Where do these questions take me and what has been the core learning for me in the last 12 months?

The answers appear to align in the summation of some of my previous blog articles relating to Business culture, simplicity, and value. However, it is easy to dismiss these points with a, so what, or not again. But that would be missing the essence of what this article is about, particularly when the world as we know it is in financial chaos. To survive and grow means that any business will need to:-

• provide the BEST value
• provide the BEST and most simple customer focused solutions
• how do I develop the BEST business culture

It's the sum of the intelligences!

The topic of social media continues to drive momentum from its origins as a mechanism for connecting people, to sharing ideas, thoughts, insights and most recently a business tool to explore the world of customers and consumers. While for some, it provides an additional mechanism to advertise and promote their products and services, albeit for others it is the best way to communicate and remain connected.

As most of you will be aware Facebook now has more than 600 million users, more than 200 million accessing from a mobile device. Twitter supports more than 100 million tweets per day, Youtube reaches more than 2 billion viewers each day, with the most popular Youtube video achieving more than 505 million views. Linkedin has more than 90 million active users around the world, more than half outside the US.

The most prolific users of social media are:

1. Australia
2. United States
3. UK
4. Italy
5. Spain
6. Brazil
7. Germany
8. France
9. Switzerland
10. Japan

In summary, every minute is being cosumed by a plethora of activity focused on the offering of Social media (Sources of information: Facebook, Twitter, Linkedin, Youtube, Nielson, Mashable, Australian Bureau of Statistics, Box Hill Institute).

What is the relevance of social media to organisational leadership?

In a recent  Australian Financial Review (AFR), Peter Roberts wrote an article indicating that most CEO’s are using social media at 10% of its capacity, and according to KPMG 42% of Australian enterprises were embracing social media communities. However, what I found most perplexing from this article was the level of perceived risk most leaders associate with their use of social media. “Most CEOs are holding back from actively engaging in social media because of  losing control of the message they deliver” Is this not a lack of education relating to social media and how to generate the most momentum from your message? Like everything else in business, knowledge management is a key success factor.

Barrick Obama, Richard Branson, Kevin Rudd, Jack Welch, Tom Peters, plus a multitude of  high profile individuals and organisations are all heavy users of Twitter and other forms of social media. So the risk mitigation article doesn’t really stand. Unless, there is a lack of self confidence, or perhaps a reticence to be open and honest with potential or current customers. In effect, an unwillingness to “listen” to the views and ideas of others.

So what are the plus elements of social media? From my own personal experience  it is another form of Word-of-Mouth (WOM) communication providing awareness, while at the same time enabling effective feedback loops to be established. There has, and will continue to be debate, with regards to R.O.I. associated will social media. Perhaps this is the wrong debate and the metrics should be more aligned to the social elements of social media and its implications on the users. This is not about advertising per se, it is about social communication and resulting interaction, plus the potential impact it has on you, your company and your customers. The real advertising relates to the social buzz along with the associated implications, good and bad. If you and your business allow social media and social consciousness to merge, then trust and respect for your brand has the opportunity to flourish. The implications will come from the learning and input of others, ultimately providing innovative insights that can propel consistent improvement and break through thinking.

Why? Because it is about the sum of the collective intelligence of the social buzz generated by those who have interest and care.

In summary, it comes back to how you think, the courage you possess, and the level of innovative capacity you wish to attract from your social network.

We look forward to your comments and feedback. If you would like to explore and discuss this article in more detail,  please contact us at Mind Fusion today. Our role is to assist your business deliver profitable solutions in support of your every day business challenges.

Stale sales

What’s happening in  business today?

• Is there an over emphasis on cost leading to myopic investment decisions?
• Is getting the right culture being perceived as a high cost activity?
• Is there in an increasing focus on divestment rather than investment?

These are some of the issues that appear to be blurring, as businesses review potential future directions while considering growth and robust strategic initiatives. It all  becomes perplexing for many as they pursue the next stage of their evolution.

The danger commences while considering the new journey, as the requirement is driven by one or all of the following fundamentals, survival, growth or meeting shareholder expectations. There are many leaders who attempt to pick what they feel most comfortable with, while ignoring the unknown or not so familiar. “So let’s ensure we take the safe bet” becomes the catch cry, rather than effective due diligence including assessing risk to deliver the best possible business outcome to all stake holders, customers, staff, and shareholders inclusive of the implicit brand implications.  Such myopic views contribute to mediocrity, delivering average to poor business performance and results.

For many boards today the element of cost is getting to a “fever” pitch, so much so it is often at the cost of medium to long term growth initiatives. The obvious next big questions is “are we over resourced?”. “Do we have too many heads? Let’s cut the head count now, we can always build back again in the future if we need to do so.” Sound familiar? But what happens? If you can cut back resources and head count now, doesn’t that indicate poor decisions and management in the past when the business may have been in a healthier state and could have performed better, with less heads, and better cost management? Another indicator of mediocrity.

If cut backs do take place, and the headcount is reduced, then what? Unless the business has effectively managed the psychological well-being of its staff through an integrated employee engagement process, over a long period, it will possibly be judged as poor place to work? Potentially deterring quality talent to join the organisation in the future. As this occurs the mental resilience of many staff will be reduced, increasing stress and negatively impacting morale for those who have been left behind. The cultural values of the business will be questioned while trust and openness disapate. All this ads up creating long term scepticism regarding job security for the remaining employees, with a resultant contagion effect in the medium term for new recruits who were not directly involved with the downsizing, but now have concerns based on their observations, feelings, and feedback from others. So what does all this mean? Downsizing can and often does lead to a reduction in “real” employee productivity, reduction in moral, futher reinforced with negative impacts on culture, and lack of trust for management. In summary, not a great place to work, low levels of staff loyalty and continued mediocraty, with real productivity per employee declining further.

So has this reduced cost and potentially increased margin? Yes, superficially in the short term, but at what real cost? It could be, and most often is argued. “What choice did we have?” Perhaps better long term planning and management would have mitigated the risk and need. Furthermore, the hidden issue here is customer demand for products and services. What changed? Should and could the business have been more innovative? Did it invest in the brand and its potential superior value proposition? Does it have a superior value proposition? For example, how has Coca Cola been relevant to its target customers for more than 150 years? I consistently hear the retail industry cry fowl of the current economic effects, however, I am yet to experience real improvements that would entice me to increase brand loyalty or spend more. In other words, no superior value proposition, so show me the price!

What is the view from your business? Where is your current mind-set and energy flow?

If you would like to discuss in more detail  click here and contact Mind Fusion today.

We would also appreciate your comments for ongoing discussion.

Business stagnation, due to limited or negative growth continues… So what to do?

The impact of the global financial crisis keeps lingering, with the world of business remaining pessimistic as it it looks into the crystal ball for inspirational insights. Many wishing for a flash of brilliance to deliver the impetus necessary to inject growth and realise associated earnings.

This anaemic approach is driven by risk averse businesses continuing to remain in their comfort zones while preferring to let the “market” deliver the change required to drive customer appetite. In the meantime, growth is minimal or negative, cost management is perceived to be the key to survival. The business then stagnates in a cesspool of mediocrity.

So what is lacking? Are todays leaders so left brain and therefore analytical that the creative mind flows have been limited and potentially shutdown? Is the only perceived fix to focus on the same numbers expecting something to jump out and save the proverbial day?

There is also a group of organisations who have “jumped” into the world of “innovation” expecting a magic wand to ignite before their eyes. Yet they are more often than not ill prepared for such a process, with no supporting cultural drivers.

It can be argued, these businesses are in this position because they have not driven a culture of continuos learning. Learning from the environment that surrounds them, adapting through creativity, observation and sensitivity.

Many of you may have read, “The Fifth Discipline”, ” the Art and Practise of The Learning Organisation” authored by M.I.T. Professor Peter M. Senge (Published by Doubleday, August 1990, ISBN 0-385-26094-6).  Senge poses the question, “Does your organisation have a learning disability?” “Learning disabilities are tragic in children, but they are fatal in organisations. Because of them, few corporations live even half as long as a person-most die before they reach the age of forty”

So let’s reflect as to why this may be the case and the potential impact on your business. With reference to Senge and “The parable of the boiled frog”, “If you place a frog in a pot of boiling water, it will immediately try to scramble out. But if you place the frog in room temperature water, and don’t scare him, he will stay put. Now, if the pot sits on a heat source, and if you gradually turn up the temperature, something very interesting happens. As the temperature rises from 70 to 80 degreesF., the frog will do nothing. In fact, he will show every sign of enjoying himself. As the temperature gradually increases, the frog will become groggier and groggier, until he is unable to climb out of the pot. Though there is nothing restraining him, the frog will sit there and boil. Why? Because the frog’s internal apparatus for sensing threats to survival is geared to sudden changes in his environment, not to slow, gradual changes. “

Some will immediately suggest that the GFC was sudden and not a slow change. This may be true, however, many business were not adapting to the changing economic environment around them prior to the GFC and as a consequence in an environment of dramatic change its too late for some. For example, book retailing, Borders Books and Angus and Robertson, they are brands disappearing into the “ether”. Many electrical and white goods retailers did not want to gradually morph their business to take into account the world of the internet. Instead they just wanted to remain the same, following a business as usual model, while their customers have been slowly adapting to the world of internet shopping.

At Mind Fusion we believe significant numbers of organisations would have been better prepared for the sudden changes such as the GFC if they had had a culture of continuos learning. Where “learning” is about the environment that surrounds them, yet those that manage by the balance sheet alone, die by the balance sheet.

Great market leadership, is all about approach, where learning is at the core, embraced by an effective cultural focus inclusive of innovation and market sensitivity. Where creativity is not shunned, but enthusiastically supported and adopted as a key driver of market leadership and differentiation. Where looking forward and not backward at the “numbers” is the prime driver of success.

There is no doubt that a logical approach to a creative process within any business appears as an oxymoron. However, it is an essential element to a market leading position.

At Mind Fusion we are passionate about assisting organisations deliver “learning” as a core element of their business culture, and as such we would be delighted to support your business move forward. Don’t give your competitors the lead opportunity.  Contact us now to explore in greater detail.

Planning, too much, too late, with little understanding of the ramifications.

How often have you heard, or read of an organisation with a new 10 point strategic plan to rectify, or improve business performance, or even a five point plan?

What happens then, do they succeed with all, some, or none of these points being realised?

Is the organisation at large aware of the plan, and are they collectively focused to deliver the extensive list of initiatives? Or, is it just “hot air” from the top that the rest of the organisation acknowledges and do not actively support? For most, it is all about business as usual.

From my organisational learning I believe such plans are doomed to fail, and at best they are only partially successful. Why?

It is a bit like attempting to swallow an apple with one bite, rather than taking controlled bites. You choke!

This is because the ramifications of too many points in a strategic plan and the requirements to execute are not clearly understood by those who orchestrate them, including the board, and or the senior management team. Furthermore, for many the day-to-day activities and associated firefighting takes priority.

What do I mean by this?

Consider the following; Typically a well focused single minded strategic plan has an approximate 80% or greater chance of succeeding. If it is based on one core strategy necessary to drive the most effective outcome. When you get to 10 points the success rate is typically less then 10%. Why?

Given that in many cases the first priority of most organisations is to deliver the day-to-day or business as usual requirements. In other words, the engine of business needs to keep turning and not go backward. Strategic initiatives are usually business improvement or directional changes with the intent of improving performance.

A point also not realised by many is the strategy set by the board has a number of tactics associated with it, these become the next level of the organisations working strategy, and consequently you have your first level multiple from the original. From one core strategy you may require 2 or many enabling tactics. Typically with a top down ten point strategic plan you can expect a minimum of 20 to 50 second level tactics, and if this process is followed through the organisation they increase exponentially. For each layer thereafter the same principle applies with the possibility of ending up with numerous tactics required to drive the plan. The confusion continues to expand when the number of KPI’s (Key Performance Indicators) are allocated to each tactic creating a large and unwieldily monitoring process. In other words, the original plan looses focus and discipline, with the final ramification being a poor level of effective execution.

The summary take-out being, too complex, too confusing and no single minded ownership. All leading to failure and a loss of confidence from the board to the leadership team, the staff, and finally the customers. Although not aware of the plan, customers may be impacted by the potential service or product performance loss.

Of course all this is subject to timing and prioritisation of the initiatives to ensure that they are not all actioned simultaneously, but aligned to appropriate staggered milestones. The level of complexity for each initiative also plays a significant role in the fulfilment of the plan. The more complex the initiative the more focused the plan required, meaning less rather than more.

We look forward to your comments and feedback. If you would like to explore “Too many strategic initiatives” in more detail,  please contact us at Mind Fusion today. Our role is to assist your business deliver profitable solutions in support of your every day business challenges.

Most have heard the adage ‘Simplicity is the key to success’. Interesting as it appears it is often overlooked when the pressure of business deliverables and launch expectations become critical. Quite often the terms simple versus easy become confused and the resultant consequences potentially deliver very different end-result customer experiences, and  therefor financial outcomes.

I have listened to many leaders explain to their colleagues and organisations the importance of simplifying their products and services in an attempt to provide better customer experiences to drive market leadership. Unfortunately, I have also witnessed teams who then enter a state of chaos and have no idea how to simplify the product or service they are accountable for.

The pressure to deliver then drives the launch without the rigorous customer insights necessary to optimise performance.

As a result it is not surprising that 30% to 50% of new product launches fail to achieve targets.

For many firms 86% of their market research investment is undertaken at the embryonic or initial stage of product/service development, the remaining 14% occurs prior to go-to-market and is most often in conjunction with focus groups. A potentially very misleading process. This infers minimal in-depth, or direct one-on-one market testing required to challenge the go-to-market value proposition.

Fully integrated end-to-end market testing.

In fact, these three words simple-easy-complex should be consistently questioned throughout all the development phases, culminating with the final go-to-market research challenging the rigour and accuracy of the process, inclusive of the superiority of the value proposition.

When? Prior to any expenditure on the market launch and final execution. Unfortunately, for many businesses this lack of discipline and consideration means market failure more often than not, with corresponding erosion of brand perception and value.

Why? Let’s start with the fact that all businesses possess some form of value proposition, yet 34% fail in the first 2 years of existence, after 4 years 46% have failed (US Bureau of statistics (pre GFC data).

The key fundamental reasons for this other than poor economic management are:

…1 Their value propositions are not robust or superior to the competition.

…2 If the value proposition is superior it does not pass the simple-easy-complex customer challenge.

The concept of superior value propositions is discussed under the tab titled ‘Market Focus’ (click here).

At this time I have not witnessed a fully integrated challenge process conducted as a formal component of the final go-to-market business approval.

To gain an understanding of simple-easy-complex let’s refer to an example you will all be able to identify with, the Smart phone.

The advent of the smart phone has witnessed a huge change in consumer behaviour, and the usage of mobile phones once only identified with making calls and sending text. No longer do you need to press the number 2 key three time to create the letter ‘c’. We now have real or virtual QWRTY keys to directly type and enter data. We can access social media, send and receive e-mail, read your favourite news, read a book, check the weather, accesss a plethora of information on the internet, purchase and listen to music, and make a call. All from wherever you are, whenever you want it, at affordable prices.

This resultant change in consumer behaviour has had massive implication on our lifestyles, with corresponding demands on the mobile networks. Why? Because of the ability to provide a superior experience (value proposition) to the end customer at a price they can afford.

This is a classic example of a transitional process moving from complex to easy to simple.

So what is simple?

Simple is all about being intuitive and obvious with no need for directions or instructions regarding ‘how to use’.

A further point of clarification. The more frequently you undertake a complex task over an extended time period, the more it will appear to become easy. Why? Because once you have learnt a difficult task it fits within your acceptance limits and is aligned to your accumulation of knowledge. So if there isn’t any known acceptable alternatives to a complex problem you will persist and learn by default. This then provides an opportunity to exploit a gap.

This article has been built around a technical example, nevertheless, the business rule for simple-easy-complex applies to ALL products, services and channels, retail, manufacturing, FMCG, etc. In fact, any application where a superior value proposition is to be delivered to the end customer.

In other words, successful and therefor profitable superior value propositions delivering the job-to-be-done must be customer centric with an intense focus on simplicity if they are to be universally accepted. For example, MacDonald’s, Tom Tom, Digital cameras, Smart phones, i-Pod, i-Pad, etc

So what is the test?

The answer is in the diagram above. We look forward to your comments and feedback. If you would like to explore Simple, Easy, Complex in more detail, please contact  Mind Fusion today. Our role is to assist your business deliver profitable solutions in support of your every day business challenges.

Innovation is one of the hottest topics in business these days.  More and more, companies are coming out with new products and services designed to amaze their customers and get them to dig deeper into their pocketbooks.

Only problem is, most of what passes for innovation these days doesn\’t stand out as very new, different or compelling.  As a result, most innovation efforts are lucky to pay for themselves, much less actually turn a profit.

To develop new products and services that actually make money, follow these five steps.

1. Aim high.

Strive for disruptive, rather than incremental, innovation.

Incremental innovation focuses on making small improvements to existing products and services.  It adds a few new bells and whistles, but does not significantly alter the product or the perceived value to the customer.

Disruptive innovation creates new products or services that solve customer problems in entirely new and different ways.  It fundamentally alters the customer\’s perception of value, and can literally turn markets and entire industries upside down.  Often, disruptive innovation solves problems that customers didn\’t know they had or were unable to clearly articulate.

Most companies are set up, both structurally and philosophically, to pursue incremental innovation.  The R&D team strives to extend and improve existing products or services rather than come up with radically new ones.  People get rewarded for doing things a little bit faster, better and cheaper, not for shaking up the status quo.  Managers are trained to protect and defend the existing brand rather than look for ways to make their own products obsolete.

As a result, the pursuit of disruptive innovation demands a very different way of looking at and managing the innovation process.  It involves asking questions like, ‘What is our goal with innovation?  Where do we get new ideas and how do we handle them when they surface?  How do we keep up with the changing needs of our customers?  How do we determine customer value?  How do we reward (or not reward) innovation, and what message does that send to employees?’

Incremental innovation generally costs less and is easier to achieve. But it rarely leads to a position of market leadership. Disruptive innovation takes longer, costs more, and has a much higher failure rate.  But when successful, the payoff is huge.

2. Get your customers involved.

A recent study of future mobile phone services compared new product ideas from customers with those put forth by ‘internal’ sources: professional developers and technology experts.  Researchers found that the internal experts come up with more new product ideas that had a good chance of actually making it to market.  However, customers created more new product ideas that actually solved their problems, a major factor in determining perceived value.

Getting customers involved in the creative/idea generation phase of your innovation process may take longer and cost more.  But it greatly increases the odds of developing successful new products.  It also keeps you in touch with the problems your customers face, which can change a lot faster than you think. Your customers represent a bountiful source of new product ideas, and the process of engaging them is likely to produce other benefits like stronger working relationships and deeper loyalty as well.

Before getting customers involved, however, I strongly recommend unlearning what you think you already know about them.

Our built-in assumptions, beliefs and ‘thought bubbles’ about the way things work are so deeply ingrained that we often don\’t realize how strongly they affect our thinking and decision-making processes.  This is especially true with companies that have been serving the same customer base for a long time.  We think we know all about what our customers want and need, so we rarely take the time to question our attitudes and beliefs.  But in rapidly changing markets, those assumptions can quickly become obsolete.

Until we identify and discard our outdated ideas, attitudes and assumptions about customer relationships, any efforts to invite them into the innovation process may cause more harm than good.

3. Manage the process.

Many people think that in order to successfully innovate, all you have to do is come up with a bunch of creative ideas.

Not so.

To reap the desired rewards, innovation must be carefully managed from beginning to end.  It starts with idea generation, followed closely by idea evaluation and then implementation.  Creativity doesn\’t become innovation until you actually bring a new product or service to market that customers are willing to pay for.

To manage the innovation process, start by identifying the innovation model that best fits your business.  Develop strategic targets to guide your efforts.  Understand the value of close customer relationships, but actively seek ideas from many different sources.  Most of all, train your management team to recognize and skillfully handle breakthrough ideas that lead to disruptive innovations.

4. Build a culture that supports innovation.

To succeed, innovation needs to become an integral part of how you do business.  It must be an ongoing process in which you never stop looking for new and better ways to add value.  And that requires a culture that supports innovation for the long-term.

To establish a culture where innovation can flourish, define what successful innovation looks like for your business.  Paint a picture of what your organization looks like when innovation becomes a way of life and how it will benefit all your key stakeholders.

Get in the habit of constantly challenging your assumptions about your business, your market and your industry so that you don\’t get stuck in ‘that\’s the way we\’ve always done it around here.’  Teach your people to think differently so they can see the world in new and different ways.

Show employees how and where they fit into the innovation process.  Ask for their ideas on how to improve products, processes and workflow, and keep the lines of communication open up and down the organization.

Develop teams with diverse skills and analytical styles, and learn to get comfortable with contention, debate, and tension.  Give people continuous feedback on their performance, and reward them (both publicly and privately) for their innovation efforts.  Most of all, demonstrate your commitment to innovation through your actions as well as your words.

5. Look outside the box.

For most companies, innovation remains an internal process.  Ideas are generated, developed, and brought to market using the talents, skills and resources that reside within the organization. In a world that doesn\’t change very quickly, this approach will generally produce satisfactory results.

But the world moves a lot faster these days, and relying solely on internally generated ideas may mean that faster, more agile competitors will beat you to market with new products or services.  For this reason, forward-looking companies have begun experimenting with innovation models that combine internal and external resources.

Some companies are having success with the ‘connect and develop’ model, which consists of importing ideas from outside sources and enhancing them internally.  Others are ‘off-shoring’ their R&D centers to put them closer to sources of raw materials, labor and new ideas.  Regardless of the model, the idea is that tapping into ideas and resources outside the organization will enable you to bring new products to market faster, cheaper and with a better chance of success.

The next generation of market leaders will do more than just brainstorm their way to success.  They will aim high, get customers involved, establish the right culture, and look beyond their borders for new product and service ideas.  Most of all, they will manage the innovation process as if their very survival depends on it.  In today\’s markets, that may well be true.

Article Source: http://www.articlesbase.com/leadership-articles/five-steps-to-profitable-innovation-3817607.html

About the Author

Holly G. Green is author of ‘More Than A Minute,’ and the CEO and Managing Director of The Human Factor, Inc. She has more than 20 years of executive level and operations experience in FORTUNE 100, entrepreneurial, and management consulting organizations. She was previously President of The Ken Blanchard Companies, a global consulting and training organization as well as LumMed, Inc. a biotech start up. For more information, visit her at http://www.thehumanfactor.biz and http://www.morethanaminute.com

Risking growth?

Is your business a growth generator, or is it risk paranoid?

Growth, is the great challenge facing many senior managers and boards today, particularly since the GFC. Although, I do suspect without the supporting data that many businesses leverage the outcome of the GFC and perhaps justifiably in the US and parts of Europe as the key reason for their risk aversion. But is this really a justified position?

Perhaps a great place to start is the role of business and its responsibility to shareholders. Investors have never made decisions to acquire shares that have little to no growth. It is the responsibility of boards to optimise their returns to shareholders and to ensure that ongoing growth goals are achieved and sustained, obviously with the minimum of risk. However, never at the expense of growth, for to do so will lead to organisational decay on multiple fronts.

Low growth organisations with intense focus on risk generally destroy leadership culture, lack innovation, have limited focus on M&A (Mergers and Acquisition), attract low risk management, drive bureaucracy, reduce market competitiveness, negatively impact brand perception. The outcome being low levels of R.O.E.

So what has happened to balance risk?

The best example of balanced risk is Apple. Here is a company that drives growth through innovation, has the capacity to sustain high levels of risk on the basis that its core product is on a continuous development path, while delivering effective returns to shareholders. Thereby enabling significant risks to be taken, for example, the move to I-pad.

Unfortunately, many business do not have this luxury. Why?

Key growth drivers

Nokia on the other hand could be perceived as being very risk adverse, and are paying the price with share holder value sliding in the last 12 months. This has resulted from negative growth, inducing declining market share, down 9.5% (Gartner Research, last quarter 2010) moving from 36.6% to 27.1%. In June 2007 at the time of the iPhone launch, Nokia had a market share of 50.8%, it has since lost more than 60% of its market value during the same period (reference Bloomberg).

Nokia’s new management team have now embarked on a major risk strategy aligning with Windows 7 Mobile to regain market share. In other words, the procrastination and lack of clear business risk taking, has required the organisation to embark on a high risk strategy to compensate for previous risk aversion. Amplifying the cost to shareholders, and the vulnerability of brand equity.

Paranoid aversion to risk is the adversary of all shareholders, and an area many boards require greater sensitivity and vigilance to ensure better and more productive use of shareholder funds.

In a recent review conducted by Growth insights ‘REDISCOVERING THE LOST ART OF ORGANIC GROWTH’  ’CEO based insights on the Australian landscape for growth and innovation’. They have drawn three conclusions from the data:

1. The GFC has changed the landscape for growth in Australia
2. Organic growth can no longer be considered optional
3. Companies are ill prepared for the growth challenge

In the same study 70% saw organic growth having increased relevance in the next 12 months.

The key business priorities were seen to be:

This then raises a very basic question? Why does it take a crisis to increase focus on growth? Should this be a fundamental business-as-usual  practise? Is this the main reason why many organisations provide very poor returns to shareholders.

Furthermore, when these same organisations reviewed their capabilities they rated organic growth capabilities as 6 out of 10 and M&A capabilities as 3 out of 10. Perhaps this goes part way to answering the above points.

A winning business attitude to long term imbedded growth practise is ‘culture’. It makes sense to expect organisations who impart growth as part of their cultural behaviour and capability requirement to grow, versus those who drive the hard slog because of a sudden need, or sudden realisation of declining performance.

What approach does your business take? Is there a need to review and realign your focus on growth and risk?

At Mind Fusion we are passionate about assisting organisations deliver innovation and growth as a core element of their business culture, and as such we have devised processes to support your business move forward. Don’t give your competitors the lead opportunity.  Contact us now to explore in greater detail.

NASA passenger plane designs for 2025

Innovate or stagnate. This is an option all businesses have, it’s all about choice. Choose to remain the same and not change, then risk a greater chance of failure, or being acquired by others. The debatable factor, is timing.

The choice dilemma for many businesses is based on a level of lowest possible risk, to remain the same and not rock the boat is often a preferred choice. Such decisions eventually lead to downfall at the hand of competition, where poor market and financial performance delivers ever diminishing returns to shareholders. On the other hand, it does not mean that if your business is innovative you will be any more successful, unless you start the process from a customer centric position.

A business commitment to innovation generally starts with an inspirational statement usually as a component of the company vision, or direction statement.

For an example of inspiration supporting innovation, look no further than NASA and the following comment.

“Today we are launching a bold and ambitious new space initiative to enable us to explore new worlds, develop more innovative technologies, foster new industries, increase our understanding of the earth, expand our presence in the solar system, and inspire the next-generation of explorers…”

NASA Administrator Charles Bolden February 1, 2010 (from NASA Fiscal year 2011 budget estimates submission document )

Can you imagine NASA not having an innovative culture? Can you imagine the progression of science and technology without the efforts and investment made by NASA?

Does innovation happen by default, or because there is a deep rooted culture that propels the mindset of all in the organisation?

Does your organisation struggle with the concept of innovation?

In my career I have spent many hours at creative sessions and conferences, where the strategic intent has been to kick start a focus on becoming an industry leading innovator. They initially commence attempting to stimulate the “creative juices” of their respective employees. Then when returning back into the day-to-day activity, the process is forgotten and it is back to business as usual. I am sure you can identify with theses situations.

On reflection, I cannot recall any of these sessions having any significant impact on the way the organisation performs, or responds to market activity, or improves its market perception as an innovative company. The investment in these processes has been considerable and the R.O.I. very questionable.

This then raises the questions: Why? Why conduct these sessions? Why do they rarely work? Why is it important to stimulate the potential creative mind? Is there a relationship between creativity and innovation? Should innovation be integral to organisation culture?

In the mind of many skeptics innovation can be a very dirty word because less than 10% of commercial innovations actually drive returns to shareholders.

For this reason many organisations struggle, and continue to produce mediocre performances as differentiation between them and the competition is minimised. Their lack of confidence in innovation is based on past experiences and learning. Often the learning experience is a result of previous program failures.

Can an innovation culture and supporting process possibly work for your business?

Where do we look to regain confidence in commercially successful innovation based strategy? Perhaps the following organisations who are rated amongst the top 50 innovators:

• Apple
• Google
• Facebook
• Netflix
• Amazon
• LG Electronics

(For the official Bloomberg Businessweek list created in collaboration with the Boston Consulting Group 50 most innovative companies 2010 click here )

How many of the above organisations existed 15 years ago? Why are they winners? How did they break through in crowded and competitive markets? All have innovation as a core business process.

Smart organisations view innovation as an essential element of business culture. “Its the way we operate here, and its the way we think”. Innovation is an intrinsic part of their day-to-day operations.

It is not an easy road, requiring an organisation to potentially rethink the way it operates and then make a top down leadership decision to commit, from this point the work can commence.

Market leading innovation, creates superior value propositions, increasing brand equity, improved financial performance and leadership.

Below, is an outline of the key areas of the innovation process.

Innovation focused process

At Mind Fusion we are passionate about assisting organisations deliver innovation as a core element of their business culture, and as such we have devised processes to support your business move forward. Don’t give your competitors the lead opportunity. Contact us now to explore in greater detail.

]]> http://www.mindfusion.com.au/http:/www.mindfusion.com.au/blog/discovering-innovation/feed 6 http://www.mindfusion.com.au/http:/www.mindfusion.com.au/blog/culture-defining-success http://www.mindfusion.com.au/http:/www.mindfusion.com.au/blog/culture-defining-success#comments Wed, 19 Jan 2011 08:25:36 +0000 David Bickett http://www.mindfusion.com.au/?p=270 Potentially the most discussed and misunderstood term in business, … culture.

How often have you read, or heard leaders of Australia’s largest companies state that their greatest challenge is to change the culture of their respective organisations? How many actually achieve this? Of those who state they achieve it, how successful were they in improving company performance as a result of cultural change programs? Is there a relationship between organisational size and cultural change effectiveness? Is there a best time to address cultural change in an organisation? How do you define success?

These are some of the many questions posed regarding cultural change, yet there appears to be an ongoing debate as to what culture actually generates.

From a personal perspective I have had the opportunity to work in a number of corporations and participate in these processes, among those are, established organisations such as Kodak, moving from one business model based on silver halide to more advanced digital technology. Telstra, a telecommunications organisation moving from a government owned bureaucracy to privatised entrepreneurial organisation. ‘Three’, defining itself from a start-up position. Each have their own unique idiosyncratic requirements.

So to start with, where does culture fit as a key management process?

To answer this I will refer to Nitin Nohria (is the Richard P. Chapman Professor of business administration, Dean of faculty, Harvard Business School ), William Joyce ( Professor of strategy, Amos Tuck School of Business, Dartmouth College, and Bruce Roberson (McKinsey & Company, Inc, U.S.), in their book ‘what (really) works‘- ‘The 4+2 formula for sustained business success. The groundbreaking five-year study of secrets of the world’s best companies’ refer Harper Business books, HarperCollins publishers.

‘Based on the Evergreen project, a massive five year study in which consultants and business school professors at top universities around the country (U.S. only) analysed ten years of data on 160 companies and more than 200 management practices, the authors discovered that all companies simultaneously master six specific management practices.

The 4+2 formula divides the practices into four primary practices, all of which must be followed ….’

According to Nohria, Joyce and Roberson there are four primary practices driving a successful organisation. They are:

• strategy
• execution
• culture
• organisation

and any two of the four secondary practices

• talent of employees
• leadership and governance
• innovation
• mergers and partnerships

Accepting these are the key drivers. Then where does culture sit as a priority ? I believe it is priority number one.

Get the culture right and the rest will follow. For example, the right culture attracts the people to fit it. Culturally aligned individuals become the leadership teams who generate the strategic processes, generating and executing market winning strategy.

Why? Because culture is all about being human, who you are, your personality. It’s the way you think, the way you behave, the way you learn, your beliefs, your values, it’s about you the person. It all starts with the individual, and emanates from their influencing environment.

The greater the alignment of the individual behaviours and values to a defined optimised profile, the greater the ability to create a unified organisation, executing market winning outcomes.

So let’s understand what we mean by culture…

Think of culture as the key influencer of the way we conduct our day to day lives. How does this transfer into the work environment?

To do this I will use a ‘honeycomb’ analogy to demonstrate the principles. ‘Honeycomb’, because the strength is created by the fusion of the individual cells. Imagine, a single cell of a honeycomb represents your family, its values and behaviours, then there is a cluster of honeycomb representing your local community, and its values and behaviours, then a bigger cluster representing your city, then more representing your state, then more again for your country. The key message here is the complexities of your family and their specific behaviours are not always replicated as the cluster becomes larger. However, there are threads that stay constant and they become more refined as the size of the honeycomb grows to eventually represent the culture of the country. For example, ‘mateship’ represents the cultural essence of Australia

Quote from Wikipedia: ‘Mateship can be defined as the code of conduct, particularly between men, although more recently also between men and women, stressing equality and friendship.’

Could you ever imagine changing the culture of the country? Would this not be a catastrophic event, creating huge levels of upheaval and potentially violence?

Now let’s bring this all back to the organisation using the same principle of the ‘honeycomb’ .  As an individual coming into the organisation you bring with you, your cultural belief and behaviours, and if they fit with your department, then more than likely work will be enjoyable and productive, flowing through to the company you work for. If this is not the case, you will more than likely be unhappy and eventually leave, or worst case create disruption in your department. As the honeycomb grows your department becomes part of a line of business (L.O.B.),  eventually the honeycomb represents the company. Each and every cell within the honeycomb representing the people and departments of the organisation.

So it is not uncommon for companies to espouse values, such as ‘ being open and honest’ or, ‘become an agent of change’  or, ‘do the right thing’. Most of which become aspirational, and are defined based on a thought leadership process.

If however, the organisation culture has morphed into the business over a long period of time, and the organisation is large. We can equate the impact of cultural change analogous to that of changing a country culture, very disruptive with potential long term negative effects, particularly on morale. This outcome can initiate the departure of some of the organisations best talent.

The utopian view is to design culture in from the start of the organisations ‘life’, either within a department, L.O.B., or company at large. If this is not possible then a long term cultural focus should be integral to the business strategy such that cultural change occurs over a lengthy period of time. Creating a more gradual and acceptable change in-line with the dynamics of the business environment. However, in rapidly wavering markets this position is not always the most acceptable.

Even more important, should the question be, is this a cultural issue, or is it purely strategic ? Substituting culture for poor leadership decision making, deflecting the issue ? This I believe is systemic in many organisations. A wrong choice here can lead to devastation of the business.

The starting point is with the leadership team, to define the organisation and its role in the market, as part of a visionary process. From such a process it will become clear and evident what the gaps are, what actions are required to close the gaps, and over what period of time. The key being realistic, however, when unrealistic timeframes are devised you can guarantee poor executional outcomes, in fact, this could lead to a retrograde position for the organisation, and the culture.

Typically, what happens more often than not is a new C.E.O. is appointed, he/she then concludes the current organisational culture does not meet the requirements necessary to effectively deliver their new strategy. The Board are then informed cultural change is essential to deliver operational effectiveness and performance. Then they make bold statements to their shareholders similar to ‘ We will need to change the culture of this company to deliver improvements to your R.O.E. ‘. Discovering 12 to 18 months later, progress is stalled, and there is no indication of change for the betterment. Shareholders are left confused and disappointed as the company continues to stagnate.

All this when the core issue to the organisation could be simply facing up to the honest fact, that it is not the culture. Its the lack of strategic leadership.

Organisations must, and should review any business cultural change program with great caution for the short, medium and long term ramifications can last far longer than the tenure of any C.E.O., Eastman Kodak company is a great example of such decision making.

At Mind Fusion we would be delighted to receive your comments based on experiences and observations. How do you relate to the comments above? Do you believe they provide adequate examples of culture, and insights necessary to address appropriate leadership decision making?

We look forward to assisting your organisation in the quest for sustainable business performance and growth.

Contact Mind Fusion today and begin the journey.