Archive for the ‘business models’ Category

Don’t Remove Every Other Lightbulb

Tuesday, March 16th, 2010

In the age-old debate between efficiency and effectiveness it is worth reflecting on the most admired companies like Apple or Google. Are they efficiency leaders (cost optimizers) or effectiveness leaders (innovators). Efficiency helps us optimize resources (cut costs) assuming we are already producing the business impact we want. Just want to do it cheaper. Effectiveness is questioning the very essence of our assumptions about our markets, channels, products and processes.

I’ll always remember a discussion with an advisor from the late Bear Sterns. He mused that the “efficient” investor tries to optimize trading costs from 14.99 to 9.99 per trade and averages 5-7% of return a year. While the “effective” investor has the right investment strategy that requires advisors and may have trading costs that are much higher but overall produces many times the returns.

My favorite business example is in working capital. “Efficient” companies try to reduce accounts receivables through better collections, credit terms and more aggressive “customer care”. An effective strategy would be to look at R&D, order problems, shipping issues that cause the customer to withhold payments and ultimately improve cash flow for the firm. Few get this: effectiveness fixes root cause issues that impact your ultimate outcome across the entire business. Efficiency is always suboptimal and impacts one aspect of the business. Efficiency asks how you can make your products at lower costs (HOW). Effectiveness asks what products your market needs (WHAT).

Someone with the personal outcome of creating a nest egg has similar choices. The personal dilemma is between spending less (efficiency) or finding a job that pays more (effectiveness), which in turn requires more effort in training, relationships and track record of results.

Effectiveness always requires more investment than efficiency. In fact, efficiency is always about cutting and reducing choices. Costs, resources, distractions, tasks and so on. Effectiveness is additive. We are investing in learning, expanding, transitioning. Efficiency taps our XQ while Effectiveness taps our IQ and EQ more (More on IQ EQ XQ - see here).

Next time we are all facing a choice let us select an effective one and make an investment to get where we are going. Even at a cost.

Lightbulbs123

Why the technology sector is the most price efficient

Monday, March 2nd, 2009

Technology prices have always been falling

We all know that technology product prices tend to fall 60-80% in a decade for the same spec. Whether it’s DVD players, flash memory, TV, computers, servers - they all follow the same pattern.
The more interesting question is why other industries cannot achieve any similar price reduction.

Following the electronics industry model:

  • a $3.50 latte from a decade ago should cost today $0.70
  • your child’s education “product” should sink from $200,000 to $40,000
  • your car of $30,000 should now be $6,000
  • heart surgery prices in 10 years should drop from $250,000 to $50,000

Of course it does not happen for other industries.

No other industry apart from High Tech outperforms the pressure of inflation. At least not due to productivity and efficiencies. Only due to falling demand. See Real Estate, Investment Assets, etc.

Consumer food product companies have a similar mantra by holding food prices steady in the stores. To achieve that they have to keep improving efficiencies by 4-5% each year just to eliminate the impact of material and labor price inflation.

Then there are industries that do the opposite. Even in today’s economy health care related costs, education and some professional services prices are still growing at 5-8% far outpacing inflation and GDP growth (or lack thereof).

The Monster is not Deflation but Lack of Innovation and Productivity

There is all this talk about the deflation and how falling prices will kill the economy. Maybe so. However I think the real debate should be about productivity, innovation, efficiency and hyper competitiveness.

Annual Productivity Growth 2000-2005 (OECD 2008):

  • Technology: 17%
  • All Manufacturing: 5%
  • Metal products: 3%
  • Textile/apparel: 5%
  • Heavy Equipment; 3%

In the US - industry productivity has been lackluster outside technology. That’s what the tech sector has that no other industry seem to have. In the coming year of falling prices maybe other industries get to practice a little high tech life.

Ht Charts

Business Models Rule

Sunday, October 5th, 2008

Michael Rappa has a great article summarizing the various types of business models. It is a concise way of analyzing various possible models for a startup idea. The same service or product may be adopted to offline and online business models and have an impact on the overall success of the business.

Th120001

He categorizes all business models into the following groups: Brokerage, Advertising, Infomediary, Merchant, Manufacturer (Direct), Affiliate, Community, Subscription, Utility A similar study from MIT classifies it differently and also points out that the selection of the model fundamentally determines the success of the venture as much as the product or service:

Picture 1-3

Alex Osterwalder is one of the consultants focused on business model creation vs product idea creation. For many great companies business model was much more important than product idea (Dell, Toyota). These companies realized that well executed business models are much harder to imitate than products.

Technorati Tags: business ideas, business models, Enterprise 2.0

100 Ways to Make $10 Millions in a Startup

Wednesday, August 20th, 2008

I was at a lunch meeting where the argument came up that there are few ideas left in the world… Sound familiar? So the group made a wager that they will come up with 100 ways to make $10 millions in a Startup. The ideas will be polled and ranked online and the winner gets the group's resources and support for funding. I will be watching this experiment and report when their website comes live.

Th120012

Technorati Tags: business ideas, business models, entrepreneurs, Innovation, Venture Capital

Health Care Strained in Canada

Sunday, April 8th, 2007

I lived in Canada for 2 years and was torn between the social promise of free healthcare and the quality of service and the long wait when anyone anytime can get medical care.

This week the Heart Institute in Montreal started turning away patients according to their press release. It was already bad enough having to wait months for surgeries and years for some specialists. Now please keep away from the emergency rooms?

MONTREAL, April 5 /CNW Telbec/ - Due to a very high volume of patients, the Montreal Heart Institute (MHI) is asking people to avoid its emergency department as much as possible for the next 24 hours. The MHI would like to reassure the public that it will continue to provide emergency care.

Despite rising health care costs in the US at least we have immediate access. Which is what heart patients want in an emergency situation. Waiting 24 hours? Some may not have 24 hours left…

Th21911

Technorati Tags: , ,

Magic Quadrant for Teams

Thursday, March 22nd, 2007

Early in the year most companies go through performance evaluations and the necessary rating systems. They typically answer the question of who is an “A”, “B” and “C” player with the inherent assumption that every person can become an idealized “A” player and in fact organizations can be built with all-A teams. I’m not going to argue the statistical futility of this effort, rather point to what is really important in an organization:

Build a world class team with a mix of A/B/C players, that is a high diversity high performance team.

A client friend of mine asked a similar question during the performance season. He had some great thinkers and some outstanding doers in his team. Sometime both. He started plotting them on the magic quadrant, a matrix that compares ability to execute and the ability to formulate and articulate a vision or a plan.

The (simplified) result is below. What is interesting is what he did with all of that. He ended up with 4 categories of people:

Human Magic Quadrants-4

  • Leaders - who can define a vision / outcome and have the energy, commitment to follow-through till the results are there
  • Innovators - who come up with awesome ideas, plans, goals but never actually deliver the results
  • Performers - who will climb any mountain, break down any wall to reach an objective but have a hard time plotting strategy
  • Apprentice - who need a lot of direction in both planning and execution of the tasks

He had A/B/C players in all these categories but decided to team up his Innovators and Performers on projects so they have a great plan and they execute on them. He also made sure his well-rounded leaders were put in charge of mentoring the Followers.

The jury is still out on the experiment but the team loves the clarity around the roles much better than being given a “B” again. Now they can all be “A” players in their own game without having to become something they are not.

Technorati Tags: , , , ,

Philadelphia Venture Crowd

Monday, November 6th, 2006

Picture 1-1

After 4 years of hiatus (and withdrawal) from the venture and startup world I decided to reengage with the local entrepreneurs and venture crowd in the Philadelphia area. It is very interesting to compare the Valley venture activities to the one here in Philly. It reminds me of my experience with Canadian investors in Toronto and Montreal from my “Canadian entrepreneur” days.
We had an entrepreneur breakfast where startups had the 2-minute elevator pitch and the mingle afterwards.
The investors seem more close-knit and tight with the companies but there were definite differences in the companies pitching as well. We had many biotech / healthcare companies beyond the technology startups and some traditional businesses.

Some of the obvious differences from my fundraising days:

  • Some companies had revenues (one was in the $15-20M revenue range)
  • Few had established channels,
  • Most had some anchor customers.

Also management teams typically had decades of experience. In fact we did not have a single Wharton MBA pitching their company. Considering that Wharton is the number 1 school in the country I actually expected that.

All in all a great intro to what is to come from the monthly investor series. NewBuzzTV was an interesting local addition to the entertainment / video / web convergence.

Technorati Tags: , ,

DNA Computing

Friday, October 20th, 2006

Scientific American reported that the DNA-based computers now can play Tic-Tac-Toe. Why is this a big deal? This is significant not because DNA-computers will all of a sudden replace conventional servers to power the enterprise. Conventional computing started out solving basic binary problems in the 1940s which is now paralleled with the 2002 announcement when DNA biological computers solving similar complexity problems. That was 4 years ago. Now we have a basic “thinking machine” under way. Conventional computing fueled by Moore’s law got us to enterprise class by the 1970s, client server the late 1980s, the web 1.0 by the 1990s.

DNA computing may do for enterprise and web computing what the first genome sequencing did for biotech. The question is what kind of enterprises will emerge as a result. What problems will be solved in new ways? The first applications are obviously biotech - currently targeting disease modeling, like the West-Nile virus. But is there an emergent DNA-Web infrastructure or just better modeling in biotech and nanotech?

The MAYA-II DNA computer:
2143 Web
It even reminds me of the first Sinclair computer from 1982(below).
1-Tmx

Technorati Tags: ,

Salesforce.com the SAP of the Saas World?

Friday, October 20th, 2006

Controversial as usual, Nick Carr’s insight into Salesforce.com’s Apex strategy is still definitely worth pondering. Almost all enterprise technology vendors are fighting for the Ultimate Platform or Infrastructure Utility position. Carr writes:

Now, I understand the rationale for the [salesforce.com's] decision: the infrastructure is the product. While Salesforce’s move opens up new opportunities for the firm, it also dramatically widens the competition it will face. Everyone from Microsoft to Google to Amazon is moving into the business of being an infrastructure utility. And, in an age of standardization, it will be interesting to see how customers react to the idea of running their enterprise applications in a private language. Is Salesforce the SAP of the SaaS world - and is that a good or a bad thing?

So the on-premise world has the choice of IBM’s Websphere, SAP’s Netweaver, Oracle’s Fusion MW and Microsoft .net as the unifying architecture. Of these SAP, Oracle and Microsoft command a dizzying array of 3rd party applications to “plug-in” to the platform and provide both functional richness and flexibility to the offering.

While Oracle and SAP have both on-demand and on-premise offerings Salesforce.com has the entire architecture based on SaaS and therefore did not have platform-play aspirations until this last week. With Apex it is now offering a “Platform through the Web” proposition which will broaden the platform wars that raged primarily on premise.

Maybe winning in Enterprise 2.0 will ultimately be about creating a standard platform that unifies on-premise and on-demand.

Communicating the revolutionary platform change in non-techno speak to the board rooms has been challenging for most CIOs.
Now that we are back in the growth (innovation) stage of the economic cycle in most industries and technology innovation dollars are still consumed by maintaining unwieldy infrastructure in most IT shops, the promise of the Platform, the liberation of process and technology innovation is bigger pressure than ever. Technology and process complexity is the ultimate barrier to growth so most companies will ultimately move to an infrastructure utility and this transition will be very interesting to watch over the next decade being fought out between the on-premise giants and the SaaS challengers.

Th00123

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Complexity as Growth Killer

Wednesday, October 18th, 2006

All of us technology professionals were supposed to make business simpler. Well, we failed. As I am working with companies with hundreds if not thousands of enterprise applications and multiple competing business models and processes in the same company it makes you wonder where this is all going.

The new buzzword in business improvement is complexity management. Most companies still do not understand the correlation between increased complexity (products, technologies, organizations) and the resulting growth or lack thereof.

Harvard Business Review had a great article on this topic titled Innovation vs Complexity:

As a company increases the pace of innovation, its profitability often begins to stagnate or even erode. The reason can be summed up in one word: complexity. The continual launch of new products and line extensions adds complexity throughout a company’s operations, and, as the costs of managing that complexity multiply, margins shrink.

They also point out that business wealth is created in the simplification of interactions between systems, processes and organizations.

That is where most studies are going. Internal complexity becomes the number one prohibitor of growth. It is not lack of customers, lack of talent, lack of products. in fact it is due to too many products, services, channels and talent. All major strategy shops are exploring this topic in recent articles from ATKearney, Bain, and Booz-Allen and McKinsey.

Complexity comes in many forms from product portfolio proliferation through diverging technologies to non-standard processes.

If you can afford the top strategy firms they could send you back to the drawing board and ask you to design your business from scratch as if your were selling one product to one customer. Then keep adding product lines and channels without adding unnecessary organizations or processes. It is amazing how an exercise like that paints a real best-in-class view of your business.

In my research complexity and uncertainty feed on each other. When businesses face uncertainty (and who doesn’t) they tend to create what I call safety buffers by adding people, procedures and technologies. Depending on the business it may be

  • excess inventory or capacity because the management does not trust the planning process or technology
  • excess people because the human glue is needed to ensure information flow in divergent processes
  • excess process and technology solutions because divergent organizations need more procedures and technology
  • excess innovation to meet unspecified customer needs

Complexity management may one day give us some guidelines on how to simplify and standardize businesses and show us companies that did go back to the proverbial drawing board. Until then new technologies will need to focus on simplicity, standardization and thereby making a small contribution to that elusive concept: sustainable growth.

As the Booz-Allen study so aptly stated when describing the role of technology providers:

Process complexity is one of the silent killers of profitability. Any time a new product is added or changed or a service level is increased without addressing complexity the result is a process that is a little more cumbersome and a little more costly. Over the long haul, many good strategies go wrong simply because of the drag created by all those incrementally increasing costs.

Th324234

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

On Demand and Process Optimization

Monday, October 16th, 2006

Zoli had a great insight of a potential “Blue Ocean” emerging from the Saas/On Demand space. Saas vendors hold customer data and could develop the ability to offer statistical services ranging from benchmarking through process management to process optimization.
Today these offerings have not taken hold but I can imagine selective opt-in by businesses for higher value-add services like:

  • Process benchmarking - based on transaction data available voluntary participants could receive real-time comparison of their performance against their peers. These would be for areas not considered competitive edge, most notably finance (headcount allocation, transaction costs, cost of service, billing cycles, DSO), human resources (rev per employee, retention metrics, training metrics, etc), procurement (supplier performance, DPO, etc).
  • Process management and optimization - develop systematic recommendations on how to tweak workflow, process steps to have a more streamlined, lower cost process. The system can monitor everything from dispute management (DSO) through supplier performance and recommend corrective actions (replace suppliers with a better one).

If we couple low user cost of on-demand with process optimization typically provided only by large-scale business process reengineering with ERP/CRM enablement then we have real value proposition. Low cost is important but as most companies move to growth mode from efficiency optimization we need more than cost savings to make on demand stick.

30393128-1

Technorati Tags: , , , ,

Strategic Advantage and Strategic Rewards

Thursday, October 5th, 2006

Even companies that understand what their strategic advantage is have the hardest time aligning reward structures to match the strategy.

In many cases a firm may break away from the pack in manufacturing with superior customer service but maintain higher rewards for engineers and backoffice functions due to industry conventions. Similarly a service company shifting to productize its offerings may still reward their professional services staff better than their newfound development or engineering staff.

Many of the same companies believe that they are paying market rates but that may not be enough. If they are pursuing a differentiation strategy than they will have to attract and reward the most differentiated (best) employees and suppliers in that category to maintain competitive advantage.

It means that in areas where you want to have competitive advantage you will have to pay top dollar and in other areas you will pay the “going market rate”.

Jack Welch in the book Winning pointed out time after time that companies have a hardest type assessing talent and retain the highest performers and get rid of the lowest performers. In this sense it is true of employees and suppliers.

I have yet to meet a company that does not believe that they hire only A-players... Who is hiring the B and C players? It is an unfortunate and inefficient myth. As a motivational speaker told us in our first partner meeting in my E&Y days: “Half the people in this room are below average”. It is true and not necessarily a bad thing. You will not be able to reward and motivate the A-players in non-strategic areas and similarly you have to create great opportunities and rewards for A-players in strategic areas.

Companies that under-reward players in strategic areas will eventually erode their competitive advantage which holds true for most companies with one size fits all compensation structures and procurement procedures.

To win, you have to reward the real A players in your areas of strategic advantage and happily hire and retain the B and C players everywhere else and keep those motivated with specific performance metrics.

The following table may serve as a strategy guide for building the right teams. My earlier post also describes characteristics of A-players in any successful environments.

Strategy Reward

Technorati Tags: , , , , , ,

Hertz vs Thrifty’s Customer Interface

Wednesday, October 4th, 2006

Today Hertz was sold out and I had to rent from Thrifty at the airport. Our corporate provider is Hertz where I had Gold Service so I signed up on the web for the equivalent Thrifty Blue Chip service. I guess that is where similarities ended. It absolutely intrigues me that in the commodity business of auto rentals there can be such a difference in processes. To get your car is basically a 3-step process at Hertz but it takes Thrifty 9 steps.

This makes me warm and fuzzy how good enterprise applications could make a drastic difference in perceived customer value as it is the case of Hertz. Thrifty could introduce a nice web app where I could pick my car, print my rental agreement, provide credit card and check out. And that would not even be anything revolutionary but would sure make it convenient.

Here is my flow through the world of auto rentals and hopefully my last journey through Thrifty’s workflow…

Picture 3

Update (10/10) I just returned my rental car and to be fair the return process is as smooth with Thrifty as it is with Hertz. So as long as the front end of the process is streamlined we may have competition again…

Technorati Tags: , , , ,