Month: June 2010

Ch Ch Ch Changes

tomkapostasyLeave a comment

The Baby Boomers may have digested more workplace changes (1970-2010) than any prior generation, moving from an industrial to a post-industrial, services, or virtual world.  The post-Civil War generation saw the initial transition from an agricultural to an industrial society (1880-1920).  Their grandchildren saw the full flowering of the industrial world, with incredible advances in manufacturing, transportation and communications (1920-1960). 

Nearly every usual business practice or function in 1970 has been superseded or turned upside down in the last 4 decades.

The office world of 1970 looked much like 1920.  It was hierarchical, manual and rigid.  Secretaries assisted managers.  Typing, filing, shorthand and bookkeeping were essential skills.  Today, only a few senior execs or sales staff members have administrative or executive assistants.  Everyone else completes their own clerical functions as an integral part of work.  Paper ledger forms and 10-key adding machines have been replaced by Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems in even the smallest firms.  QuickBooks offers capabilities that were unimaginable in 1970.

Mainframe computers automated high volume transaction and office tasks in large firms in 1970.  Computers have since expanded to touch every function, moving through minicomputer, PC, network and cloud phases.  Sophisticated applications exist today for every function and industry, including a dozen end-user tools such as spreadsheets, databases, word processing and collaboration/time/task management.

Communications has progressed from rotary phones, party lines and PBX systems to WiFi, VOIP systems, wireless phones and personal digital assistants.  Media has progressed from AM transistor radios through 8-track and VHS tapes to disks, digital downloads, massively multiplayer games and social media entities.

Companies today pursue core competencies, partnerships and virtual structures in contrast with the old vertically integrated ideal or financial portfolios of conglomerates.  Firms are financed through a broad range of instruments and investors throughout their lives rather than with simple stocks, bonds and preferred stocks.

Companies today compete globally and engage in partnerships with suppliers, customers and competitors.  They also compete with suppliers, customers and competitors, including small entrepreneurial start-ups.

Support functions are more important today.  The Personnel function has become Human Resources.  Marketing has assumed a strategically important role in product development and sales management.  Finance is a strategic partner in decisions.  Many functions are outsourced.

Product development is managed through a gates and phases process.

Operations functions have been totally transformed.  Quality has evolved from a technical necessity to an organizing principle.  Processes shape decisions.  Variability and waste are shunned.  The near-perfection of Six Sigma is pursued and achieved.  Firms benchmark and copy best practices.  Forecast based push systems have been replaced with JIT pull systems, reducing inventories to zero and lot sizes to units of one.  Mass production has been replaced by a network of focused factories, modular manufacturing and outsourcing.

Strategic planning has migrated from an infrequent fully integrated top-down approach to an iterative  process that massages top-down and bottom-up factors within a balanced scorecard composed of assets, operations, stakeholders and final goals. 

Suppliers are managed as long-term partners, instead of short-term contractors.  Staff members are treated as partners, even though company and staff initiated turnover is much higher.  Simplistic theory X and Y approaches (employees are good or bad) have evolved into situational leadership type approaches that match task/people dimensions to current needs. 

These generic changes have occurred seen in every industry and function, layered on top of the major technical and professional progress seen in each area. We are rapidly approaching a time when virtual organizations are a reality because they are more effective than forms suited to an industrial era.  Baby Boomers have experienced this whole cycle of change and are well situated to mange the final transitions.

Tale of Two Cities

tomkapostasy4 Comments

In a recent speech at the Carmel Rotary Club, Indianapolis Star editor Dennis Ryerson warned the audience of the risk of a central city meltdown in Indianapolis as he had observed in Cleveland 20 years ago.  As someone who has lived in each region for more than 20 years, this prompted me to collect some historical statistics and speculate on the differential success of these two mid-sized Midwest areas.

In 1900, Indy was two-thirds the size of Cleveland, which at 654,000 people, was the nation’s seventh or eighth largest urban area by various definitions.  Indianapolis was in the 21st-25th range.

By 1930, Cleveland had grown by an astonishing 173%, adding 1.1 million people for a total of 1.8 million, reaching a peak national ranking of 6th to 8th.  Indianapolis was the turtle in this race, adding a mere 200,000 residents to grow by 50% to reach Cleveland’s 1900 650,000 population level, while maintaining a 21st-25th highest population ranking.

By 1960, Cleveland had added another one million residents (50%), reaching 2.7 million residents and maintaining a top 10 population ranking.  Indianapolis grew a little faster on a percentage basis, adding 400,000 residents to reach the 1.1 million population level.  Its national population rank slid to 26th as Sunbelt and west coast cities began to grow.

In the next five decades to 2009, Indianapolis continued its modest 1-1.5% annual growth rate, adding 750,000 residents to reach a population of 1.8M, while sliding to 34th place in the national metro population rankings.  Cleveland reached a peak population of 3M in 1970 before declining to 2.8M in 2009, good for a 26th place metro population ranking. 

In summary, Cleveland grew by 1 million people from 1900-1930 and from 1930-1960, but added ZERO population in the next 50 years!   Indianapolis added a quarter, half and three-quarters of a million people in those 3 periods.  What could possibly account for these divergent trends in cities located only 300 miles apart?

The locations are not very different.  Indy claims to be the “crossroads of America”, while Cleveland has said it is “the best location in the nation”.  Cleveland is on the New York to Chicago train line, the Great Lakes and interstates I-80, I-90 and I-77.  Indy boasts I-70, I-65, I-74 and I-69 interstate access.  Indy has leveraged its location and lower labor costs to become a greater distribution hub.  Cleveland has enjoyed a decade as a mini-hub for Continental, while Indy once served as a minor USAir hub.  Both cities have attracted rural residents from a 100 mile circle, but Cleveland’s area is only half as large due to Lake Erie.

Both cities had strong historic banking companies.  All of the Indy companies are gone.  Cleveland maintained National City Bank and KeyCorp as major banks through most of the period.

Cleveland has maintained a large Fortune 500 headquarters lead.  Firestone, Republic Steel, Uniroyal, Goodrich. TRW, Std Oil, White Motor, Eaton, Sherwin-Williams, Cleveland-Cliffs, Hanna Mining and Reliance Electric appeared in the 1960 list.  Cleveland had grown from 12 to 15 firms by 2009, adding Progressive Insurance, National City, KeyCorp, Parker-Hannifin, PolyOne, Lubrizol and Travel Centers of America.  Indy had 5 firms in 1960: RCA, Lilly, Curtis Publishing, Stokely Van Camp and Inland Containers.  It maintained only Lilly, WellPoint and Conseco in 2009.

On the professional sports scene, Cleveland has maintained football and baseball teams, while adding basketball, but dropping the second level hockey Barons.  Indy added the Colts and moved the Pacers from the ABA to the NBA.  Indy has successfully pursued an amateur sports strategy, attracting the Pan-Am games, the NCAA and many collegiate tournaments.

The cities share historical strengths in their art museums and orchestras, with Cleveland’s ranked higher.  Indy has added the Children’s Museum and Eiteljorg Museum, while Cleveland added the Rock n Roll Hall of Fame museum and lost the Salvador Dali museum.  Neither city has a major state university, with IUPUI and Cleveland State growing in parallel.  Cleveland has Case Western Reserve as a local research university.  Greater Cleveland has a much stronger community college system.  The Cleveland Playhouse and theatre groups offer more than Indy’s scene.  Cleveland’s Coventry/University Heights area is more vibrant than Indy’s Broad Ripple.  Cleveland adopted Michael Stanley while Indy embraced John Mellencamp.

Both cities focused on manufacturing for growth, especially automotive and metal forming manufacturing.  Cleveland had a greater emphasis on basic manufacturing in steel, rubber and plastics.  Indianapolis attracted a significant amount of investment from Japanese manufacturers.  Indianapolis’ health care industry has benefited from Lilly, Roche and IU, while Cleveland has leveraged CWRU University Hospitals and the Cleveland Clinic.

Net, net, Cleveland should have continued to grow slightly faster based on the factors above.  The drivers for Indianapolis’ positive differential growth include:

Better public relations regarding momentum.  Cleveland’s river fire and “mistake on the lake” moniker have hurt.  Indy was able to overcome the “naptown” label through continued positive growth and publicity.

Indianapolis and Indiana have maintained a low tax and low service environment conducive to business investment.

Indy has benefited from being the state capital and the only large city in Indiana, while Cleveland has battled Columbus and Cincinnati for state leadership.

Indianapolis has avoided major racial conflicts.  The 1966 Hough riots in Cleveland contrast with the calming Bobby Kennedy speech after Martin Luther King’s 1968 assassination.

Indianapolis public schools have not fallen as far as IPS.  Busing and white flight had a bigger negative impact in Cleveland where a more established Catholic school system option existed.

Downtown Indianapolis has recovered based upon major public and private investment in the Circle Center Mall, convention center and sports arenas.  Cleveland’s investment in the Brown’s stadium, Jacobs Field, Cavaliers arena, major office buildings and “the flats” has never reached the critical mass required for downtown growth.  Indianapolis’ downtown residential growth has been modest, but adequate.

Indianapolis pioneered the concept of uni-gov, merging the city into the county.  Cleveland has remained an island within Cuyahoga County and a small island within the metro area. 

Indianapolis civic leaders found a variety of ways to preserve and grow the central city and avoid having widespread areas of decay.  As Mr. Ryerson noted, this strategy will be more difficult to maintain as the surrounding counties grow at the expense of Marion County.  Both cities could benefit from some degree of regional government and taxing authority that aligns the interests of suburbs with the central city.

  Cleveland Indy  
  7 counties 9 counties  
       
1900          654         429 66%
1910          913         489 54%
1920       1,426         569 40%
1930       1,784         656 37%
1940       1,817         702 39%
1950       2,154         829 38%
1960       2,734       1,071 39%
1970       3,000       1,248 42%
1980       2,833       1,305 46%
1990       2,759       1,381 50%
2000       2,844       1,605 56%
2009       2,791       1,824 65%
       
1900-30       1,130         227  
  173% 53%  
       
1930-60          950         415  
  53% 63%  
       
1960-2009            57         753  
  2% 70%  

Personal Strategies for Adding Value

tomkapostasyLeave a comment

The Great Recession has expedited the transition to a virtual labor market, where each individual is an independent contractor constantly in the market, selling their services.  To succeed in this world, individuals need to define their product, sharpen their sales skills, actively manage their time and add greater incremental value.

The 12 million unemployed Americans are bombarded with advice on defining their personal brand.  Setting aside the gloss and polish offered by career counselors, the remaining content is the need to be easily defined in a 15 second elevator speech.  Simple and specialized products sell.  Complex and generic products die.  Specialized professional functions and industry experience are marketable.  Generalists need to become repositioned with specialist labels: as entrepreneurs, six sigma black belts, project management professionals, etc.  Certifications are highly valued.  The “signaling” theory of the labor market is winning, with HR, hiring managers and recruiters all relying upon external signals such as certifications, national/Big 4 consulting experience, top 25 university/MBA degrees and Fortune 500 experience.  Personal communications and sales skills command a premium within the universe of certified professionals.

At work or as a consultant, the most important driver of added value is the allocation of time.  Individuals divide their time among the functions of doing, managing, investing, planning and reporting.  Stephen Covey’s path breaking “Seven Habits of Highly Successful People” enlightened a whole generation on this topic.  There is a critical trade-off between doing and other functions, which senior staff and managers must exploit.  There is a trade-off between urgent and important tasks at the heart of personal time management.  There is value in “sharpening the saw” by investing in activities with long-run benefits. 

The marginal product theory of labor value applies at work.  Individuals who devote their time to the highest incremental value activities at work are rewarded.  Those who do their “fair share” of low value activities are left behind.  Managing people, suppliers, customers, assets, risks and processes offers opportunities to leverage value.  Individuals with the greatest scope of authority deliver the greatest value and are rewarded.  Investing in people, products, processes and assets provides another opportunity to add greater value.  Strategic, functional, project and individual planning offers opportunities to leverage time in a more abstract dimension.  Developing, operating and enhancing reporting and feedback systems allow key staff to identify enhanced improvement and risk management options. 

Individuals who have managed to define and sell their personal branded product and secured significant opportunities to deliver value must also know how to deliver incremental value.  There are seven generic strategies for adding maximum value.

Buy low and sell high.  All activities must be delivered by the lowest cost resource.  If there is any individual, machine or supplier that can deliver a service more cheaply, eventually they will.  Identify the lowest cost resource and employ it.  Delegate.  Divide jobs.  Outsource.  Automate.  Simplify.  As Andy Grove once said, “only the paranoid survive”.  Get this done before others.

Match skills and talents to assignments.  Functional skills, industry experience, soft skills, courage, flexibility, creativity and other talents vary greatly across available resources.  Identify the 3-5 key talents required and employ those with natural talents.  Employ personality profiles, test results and Gallup Strengths to find matches.  Create an internal labor market that encourages staff to know and apply their talents as often as possible.

Leverage the cumulative positive impact of process engineering.  Call it TQM, ISO 9000, six sigma or lean manufacturing.  Employ incremental continuous process improvement, tactical Kaizen blitzes, re-engineering projects, management systems and cultural changes to obtain the maximum value from the quality revolution.  World-class firms continue to improve and leave others behind.

Leverage the benefits of learning curves in all activities.  Individuals with one year of experience may be twice as productive as trainees.  Those with three years of experience may be another 50% more productive.  Reach mastery level in critical activities. 

Create synergy through cross-functional project teams.  There is a limit to the returns on the first four strategies.  Eventually, a senior financial analyst, research chemist or national accounts manager will find incremental improvements more difficult to achieve.  For some projects, processes and functions there is a need to combine the highest talents of complementary functions. 

Leverage the unique assets of the organization.  Firms have core competencies, intellectual property, cultural assets, brand assets, relationships, best practices and most productive assets.  Sales or product growth in adjacent space has a high success probability.

Leverage the organization’s goodwill with stakeholders.  Suppliers, customers, regulators, investors, staff and communities have a vested interest in the organization’s ongoing success.  Provide them with opportunities to reinvest in the organization’s future.

Most of us will add the greatest possible value by following the path of least resistance.  We will leverage relative market values, talents, process improvement techniques, learning curves, teamwork, core competencies and common interests.  A self-aware, proactive strategy will pay the greatest personal dividends, while delivering value to firms and society.

Dow 15,700

tomkapostasy1 Comment

Dow 35,000 was a dream in the go-go 1990’s when the new economy had supposedly broken all of the old rules.  Dow 3,500 was a distinct fear in March, 2009 when stocks had fallen by more than half from their peak.  Dow 10,000 is the most visible reference point in the current stock market.

Every investor and business degree holder knows that stock values are fundamentally based on the expected risk-adjusted net present value of future after-tax cash flows.  They are also tempted by the “efficient markets hypothesis” that says that stock valuations incorporate all information about future returns and therefore set the present value in a rational manner.  On the other hand, they understand fluctuations, random walks, animal spirits and the history of under and over valued stock markets.

http://stockcharts.com/charts/historical/djia1900.html

http://www.investorsfriend.com/return_versus_gdp.htm

Individuals who believe that stocks return 7-8% on average in the long-run through 2-4% dividend yields and 4-6% price increases, must conclude that the stock market is inherently irrational.  It has been 30% undervalued or overvalued a majority of the last 100 years.  Overvalued 1922-31.  Undervalued 1932-54, except for 1936-37.  Undervalued 1974-86.  Overvalued 1996-2008. 

Stocks were overvalued by 137% in 1929 before tumbling to -67% undervalued in 1933.  Stocks reached an undervaluated low of -58% in 1942.  Stocks reached a new -50% undervaluation during the depths of the 1982 recession.  In 15 short years, by 1997, they reached a 57% overvaluation.  They rose to 115% overvalued in 2000, before retreating to a mere 38% overvaluation in 2003.  In 2008, stocks were 67% overvalued compared with the long-run trends.

Based on 100 years of history, the Dow Jones Industrial Average at the end of 2010 should be 9,000.  The expected value in 2020 is 15,700, providing a 5% annual valuation return and 2% dividend return.  Investors who bet against long-term average valuations do so at their own risk.

Year  Trend  Actual +/-
1910             50 62 24%
1911             53 60 14%
1912             55 60 9%
1913             58 60 4%
1914             61 58 -5%
1915             64 56 -12%
1916             67 80 19%
1917             70 80 14%
1918             74 70 -5%
1919             78 75 -3%
1920             82 100 23%
1921             86 70 -18%
1922             90 80 -11%
1923             94 90 -5%
1924             99 85 -14%
1925            104 100 -4%
1926            109 130 19%
1927            115 140 22%
1928            121 190 58%
1929            127 300 137%
1930            133 250 88%
1931            139 190 36%
1932            146 80 -45%
1933            154 50 -67%
1934            161 90 -44%
1935            170 90 -47%
1936            178 130 -27%
1937            187 175 -6%
1938            196 100 -49%
1939            206 130 -37%
1940            216 125 -42%
1941            227 125 -45%
1942            239 100 -58%
1943            250 125 -50%
1944            263 130 -51%
1945            276 160 -42%
1946            290 200 -31%
1947            304 170 -44%
1948            320 170 -47%
1949            336 175 -48%
1950            352 200 -43%
1951            370 250 -32%
1952            388 260 -33%
1953            408 260 -36%
1954            428 260 -39%
1955            450 380 -15%
1956            472 500 6%
1957            496 500 1%
1958            521 475 -9%
1959            547 525 -4%
1960            574 600 5%
1961            603 580 -4%
1962            633 700 11%
1963            664 550 -17%
1964            697 750 8%
1965            732 900 23%
1966            769 950 24%
1967            807 850 5%
1968            848 900 6%
1969            890 950 7%
1970            935 800 -14%
1971            981 850 -13%
1972         1,030 900 -13%
1973         1,082 1000 -8%
1974         1,136 850 -25%
1975         1,193 700 -41%
1976         1,252 850 -32%
1977         1,315 1000 -24%
1978         1,381 850 -38%
1979         1,450 850 -41%
1980         1,522 850 -44%
1981         1,614 950 -41%
1982         1,710 850 -50%
1983         1,813 1000 -45%
1984         1,922 1200 -38%
1985         2,037 1200 -41%
1986         2,159 1300 -40%
1987         2,289 1900 -17%
1988         2,426 1900 -22%
1989         2,572 2100 -18%
1990         2,726 2600 -5%
1991         2,890 2500 -13%
1992         3,063 3000 -2%
1993         3,247 3300 2%
1994         3,442 3700 8%
1995         3,648 3800 4%
1996         3,867 5000 29%
1997         4,099 6500 59%
1998         4,345 7800 80%
1999         4,606 9000 95%
2000         4,882 10500 115%
2001         5,175 10000 93%
2002         5,485 10000 82%
2003         5,815 8000 38%
2004         6,163 9500 54%
2005         6,533 10500 61%
2006         6,925 11000 59%
2007         7,341 12000 63%
2008         7,781 13000 67%
2009         8,248 7000 -15%
2010         8,743 10000 14%
2011         9,268    
2012         9,824    
2013       10,413    
2014       11,038    
2015       11,700    
2016       12,402    
2017       13,146    
2018       13,935    
2019       14,771    
2020       15,657    

Things Fall Apart

tomkapostasyLeave a comment

California voters in every county except far left San Francisco County and far right Orange County approved Proposition 14 which changes the state constitution to require the primary election to select the two highest vote recipients, without respect to their political party.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_14_(2010)

California may once again be on the leading edge of American history.  This change seems to be a rejection of the current primary system where candidates in both parties are required to pander to the extremists and activists before tacking back to the center to win in general elections.  Ironically, the Tea Party movement seems to be tapping some of this frustration by the average centrist voter, while at the same time pulling the Republican Party even further to the right.

In the shadow of “The Great War”, William Butler Yeats wrote:

Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

http://www.online-literature.com/donne/780/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Second_Coming_(poem)

The optimistic progressive consensus of 1880-1910 among the leading classes had been severely weakened by the war.  World War II shattered the last idealistic sentiments in Europe, leading to the post-war time of European community, skepticism and limited idealism.  The United States picked up the progressive banner with the New Deal, WWII, post-war global organizations and economic recovery, the cold war, New Frontier and Great Society.  Temporarily derailed by the Vietnam War, Energy Crisis and Japanese competition, the U.S. once again embraced the optimistic progressive spirit in the 1980’s, but with a distinctively right-wing flavor following the Reagan revolution.  Twenty years of economic and geopolitical progress delivered a new sense of American exceptionalism, leading to the Bush administration’s overreach in Iraq in response to the perceived terrorist threats after 9/11.   Most commentators agree that we now face a more uncertain multi-polar future (see 2/1/2010).

How did the American public reach this point where most voters clearly see that the political system does not work (see 1/26/2010)? 

Congressional and state legislator gerrymandering has played a major role.  The average voter can see that many legislators are simply incompetent party hacks with extremist, populist rhetoric, but no sense of responsibility for governing on behalf of the citizens.  The advantages of incumbents have lead to their re-election and increased voter cynicism (see 12/12/2009).    This year, unprepared voters elected Alvin Greene as the Democratic SC senate candidate and nominal Democrat, 29 year-old Tim Crawford to oppose Dan Burton.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering

As the financial and volunteer resources required for election have grown, the power of extremist/activist groups in both political parties has grown significantly.   As the country’s population and standard of living have grown, narrow economically rational voters have reduced their participation, thereby increasing the power of those with strong ideological views.

Citizens of all political views have become more independent, decreasing the role of many individual and institutional influencers who once promoted the center (think US News & World Report in the 1960’s).   Politicians and political parties have become far more sophisticated in identifying and capturing the resources of those with the strongest beliefs.

After the break-up of the Democratic Party’s “solid south” position following passage of the 1960’s civil rights legislation, the Republican Party developed a more philosophically consistent right wing position on all economic, military and cultural issues.  The Democrats have tried to move towards the center, but the left-right and Democratic-Republican dimensions of American politics have become synonymous for almost 40 years.  The Republicans have effectively attracted millions of Catholic, Baptist, working and middle class voters from Democratic strongholds, while the Democrats have rode demographic trends and recaptured some socially moderate and upper middle class voters on the coasts.

The modern media has returned to its 19th century roots, adopting explicit political and populist positions in order to sell advertising.  This promotes partisan posturing and coverage.

Politics no longer attracts citizen legislators with moderate views.  Political positions have very low compensation compared with other options for highly competent citizens.  The price of entering a campaign is so high that only individuals with hopes for a 20 year political career, radical idealists or the very wealthy rationally pursue elected office.

Non-party primaries, campaign finance reform, independent districting commissions and grass-roots political participation can all help to return our political system to the center, where reasonable compromises can be found for the benefit of all.  Without some structural changes, we run the risk of having the divisive and unproductive political results seen in Italy, Greece, Mexico, Venezuela, Japan and Germany.  A solid majority of the American people desire centrist solutions to our challenges.  Structural changes can help to ensure that we have a self-improving system, or at least that we do not see “things fall apart”.

What Customers Really Want

tomkapostasy1 Comment

As organizations and organizational units adopt more customer-focused strategies, there is a need to better understand what customers really want.   Although firms can invest years and decades in marketing research on this question, they can also choose to obtain 90% of the value in a single day by facilitating an honest discussion with key leaders and customers.

 Those who have adopted the quality/process view believe that the first step is to confirm that customers mostly (only) care about the perceived value of final results.  They will pay for a value added process or feature, but don’t care about other activities.  Richard Schonberger proposed that all customer needs can fit into a small number of categories, which can be used to define and prioritize the findings.

Customers value final product or service quality.  More today than before; and more tomorrow than today.  Some customers value process quality, because it reduces their risk, serves their customers or is required by regulators.  What quality level is required to remain in business, to meet expectations or to differentiate a product?

Customers value delivery speed.  Product lead times have fallen from weeks to days to hours to minutes.  Service delivery is sometimes measured in seconds. 

Customers value flexibility.  They expect your firm to have the capacity to meet their orders within standard lead times.  They expect you to make exceptions.  As in the Pink Panther movies, they may agree to a standard lead time or capacity, but when they need an exception, they want you to ignore what they told you before.  Expectations regarding flexibility vary widely across industries and firms and can change rapidly.

Customers seek value.  They want lower prices or total cost of ownership.  They want features and benefits that are cost-effective, which meet their needs or which are market leading.  This is a very broad category, but firms must operate with some understanding of what is expected.

Customers value information.  They want business relations with clear information flows, minimal transaction costs and shared accountability for risks.  Ideally, you anticipate and fulfill their needs in a cost free way, without surprises and take care of surprises of all kinds: regulatory, supplier, customer, competitor, acts of god, etc.

Finally, customers value personal relationships.  This varies by culture, industry, firm and purchasing agent.  Business relations are rarely purely business relationships.  Personal connections, loyalties, favors, culture and understanding often matter.

Firms or business units should understand what their customers want.  They should identify minimal, expected and differentiated performance levels.  They should understand relative customer priorities.  This may require formal marketing research or trial policies or pricing exercises to determine real preferences.  This may require sales, marketing, engineering, production and finance to work together like never before.

A consensus one-page QSFVIP customer profile can help to shape decisions at the strategic and tactical levels.

Project Opportunity Analysis Template

tomkapostasyLeave a comment
    Opportunity Analysis – Name of Project
     
    1. Key Strategic Priority Areas/Critical Success Factors
10 A Creatively addresses more than one of the nine key strategic priority areas.
7 B Directly targets a significant improvement in one key strategic priority area.
3 C Contributes to the achievement of one key strategic priority area.
  D Provides benefits, but does not address any of the nine key strategic priority areas.
     
    2. Annual Strategic Plan
10 A An integral and significant preplanned component of the annual strategic plan.
7 B An initiative within the annual plan.
3 C Consistent with focus areas of the plan, but not defined as a planned initiative.
  D Provides benefits, but is not connected to the initiatives defined in the plan.
     
    3. Mission, Vision and Precepts 
10 A Creatively addresses more than one precept or component of the mission.
7 B Directly targets a precept or component of the mission.
3 C Contributes to a precept or component of the mission.
  D Provides benefits, but the connection to the mission and precepts is weak.
     
    4. Long-term Strategic Plan
5 A Creatively addresses more than one goal of the plan.
4 B Directly targets a significant improvement in one goal of the plan.
2 C Contributes to the achievement of one goal of the plan.
  D Provides benefits, but does not address specific goals of the plan.
     
    5. Program/Product Portfolio
5 A Builds on an existing area of strength, leveraging a core competency.
4 B Provides services the organization has targeted for growth or improvement.
2 C Addresses an area of weakness considered critical to portfolio of services.
  D Serves a new area, a weak area, or one that de-emphasized.
     
    6. Customer(s) Served
5 A Targeted to serve an existing primary customer group.
4 B Serves a customer group which has been identified for growth potential.
2 C Serves a secondary customer group, by leveraging an existing program.
  D Serves a secondary customer group or channel,  which others could serve as well.
     
    7. Proven Demand for this Service
5 A Members, customers and sponsors have paid for this program before.
4 B Marketing research and tests indicate that this is a top priority service.
2 C Marketing research supports some demand, but dollar value is unproven.
  D Some constituents demand this service, but no research or market proof.
     
    8. Brand Consistency
5 A Service reinforces key brand messages and is promoted with existing vehicles.
4 B Service is consistent with key brand messages, but requires separate promotion.
2 C Service connects with some brand messages and requires separate promotion.
  D Service is not consistent with key brand messages.
     
    9. Delivery Channel Environment
5 A Reinforces historical and current programs and values in delivery organizations..
4 B Consistent with historical programs and values in delivery organizations.
2 C Some degree of innovation or stretch that may be a concern to some players.
  D Innovative program designed to introduce change for delivery partners.
     
    10. Financial Resources
5 A Earns a financial payback of investment in one year or less.
4 B Earns a financial payback in two years or less.
2 C Breaks even in more than 2 years, but provides significant qualitative benefits.
  D Qualitative benefits are deemed to exceed quantitative costs.
     
    11. Sponsor/Funding Resources
5 A Creates a strong opportunity to attract new sponsors and contributions.
4 B An attractive project 80% likely funded in a year, without harming programs.
2 C More than 50% funding chance, but may compete with existing programs.
  D Less than a 50% funding chance or clearly competes with existing programs.
     
    12. Information Technology
5 A Uses existing capabilities without modification.
4 B Uses existing or planned strong capabilities with minor enhancements.
2 C Uses existing capabilities, but requires development outside of current plans.
  D Requires pioneering development work to provide appropriate service.
     
    13. Delivery/Operations/Processing Capabilities
5 A Uses existing strong capabilities without modification.
4 B Uses existing strong capabilities with minor enhancements.
2 C Uses existing capabilities, but requires significant development.
  D Requires pioneering development work to provide appropriate service.
     
    14. Human Resources
5 A Service can be provided by existing staff and structure.
4 B Service requires some additions to staff in existing categories.
2 C Service requires new staff skills and minor adjustments to structure.
  D Service requires major initiatives in recruiting, retention and structure.
     
    15. Monitoring and Evaluation
5 A Success is easily measured by existing measurement and evaluation tools.
4 B Success can be measured with only minor enhancements to current system.
2 C Success can be measured, but will require adjustments to existing measures.
  D Success is difficult, if not cost prohibitive, to measure directly.