor empiricism as the foundation for decisive action.”

PRODUCTIVE PARANOIA

“Like Amundsen with his huge supply buffers, 10Xers maintain a conservative financial position, squirreling away cash to protect against unforeseen disruptions.”

“In short, we found no consistent pattern in the backgrounds of 10Xers relative to the comparison leaders.”

3 20 MILE MARCH

“The 20 Mile March is more than a philosophy. It’s about having concrete, clear, intelligent, and rigorously pursued performance mechanisms that keep you on track.”

“The 20 Mile March creates two types of self-imposed discomfort:

(1) the discomfort of unwavering commitment to high performance in difficult conditions, and

(2) the discomfort of holding back in good conditions.”

Important…. “We found that every 10X company exemplified the 20 Mile March principle during the era we studied.”

WHY 20 MILE MARCHERS WIN?

“20 Mile Marching helps turn the odds in your favor for three reasons:

1. Confidence: It builds confidence in your ability to perform well in adverse circumstances.

2. Prevent: It reduces the likelihood of catastrophe when you’re hit by turbulent disruption.

3. Self-control: It helps you exert self-control in an out-of-control environment.”

“Having a clear 20 Mile March focuses the mind; because everyone on the team knows the markers and their importance, they can stay on track.”

ARTHUR LEVINSON: TEACHING A COMPANY TO MARCH

A good 20 Mile March has the following seven characteristics:

1. Clear performance markers.

2. Self-imposed constraints.

3. Appropriate to the specific enterprise.

4. Largely within the company’s control to achieve.

5. A proper timeframe—long enough to manage, yet short enough to have teeth.

6. Imposed by the company upon itself.

7. Achieved with high consistency.

“Key question? What is your 20 Mile March, something that you commit to achieving for 15 to 30 year?”

4 FIRE BULLETS, THEN CANNONBALLS

A BIG SURPRISE

About innovation…. “The evidence from our research does not support the premise that 10X companies will necessarily be more innovative than their less successful comparisons. And in some surprise cases, such as Southwest Airlines versus PSA and Amgen versus Genentech, the 10X companies were less innovative than the comparisons.”

About pioneering…. “Tellis and Golder also found that 64 percent of pioneers failed outright.

Good for society, bad for pioneers…. “It seems that pioneering innovation is good for society but statistically lethal for the individual pioneer!”

The level of innovation…. “We’re not saying that innovation is unimportant. Every company in this study innovated. It’s just that the 10X winners innovated less than we would have expected relative to their industries and relative to their comparison cases; they were innovative enough to be successful but generally not the most innovative.”

CREATIVITY AND DISCIPLINE

“Of course, it is not discipline alone that makes greatness, but the combination of discipline and creativity.”

“Fire bullets, then fire cannonballs. First, you fire bullets to figure out what’ll work. Then once you have empirical confidence based on the bullets, you concentrate your resources and fire a cannonball. After the cannonball hits, you keep 20 Mile Marching to make the most of your big success.”

<= Just like in the “Lean Startup Way”

Bullets… “Acquisitions would be made with little or no debt, and only when the balance sheet would remain strong after the purchase, thereby ensuring that acquisitions would remain low risk, low cost, and relatively low distraction.”

Calibrated cannonballs… “The 10Xers were much more likely to fire calibrated cannonballs, while the comparison cases had uncalibrated cannonballs flying all over the place.”

“And that’s the underlying principle: empirical validation. Be creative, but validate your creative ideas with empirical experience. You don’t even need to be the one to fire all the bullets; you can learn from the empirical experience of others.”

EMPIRICAL VALIDATION, NOT PREDICTIVE GENIUS

APPLE’S REBIRTH: BULLETS, CANNONBALLS, AND DISCIPLINED CREATIVITY

KEY POINTS ► A “fire bullets, then cannonballs” approach better explains the success of 10X companies than big-leap innovations and predictive genius.

5 LEADING ABOVE THE DEATH LINE

“As soon as there is life there is danger.” —Ralph Waldo Emerson

“In this chapter, we explore three core sets of practices, rooted in the research, for leading and building a great enterprise with productive paranoia: ► Productive Paranoia 1: Build cash reserves and buffers—oxygen canisters—to prepare for unexpected events and bad luck before they happen. ► Productive Paranoia 2: Bound risk—Death Line risk, asymmetric risk, and uncontrollable risk—and manage time-based risk. ► Productive Paranoia 3: Zoom out, then zoom in, remaining hypervigilant to sense changing conditions and respond effectively.”

PRODUCTIVE PARANOIA 1: EXTRA OXYGEN CANISTERS-IT’S WHAT YOU DO BEFORE THE STORM COMES

“A Black Swan is a low-probability disruption, an event that almost no one can foresee, a concept popularized by the writer and financier Nassim Nicholas Taleb. Almost no one can predict a particular Black Swan before it hits, not even our 10Xers. But it is possible to predict that there will be some Black Swan, as yet unspecified.”

“When a calamitous event clobbers an industry or the overall economy, companies fall into one of three categories: those that pull ahead, those that fall behind, and those that die. The disruption itself does not determine your category. You do.”

PRODUCTIVE PARANOIA 2: BOUNDING RISK

“To explore this question, we first identified three primary categories of risk relevant to leading an enterprise: (1) Death Line risk, (2) asymmetric risk, and (3) uncontrollable risk. (See Research Foundations: Risk-Category Analysis.)”

“In short, we found that the 10X companies took less risk than the comparison cases. Certainly, the 10X leaders took risks, but relative to the comparisons in the same environments, they bounded, managed, and avoided risks. The 10X leaders abhorred Death Line risk, shunned asymmetric risk, and steered away from uncontrollable risk.”

PRODUCTIVE PARANOIA 3: ZOOM OUT, THEN ZOOM IN

Zoom Out…. “Sense a change in conditions Assess the time frame: How much time before the risk profile changes? Assess with rigor: Do the new conditions call for disrupting plans? If so, how?”

Zoom In…. “Focus on supreme execution of plans and objectives”

LEADING ABOVE THE DEATH LINE KEY POINTS ► This chapter explores three key dimensions of productive paranoia: 1. Build cash reserves and buffers—oxygen canisters—to prepare for unexpected events and bad luck before they happen. 2. Bound risk—Death Line risk, asymmetric risk, and uncontrollable risk—and manage time-based risk. 3. Zoom out, then zoom in, remaining hypervigilant to sense changing conditions and respond effectively.

6 SMaC

“Most men die of their remedies, and not of their illnesses.” —Molière

The “SMaC” is a formula and the word stands for

–      Specific,

–      Methodical, and

–      Consistent.”

“You can use the term “SMaC” as a descriptor in any number of ways: as an adjective (“ Let’s build a SMaC system”), as a noun (“ SMaC lowers risk”), and as a verb (“ Let’s SMaC this project”).”

“A SMaC recipe is a set of durable operating practices that create a replicable and consistent success formula; it is clear and concrete, enabling the entire enterprise to unify and organize its efforts, giving clear guidance regarding what to do and what not to do. A SMaC recipe reflects empirical validation and insight about what actually works and why. Howard Putnam’s 10 points at Southwest Airlines perfectly illustrates the idea.”

7 RETURN ON LUCK

“The real difference between the 10X and comparison cases wasn’t luck per se but what they did with the luck they got. Adding up all the evidence, we found that the 10X cases were not generally luckier than the comparison cases. The 10X cases and the comparisons both got luck, good and bad, in comparable amounts. The evidence leads us to conclude that luck does not cause 10X success. People do. The critical question is not “Are you lucky?” but “Do you get a high return on luck?”

This is just like straight from Malcolm Gladwell’s “Outliers” …. “His friend Paul Allen just happened to see a cover story in the January 1975 issue of Popular Electronics titled “World’s First Microcomputer Kit to Rival Commercial Models.”

Important about the luck…. “Gates did more with his luck, taking a confluence of lucky circumstances and creating a huge return on his luck. And this is the important difference.”

Return on Luck (ROL)….. “Everyone gets luck, good and bad, but 10X winners make more of the luck they get. The Bill Gates story illustrates the upper-right quadrant, getting a great return on good luck.”

10XERS SHINE: GREAT RETURN ON BAD LUCK

“Canadian NHL players with the “bad luck” of being born in the second half of the year have a higher likelihood of making it into the Hall of Fame than those with the “good luck” of being born in the first half of the year!”

About bad luck…. “Nietzsche famously wrote, “What does not kill me, makes me stronger.” We all get bad luck. The question is how to use that bad luck to make us stronger, to turn it into “one of the best things that ever happened,” to not let it become a psychological prison. And that’s precisely what 10Xers do.”

BAD LUCK, POOR RETURN: THE ONE PLACE YOU REALLY DON’T WANT TO BE

LUCK IS NOT A STRATEGY…. “Life offers no guarantees. But it does offer strategies for managing the odds, indeed, even managing luck. The essence of “managing luck” involves four things: (1) cultivating the ability to zoom out to recognize luck when it happens, (2) developing the wisdom to see when, and when not, to let luck disrupt your plans, (3) being sufficiently well-prepared to endure an inevitable spate of bad luck, and (4) creating a positive return on luck—both good luck and bad—when it comes. Luck is not a strategy, but getting a positive return on luck is.”

“The best leaders we’ve studied maintain a paradoxical relationship to luck. On the one hand, they credit good luck in retrospect for having played a role in their achievements, despite the undeniable fact that others were just as lucky. On the other hand, they don’t blame bad luck for failures, and they hold only themselves responsible if they fail to turn their luck into great results. 10Xers grasp that if they blame bad luck for failure, they capitulate to fate. Equally, they grasp that if they fail to perceive when good luck helped, they might overestimate their own skill and leave themselves exposed when good luck runs dry. There might be more good luck down the road, but 10Xers never count on it.”

EPILOGUE GREAT BY CHOICE

Disease…. “We sense a dangerous disease infecting our modern culture and eroding hope: an increasingly prevalent view that greatness owes more to circumstance, even luck, than to action and discipline—that what happens to us matters more than what we do.”

Responsibility…. “Do we want to build a society and culture that encourage us to believe that we aren’t responsible for our choices and accountable for our performance? Our research evidence stands firmly against this view.”

People….“The factors that determine whether or not a company becomes truly great, even in a chaotic and uncertain world, lie largely within the hands of its people.”

Moment of truth…. “When the moment comes—when we’re afraid, exhausted, or tempted—what choice do we make? Do we abandon our values? Do we give in? Do we accept average performance because that’s what most everyone else accepts?”

Deep within…. “The greatest leaders we’ve studied throughout all our research cared as much about values as victory, as much about purpose as profit, as much about being useful as being successful. Their drive and standards are ultimately internal, rising from somewhere deep inside.

How should we change according to the book?

Start the 20 Mile March:

1. Clear performance markers (tavoitteet).

2. Self-imposed constraints.

3. Appropriate to the specific enterprise.

4. Largely within the company’s control to achieve (saavutettavissa).

5. A proper timeframe—long enough to manage, yet short enough to have teeth (aikaikkuna).

6. Imposed by the company upon itself.

7. Achieved with high consistency (osumatarkkuus).

What should I personally do?

“Companies, leaders, organizations, and societies do not thrive on chaos. But they can thrive in chaos.”

Summary

The book in six words – ”When the going gets weird, the weird become CEO.” (Hunter S. Thompson quote with a slight twist)