Category Archives: Strategy

New Year, New Genome?

A new year is upon us. A new year that will not only be fraught with Risk, as per our recent series on Risk 2011 / Risk 2012, but a new year that will be brimming with opportunity, for those with the insight to identify it and the innovation to capture it.

And when SI says innovation, it means innovation, not renovation. Sergio Zyman may have preached renovation before innovation, but it’s not enough anymore. Any company that has survived the recent downturn relatively intact has more than likely already renovated its brands, products, and core competencies to the max and needs something to get it to the next level. And, more than likely, that something has to go beyond a traditional Blue Ocean innovation strategy (as one never knows if that’s a sea anyone wants to sail) to a Golden Apple strategy that will enable the company to deliver products and services that the majority of customers in its target market segments want (and that will sell out months in advance in pre-orders).

This will require a shift from Best Practices to Next Practices as the organization redefines how it does business. One way an organization can achieve this is to employ the Business Genome approach described by Andrea Kates in Find Your Next.

The Business Genome approach is based on a genome mindset [that] sparks new insights for translating the DNA of one business to the growth challenges of another as this allows strategists to see through a new lens — an absolute necessity if an organization is going to identify the Next Practices required to take it to the Next Level required to develop, and deliver, a Golden Apple strategy. [In olden times, everyone wanted the Goose that Laid the Golden Eggs. Today, everyone wants an i-Device — an iPod, an iPhone, and an iPad — these are the golden eggs of modern consumerism and the Apple strategic mindset that created it transformed Apple from has-been to global leader.]

Our next post will discuss the Business Genome approach, described as the Key to Next, and review Andrea Kates’ Find Your Next. Stay tuned!

Is It Time To Move Your (Supply Chain) Operations to an Emerging Economy?

After reading this recent piece in Chief Executive (CE) on how US companies are “garotted by red tape”, SI is wondering whether the time has come to follow the lead of IBM and other big multi-nationals and move your supply chain, followed by your headquarters, to China or another emerging economy. Even though I still think North America is going to retain the edge in High-Tech Innovation for a few more years (despite the fact that the numbers say that both India and China should be producing four times as many geniuses each year), the cost of doing business, or at least of keeping your supply chain and headquarters, in the US is becoming too high.

Consider these vary scary stats from the CE article:

  • In 2010, the Feds spent 55.4 Billion enforcing regulations
  • In 2009, economists Crain and Crain estimated the true cost of the Feds’ regulations was 1.75 Trillion – or 12% of GDP – compared to only 1.46 Trillion in pre-tax profits businesses earned
  • The Federal Register that compiles regulations is over 81,405 pages long
  • Since Obama took office, regulators have imposed 38 Billion in new costs
  • There are 2,785 proposed rules in the pipeline and 144 are economically significant and will add burdens of over $100 Million each for a collective burden of over $14 Billion on this 5%!

At the moment, federal regulations are a runaway train that no one can stop. And until the US gets a Denzel Washington or a Keanu Reeves that can deal with the situation, it’s only going to get worse before it gets better.

As a result, it might be time to consider moving your supply chain operations somewhere where the regulations are a little less severe … even if you have to pay a few government bribes or deal with a few pirates. After all, 238 Million (which is the amount paid to pirates in 2010 for ransom) is a lot less than 1.75 Trillion (at 0.01%), and a few hundred thousand goes quite a long way in developing economies where bribes are concerned. And while SI is not condoning bribery or pirate ransoms, there are much better uses from an innovation and jobs standpoint for 1.75 Trillion dollars than red tape.

Maybe if a few big companies start leaving and the feds realize that if they don’t stop the runaway train that the city will be empty by the time it arrives they’ll bring in a Denzel or Keanu to deal with it. SI doesn’t know, but thinks it’s a good question to ask.

High Tech Needs Next Generation Supply Management

As chronicled in this recent commentary by Bob Ferrari over on Supply Chain Matters, not only do accelerating dynamics reshaping high tech supply chain networks bring implications, but there is continuing turbulence among and across high tech and consumer electronics value-chains. This means that now more than ever, firms in these segments need to continually re-visit their strategic sourcing and supply plans for long-term implications and, in SI’s view, they need to start by adopting next level supply management strategies when they revisit their plans.

And, as Bob suggests, it is imperative that senior management is continually educated to developments and that strategic strategy sessions and interchange be more than just a periodic occurrence. As clearly indicated in this morning’s post, Next Level Supply Management requires Collaboration, Stakeholder Partnership, Leadership, Early Involvement, and Alignment. Not only does Supply Management need to speak as one voice, but the entire company needs to speak as one voice in this sector. The storm is too violent to ride out if everyone is rowing in different directions.

Do You Know Your Legal Risk In An Acquisition?

Chief Executive just ran a great article on how to evaluate legal risk in acquisitions that I believe is a must read for any Supply Management department asked to consult on a Merger or Acquisition. Especially since, like the article states, it is nearly impossible to find a company not involved in some sort of litigation. The traditional analysis of the management team, cash flow, and market share is not enough — a risk assessment on pending litigation must also be made.

So how do you assess legal risk? The first thing you do is get an expert advisor, and a litigation manager in particular. Once you have this individual, who is an attorney with a significant business background as well as a litigation background, you work with her to evaluate the:

  • materiality of the litigation, the
  • potential for future suits, and the
  • connection between the litigation and the business plan.

The materiality is important not just from a relevancy perspective (that attempts to define the validity of the claim and the chance of success by the claimant) but from a cost perspective. If the cost of defending the litigation, regardless of expected outcome, will cost the company more than it can afford, the company will be bankrupted. The potential for future suits is also important because if the business model, or technology platform, opens the company up to other potential litigations based on equally (in) valid claims, the company could be bankrupted as it grows (and becomes a target by patent pirates). Finally, it is critically important to understand if the litigation exposes a problem with the core business model. If this is the case, and there is no easy, or at least manageable way, to correct the model, there is not only a great potential for further suits but a great potential for failure and bankruptcy.

However, if a litigation manager properly evaluates the potential for materiality and future litigation, and the connection between the litigation and the business plan, and finds no significant risks, then investors, who can make informed decisions, with a full understanding of the legal risk associated with a potential company, can confidently invest in the acquisition.

Be sure to check out the article on how to evaluate legal risk in acquisitions. It has a lot of great advice and a great case study on how a residential and commercial brokerage firm sized up the risk of an acquisition.

Want to Beat Commoditization? Follow Dow Corning’s Example and Embrace It!

A recent article over on Chief Executive on “how Dow Corning beat commoditization by embracing it” tells a great story about how the onset of commoditization might actually provide an advantage to your company and your supply chain and how a careful study and segmentation of the market can be productive and profitable.

About ten years ago, when Dow Corning realized that silicone was about to become a commodity as the markets matured, it did a strategic customer segmentation exercise that revealed that not only did its customers exist within four segments, but that there were still opportunities for success in each segment through better service and appropriate strategies. In particular, Dow Corning realized that it could be much more profitable if it could find a better way to serve the “price seeker” segment which knew what products it needed, and how to use them, but also knew that it didn’t need high value services bundled into the price of the product. This segment simply wanted standard silicones at the lowest possible price point.

However, as CFO Don Sheets realized, you can’t win the price seeker segment merely by cutting prices, as that inevitably results in unacceptably, and sometimes dangerously, low margins. The only way to win is to define and implement an appropriate business model specialized to that customer segment that provides value to the customer (low cost) and the business (reasonable margins).

Sometimes merely cutting value added services (that the price seekers don’t want) is enough, but sometimes it isn’t. If the organization was focussed on high-value, chances are the processes don’t support the price points necessary to win the “price seeker” segment as low-cost was never the primary goal, as in Dow Corning’s case. In order to support the target price points that were identified as necessary to win in the space, production and distribution had to be optimized and, in Dow Corning’s case, minimum order quantities and order lead times were required to create the necessary efficiencies in the supply chain to lower production, logistic, and storage costs sufficiently to support a lower price point. This ensured that all prices could be minimized with proper planning. In addition, Dow Corning created the new product line as a web-enabled business to allow the customer to place orders with no human interaction to minimize resource overheads. This allowed for the creation of a low-cost brand that allowed Dow Corning to tackle the price-seeker market, earn back their investment in three (3) months, and drive a majority of business from new customers.