Archive for the ‘Business Decisions’ Category

« Previous Entries  

Getting Buy-In To Your Research Project

More and more clients are coming to us at an early stage in the creation of a research brief to get our thoughts not only on how we can help research the problem but also to get our help and backing to get buy-in to the project from inside and help fight the internal bureaucracy. If you try and battle the red tape you will get nowhere. Instead, follow these 4 simple rules to get your research project off the ground and you will stand a greater chance of business success:

• Go against the path of least resistance. Find out who is bought in to your way of thinking and then get them onside.

• Use the resources that are close to hand. Don’t go to many lengths to get a large budget straight away. Instead, use people you know, desk research and other resources/budget that you have to help you get the wheels in motion and any evidence you may need to move to the next level.

• Secure only the commitment you need for the short term. Don’t try to get the board’s buy-in from the get-go. Instead make sure that everyone is clear to what you are trying to achieve and then get the least amount of commitment you need to take your project to the next stage.

• Move quickly. Most good ideas stall because they don’t have the necessary momentum. Put your all behind the project or it will die and atrophy.

To find out how B2B International can help your organisation, contact one of our international offices http://www.b2binternational.com/contact-b2b/ or find out about what is important when putting a research brief together http://www.b2binternational.com/publications/articles/market-research-brief/

Posted in Acquisition Research, Advertising Research, Brand Strategy, Branding, Business Decisions, Chemicals Research, Consumer Research, Customer Satisfaction Research, Global Research, Industrial Research, Market Research, Online Research, Qualitative Research, Quantitative Research |
Comments: None Yet »

A Rolling Stone Gathers No Loss

In this week’s Business Surgery, Conor Wilcock discusses the merits of ringing in the changes

As far as months go, March was pretty tumultuous. I recently upped the proverbial sticks, threw caution to the proverbial wind, and flew across the (not so) proverbial Atlantic Ocean to begin anew a life in the United States. Such an upheaval brings change thick and fast, whether you like it or not. I’ve had to swap my Ss for Zs, and my right-hand drive for my left-hand drive. I’ve even had to kick Elizabeth II from my wallet in anticipation of Messrs Lincoln, Hamilton and Jackson setting up stall (Queenie seems pretty disgruntled about it, even though I keep telling her it’s nothing personal).

All of this got me thinking about change in other arenas as well, namely business (after all, this blog isn’t called “personal surgery”). Why do companies feel the need to change? Is it healthy for companies to initiate change as standard? Are there occasions where change is ill-planned and can jeopardize future performance?

At this point, I did a little digging, and encountered an article by Stephen Hall, Dan Lovallo & Reiner Musters in the McKinsey Quarterly: “How To Put Your Money Where Your Strategy Is.”

Though the full article is available to subscription-readers only, the abstract captures the gist of the argument:

“Most companies allocate the same resources to the same business units year after year. That makes it difficult to realize strategic goals and undermines performance.”

In a nutshell, the article claims that a company which constantly evaluates the performance of business units, and allocates resources according to market opportunities, is likely to be worth more than a company which has a more stagnant strategy: one which allocates capital consistently every year.

“Worth more” to the tune of 40% over 15 years. 40%. Staggering stuff.

The article proceeds to make two interesting observations:

• “Inertia reigns at most companies” – in fact, strategic planning often results in “modest resources shifts.” Put simply, companies aren’t backing their own strategies, preferring instead to leave institutional change by the wayside in favor of caution and stability.
• Executives who reallocated less than their predecessors were more likely to be removed from their posts within five years. Watch out “static” CEOs: McKinsey is coming for you.

Upon first glance, I was waving my researcher arms in the air in celebration at this article. Of course change is good! Of course stagnation is bad! By habitualizing change, companies will ride on an inevitable path to profit and shareholder glory.

Or perhaps it’s not quite as straightforward as that.

To get to the bottom of this, we need to make a number of distinctions. Firstly, evaluation and change are two very different things. To change something for change’s sake can be damaging indeed. Has anyone bought a can of Coca Cola II recently? I didn’t think so. Regular (if not constant) evaluation on the other hand, is necessary and rewarding. Companies should replace the old adage with (the admittedly less memorable), “If it ain’t broke, evaluate it anyway.”

To extend on the point, there is a difference between positioning oneself for change and actually changing. Companies should never allow themselves to sink into the mire by assuming that resources are being allocated appropriately. The “plain sailing” approach renders companies susceptible to the iceberg of spiralling losses. And this is where research comes in. Research can help establish when and where change is necessary. The key here is that evaluation can lead to a “no” decision as well as a “yes” decision. Both have their place, both are valuable, and both can lead to reduced costs and increased margins.

That being said, let’s return to the article in question, which suggested a positive correlation between level of resource allocation and shareholder returns. Given how impactful change can be on future performance, companies need to commit to change and do it in the right way when past the point of no return. A second article published by the London Business School entitled “The New Change Equation,” warns of the perils of the Big Bang approach to change:

“Considerable time and effort is placed on announcing the forthcoming strategic agenda…yet life remains the same. The illusion of change substitutes any reality.”

Once you’ve got the green light, don’t be afraid to put your foot on the gas. If companies are smart enough, there’ll be another set of traffic lights a short distance ahead with another “go/no go” decision to be made. Let’s just hope you’ve remembered to drive on the correct side of the road…

Posted in Business Decisions, Business Development, Conor Wilcock, Product Development, The Business Surgery |
Comments: None Yet »

Developing Your 2012 Business Strategy

Recent research carried out by McKinsey Quarterly with 2,135 executives showed that most companies’ strategies are flawed and not ‘future-proofed’ to make sure that they are adaptable to changing market conditions. With 2012 ahead of us (and no doubt some globally challenging times ahead), we have detailed the main checklist that you should review to see where gaps lie in your company’s strategy and develop a future process for improving your strategy over the next 12 months:

1. Commit to following your strategy (but with some flexibility!)
2. Make sure you do something different
3. Understand whether your strategy taps into a true source of competitive advantage (and if it doesn’t, try and develop one)
4. Evaluate whether your strategy is granular enough about where to compete so you can make a difference to actions and the bottom line
5. Don’t rely on the past to plan future strategy (and also don’t rely too heavily on internal bias as this may give a blinkered view)
6. Ensure your strategy includes different scenario planning to take account of uncertainty
7. MOST IMPORTANT: Make sure you transfer your strategy from paper into an action plan

As documented by Porter and his 5 forces, all companies operate in markets surrounded by customers, suppliers, competitors, substitutes, and potential entrants and all are seeking to advance their own positions. The problem is that most companies continue to do what they have always done and not think about diversifying to beat the market. Remember, if you always do what you have always done then you will always get what you have always got…if you are lucky!

Make sure that you do something different in 2012 to create value and improve your strategy development process.

For a full reading of the article by McKinsey please visit www.mckinseyquarterly.com ‘Have you tested your strategy lately?’

For further reading on strategy development and competitive intelligence click on the links below:

B2B International White Paper – Competitor Intelligence
B2B International White Paper – Strategic Decisions Planning

Posted in Articles, Business Decisions, Business Development, Strategic Marketing, White Papers |
Comments: None Yet »

In Search Of Business Excellence

Julia Cupman this week discusses how to drive excellence in companies.

I am always intrigued by what people think drives excellence in companies.  The common thread in everything that we are asked to do in our search for market intelligence is to find the nuggets and insights that show how companies can improve – how they can beat the competition.

The search for excellence has attracted many authors and ex-McKinsey consultant, Tom Peters, has written widely on the subject.  In his book "In Search Of Excellence" (1982), Peters nominated GM (among others) as a model of distinction.  A lot has happened since then and as we know, foreign competition and a lack of focus, perhaps tinged with some arrogance, have seen many of the paradigms of excellence fall from grace.

In his original work, Peters suggested eight themes result in excellence:

1. A bias for action, active decision making – ‘getting on with it’, for quick decision making and problem solving tends to avoid bureaucratic control.
2. Closeness to the customer – learning from the people served by the business.
3. Autonomy and entrepreneurship – fostering innovation and nurturing ‘champions’.
4. Productivity through people- treating rank and file employees as a source of quality.
5. Hands-on, value-driven – a management philosophy that guides everyday practice – management showing its commitment.
6. Stick to the knitting – stay with the business that you know.
7. Simple form, lean staff – some of the best companies have minimal HQ staff.
8. Simultaneous loose-tight properties – autonomy in shop-floor activities plus centralized values.

Like all good business gurus, Peters has developed his thinking, and authored an article recently in the Financial Times (29th August 2011), adding four further "obsessions" which he believes drive excellence.

1. Frontline managers – the equivalent of the sergeants in the army.  They are the foreman in the factory, the supervisor on the shop floor – the people who know an organization intimately and who are responsible for driving productivity.
2. Cross functional excellence – the importance of different departments working together and not against each other.
3. Strategic listening – the importance of listening.  Indeed listening to customers as well as to staff is so easy and yet so often companies plough on with their ear plugs in.
4. Meetings – the need not for fewer nor for more meetings, but for more actionable meetings, i.e. meetings should be used as a platform for boosting enthusiasm and motivating action.

Understanding what drives excellence in business is the Holy Grail.  Market research is not carried out to provide an elegant description of markets.  Rather it is the strategic listening that Peters refers to.  It is about understanding and spotting meanings; in particular, the opportunities that can provide a comparative advantage or help avoid a disaster.

I would like to add a fifth theme that will drive excellence: an obsession with intelligence – knowing more than the competition and using this knowledge more effectively than the competition.

Posted in Business Decisions, Julia Cupman, Market Intelligence, The Business Surgery |
Comments: None Yet »

Are You Speaking Gobbledygook?

In this week’s Thursday Night Insight, Nick Hague questions how clearly people are communicating in the business world today.

The year is now 2011 but things are no different than 2010 and I profess they are getting worse. I was sat in a meeting a couple of weeks ago (just after New Year) listening to the same old twaddle:

“It is mission critical that we focus on our core competencies in order to maintain our edge in the marketplace. If we don’t think outside the box, become more customer centric and focus on the low hanging fruit we will get push back and won’t be able to deliver the win win to deliver a seamless solution. Come on, let’s give 110%”.

Of course I exaggerate, but only slightly! How did things ever come to this – and when could you get more than 100%?

If I went home and started talking to my family in this kind of talk they would think I was speaking another language and they would be right. I have also started to hear similar talk out of work with people in the pub using such awful phrases as ‘blue-sky thinking’ and ‘singing from the same hymn sheet’. Why do we talk in this weird business speak?

Well, it may be due to the invasion of business reality TV shows like The Apprentice but I think the time has come to start speaking like humans again (even at work!).

Think of the last time you sat on a plane or train that was delayed and the way the guard or pilot phrases their apology. Just before Christmas, I was sat with a colleague on a plane (after an hour and a half delay already) and as we were sat on the tarmac, over the tannoy came the pilot “We would like to thank all passengers for their patience and apologise for any inconvenience caused”. The pilot then went on to add that “due to unforeseen circumstances that are out of our control our slot has been put back a further hour. We will update you when we have more information but if you do wish to get off this flight please make yourself known to one of the cabin crew”.

It may as well have been delivered by a robot with the inhuman way it was put across. On the occasions when I am home late from work or having to work late to meet deadlines would I ever say ‘sorry for the inconvenience’ to my wife who has put the children to bed and dealt with another evening of solitary confinement; of course I wouldn’t and if I did I know what the comeback would be!

Suffice to say, we got off the plane and ended up delivering the presentation via a video conference. What was enlightening was that after the 3 hour video conference, one of the PA’s came in and profusely apologised “I am so sorry for not offering you coffee or tea during the meeting”. It was heartfelt and of course it was no problem but immediately I warmed to her genuine nature.

I therefore postulate; is the way we communicate hurting our businesses and individual reputation more than we know? If the airline in question had dealt with the situation in a slightly more humane way, would I have felt differently about the soured experience? Research carried out in the UK with over 2,000 adults by YouGov confirmed these worrying trends that nearly half of the respondents admitted to using ‘business jargon’ outside of work with family and friends but an enlightening 70% of people (especially in the North West of England) found such talk to be irritating.

Of course, there is always a balance between being professional and being personable but in this world saturated in information and alternatives, being clear not only in the proposition you take to market but in the language you use will make you stand out from the crowd and deliver you a competitive advantage that customers will warm to.

So in wrap up to this week’s Thursday Night Insight and with the whole year ahead of us I ask you to try and make this year’s resolution to talk with clarity and without mumbo jumbo jargon and I promise you; as long as you give it 200%, it will definitely feel fresh to the other claptrap that is being spouted!

Posted in Business Decisions, Communication, Nick Hague, Thursday Night Insight |
Comments: None Yet »

« Previous Entries