Monthly Archives: October 2009

Beyond the Beaker, A Book Review

Paul Patterson’s Beyond the Beaker, a book on How to Achieve Successful Market Adoption for Emerging Technologies, is a book that belongs on every innovator’s bookshelf. Whereas there are a lots of books on how to innovate, and even a fair number on how to take your product to market, there are very few that overview all of the relevant issues that need to be addressed and managed, fewer still that address both the innovator and corporate perspectives, even fewer still that illuminate the roadmap with real case studies, and next to none that uses successes and failures to help you understand the criticality of getting even the seemingly mundane choices right.

As Paul Patterson notes in the preface, the true, Real Life, events, which frequently go undocumented, are more often the critical events of success. For example, its 4 am and your phone rings. The person on the line is upset, screaming vulgarities because someone in the collaboration violated international trade laws. It’s your job to repair the situation.

For example, sometimes the most important aspect of the product is the seemingly mundane service guarantee. Here in North America, we expect our products to work and manufacturers to replace them if they don’t. We also reward companies who have faith in their products and provide satisfaction guarantees in addition to basic “works as advertised” guarantees. These companies do so knowing that, since we want to do the right thing, we won’t abuse the guarantee. However, do the right thing is culturally defined. Whereas some cultures will pride themselves on only using a guarantee if they are truly unsatisfied or the product doesn’t work, others will pride themselves on finding innovative ways to use the guarantee because their culture prizes cunning in business more than personal restraint. As Paul Patterson notes with this quote from Gan Chee Eng, Vice President of Amway China Company Limited, the Amway Guarantee almost put them out of business in China on the first day:

“I tried to explain to corporate that their guarantee will not work in China, but they insisted. People would have a wagon in the parking lot with a small barrel in it, come into the shop and purchase a 1 litter container of L.O.C.TM, walk out to their wagon, dump the container into the small barrel, walk back inside, and say, ‘I’m not satisfied, you replace’. Honouring the guarantee almost put us out of business on the first day. We closed for two weeks and re-opened with a new guarantee, which limited customer satisfaction to providing one replacement, which meant we effectively sold two for the price of one.”
  – Gan Chee Eng

Sometimes the most important aspect of the product is the education around the importance of the product. For example, the success of Hindustan Lever Limited (HLL), the largest soap and detergent manufacturer in India, and its Lifebuoy soap (reformulation) came down to educating the populace on the importance of using soap. A market analysis by HLL found that many consumers were not using soap when washing because they believed that soap did not provide any additional value. So HLL developed an educational program that “visual clean is NOT safe clean” which included a germ-glow demonstration targeted at school children ages 5 to 13 and their parents. This program which did not advocate HLL or Lifebuoy but simply soap usage, ultimately led to a sales increase of 30%. The branding around the educational content was enough.

And sometimes the most important aspect of the product is the insight into potential usage. For example, consider the classic Post-It Note. In 1968, Spence Silver at 3M developed a super-weak glue that could stick to objects, and be easily peeled off, while searching for a new super-strong glue formula. For five years, he hyped the product internally, showing samples in spray-can and tack-less bulletin boards, but it never took off. Then he noticed Art Fry using pieces of the tack-less bulletin board tiles to mark pages in his hymnals and he came up with the idea for a better bookmark. Then he realized that the product wasn’t really a better bookmark at all, but a better note. And while there were technical challenges in perfecting the formula so the glue stayed on the note and not the object the note was stuck to when the note was removed and in developing appropriate coating equipment for paper (which was an imprecise substrate), the biggest hurdle was coming up with the right application for the technology. The second biggest was the right marketing campaign as the product, which was the company’s Outstanding New Product in 1981, did not take off with the first launch attempt in 1977, but the second in 1980.

The second thing I really like about the book is that it’s not your usual pop-culture business book that uses 200 pages to expound upon a simple (although usually very important) idea that could be summarized in 20 pages but is instead a jam-packed tome of information which would make a good textbook. As a result, this is a book that will end up on your bookshelf when you are done reading it and not the goodwill donation pile because you will want to read some parts of it more than once and keep it for reference.

Not only does it tackle strategic marketing, business development, financial concerns, legal considerations, organizational management, and corporate perspectives as well as the identification and evaluation of emerging technologies and technology development, but it addresses each from multiple viewpoints. For example, with respect to strategic marketing, it addresses SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, & Threats), macro and micro approaches, Porter’s Five Forces (Rivalry, Threat of Substitutes, Buyer Power, Supplier Power, and Barriers to Entry), Boston Consulting Group Market Evolution (Fragmented, Specialization, Volume, Stalemante), market and sector attractiveness, competitive advantage, value proposition, application and value chain analysis, other market drivers, and risk management. It addresses business development from a multitude of perspectives that include strategy, cultural, pitch, promotion, and communication. And it covers the five phase evaluation of emerging technologies (feasibility, value research, quick test market, action plan creation, and implementation) because the easiest thing about innovation is, well, innovation itself. The real challenges often lie in getting the innovation to market.

Finally, I really like the inclusion of a chapter on the corporate perspective. If you identify an emerging technology that you want to bring to market, you have to understand how your potential financiers think if you are going to be successful. Financiers typically invest in a portfolio of opportunities to mitigate their risks and increase the odds that they will see a return on their investment. As defined by Copper et. al in Portfolio Management for New Products:

Portfolio management for new products is a dynamic decision process wherein the list of active new products and R&D projects is constantly revised. In this process, new projects are evaluated, selected and prioritized. Existing projects may be accelerated, killed, or deprioritized and resources allocated and reallocated to the active projects. The portfolio decision process is characterized by uncertain and changing information, dynamic opportunities, multiple goals and strategic considerations, interdependence among projects, and multiple decision makers and locations.

This indicates that decisions about whether or not to invest in your product will not be made in a vacuum and will be made with respect to the rest of the portfolio. That means that you will need to insure that you continually address each of the critical success factors of portfolio management (strategic alignment, competitive advantage, market attractiveness, leverage of core competencies, technical feasibility, and financial rewards) if you wish to get funding and maintain it.

All in all, a great book and a great reference.

Share This on Linked In

Ariba and The Receivables Exchange – Shoring Up the Weakest Link

With credit remaining tight, there is still considerable liquidity risk throughout most supply chains. But there is something that can be done about it, and I’m glad to see that some vendors, like Ariba, are making it easy for buyers to help their suppliers. Even though traditional banks might not be very helpful in these troubled times, there are a lot of new, innovative, lenders out there that will happily do short term financing, for much more reasonable rates, with assurances that they will be (re)paid within a guaranteed timeframe. This means that if a buyer is willing to commit to payment in 30 days, a cash-crunched supplier can get much needed liquidity in as little as a single day.

In addition, as I indicated in my last post on The Receivables Exchange, the supplier can completely control the process. The supplier can define the minimum advance required, the maximum transaction fee it will pay (for a 30 day advance), preferred “buy it now” financing requirements, and the auction start time. If the request is reasonable, the receivable could be bought in 15 minutes and money wired to the supplier’s bank account the next day.

Furthermore, according to this recent article on shoring up the weakest link in Treasury & Risk, trades often happen in as little as 15 seconds and sale of a $1 Million receivable will often occur within 15 minutes. Sellers who cherry-pick their receivables from investment-grade customers often find that 85% will be bought at their buy-out price.

Furthermore, if the supplier happens to be on the Ariba network, the supplier can quickly shunt receivables with all of the necessary supporting documentation onto the Exchange, simplifying the process even further. Plus, they can do so after evaluating what discount the buyer has offered for early payment, allowing the supplier to make the best possible decision.

Share This on Linked In

Vinnie Mirchandani on “The Costs of Software Renewal”

Today’s guest post is from Vinnie Mirchandani of Deal Architect and New Florence. New Renaissance. Vinnie, a founding member of the Enterprise Advocates, is a tireless advocate of trends and technologies that can help buyers get more for less.

Ray Wang gives us a timely reminder that “Labor Day (US & Canadian Holiday) traditionally marks the end of summer BBQ’s, the beginning of the fall conference season, and yes, the time to begin a review of your software maintenance contacts that expire at the end of the year.”

I would say start with that — and then keep going. Take a look at all of your contracts that renew through the end of 2010.

Several good reasons to this include:

  • Establishment of a savings target on the total maintenance spend for 2010.
    Have your staff focus on every software contract, especially those that have been “auto-renewed” for years now because they were “small” and fell under attention thresholds. If you make the overall target part of a compensation plan for key IT and procurement staff, you’ll quickly find that Thar’s gold in them yellowing software contract files.
  • Multi-year maintenance deals which looked good when signed may now be overpriced.
    Current market trends are driving the cost of maintenance down, especially through third party services. Don’t assume they cannot be re-opened. (See Marc Freeman’s tips for renegotiating with integrity.)
  • If you don’t start now, you might not finish the renegotiations in time.
    Don’t overestimate the ability of your team to get organized — or underestimate the ability of the vendor team to stall — beyond the end of the year. If maintenance expires, and something goes wrong, you could be at the vendor’s mercy in renegotiations. Formally document your new process and let the vendor know next year will be different. Furthermore, be sure to allow 6 months for the renewal negotiation next year.
  • Even if you are looking to migrate, you will still need incumbent vendor support until the cut-over occurs.
    This holds true whether you are looking to migrate away from the incumbent vendor to SaaS, or to third party maintenance, or to do-it-yourself support (and readers of Deal Architect will know I am a broken record on the subject of considering all of these options). This will likely push you into 2010 planning and funding.

So, use Ray’s call for intensity over the next 3 months and build momentum for another 12 months. The payback will be huge — software maintenance continues to be one of the items on the IT menu with the most “empty calories“.

Thanks, Vinnie!

Share This on Linked In

Value is a Two-Way Street

A recent article in Reliable Plant on how survival depends on delivering value and not just cutting costs pointed out that, to survive, you have to focus on your value proposition because, these days, customers don’t just want costly products, they want valuable services such as warranty, care, and customization.

It also pointed out that if you wanted to sell value, you had to

  • define “value” in terms everyone on your executive team understands and
  • define “value” in terms your customers can understand.

This is too true. Not only will your customers not buy what they don’t understand, but management probably won’t support you in your efforts to create it if they don’t understand what it is.

More importantly, it points out that value is a two-way street. For something to be truly valuable, it has to create profit for you and your customer. It’s not value if you lose money making your customer happy. And it’s not value if it doesn’t keep your customer happy, because they’ll just go elsewhere if they can find something that does. Value is that which benefits everyone. So remember to take the holistic view next time you are updating your value proposition.

Share This on Linked In

Fraud Investigations Are NOT a “DYI” Project

Editor’s Note: This post is from regular contributor Norman Katz, Sourcing Innovation’s resident expert on supply chain fraud and supply chain risk. Catch up on his column in the archive.

Not long after one of my supply chain fraud presentations I was informed that one of the attendees had gone back to her employer and reported “I think I (now) smell a rat”. The company owner was not able to schedule to attend my seminar so he sent someone in his place, and was quite thankful he did.

(Fortunately it was not the fraudster who the company owner sent to my seminar!)

Indeed a trusted employee had been perpetrating fraud for quite some time and to the tune of somewhere between $60,000 and $250,000. The company owner was quite upset that this employee, who had always been treated very well, had stolen through good times and bad. I told the company owner that fraudsters are rarely concerned about their employer’s fortunes because they are more concerned about their own, even if their frauds affect their co-workers and friends.

If the amount of loss seems a little vague it’s because the company owner made a critical mistake: he investigated the fraudulent activities himself and in doing so exposed the investigation to the fraudster. By performing this investigation himself he scuttled the ability to have caught the fraudster “in the act”, involve law enforcement, prosecute the fraudster criminally or civilly, truly understand how the fraud was perpetrated and the depth & breadth of the fraud itself.

Fraud investigations are not “do-it-yourself” projects to be undertaken by those without experience. I was quite surprised at the simplistic mistakes the company owner made which seemed to defy logic and common sense. These mistakes resulted in the fraudster being blatantly tipped-off that the company was on to him. So what did the fraudster immediately do? He stopped his activities and began to cover his tracks faster than the company owner could investigate. Thus we will never know the true amount of the fraud loss. Further I question whether the fraudster’s methodology was completely understood so that corrective measures could be implemented.

By tainting the investigation the company owner allowed a fraudster to walk away with no punishment. The fraudster was either fired or simply resigned, I cannot recall which. This fraudster is likely to just get a job at another company and perpetrate fraud again. The fraudster will certainly make up a reason for leaving his last company. And what of the reference check? The prior employer can make no mention of any suspected fraudulent activity as it was never properly investigated or proven.

(Laws may further restrict what an employer can and can’t say about an employee, current or previous. But one point is that by not investigating properly and pressing charges no public record of this employee’s misdeeds will ever be recorded. Granted no company wants it made public that they were the victim of fraud; however as word spreads that a company is a victim of fraud isn’t it better publicity to make it known that the fraudster is being prosecuted? Doesn’t this send a better message to employees, suppliers, and customers that fraud will not be tolerated? This is an unfortunate “passing of the buck” that allows fraudsters to move from one company to the next, perpetrating their frauds over again.)

Even on fictional police television shows the need for proper investigative techniques is written into the scripts. Evidence must be secured and analyzed. Leads must be followed-up. Analysis may lead to several different directions where reasoning and investigative techniques will be relied upon to eliminate unlikely roads. Sometimes suspects are allowed to continue their illegal activities to make it easier to trap them and catch them in the act.

You don’t want your accountant performing dental work on you, nor would you (typically) want an attorney fixing a problem on your vehicle. Always ensure you allow those best skilled, experienced, and credentialed to perform the tasks that they are qualified to do. And this includes your fraud investigations.

Norman Katz, Katzscan

Share This on Linked In