Monthly Archives: September 2011

Value in Marketing – Are We Missing the Point?

Posted on by
Reply

According to the American Marketing Association (AMA), marketing is defined as “the activity, set of institutions, and processes for creating, communicating, delivering, and exchanging offerings that have value for customers, clients, partners, and society at large.”  As I read this definition the word value stands out to me. Adding value is key to effective marketing, yet why is it that we seem to forget that fact in our everyday work life?

I have always seen marketing as a service-oriented business function. With marketing touching on so many different aspects of the business, marketing professionals are constantly interacting with many stakeholders, each with very different needs. Because these stakeholders both exist external (customers) and internal (sales) to the organization, it is important for marketing professionals to show the maximum amount of value to each stakeholder. This makes the job of a marketer particularly challenging as it can be difficult to prioritize and see the larger organizational picture. When we add to this situation the rise of Social Media and Internet Marketing (among other areas); marketers can easily and quickly put themselves at a disadvantage.

With many marketing departments and budgets shrinking, efforts need to be more streamlined and effective. Marketers need to work hard to gain trust among their internal customers and create value beyond return on marketing investment (ROMI). This means that they need to remain educated on the company, new marketing tools, and many times put egos aside. It is never an option to say “this is not a marketing function.”  Bridges need to be built between marketing and the rest of the departments. In my experience, there is often a feeling that marketing lives in a bubble with little understanding of sales needs and customer wants. This is not always true, but perception is reality.

The simple fact of the matter is that value is subjective. Marketers need to work hard to make sure they are providing the best service possible to their company. The days of sitting back and waiting for results and praise are over. Marketing is now a fully interactive science with many moving parts. Don’t just brand your company; brand your profession and yourself. For marketing to truly move to the next level, professionals need to ask themselves, what value have I provided today?

Did you like this? Share it:

“Crowdsourcing” – Is it Relevant?

Posted on by
1

What is Crowdsourcing?  For those of us who operate in the world of sourcing and supply chain, it sounds familiar but may not have anything to do with sourcing or supply chain at all.  If you’re not familiar with the term, it is, as defined in Wikipedia, “the act of outsourcing tasks, traditionally performed by an employee or contractor, to an undefined, large group of people or community (a “crowd”), through an open call.”   The crowd is usually those who are most fit to perform tasks, solve complex problems and contribute with the most relevant and fresh ideas.  The phrase was coined by Jeff Howe, a contributing editor at Wired Magazine in his 2006 article entitled “The Rise of Crowdsourcing”.

Fox News published a very interesting story on Tuesday entitled “U.S. Gamers Crack Puzzle in AIDS Research that Stumped Scientists for Years” which described how the practice of Crowdsourcing has been taken to a whole new level.  The article explains how researchers at The University of Washington turned to online gamers to decipher the structure of a retrovirus protein which opened doors for a new AIDS drug design.  The researchers used a program called Foldit, which was created by the university to transform science problems into competitive computer games.  Gamers were challenged to use their three-dimensional problem-solving skills to build accurate models of a protein that plays a critical role in how some viruses multiply.  Within days, the gamers generated models that gave researchers an accurate portrayal of the enzyme’s structure to enable the researchers to design antiretroviral drugs.  The article points out the power of the process and the potential it has in solving a wide range of scientific problems. What I found fascinating is the rather odd connection between gaming and science.  Just imagine the potential in other arenas such as business, government (maybe we can crowdsource a new national health care plan?), non-profits, etc.

As I started to do some research, I learned that crowdsourcing is hardly new.  In a nutshell, it is a form of mass collaboration.  Microsoft has been using this technique for years in helping build new applications.  They used crowdsourcing to develop Office 2010 and recently launched a crowdsource blog to help them develop the next version of Windows.   Apple has also used crowdsourcing to create the specifications for the iPad and many of its applications.  The list goes on to include family searches, idea contests, product branding, product design, the search for aviator Steve Fossett (50,000 participated).

Some Perceived benefits of crowdsourcing include the following:

  • Problems can be explored at comparatively little cost, and often very quickly.
  • Payment is by results or even omitted.
  • The organization can tap a wider range of talent than might be present in its own organization.
  • By listening to the crowd, organizations gain first-hand insight on their customers’ desires.
  • The community may feel a brand-building kinship with the crowdsourcing organization, which is the result of an earned sense of ownership through contribution and collaboration.

There may be some downside as well, particularly if the “crowd” you select is not interested in OR qualified (a good fit) to help.

Even though crowdsourcing may have nothing to do with sourcing or supply chain it can most certainly be applied there.  Most companies have two sets of external stakeholders that can be tapped as the “crowd” for a crowdsourcing exercise – suppliers and customers.  Either of these “crowds” or the two combined can be a tremendous source of ideas or R&D for any company.  Unfortunately, we seldom reach out to use them.  Imagine the value that can be created by tapping into those resources either separately or collectively.  If they are contributing to your manufacturing process (suppliers) or buying your product (customers) they should be “experts” in your industry.  Yet, unless we engage them, they are a source of untapped / lost value.  Crowdsourcing may be the perfect way to engage those resources – either by presenting a business problem or seeking out new and innovative ideas.  Since the Sourcing/ Supply Chain organization usually has some involvement with both groups, they are perfect group to introduce crowdsourcing to their company.

If crowdsourcing can be used to find a cure for AIDS, find missing family members and even help design the iPad perhaps it can have some applicability for your organization . . . . . . . .

Do you think crowdsourcing could be relevant for your organization?  Join in the conversation.  We welcome your comments and examples . . . . . . . . .

Did you like this? Share it:

5 Things that Drive Execution through Change Management

Posted on by
Reply

Multi-step models for managing change have been adopted by most companies today.  Still, teams struggle to lead their initiatives in a way that falls into the “30% that succeed” and even when projects are “complete” and progress more effectively than in the company’s past efforts, the company fails to realize the intended benefits.  One quick way to identify where things fell short is to examine where time and effort were allocated throughout the execution of the change process.

Although most models, nearly every change plan, and available consultant tool-kits pay attention to the entire process, from planning to “sustainability,” post-mortem reviews on stalled or failed projects reveals that at least 80% of the focus, energy, and tools/resources were aimed (spent) on two steps:  Planning and Implementation (“P” and “I” in our own P.R.I.M.E. model).  As a result, little energy can be expelled during the steps of Readiness, Monitoring, and Evaluation—which happen to be the factors that drive adoption, application, and adaptation…and result in sustainability.

Rather than pointing fingers at “waning management support” or writing off the loss of focus and energy in the change initiative as “change fatigue,” the change leader must take responsibility for those actions that will re-balance energy and resources across the initiative’s life cycle.

We have found that the right balance can be achieved by including, among other things:

*Test the planning process and outcomes to ensure that the right balance of resources is allocated throughout the initiative’s life cycle;

*Put mechanisms in place (and make time) for increasing the engagement of stakeholders as the initiative unfolds (not decreasing it—the mark of nearly every program that fails…);

*Review past initiatives and those other market factors or strategic initiatives that are competing for resources and may contribute to losing focus in the midst of a long, complex change initiative and account for these risks in your Planning and Readiness work;

*Proactively discuss these risks with stakeholders—managing their own expectations and securing their active support of focus and energy through the initiative’s life cycle; and

*Don’t burn out your talent—refresh teams during a long initiative by providing opportunities for them to re-energize; rotate new talent into the initiative; and don’t assume that the execution skills required at one stage are the same as those required later in the initiative.

What have you found that works to keep your teams and stakeholders engaged?

Did you like this? Share it:

Feces!! Dookie!! Scheisse!! How do you define Value?

Posted on by
Reply

Let me answer the question first. It doesn’t matter how you define value. That definition is actually worth a bucket of crap (I missed that one).  But I digress and will come back to that question later.  Let me address the other part of my title first by asking you a hypothetical question. Regardless of whether you believe in climate change or not, if I were to tell you that there was a way to provide you with water that you could bathe in and drink with a 100% certainty that it was cleaner than any other water source, would you use it?  Now, if I were to tell you that it was actually recycled water but was still able to prove to you scientifically that it was absolutely clean, would you still use it?  Would your answer still be the same if I were to tell you that it was waste (sewage) water from where you live?

It turns out that people strongly resist the 3rd option of using local waste water, even if they are facing a drought. Water prices are going up and scientists have categorically proven that it is cleaner than almost ALL other water sources (including natural springs). In addition, it has a significant positive impact on the environment, preserves water sources, eliminates the need to dispose of waste water, etc. etc. etc!

According to Alix Spiegel, from NPR, “No matter what the scientists or environmental organizations said, the public saw it differently: They thought that directly reusing former sewage water was just plain gross.” It turns out that you can take the physical excrement out of the water but you cannot take the cognitive crap out of it!    The technical term for this is psychological contagion.  The fact that ALL water has someone’s feces in it (upstream sewage) and the fact that birds and fish are contributing their feces is irrelevant.  It just cannot be my scheisse.    And it turns out that the only way you can get rid of my psychological dookie is to process the water through a natural aquifer, even though that will take 10 years AND it actually makes the treated water less pure!

The NPR article goes onto say that those working on the project didn’t feel that the public was looking at the scientific facts and simply rejected the water, infuriating water engineers who felt that the public was being irrational. If you replace public with stakeholders (customers) in that statement, it might represent what a large number of Sourcing/Supply Chain professionals might say.  The reason is that we continue to define value as we see it, whereas our customers define value totally differently.  Continuing to throw more spend analysis, decision optimizers, and Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) models at them is not going to alter the fact that our definition of Value Drivers is fundamentally at odds with each other.  Unless we change our definition of value to match the definition of value by our customers, we will continue to knock at the proverbial C level door as a profession. By the way, redefining the Value Drivers is only half the battle. Actually adopting and implementing them is the real challenge.

Thanks, Dalip.

Did you like this? Share it:

A Labor Day Treat!

Posted on by
Reply

Since this is the beginning of a long holiday weekend, we thought we would delay our really serious blog post that we had planned (Feces!! Dookie!! Scheisse!! How Do You Define Value?) and send you something humorous.

Watch the video below to see a group of MBA students use skills learned in their Supply Chain class to point out the inefficiencies of the latest “green” bathroom remodel at Arizona State University’s WP Carey School of Business. As an added bonus, you might be able to spot some potential future recruits and leaders of our profession…Have a wonderful and especially safe holiday weekend!!

Cheers!

Dalip

Did you like this? Share it: