Showing posts with label innovation and growth strategy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label innovation and growth strategy. Show all posts

Tuesday, April 24, 2012

Peter Drucker on Leadership and Strategic Resilience

“The most important task of an organization’s leader is to anticipate crisis. Perhaps not to avert it, but to anticipate it. To wait until crisis hits is abdication. One has to make the organization capable of anticipating the storm, weathering it, and in fact, being ahead of it. You cannot prevent a major catastrophe, but you can build an organization that is battle-ready, that has high morale, that knows how to behave, that trusts itself and where people trust one another. In military training, the first rule is to instill soldiers with trust in their officers, because without trust they won’t fight.”

—Peter F. Drucker

Even in the most structured, command-and-control environments, like the military, those in the field are the ones who have to carry out the activities of the organization. They are called on to make many key decisions—often without the benefit of a detailed blueprint. Without trust in the leadership, soldiers or workers cannot be expected to stay and fight on.

One of my favorite examples of how trust played a significant role in a leader’s success was withAbraham Lincoln during the Civil War. His predecessor, James Buchanan, was basically in denial about the eventuality of war. Thus, there was very little preparation for combat in the North. The Confederacy, on the other hand, had prepared for quite sometime before war erupted. The result: Even though the North had superior forces and resources, the South was able to fight off the North more effectively than most expected.

The South also had a cadre of very well trained generals like Robert E. LeeJoseph Johnstonand Stonewall Jackson, who worked hard to gain the trust of their troops, and they were able to prolong the war and nearly triumph.

President Lincoln was very fortunate to eventually be able to lean on the skills and strategies of his own military leaders, like Ulysses S. Grant, as well as on his ability to earn and keep the trust of the people of the Union. He was known as “Honest Abe” for a reason, and his trustworthiness greatly enhanced his ability to gain support for the war and ultimately secure the victory. Without the trust that Northerners had in Lincoln, we’d possibly be two or even three countries today. via thedx.druckerinstitute.com

 Want to increase growth and avoid commoditization? Want to out compete your competitors? Want to bring new products and services to market faster? Want to be more agile? Need a compelling speaker? Hire Innovation and Growth Speaker Jim Woods. Jim works confidentially with start ups, governments as well as profit and for profit enterprises.

Visit our website:www.innothinkgroup.com Executive and Business Coaching: http://ow.ly/anBpK

Jim Woods is president and founder of InnoThink Group. A global management consulting firms specialized solely in helping organizations of all sizes in all industries catalyzing top line growth through strategic innovation and hypercompetition. Jim has over 25 years consulting experience in working with small, mid size and Fortune 1000 companies. He is a former U.S. Navy Seabee and grandfather of five. To arrange for Jim to speak at your next event or devise an effective growth strategy email or call us at 719-649-4118 for availability.james@innothinkgroup.com

Follow us on Twitter: http://ow.ly/anyCg

Follow us on LinkedIn: http://ow.ly/anyJu

Fan us on Facebook: http://ow.ly/anyQ7

Thursday, April 5, 2012

The Long-Term Damage from Juggling Too Many Projects

Managers who try to meet important product development deadlines by shifting resources from other projects may succeed in the short term, this paper finds, but the continuous shuffling of resources and team members has a harmful ripple effect over time. Ultimately, the company’s ability to deliver projects reliably will suffer from this schedule-driven approach to project management.

The insight applies to any company that finds itself overextended in the rush to make good on multiple commitments. But it has particular relevance now, given the recent recession and the ongoing so-called jobless recovery, the authors write, because companies have few resources (for example, their highly skilled engineers are in short supply) and are reluctant or unable to hire and train new staff.

If product development and manufacturing firms are to survive in competitive markets, they must continuously tweak their offerings and create new products that feature emerging technologies and trends. As a result, these firms typically have many projects cooking at once, and have different teams sharing engineering and design resources, which can become overextended at peak times. They’re also under pressure to accelerate product development and reduce the time it takes to get their merchandise to market, especially for cutting-edge technology or in-demand goods.

Accordingly, top managers often try to allocate resources from concurrent jobs to ramp up an important project that has fallen behind because of a late start or insufficient support, both common scenarios when companies are juggling many assignments. And some projects are simply more critical to the business than others. For example, firms can lose significant anticipated revenues if their products don’t get to market before a certain predetermined date or if a competitor beats them to it. Many contracts also stipulate penalties for delays.

But what is the long-term effect of this schedule-driven project management approach? To find out, the authors studied the product development division of a manufacturer of high-performance trucks, which embodied the challenges faced by many companies that work on several projects and deadlines at once.

The firm’s target customers are mostly short- and long-haul logistics companies that pay more than US$150,000 per vehicle. Preserving customer loyalty is essential in the trucking industry, because customers rarely switch between competitors when renewing their fleet. Manufacturers must respond swiftly to their competitors’ new products, advances in technology — including ways to improve fuel efficiency and reduce emissions — and regulatory changes.

The company in the study builds about 100,000 trucks annually, mostly tractor units for semitrailers or rigs, but very few are identical. A top management team allocates the annual R&D budget to a number of initiatives to develop new business, and the approved projects share the same pool of specialized resources.

The authors conducted more than 80 one-on-one interviews, eight group presentations, a four-hour workshop, and an analysis of the firm’s archives, as well as making direct observations at the company from 2004 to 2009. Employees participating in the study had diverse job roles, including engineering designers and project and portfolio managers.

The resulting data was then fed into several computer-based models that probed the effects of schedule-driven pressure on long-term productivity. Specifically, the authors examined scenarios in which the time crunch resulted from a policy to complete business-critical projects by the deadline, regardless of whether they started late or initially lacked resources.

The simulations showed that as top management put pressure on a team to finish a project, the time lost on subsequent projects tended to snowball in several stages. First, as one project sacrificed resources, it also came under schedule pressure. Second, as the pressure ratcheted up on more projects, resources switched back and forth more frequently as managers struggled to prioritize. Third, productivity went down as the teams’ size increasingly fluctuated and employees logged long overtime hours.

Jim Woods is president and founder of InnoThink Group. A global management consulting firms specialized solely in helping organizations of all sizes in all industries catalyzing top line growth through strategic innovation and hypercompetition. Jim has over 25 years consulting experience in working with small, mid size and Fortune 1000 companies. He is a former U.S. Navy Seabee and grandfather of five. Jim is board president of a charter school located in Colorado Springs whose sole purpose is to prepare otherwise disadvantaged students more competitively for college. To arrange for Jim to speak at your next event or devise an effective hypercompetition strategy email or call us at 719-649-4118 for availability. Subscribe to our innovation and hypercompetition newsletter.   

Follow us on Twitter

Follow us on Linkedin

Follow us on Facebook

Tuesday, March 27, 2012

Jim Collins: Innovation Isn't Enough: Great By Choice


(Please take a moment to visit our sponsors.)  



Innovation may be the buzz word, but it’s no panacea. Professor Morten Hansen and Jim Collins’ new book “Great by Choice” shows what else you need to stay alive and ahead of the rest.
What separates the winners from the losers? The great from the failed? The successes from the also-rans? According to INSEAD professor of entrepreneurship Morten Hansen, it’s not luck, it’s not birthright, it’s not the fast-paced computer age, it’s not “innovation” and it’s not – despite what everyone says – the current economic recession.

“You would expect that in a world that is changing constantly around you that what you ought to do is to morph into the next thing and the next thing and so on,” says Hansen. “But what we found in our research is that winners in the industries that we studied followed a path of consistent pacing. And in the long run, that is what paid off, even in chaotic industries.”

Hansen and co-author Jim Collins studied 14 companies dating back 30 years to create “Great by Choice” (HarperBusiness), the sequel to Collins’ “Good to Great” detailing the cutting edge in business achievement.
Using ‘qualitative match pair research,’ Hansen and Collins identified turbulent disruptive industries (such as bio-tech and airlines) and looked at which firms had performed best financially over an extended period of time. They then paired these ‘winners’ with comparable companies in the same industry and analysed why success and failure occurred.

“Think about two companies starting out running a marathon in the late 1970’s: you have two companies starting at the same time running the marathon together and one is ahead and winning by a lot, and the other is running on an average speed,” explains Hansen. “And the question is: what explains the difference in performance?”

The 20 mile march technique 
Hansen compares the ability to hit the target regardless of obstacles with the “20 Mile March.” It’s a simple strategy: you pace yourself, going a set number of miles per day no matter what the circumstances, good or bad. You use self-imposed restraints; discipline but not restriction. This is what Hansen believes is behind the success of Southwest Airlines – the only U.S. airline to reach something akin to greatness in the past turbulent 30 years.

“Southwest followed the same principles as the 20 Mile March. The way they became nationally dominant was because they followed a path of opening about four new cities every year,” Hansen explains. “So in bad years – four cities; in the good years – four cities. One year in the 1990’s there were one hundred cities that wanted Southwest to fly to them, because it is good for business. How many did they open in that year? Four. That 20 Mile March is what paid off for them.”

The book paints a picture of a sort of corporate lonesome cowboy, following his own path despite distractions along the way, remaining aloof from the siren call of popularity, beating his industry peers by a multiple of ten over a 30-year period (yes, ten times in terms of shareholder returns over 30 years – Hansen and Collins dub them “Ten Xers”). But this is not to say he is impervious to his surroundings, or even to luck.

Paranoia can be productive
“What we found,” says Hansen, “is that this idea of pacing yourself was combined with another quality, which we call a leadership quality of ‘productive paranoia.’ By that we mean that some of the winners we selected – such as Bill Gates (Microsoft) or Andy Grove (Intel) were hyper-vigilant about the environment they were in. What are the threats that could hit them? What are the bad storms which could come their way? These leaders had their sensors up; they didn’t know when or in what form the bad times would come or in what shape: it could be a collapse in demand, it could be regulatory change, it could be an industry recession. And they prepared. Both Bill Gates and Andy Grove built up a large amount of cash on the balance sheet – that was one way to prepare for the storm.”

Then there’s the big question of ‘luck.’ Hansen and Collins analysed that, too. Perhaps the 10Xers were just luckier. “We found that the winners and the non-winners had the same amount of luck, good and bad,” Hansen explains. So it can’t be just luck alone that explains the difference. You have to do something with the luck that comes your way. You can’t squander it. You have to execute brilliantly in the moment. “So the winners saw not only tough times ahead, they also foresaw a certain amount of luck and were prepared for that, too. When that luck came their way, they disrupted their plans and they executed brilliantly to get the maximum return on that luck. So it’s not how much luck you get; it’s the return you get on that luck.”

Overall, Hansen’s book puts pay to the idea that innovation is the be-all and end-all of the future. The greatest innovator isn’t necessarily the biggest winner. Once you achieve an ‘innovation threshold’ that puts you in the top tier of your industry and you are playing with the big guys, it does no good to be even more innovative.

Innovation is not enough
“Once you reach a threshold in your industry, there doesn’t seem to be a bigger payoff,” avers Hansen. “It’s just a ticket to play. What we found that you need in combination with that innovation is discipline. The combination of having discipline and being creative – that is the hard part. Few companies or people can do that.”

Intel, he says, is one such company, exemplified by its slogan ‘Intel Delivers.’ Hansen continues, “That slogan means ‘We are disciplined. We can scale up the innovation. We can deliver at large volume, at good quality and in time.’ So you’ve got creativity and discipline. ‘Intel delivers’ is a more apt description of their advantage than ‘Intel innovates’.”

And what did Hansen himself learn from his research? “A personal learning for me was around the question of ‘luck.’ You can’t just say “Well I didn’t get lucky,” or “Somebody else got lucky. Or maybe I got lucky.” It is not what matters in the end. We all get a lot of luck, but that does not make one win and others lose. It is what you do with the luck you get in life that counts—your return on luck.”

He is also convinced business finds itself in a new world. “I believe the business world is never going to return to an era of stability” he opines. “And because of that we live in a permanent state of uncertainty and turbulence. And therefore we need new leadership principles that are relevant for this new kind of business era.” Via INSEAD

Jim Woods is president and founder of InnoThink Group. We are one of the very few consulting firms specialized solely in helping organizations of all sizes in all industries catalyzing top line growth through strategic innovation and hypercompetition. Email or call us at 719-649-4118 to speak at your event or devise an effective competitive advantage and innovation strategy for your organization.  Subscribe to our innovation and hypercompetition newsletter? 

(Please take a moment to visit our sponsors.)  


Follow us on Twitter
Follow us on Linkedin
Follow us on Facebook