University Industry Specialization

There has long been a divide between liberal arts colleges, research universities and institutes of technology.  The gap between traditional four-year colleges/universities and commercial or technical schools generally remains. 

In a fifty year period of growing enrolments, our major public universities have become larger and more complex.  They have added colleges and majors.  They have increasingly focused on winning research dollars.  They have learned to compete for students.  They have nearly all adopted the same brand strategy focused on “academic excellence”.   The college ratings game essentially focuses on the ranking of entering student SAT scores.   To succeed, universities have improved their facilities, increased financial aid packages and developed programs that attract high SAT students.

State universities secure alumni and corporate funding so that they can compete with other highly rated schools.  State universities that were once positioned as teachers colleges, normal schools, agricultural and technical or urban universities all compete for the same academic rankings, investing in research labs, notable faculty and sports teams.  Some clever universities specialize in a few niche colleges like insurance, architecture, entrepreneurship or media.  They use brand excellence in a professional school or two as a substitute for higher rankings in the more prestigious arts and sciences.

Given the business world’s strong preference for industry specialization and experience, a more satisfying strategy for their students might be to specialize in a single broad industry.   Charter and magnet schools do this at the secondary school level.  Community/technical colleges often merge industry and professional skills into technical programs.  A few older colleges like agriculture still produce ag communications, ag business and ag engineering majors.

A university could adopt a broad industry like medicine, distribution, trade, communications, government/NFP, manufacturing, agriculture or financial services.  Professional and associate/technical degrees could be offered.   In addition, degrees in support fields like business, marketing, communications, finance, IT, engineering and science could be offered.  Courses could be developed to provide an industry overview, highlight industry firms, describe international opportunities and teach industry terminology. 

If state universities want to contribute to state level economic development, they could make an immediate and lasting impact by specializing by industry.

Functional Specialization Conflicts

There are many examples of inherently competing interests which limit the application of functional specialization.

The increased specialization of countries, firms and functions has provided new net benefits, but it has also begun to generate inherent conflicts.

Greater functional specialization has increased the need for generalists who define and manage processes.

It has increased the need for other individuals to span levels, translating strategy into projects and then into operations.

It has increased the level of personal specialization to deliver more advanced technical skills, thereby increasing the costs of communication and coordination, even within similar disciplines..

It has divided those responsible for short-term and long-term success.

It has resulted in the development of competing financial and quality paradigms to coordinate operations activities.

It has generated work groups with vastly different cognitive and emotional intelligence capabilities.

Greater focus on specialized entry-level capabilities has resulted in ever greater task or people management skills, but less initial screening for situational leadership skills to balance these needs.

Greater functional specialization has made functional areas ever more stereotypical.  A given company, functional area or individual is less likely to have complementary skills in long-term/short-term analysis, divergent versus convergent thinking skills, or varied personality profiles. 

Ironically, the advance of functional specialization greatly increases the demand for specialized individuals who are generalists, able to knit together the increasing number of functional specialists.

Ch Ch Ch Changes

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.

Building an Integrated Planning and Control System

In the process revolution since WWII, we have seen every business function discover that input-process-output descriptions of activities followed by a “say what you do, do what you say, be able to tell the difference” feedback structure are the key to long-run success.  Firms need to evaluate and consolidate these planning and control systems into a single fully integrated system, since they are all attempting to reach the same goals using the same tools.  There are at least five different sets of systems independently active in most firms today.

Strategic planning systems operate at the highest organizational level, attempting to evaluate the situation, set direction, identify critical success factors, define strategies and key performance indicators, and approve major investments and projects.  More evolved frameworks, like the balanced scorecard, attempt to link strategic goals to operational performance.  Many firms have learned to link strategy to measures and projects.

Modern financial planning and control systems have evolved for more than 100 years.  Strategic plans are translated into long-term financial plans to guide borrowing, investment, operations and risk analysis decisions.  The financial plan is translated into a negotiated annual budget.   A financial performance management system evaluates managers against business unit, department, product, customer and project goals.  The key transaction processes are defined and monitored.

Risk management has evolved to become a separate discipline apart from classic P&L management.  Regulatory compliance and external financial reporting have become more technical and legal.  Internal controls have moved to secondary and tertiary levels of safety with an emphasis on “defensible positions”.  Emergency preparedness and disaster recovery have developed into new disciplines.  Risk management tools have evolved from insurance policies to include hedges, contracts and outsourcing.

Human resources systems have grown to become parallel factors.  The regulatory side has greatly increased the emphasis on compliance and risk reduction.  HR performance management systems have become linked to business performance through SMART goals.  HR has been charged with helping managers professionally address frequent change management issues.  HR has also become a senior management partner in attempting to create cultural alignment.

The process or quality systems approach has been the greatest innovator.  At the highest level, a management or total quality management system attempts to incorporate all activities.  The quality approach requires clearly defined customer goals.  All processes must be defined and documented at the staff and system level.  Operations measures are defined to provide simple and direct feedback.  Quality goals are set and quality improvement is defined as a separate goal.  Processes are defined within the generic framework of product, sales and delivery.  IT systems are positioned as facilitators, requiring technical and user documentation.  Individual application systems become more complex, incorporating best practices, but allowing many exceptions.  Change management becomes a sub-discipline, with growing project management expertise.  Process changes are driven by re-engineering, kaizen and continuous process improvement efforts.

Ideally, a firm defines and operates a single planning and control system which integrates the strategic, financial, risk, human resources and quality management dimensions.  Failure to integrate these components leads to added costs, political conflicts, waste and missed opportunities.  A performance management cross-team with representatives from sales, product management, finance, HR and operations is needed to coordinate this effort.

There ARE many components.  We need to overcome the desire to have a fully integrated system that encompasses all possible components as exhibited by the US military in their Afghanistan plans.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/27/world/27powerpoint.html

Screening for Leadership Experience

As firms return to a normal economy where success is determined by the ability to set and implement a distinctive strategy, develop new products, processes and customers, and align functional resources in a project based matrix structure, it is time one again to screen for leadership in the hiring process. For the last 2 years, with an abundance of candidates and a preference for risk aversion, hiring managers, human resources and recruiters have laser focused on finding the very best match between a candidate’s industry, functional and positional experience for an open position, without regard to long-term considerations. Hiring managers should insert more behavioral interview questions about leadership into the process and they should screen for evidence of leadership success in the resume review and screening interview process.

Ask ten experts to define “leadership” and you’ll get ten different answers and lists of competencies, but they’ll cluster into a few areas such as building teams, being self-aware, growing personally and professionally, displaying trust and integrity, communicating effectively, motivating/influencing/persuading, helping others to succeed, setting and sharing a strategic vision, taking risks, innovating, being responsible, making tough decisions, showing tenacity and taking a long-run view of what is best for the organization as a whole. A simple leadership checklist can be used to identify candidates who have the leadership experience needed to succeed.

Leadership Screening Checklist

1. Positional responsibility, staff count, manager count, functional variety.

2. Cross-team member, positional leadership, selection by others, larger projects.

3. Non-work leadership roles, professional and civic groups.

4. Progressively responsible roles and promotions across career.

5. Professional mastery/certification and CPE in one or more areas.

6. Five year tenure at most employers.

7. Variety of recommendations available/given in 360 degree fashion.

8. Internal or external teaching, training and documentation experience.

9. Projects/assignments in new, challenging or unpopular business areas.

10. Projects/assignments in high value, visibility or risk business areas.

11. Matrix experience in product development, IT, M&A, national account management.

12. Formal mentoring, association or accountability partner experience.

13. Strategic, product, marketing, financial or operational planning leadership role.

14. Top-level responsibility for a function or business unit of any size.

15. Variety of headquarters/field, line/staff and domestic/international experience.

16. Variety of industry, function and organization size experience.

17. Change management experience through start-ups, rapid growth, turnarounds, recessions, acquisitions or reorganization.

18. Implementation of new professional methods and technologies.

19. Human resources recruiting, retention, promotions, transfers and morale.

20. Responsibility for new products, sales, suppliers and negotiations.

Organizational success today requires leaders who are experienced and confident in challenging and ambiguous environments. Screening for this broader experience and capacity may be more important than hiring someone who has done exactly the required role at the closest competitor for the last five years.

Production Strategy

Financial success often depends upon making wise strategic and structural decisions.  The Pareto Principle or ABC rule says that 20% of a firm’s products will deliver 80% of its volume or profit.  For most organizations, on a purely mathematical basis, some version of the Pareto Principle will hold true.  It may be 10% or 33% of the products accounting for most of the results, but this clustering is nearly universal.  Focusing on those activities that provide the greatest “bang for the buck” is a good strategic and tactical approach to business.

Production methods (including services) can also be classified into ABC categories.  The oldest method: custom or handicraft production can be labeled C.  The big breakthrough of standardized parts and mass production can be labeled A.  The hybrid products delivered by modular stages as in an assembly line can be labeled B.  Again, most organizations find themselves with a combination of mass (A), modular (B) and custom (C) produced goods. 

Since mass production has inherent advantages and is the lowest cost approach, firms should add modular products when the incremental benefits outweigh the costs.  Moving to the custom level involves the same benefit/cost comparison.  The incremental percentage margin is set by the marketplace and tends to decline through time as competitors add similar products, better features and benefits are offered and processes are refined and costs removed.   Sales and product managers will usually overestimate the margin benefits, while finance and production managers will underestimate them.  On the marginal cost side, the roles will often be reversed. 

The relative benefits and costs will vary from case to case, but the general structure and decisions will always need to be addressed.  In order to generate higher margins, firms need to offer products which appear to have greater custom appeal and this requires additional costs.  Firms which neglect to evaluate these trade-offs or which allow case by case negotiations often find that they have too many custom products and too little profit — or too few value-added products and too few customers.

There are four strategic approaches to this inherent trade-off.  First, firms can be disciplined and choose just one of the 3 production types.  They can deliver goods in a narrow range (A), using focused factory techniques.  As Henry Ford said, “any color you want as long as it’s black”.  They can adopt an operational excellence strategy and reduce costs through time.  Or, they can develop a modular strategy with well-defined processes for production, product development and marketing (B).  By leveraging the efficiencies of a set of highly effective modular processes, they can deliver new products and services at moderate volume with higher margins.  A product innovation strategy can be delivered this way.  Finally, they can choose a customized production strategy (C) and deliver highest margin niche products to specialized users.  This approach can attempt to leverage mass or modular production, but the real focus is on developing or adapting products to meet specialized needs.  This fits best with the customer intimacy strategy.

Unfortunately, the explosion of product choices in the 1970’s and 1980’s resulted in most firms delivering some messy, unintended combination of A, B and C products.  The mass production world moved from 90% A and a little B to 50% A, 40% B and 10% C in many cases.  Some firms even found one-third each as their production profile.  A second overall strategy has been to outsource the production of A level mass production items to the lowest cost source: in a focused factory, to a market leader, as an import, as a drop ship or through a partner.  A third strategy is to develop a truly modular production line ala Dell and move all production through a single highly refined process.  A fourth strategy is to outsource the customized work to partner firms, IT implementation shops, other engineering firms or to repackaging firms.

It is possible to combine mass, modular and custom product deliver flows within a single firm, but it is not easy.  At a minimum, firms need to make decisions in these terms, monitor the results and adapt to ensure that the marginal benefits justify the marginal costs.

Strategic Planning: Balanced and Disciplined

Of the many planning methods proposed and widely used in the last two decades, two stand out for their impact and longevity.   Michael Treacy and Fred Wiersema’s “Discipline of Market Leaders” was published in 1994, closely followed by  Robert Kaplan and David Norton’s “Balanced Scorecard” two years later.  How do the two interact ideally?  Can a strategy process and strategy be both balanced and disciplined?

 The discipline of market leaders is to prioritize resource investments into one dimension of strategic choices, while making modest investments in the other dimensions.  Treacy defines the generic dimensions as Operational Excellence (cost reduction), Product Leadership and Customer Intimacy (best total solution).  Based upon market opportunities (customers and competitors), wise organizations choose one dimension for emphasis and align all other variables to support that choice.

 The balanced scorecard emphasizes the importance of measures and a complementary planning process that ensures that four levels of activity are reviewed:  Learning and Growth (asset management, broadly speaking), Internal Processes (operations, product development, customer interface – the how), Customer Satisfaction and Financial Results.  Asset management feeds optimal processes delivering customer satisfaction and financial results. 

 The two approaches seem to conflict: one says focus (discipline) while the other says diversify (balance).  The resolution lies in their application.  The balanced scorecard provides a universal framework of the factors that drive business success in a logical sequence.  Organizations still have to compare their direction (mission, vision, values) with their situation (SWOT) in order to determine critical success factors.  CSF’s help the organization to select those 10-20 measures that best cover the landscape. 

 The discipline of market leaders is making strategic investment choices, while the balanced scorecard is using a planning and control process that highlights opportunities and links strategy to results.  The advice from Treacy and Wiersema is to focus on a single dimension, rather than to spread the investments evenly.  In balanced scorecard terms, this means that the measures will emphasize different dimensions.

 Focusing on operational excellence indicates the use of more measures in the Internal Processes and Asset Management levels.  Customer intimacy requires customer satisfaction measures, key internal process measures that impact customers and a touch of asset measures regarding the adequacy of the products offered.  Product leadership requires measures of customer satisfaction with the features and benefits set offered, the product development process itself and the availability of key technical resources that create products.

 Organizations will benefit from finding ways to apply the insights from both camps.  Strategy and structure matter more than ever.  The best answers continue to be “both/and” rather than “either/or”.

 http://www.amazon.com/Discipline-Market-Leaders-Customers-Dominate/dp/0201407191/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1262473135&sr=1-1

 http://www.amazon.com/Balanced-Scorecard-Translating-Strategy-Action/dp/0875846513/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1262554699&sr=1-1

 http://www.slideshare.net/kennyong/balanced-scorecard-for-strategic-planning-and-measurement