Business Solutions on Demand: Transform the Business to Deliver Real Customer Value

Business Solutions on Demand: Transform the Business to Deliver Real CustomerValue

by ike Cerasale nd erlin Stone? ISBN:0749441720

Kogan Page ?2004

This motivational and fast-paced book emphasizes that for businesses to compete andsurvive, they have to exceed customer expectations. The book shows how companies canincrease sales and improve margins by introducing a range of solutions.

Table of Contents

Business Solutions On Demand—Creating Customer Value at the Speed of Light

Foreword

Chapter 1

- Business Strategy and Transformation

Chapter 2

- Transformation in Food Retailing

Chapter 3

- The Low-Cost Business Model

Chapter 4

- The Solutions Business Model

Chapter 5

- Transformation in the Information Technology Industry

Chapter 6

- Industries transforming

Chapter 7

- Business Innovation

Chapter 8

- The Business Innovator

Chapter 9

- Solution Creation and Delivery

Chapter 10

- The Customer Relationship Manager

Chapter 11

- Solution Marketing

Chapter 12

- The Industry Marketing Manager

Chapter 13

- Knowledge Management

Chapter 14

- The Knowledge Manager

Chapter 15

- Business Design

Chapter 16

- Change Management

Index

List of Figures

List of Tables

Page 1

ABC Amber CHM Converter Trial version, http://www.processtext.com/abcchm.html

http://www.processtext.com/abcchm.html

Page 2




Back Cover

Based partly on IBM’s own transformation, and partly on the transformations that IBM has helpedits clients to achieve, this ground-breaking book shows how companies can increase sales andimprove margins by introducing a range of solutions.

It draws upon IBM’s highly readable and fast-paced, Business Solutions on Demand emphasizesthat for today’s business to compete and survive, it has to exceed the expectations of itscustomers.

With contributions from a host of

why corporations need to provide business solutions to stay competitive;

why business customers want to buy solutions;

what it takes to move from supplying products and services to creating and deliveringsolutions;

how you can learn from the experiences of leading suppliers of business solutions.

Business Solutions on Demand will be a stimulating read for all business leaders, sales andmarketing professionals and all those committed to improving business performance. If thatsounds like your business agenda, make sure this important book is top on your reading list.

About the Authors

Mark Cerasale is a Senior Consultant in IBM’s Business Consulting Services division. Hespecializes in customer management, e-business and solution transformation, helping clients toimprove business performance through innovation, operational efficiency and customer loyalty.

Mark’s consulting experience covers many sectors, including automotive, chemical andtelecommunications, electronics and IT. For several years he was responsible for managing IBMclient relationships and providing some of the world’s most successful companies withinformation technology-enabled solutions. Mark, together with Merlin Stone, has co-authoredseveral articles and management briefings, and has contributed to many white papers andbooks.

Merlin Stone is Business Research Leader with IBM’s Business Consulting Services division,where his role combines consulting and marketing with the development of business researchpartnerships with IBM’s clients and partners and various universities. He runs he IBM MarketingTransformation Group and is a director of The Database Group Ltd, as well as Qci Ltd, anOgilvyOne company that specializes in customer management consulting. His consultingexperience covers many sectors, including financial services, utilities, telecommunications, traveland transport, retailing, automotive, energy and IT.

Merlin is also the IBM Professor of Relationship Marketing at Bristol Business School and theauthor of many articles and over twenty books. He is a Founder Fellow of the Institute of DirectMarketing, a Fellow of the editorial advisory boards of several key journals. The CIM recentlyselected Merlin as one of the world’s 50 leading marketing thinkers. He has a first-class honoursdegree and doctorate in economics.

Page 3



Page 4




Business Solutions On Demand— CreatingCustomer Value at the Speed of Light Mark Cerasale and Merlin Stone London and Sterling, VA Publisher’s note

Every possible effort has been made to ensure that the information contained in this book is accurate atthe time of going to press, and the publishers and authors cannot accept responsibility for any errors oromissions, however caused. No responsibility for loss or damage occasioned to any person acting, orrefraining from action, as a result of the material in this publication can be accepted by the editor, thepublisher or any of the authors.

First published in Great Britain and the United States in 2004 by Kogan Page Limited

Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of research or private study, or criticism or review, aspermitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, this publication may only be reproduced,stored or transmitted, in any form or by any means, with the prior permission in writing of the publishers,or in the case of reprographic reproduction in accordance with the terms and licences issued by theCLA. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside these terms should be sent to the publishers at theundermentioned addresses:

120 Pentonville Road London N1 9JN Sterling UK22883 Quicksilver Drive VA 20166-2012 USA www.kogan-page.co.uk

?IBM Corporation, 2004

The right of the IBM Corporation to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted by them inaccordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

ISBN 0 7494 4172 0 British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A CIP record for this book is available from the British Library. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Cerasale, Mark Vincent, 1969-Business solutions on demand : creating customer value at the speed oflight / Mark Cerasale and Merlin Stone.-- 1st ed. p. cm. ISBN 0-7494-4172-0 1. Business planning. 2. Strategic planning. I. Stone, Merlin, 1948-II. Title. HD30.28.C415 2004 658.4’012--dc22

2003024779

Typeset by Saxon Graphics Ltd, Derby Printed and bound in Great Britain by Clays Ltd, St Ives plc To Stefania (my wife), Vincent and Jillian (my parents) and Lisa (my sister) Mark Cerasale To my wife Ofra and daughters Maya and Talya Merlin Stone Author profiles Mark Cerasale is a Senior Consultant in IBM’s Business Consulting Services division. He specializes incustomer relationship management and business transformation. For several years Mark worked as aClient Manager, providing IT-enabled solutions to some of the world’s most successful companies. As aconsultant he has helped many clients to improve their business performance through solutiontransformation. Please visit markcerasale.com for more information. Merlin Stone is Business Research Leader with IBM and a director of QCi Ltd and The Database GroupLtd. He is a Founder Fellow of the Institute of Direct Marketing, a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of

Page 5


http://www.kogan-page.co.uk


Marketing and is on the editorial advisory boards of many journals. He is IBM Professor of RelationshipMarketing at Bristol Business School and a prolific author with 25 titles to his name. List of contributors Julie Adams is a Managing Consultant in IBM’s Business Consulting Services division. She specializesin organizational change management and organizational development. Over the last 10 years, she hasdeveloped particular expertise in working with companies to get the best results from large scalebusiness change programmes, whilst minimizing impact on day-to-day business. Alan Clark is a Management Consultant in IBM’s Business Consulting Services division. He focuses ondelivering business-tobusiness sales force improvement solutions. In recent years he has worked withmany international companies where a key factor in sales productivity improvement has been the shiftaway from traditional product selling. Howard Cox is Professor in International Business History at the London South Bank University.Professor Cox recently led a two year Leverhulme Trust funded project with Simon Mowatt and MarthaPrevezer investigating technology and industrial change. He has published widely, including articles in Business History, The Business Economist and the OUP book on the history of BAT, The GlobalCigarette. Lucia Cuttle is Automotive Marketing Manager with IBM’s Industrial Sector division. She is responsiblefor marketing IBM’s products, services and solutions to the automotive industry across Europe, theMiddle East and Africa. Bryan Foss is Customer Insight Solutions Executive within IBM Financial Services. Bryan works withretail banks, insurers, financial markets and other financial services companies globally. Bryan is a jointauthor of four other publications with Professor Merlin Stone, Fellow of the Chartered Institute ofMarketing, IT editor of the Journal of Financial Services Marketing and is a frequent presenter atbusiness conferences around the world. John Griffiths is a Client Executive in IBM’s Sales and Distribution division. He has over twenty yearsexperience in selling and implementing complex IT solutions and services in the industrial sector. As amanagement consultant he has advised many major international companies on their CustomerRelationship Management (CRM) strategy, knowledge management and IT strategy to support theirtransition from product to solution businesses. Simon Mowatt is Senior Research Lecturer at Auckland University of Technology and Visiting Fellow atthe Centre for International Business History at the University of Reading. His interest is in technologicalchange, business networks and industrial transformation. Simon has published in journals such as Industrial and Corporate Change and Industry and Innovation. Martha Prevezer has worked at NEDO, London Business School, the Bank of England, South BankUniversity and is currently at Birkbeck College. She has published widely on biotechnology and hascoauthored several books examining the role of clusters in economic development. Glenn Taylor is a Client Executive in IBM’s Sales and Distribution division. He has 30 years experiencein the IT industry, of which he spent 14 in a sales role, and has applied his skills in large enterprises aswell as start-ups. Abigail Tierney is the EMEA Marketing Manager for the Strategy and Change Practice within IBMBusiness Consulting Services. She works with consultants, customers, academics and influencers todrive business value and deliver thought–leadership marketing. Kevin Wheatly is the Learning and Knowledge Industrial Sector Lead within IBM’s Business ConsultingServices division in Europe, the Middle East and Africa. He is responsible for improving KnowledgeManagement and Learning across the Industrial Sector practice. He has worked for IBM for over fiveyears in various Knowledge Management roles both internally and assisting IBM clients.

Page 6



Page 7




Foreword

Overview

I wonder why you have chosen to look at this book. Maybe you, like me, have begun to sense importantchanges in the way that some buyer–seller relationships have developed. The growing dominance of thecustomer is provoking new and radical changes in business relationships: the growth of virtualbusinesses, networks of alliances and new, complex, long-term partnerships between suppliers andcustomers. If you see this in your own business or industry and want to understand more about what ittakes to exploit this change effectively, I believe this book will help you.

It shines a light on this new and changing world – where the boundary between one organization andanother becomes ever more complex and where what is deemed valuable migrates away from productsand even services towards solutions and experiences. The era of a mass-customized service – blendingindustrial economics and scale with bespoke outcomes – has begun. It is a world where we in IBM havealready staked out a leading position and one we believe passionately will continue to develop in marketafter market.

This book breaks new ground. It is an exposition of how companies moving down this road work totransform both what they and what their customers do. Maybe you see this phenomenon as nothingnew – a mere shift in the division of labour between supplier and customer.

Maybe you see this as fundamentally no different from the ancient mercenary soldier or, in recent times,the changing services of accounting, recruitment, marketing, communications, customer servicebusinesses and many others. I see the scale and economics of this trend as something different – notmerely activity substitution but the transformation of the commercial model.

Making this kind of jump in a business is tough. Many know this from their own bitter experience. For assuppliers, the continually changing requirements for staff skills, technology, commercial approach,financial management and programme structure combine with the challenge of managing totally neweconomics during transition. Business-as-usual management approaches do not succeed, and newapproaches are needed to make the change quickly and successfully.

If you are considering making this change, then this book is for you. It is not a recipe, nor even a menu.It is more of a guide – to the journey towards more effective and efficient, intensely partneredrelationships.

I hope that it stimulates your thinking and, encourages you to be bold, and, if you are already on thejourney, that it gives you ideas that enhance your speed and direction. Finally, I hope that it makes youthink deeply about what you need to do to give your people and partners a more exciting and acceptablejourney.

I wish you success. Rod Street, Partner, IBM Business Consulting Service

Page 8



Page 9




Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the following people for their support and contributions during the creation of thisbook: Paul Clutterbuck, Iain Devine, Bryan Foss, Rod Street, Phil Walker, Jane Ashton, Maikel Vlugt,Alan Flack, Rob Smith, Anthony Marsella, Kevin Bishop and Julie Abbott.

We also want to thank the many IBM clients whose experience of transformation we drew upon in writingthis book. We are all learning together.

Page 10




Chapter 1: Business Strategy and Transformation Mark Cerasale

INTRODUCTION

Managing a successful company is tough. The pressures are greater than ever. Satisfying the oftenconflicting needs of customers, shareholders and employees has never been more challenging.Increased competition and unpredictable change mean it is no longer enough for business leaders tomaintain a steady hand on the tiller. To succeed, they must plot a course, sail rough seas, exploreuncharted waters and be prepared for the unexpected along the way.

Business strategy is about deciding what to do. It requires more than best-practice benchmarking,cost-reduction initiatives and one-off process re-engineering. These are often focused on operations.Business strategy is grounded in a vision of the future and is oriented towards innovation and growth.Only when you know where you are trying to reach can you work out how to get there. A businessdesign provides a blueprint for the acquisition and development of capabilities, enablers and thecustomer interface needed to create and deliver customer value. New business designs are emerging.

Today’s business environment

Powerful forces such as globalization, deregulation and greater access to capital transformed businessduring the 1980s and 1990s. New management approaches, information technology, the Internet andincreasing customer power have altered the competitive landscape for ever. Customers are moredemanding: some want lower costs, others want solutions. Markets have become saturated andcompetition in many industries is intense. Today, industries are converging and change is unpredictable.Many products and services are similar, perhaps commoditized. To succeed, companies must innovate,grow and reduce costs simultaneously.

The economic growth of the late 1990s ended with a downturn in most economies. The new economy ofcontinual growth was short-lived. After 2000, expansion plans were put on hold. Cost-cutting started. Theevents of 11 September 2001 and the subsequent explosion of global terrorism changed the geopoliticallandscape. As if things were not complicated enough, a string of corporate scandals undermined thepublic’s trust in private enterprise and increased demands for greater inspection and regulation.

Page 11




BUSINESS LEADERS FACE INCREASING PRESSURE

Nowhere is the pressure for better performance greater than at the very top. According to a surveycarried out by consulting firm Booz Allen Hamilton, ‘Companies are setting higher standards ofperformance for chief executive officers than ever before, and CEOs are falling short in record numbers.’Charles Lucier at Booz Allen Hamilton commented, ‘Business leaders are enduring scrutiny andpressure unseen since the Great Depression?There is no longer any safe haven for chief executives whocan’t deliver superior results.’ [1 ]

Corporate responsibility

Charitable and governmental organizations have long been aware of their responsibilities andcommitments to the communities in which they operate. Companies and their employees willingly givetheir time and money to charitable causes. However, for much of the 20th century it was rare to findenvironmental and societal issues as top priorities in most private companies. Things have changedrecently. There is more awareness of equality of opportunity, ‘green’ issues and social responsibility.The many corporate scandals and financial irregularities have brought the latter to the fore. Executivesare distracted by the need to satisfy new rules. The need for reporting has increased. There is some risktoo that governance worries may encourage business leaders to become overly conservative at a timewhen more innovation and growth are needed. The need for strong leadership, moral commitment and arenewed focus on creating value has never been greater.

Today the symbiotic relationship between companies and their communities is better understood. Manybusiness leaders would concur with the view expressed by Lou Gerstner, former chairman and CEO ofIBM: ‘[C]orporations succeed only if they operate in a healthy and vibrant society. They need thecommunities where their customers and employees live to be strong, as much as they need successfulresearch, planning and advertising. Contributing to their communities is, therefore, good business, too.’ [2

]

The Internet enables charities, environmental groups and communities of consumer interest to cometogether across the world and has increased their power. Today, environmental issues influence political,economic and corporate policy-making. Some of the world’s largest oil companies are reinventingthemselves to stay in tune with public opinion. They are changing their brands, adapting their businessdesigns, executing new strategies and investing in new markets such as renewable energy. In the future,pressure from future generations may cause more change in industries deemed to be environmentally orsocially ‘unfriendly’.

Tough new legislation relating to the disposal and recycling of consumer goods, such as refrigeratorsand cars, has forced manufacturers to redefine their product life cycles. Sophisticated buyers arebeginning to question the need to own products at all. There is more demand for services. According toenvironmentalists Paul Hawken and Amory and Hunter Lovins, ‘mere product-sellers will becomesuspect. Why – a prospective buyer may ask – if your product delivers its service with all of theoperational advantages you claim, don’t you want to capture those advantages for yourself by owning theproduct and just providing me with its service?’ [3 ]

Partner value

For much of the 20th century, manufacturing was the main driver of growth. Economies grew along withlarge corporations. This growth rested on massive investment, managerial control, mass production,

standardization, and the creation of large markets through lowering costs and prices. Aggregationworked. The vertically integrated enterprise became the dominant organizational model. Many of theworld’s largest companies, such as Ford, owned and managed their entire value chains. They controlledbrands, technology, access to markets, customers, capital and business talent.

Today, competition has increased and change is unpredictable. Success depends more on agility andfocus. Customers are more demanding and companies must ‘sense and respond’ to their needs. Newtechnologies such as the Internet allow companies to come together in value networks, where scale isless important. In the past, assets and managerial structure were added to support growth. In the future,networks of companies will come together to innovate and create growth. A network economy is

Page 12



emerging in which success will be achieved by focusing on the very few powerful forces operating in anyarena and harnessing them to create exceptional customer value.

Partnering reduces costs, improves focus on core competencies, can help a company enter newmarkets and provides opportunities to create exceptional customer value. According to a recent report, ‘Of the 403 executives surveyed on this subject by the Economist Intelligence Unit, 65% reported thattheir company’s dependence on external relationships to achieve business objectives had grownsubstantially over the past three years. A similar proportion expected that dependence to increasesignificantly again over the coming three years.’ [4 ]

Partnering comes with its own challenges. Most companies have little experience in finding andattracting strategic partners and building relationships with them. Successful partnerships are built onenduring relationships between individuals and groups. They require investment over time, exceptionalmutual understanding, extraordinary trust and a clear sense of purpose.

Employee value

For much of the 20th century, manual workers were common in most organizations. Managers wereconcerned with how to organize their work and how to improve their productivity. Today, knowledgeworking has replaced physical labour in many industries. The knowledge worker, ‘the man who puts towork what he has between his ears rather than the brawn of his muscles or the skill of his hands’, [5 ]isnow predominant. Knowledge-intensive industries, such as software and biotechnology, have emerged.Even industries such as manufacturing and retailing rely on more information. In many services organizations, assets such as client relationships, goodwill, ideas and talent areintangible and people-oriented. Over a decade ago, Fred Moody wrote in the New York Times Magazine,‘Microsoft’s only factory asset is the human imagination.’ [6 ]Today, physical assets, such as industrialmachinery, are rarely sources of sustainable competitive advantage. When motivated, employees createvalue through their ideas and their ability to innovate. The workforce, and how it is organized andmanaged, is an increasingly important source of competitive advantage.

However, the job for life is a thing of the past. Few workers have career horizons of more than five yearsand many have several careers. Valuable information exists in employees’ heads in the form ofknowledge – of how a process works, a machine operates or a technology integrates. Knowledgeableemployees are in short supply and prone to move on if they are not treated well. As they move betweencompanies, they disseminate valuable knowledge. Companies are under pressure to attract and retaintheir human assets; a ‘war for talent’ is raging.

The best and most successful employees want to work for the best and most successful companies.Most employees want a career, a decent rate of pay, respect from co-workers and a boss who supportsthem. Some employees are even more powerful and demanding. A recent study concluded that factorssuch as corporate social responsibility (CSR) are beginning to figure heavily in an employee’s choice ofemployer: ‘there is an accumulation of evidence which shows that an organization’s reputation in thefield of business ethics and CSR can tangibly affect its attractiveness as an employer. In a tight labourmarket, a positive employer rand?can make a real difference.’ [7 ]

The most educated, highly motivated and capable employees are in short supply. A new generation ofsoftware tools is emerging to help employers manage their costs – for example, by improving utilizationrates in services industries. Similarly, tools are emerging for workforce development. These tools aim toimprove productivity by enabling managers to match skills to positions and will help identify the bestemployees and support succession planning. Technology will enable internal forecasts and externaltrend analyses to be combined to provide better forecasting of workforce needs.

Shareholder value

Many people lost their investments in the crash that followed the hi-tech and Internet stock boom of thelate 1990s. Today, investors have little hunger for a return to the roller coaster of fortunes experiencedthen. Investors are more conservative and want to avoid great risks. Today they want a reasonable rate ofreturn balanced over the short and the long term. Investors want steady growth and more consistency. Ifa company does not create shareholder value through earnings, investors will withdraw their money,stock value will drop and access to future capital will be blocked.

Page 13



Investors are more knowledgeable and sophisticated. They have learned that value from assets is moreimportant than value of assets. They know, too, that bigger is no longer necessarily better. Shareholdersvalue profits over revenue and market value over market share. Today’s sophisticated investors havemoved their gaze from technology, infrastructure and fanciful business concepts to real-world businessstrategy and design. Investors are looking for companies to innovate, grow and reduce costs at the sametime. The need for innovation has never been greater. Shareholders are more demanding and will make their voices heard on all manner of issues, from theenvironment to executive pay. In an article in the London Sunday Times entitled ‘The rewards should bejustified by the results’, Peter Jauhal noted, ‘Executive pay is under the spotlight again, with publicconcern mounting over the justification being offered for some remuneration packages?we may be seeinga new activism on the part of shareholders.’ [8 ]

Despite all this, most business leaders are optimistic about the future. They continue to focus onachieving cost reductions and improving productivity. Fluctuating markets cause inefficiencies such asover-capacity in services and over-supply in industries, increasing costs. Some suppliers haveintroduced adaptive or ‘on demand’ services to bring their customers’ operating costs in line with marketfluctuations.

According to a study conducted by the Economist Intelligence Unit,

Despite executives’ expectations of better economic times, corporate strategies remain focused onefficiency discipline, cost control and lean operations. Companies are hunkering down around their corebusinesses, and striving to strip away any activities that don’t constitute core competencies, whetherthrough outsourcing or divestment. Mergers and acquisitions are generally viewed as too risky or toocostly, though the slack global market offers some firms opportunities to acquire weak rivals or to ‘cherrypick’ top talent. Instead companies are increasingly turning to looser partnerships and alliances. [9 ]

Best practice is operational, not strategic

Best-practice benchmarking is often used to cut costs. It is one of the most widely used managementtools. In many ways, it makes much sense to use best-in-class strategy, organizational structure,processes and products as models for re-engineering. It can help achieve quick improvements and isappealing to investors, who often feel reassured when it is used. According to Philipp Nattermann, ‘Bestpractice benchmarking – the measurement and implementation of the most successful operationalstandard or strategy available in an industry – can be one of the most effective tools for increasing acorporation’s efficiency, productivity, and, ultimately, earnings.’ [10 ]

However, taking a best-practice approach can turn out to be the antithesis of innovation and growth. Amajor drawback of best-practice benchmarking is that it can ultimately kill margins. When an innovationenables a company to create a new market and capture high margins, new entrants are attracted andmargins eventually go down. Margins are cut for all players in the market: the first movers, ‘me toos’ andlate arrivals. In some companies, imitating successful competitors too often determines what they do.They do not understand that best-practice benchmarking is an operational tool, not one for makingstrategy.

For years, companies have focused on occupying a position in the market already staked out by theirquickest and most successful competitor. Soon companies begin herding, like lemmings, around thebest-practice companies’ business design. Products and services become commoditized and marginsare eroded as competition increases for smaller slices of customer and industry resources. Conformingto the opinions and behaviour of others is natural human behaviour. The same behaviour applies tocompanies and strategy. Warren Buffett once famously wrote, ‘Failing conventionally is the route to go;as a group, lemmings may have a rotten image, but no individual lemming has ever received bad press.’ [

11 ]

According to Philipp Nattermann,

Best practice doesn’t always equal best strategy. Best practice benchmarking, rightly viewed as one ofthe most important tools for improving operational efficiency, can be a doubleedged sword. Managersmust guard against transforming what is a purely process-related technique into the overriding goal ofstrategic decision making. When industry competitors begin to herd around a single strategy, decliningmargins are bound to follow. [12 ]

Page 14



Business process re-engineering is also an operational tool. Approaches such as Six Sigma were widelyadopted in the 1990s. Business process re-engineering aims to reduce costs and complexity in the wayactivities are performed and at the same time improve customer satisfaction. Some companies achievedsignificant benefits from process reengineering; others were less successful. While the primary goal ofprocess re-engineering is usually improved customer satisfaction, the unstated aim is often costreduction.

[1 ]Booz Allen Hamilton, CEO succession 2002: deliver or depart [Online] www.bah.com [accessed 12 May2003] [2 ]Louis Gerstner, Who Says Elephants Can’t Dance?, HarperCollins, London, 2002 (p 273) [3 ]Jeremy Rifkin, The Age of Access, Penguin Books, London, 2000 (p 90) [4 ]The Economist Intelligence Unit, Extending the Enterprise, The Economist Intelligence Unit, London, 1999(p 4) [5 ]Peter Drucker, The Effective Executive, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, 2001 (p 3) [6 ]Fred Moody, Mr. Software, New York Times Magazine, 25 August 1991 (p 56) [7 ]The Work Foundation and The Future Foundation, The Ethical Employee, 2002 (p 1) [8 ]Peter Jauhal, The rewards should be justified by the results, Sunday Times (London), 7 July 2002(Business Section) [9 ]The Economist Intelligence Unit, CEO Agenda: Corporate priorities for 2003, The Economist IntelligenceUnit, London, 2003 (p 2) [10 ]Philipp M Nattermann, Best practice does not equal best strategy, McKinsey Quarterly, no 2, 2000 (pp 22–31) [11 ]Warren Buffett, Letter from the chairman, Berkshire Hathaway Annual Report, 1984 (quoted from CharlesRoxburgh, Hidden flaws in strategy, McKinsey Quarterly, no 2, 2003, p 35) [12 ]Philipp M Nattermann, Best practice does not equal best strategy

Page 15


http://www.bah.com



BUSINESS STRATEGY

Business strategy is about deciding what to do. It aims to create value for all stakeholders: customers,shareholders, employees, business partners and the wider society in which they all reside. Whileproductivity improvements and cost reduction are necessary, they may not constitute good strategy.Downsizing and re-engineering provide opportunities to become as efficient as the next company. Theyare necessary but they are not strategic. Though short-term tactics and long-term strategy are notmutually exclusive, strategy should be oriented towards innovation and long-term growth.

In today’s competitive markets, change is unpredictable. Innovators, not imitators, will achieveexceptional growth over the long term. The rewards for imitation are less attractive. Competition hasmoved from individual products and services to the level of corporations and their entire extendedenterprises. Companies now compete to create and lead industries and markets. To become an industryleader and to retain that position, a company must take charge of the process of industry transformation.Business leaders must invent new industries and reinvent old ones. Strategy must be oriented towardsinnovation and growth.

Innovation and growth

Business leaders should look for ‘white-space’ areas of opportunity on the strategic landscape. Thenumber of such white-space opportunities is almost unlimited. There is obviously some risk in a strategythat looks to identify, develop and exploit white-space opportunities, but risks can be managed, andfirst-mover advantages make it worthwhile. It is no longer enough to be number two or three in anindustry; only industry leaders will create and capture exceptional value.

Competitors playing catch-up will inevitably cancel any advantage, so companies must innovateconstantly to stay ahead of the game. They must keep inventing and reinventing their industries (andtheir strategies).

Some problems with strategy today

Today, business strategy may occur at the corporate level in the form of a major investment, such as anacquisition, or a divestment, like selling off a manufacturing plant or business unit. Sometimes suchactions form the basis of a shift in corporate direction. All too often such strategy is thinly disguisedimitation. According to Lou Gerstner, ‘If a management team doesn’t believe that it has identified and isseriously funding new growth opportunities, then it is likely to wander off and drink the heady brew ofacquisitions and diversification – and ultimately fail.’ [13 ]

Business strategy often appears in the form of strategic planning, which itself is often little more thanincremental tactical planning. It is often just about making the numbers add up. When strategic planningaims exclusively to satisfy short-term shareholder expectations, it fails to be oriented towards innovationand inhibits opportunities for significant long-term growth. Strategic planning often causes strategy to beset at a strategic business unit (SBU) level. It is often then broken down further to business unitfunctions such as sales, marketing and manufacturing. This reduces opportunities to invent or reinventwhole industries. Strategic planning can work well in stable industries but is less suited to industriesexperiencing big changes.

The strategic planning tools common in many companies often fail to help business leaders in identifyingand exploiting white-space opportunities for innovation and growth. Competitor analysis and scenarioplanning, for example, are largely concerned with today’s competitors and optimizing positioning intoday’s industries. They do not help business leaders position their company against competitors thatdo not yet exist, in industries yet to be created. Companies that focus too much on the present will beconstantly catching up with innovative competitors. Innovative competitors stay ahead by taking controlof the process of industry transformation.

A vision of industries invented or reinvented in the future requires more than contingency planning arounda number of likely scenarios. Scenario planning and technology forecasting can provide input to thecreation of a unique and compelling vision of the future but are not enough in themselves. In a world ofdiscontinuous change and increased uncertainty, the number of potential permutations and futureoutcomes is limitless. Scenario planning usually starts with the status quo and projects forward to what

Page 16



might be. What is required is an approach that creates a future vision of what could be and then worksback to what must happen for that future vision to become a reality.

[13 ]Louis Gerstner, Who Says Elephants Can’t Dance? (p 228)

Page 17




STRATEGIC VISION

It is hard enough to imagine, with any certainty, what things will be like five months ahead. Predictingthe future five years ahead is even tougher. However, a vision of the future is needed before a successfulbusiness strategy can be created. The kind of vision of the future we advocate is not one that mayappear if you do nothing (as is typically created during scenario planning). The vision we propose is oneof an industry that must be created, shaped and transformed over time. For this, business leadersshould seek input from the extended enterprise: customers, employees and business partners. Thisinput should be combined with analysis and forecasts of changes in the external environment, many ofwhich will be evident in the present.

This means asking and answering questions like: What new regulations or political legislation will be inplace? How will environment issues affect the way businesses operate? Which suppliers and businesspartners will be important? What type of employees will be required and how many of them? Where willfunding come from? How might the needs of shareholders be different? Who will be customers? Whatwill their needs be? Are their needs explicit or do they need developing? Is there opportunity to create anew need and be the first to satisfy it? Which new channels will be available? Would a direct relationshipcreate value? Will margin exist in products or services? Who are tomorrow’s competitors?

Strategy starts with the customer

For much of the 20th century, under-supply made suppliers powerful. Change (in the form of growth) wasmore continuous, predictable and consistent, and companies increased in size. A central objective inlarge companies was growth in market share. Management was focused on today’s bottom line. Theyattempted to make productivity improvements in the form of lower manufacturing costs, better productquality and reduced time to market. Companies defined themselves by what they produced rather thanby the value they created for customers.

Today, greater competition, globalization and faster imitation have caused many products and servicesto become commoditized. In many markets, over-supply has caused saturation and has eroded profitmargins. The customer is now the scarce resource, not the product. Companies have started tocompete for share of customer spend, not market share. Managers have shifted their focus from theactivities involved in production to those involved in distribution and consumption.

Customers are familiar with many of today’s products and services. They have access to moreinformation through new channels such as the Internet. They are more knowledgeable and discerningthan ever before and many demand exceptional value. Customer relationships have come to the fore.Suppliers must compete both on the quality and ingenuity of their products and through the quality oftheir customer relationships. The need for productivity improvements has not gone away: knowledgeableand powerful customers are sensitive to pricing anomalies.

The customer has taken centre stage. An understanding of customer needs and wants is the foundationof a successful business strategy. Peter Drucker once wrote:

There is only one valid definition of a business purpose: to create a customer?What the business thinksit produces is not of first importance – especially not to the future of the business and to its success.What the customer thinks he is buying, what he considers ‘value’, is decisive – it determines what abusiness is, what it produces and whether it will prosper. [14 ] According to The Economist,

Companies are redoubling their efforts to build better customer relationships. Judging from the results ofthe Economist Intelligence Unit online survey and in-depth interviews, this orientation will permeateeverything companies do in 2003. Senior management time will be devoted disproportionately tounderstanding customer needs. Technology investments will aim to leverage information aboutcustomers, to tailor products to customer needs and to test satisfaction continuously. [15 ]

Understanding customer needs

Some customer needs are explicit and can be quickly identified. Others are less obvious and must bedeveloped. In business-to-business settings, the most common way to understand customers’ needs is

Page 18



via face-to-face meetings. More structured methods, tools and approaches have been developed bystrategists and business consultants. Customer needs are captured using focus groups, marketresearch and one-to-one interviews. However, trends can occur over many years. New informationtechnologies such as data analysis software enable suppliers to ‘sense and respond’ to trends that aredifficult to identify.

Purchasing managers have become more sophisticated and knowledgeable. Today, new approachessuch as total cost of ownership, supplier segmentation and reduction are widely used. Some customersinvest to improve mutual understanding with their suppliers, but only if those suppliers show ability tocreate exceptional value. Trust may need to be established before a meaningful relationship can begin.Establishing enduring customer relationships often takes time and investment from both sides.

Some suppliers are unable to get access to new customers, which may be a prerequisite tounderstanding their needs. This can be a problem when a company enters a new market or introduces anew product that new customers may be unfamiliar with. Sometimes intermediaries, such asdistributors, sit between suppliers and end customers and are reluctant to share information oncustomer needs. They may resist introducing partners to the customer through fear of losing influence orto avoid opportunities for disintermediation.

As markets evolve, buying responsibilities can shift and new customers may appear. Customers needingsolutions, for example, often have different roles and responsibilities from traditional product customers.For solution customers, the specifications of the product or service are less important than theireconomics. For them, value resides in the process, not the product. Value is created by how the productis used, not by what it does (its features and functions). As a result, responsibility for purchasingdecisions moves from technical specialists to senior administrators and business executives. When thishappens, a new customer interface must be put in place.

[14 ]Peter Drucker, The Practice of Management, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, 2001 (p 35) [15 ]The Economist Intelligence Unit, CEO Agenda: Corporate priorities for 2003, The Economist IntelligenceUnit, London, 2003 (p 5)

Page 19




BUSINESS DESIGN

A business design is an architecture that may be developed over a number of years. It is an outcome ofa business vision and should provide a high-level blueprint for the creation and delivery of customer value.It outlines the need for future capabilities (such as skills) and enablers (such as technology). It alsodescribes the customer interface – how products and services will be marketed, sold and distributed.

According to Adrian Slywotzky, ‘a business design is the totality of how a company selects itscustomers, defines and differentiates its offerings, defines the tasks it will perform itself and those it willoutsource, configures its resources, goes to market, creates utility for customers, and captures profit.’ [16

]Through business design innovation a company configures the optimal business design for serving itschosen customers. It is not enough to wait for competitors to take the lead. Only companies that arefirst to see future opportunities and then first to act to exploit them will achieve competitive advantageand rewards.

Customer value

A business design is a high-level blueprint for the creation and delivery of customer value. Somecustomers demand greater value through lower costs. Customers that want lower costs are familiar withthe products and services they require and are able to choose and buy without a great deal of expertadvice and guidance from intermediaries such as salespeople. Customers that value lower costs willresearch their options, compare prices and shop around for the best deal. The products they buy areusually commoditized, and cost is the key factor in determining which suppliers they choose. Personalcomputer (PC) manufacturers, for example, satisfy the needs of customers for cheaper PCs throughlow-cost business designs.

Some customers demand exceptional value through solutions. Solution customers need to solvecomplex problems or exploit new opportunities for value creation. They may not have the specialistknowledge or the resources required and often look to partners and suppliers for support. Suppliers helpthem to understand their issues and opportunities. They can provide assistance in assessing the optionsand will often create and deliver unique solutions by customizing services and products. Solutions areservices-led. IBM, for example, satisfies the needs of its customers for information technology-enabledsolutions.

Customers value the benefits provided by products but are less likely to take ownership of them. In aworld of rapid change, buying products makes less sense. Some products need to be replaced orupgraded before they are even paid for. Technology enables some products to be replaced by services.Falling information and communication technology costs mean that information technology, such asmicrochips, can be embedded into many new products. When technology-rich products are connectedto the Internet they become devices for providing services and enable the creation of customer value atthe speed of light. Many manufacturers are introducing services in response to customer needs, and, asproduct margins erode, are introducing services-led business models.

In creating a successful strategy to exploit white-space opportunities, it can be helpful to think ofproducts and services in terms of the value they create, rather than their features and functions. Thinkingin terms of features and functions limits opportunities to today’s products and services. Technologyenables customer value to be created and delivered in new and exciting ways – the same value in a newdelivery vehicle. The value a telephone answering machine creates, for example, is more effective use oftime. In the past, answering machines were hardware devices, domestic appliances. Today, enabled bycomputer software and communications technology, the same value is often provided remotely as aservice.

Creating and delivering customer value requires more than being ‘customer-led’. Many customer needsare articulated; some are not. The risk with being completely customer-led is that unarticulated needsmay never be served, and those needs often offer the greatest ‘white-space’ opportunities (since they arenot being served by competitors either). Akio Morita at Sony said, ‘Our plan is to lead the public withnew products rather than ask them what kind of products they want. The public does not know what ispossible, but we do. So instead of doing a lot of market research, we refine our thinking on a product andits use and try to create a market for it by educating and communicating with the public.’ [17 ]

Page 20



Capabilities

In 1990, C K Prahalad and Gary Hamel published an article entitled ‘The core competence of thecorporation’. In it they advocated a focus on learning rather than physical assets and suggested thatcompanies should exit activities that do not use core competencies. [18 ]Core competencies are bundlesof skills and technologies that enable a company to provide a particular benefit to its customers. Corecompetencies are, therefore, unlike strategic business units, which are usually defined by specificproduct markets. Focusing on core competencies encourages companies to identify and exploit whatthey do best and enables resources to be focused on areas of innovation and growth. Corecompetencies create and deliver a class of customer benefits such as ‘low-cost’ or ‘solution’.

A business design outlines the need for future capabilities (such as skills) and enablers (such astechnology). Capabilities of a company selling low-cost PCs might include selling online, call centremanagement, build to order and inventory management skills. Capabilities in a solutions company likeIBM include solution selling, business consulting, programme management, service delivery and industrymarketing. Some capabilities, such as continuous innovation, knowledge management and the effectiveuse of information technology, are common to both business designs.

The widespread adoption of the Internet and new technologies has made working with external partnerscheaper and easier. More companies are abandoning many non-core activities. Core competencythinking has led some companies to define themselves in terms of what they do rather than what theymake. By redefining the nature of ‘served market’, core competency thinking offers opportunities forinnovation, growth and the creation of new customer value. Focusing on core competencies may take acompany away from the markets it has traditionally served and into competition with new rivals.

New competitors

The Prussian military expert Carl von Clausewitz wrote that one must judge an enemy by hiscapabilities, not by his intentions. [19 ]Most competitive analysis focuses on existing product or servicemarkets. As companies focus on core competencies and industries converge, new and unfamiliarcompetitors emerge, often from unrelated industries. They may try to create a new industry for yourcustomers based on their own vision of the future. In the United Kingdom, for example, the financialservices industry is being transformed by supermarkets offering banking and insurance services. Theyhave access to capital and opportunities for partnering, allowing them to take on the largestcompetitors.

Enablers

Enablers are tangible and intangible assets that enable things to get done. They include offices,factories, brands, products and employees. Today, many companies are attempting to improve theirbalance sheets by selling off physical assets that depreciate, often preferring to lease them instead.Partnering and outsourcing provide opportunities to enjoy the benefits of enablers without takingownership. Companies look to own assets only if there is some advantage in doing so. Customer data,for example, are an enabler that companies seek to own, because they enable better customerrelationship management, although they may outsource the management of the data.

Small start-up companies, particularly in knowledge industries, may rely on a just a few enablers forconducting business, relying on partnerships and externally provided services instead. Companies oftenhave heritage enablers – assets that they may have acquired and developed over many years – that canform the basis of future business designs. IBM, for example, has a widely recognized brand that enablesit to enter new product and service markets and data centres that it uses to deliver new services.

The customer interface

The customer interface – the way a company interacts with its customers – is an increasingly importantelement of any business design. For most of the 20th century, consumer demand was insatiable andproducts were in short supply. During this era, management resources were focused on production.Business designs were created to sustain product sales growth and achieve maximum operationalefficiency. Marketing focused on differentiation through product features and functions. The role of thesales force was to communicate product value. Distribution was about getting as much product on to themarket as quickly as possible.

Page 21



Greater competition, globalization and rapid imitation have caused many products and services tobecome commoditized. Over-supply, greater choice and access to information have made customersmore discerning and powerful. Today, companies are fighting for a share of customer spend and attemptto build enduring relationships with customers by understanding and satisfying their needs. In manycompanies, marketing, sales and distribution activities, which constitute the customer interface, haveremained unchanged for decades, and nowhere is the need for transformation more evident.

Customers demanding lower costs are familiar with the products and services they require and are ableto choose and buy without a great deal of expert advice and guidance from intermediaries such assalespeople. They require a new customer interface. The costly field sales force can be made moreefficient by adopting new technologies or can be eliminated altogether. The Internet and telephone-basedcall centres provide new opportunities to interact with customers demanding lower costs. Customers canaccess relevant information online, conduct research, compare buying options and make a purchasewith the minimum of cost and inconvenience. Outbound marketing is enabled by technologies such asdatabases and telemarketing.

Customers demanding solutions also require a new customer interface. Customer relationshipmanagement, for example, enables better customer management over time and improves marketing tobusiness buyers. The role of the sales force is shifting from communicating the value of products andservices to creating value for customers. Today, in many industries, services form the basis of enduringrelationships and are substituting traditional product-led distribution based on individual transactions.IBM, for example, has introduced industry-oriented marketing, adopted solution selling methods, anddeveloped business consulting and outsourcing service delivery capabilities to support solution creationand delivery.

Sony’s strategic vision

Sony has a vision of a future in which electronics, telecommunications and information technologies areconverging. It anticipates that customers will demand new products and services through broadbandnetworks – which will be cheaper to use and more widely adopted. Sony is working towards a ‘personalbroadband network solutions’ business design:

Sony Corporation today [29 March 2001] announced its intention to transform itself into a PersonalBroadband Network Solutions Company for the coming broadband network society which is forecast toarrive around the year 2005. Sony is making organizational changes aimed at deepening its interactiverelationship with millions of customers worldwide, offering a variety of products and services optimized forthe broadband society. As the broadband network era approaches, Sony will capitalize on its uniquecombination of hardware and content assets. [20 ]

Nobuyuki Idei, Sony chairman and CEO, commented:

Sony will continue to focus on and consolidate its unique resources in brand recognition, electronicshardware expertise, entertainment business know-how and venture business development both withinand outside the company. In enhancing group corporate value, we will pursue ‘soft alliances’ with outsidecompanies that will complement our existing internal resources, and accelerate the pace of change. [21 ]

Strategies develop over the long term

It may take years before all the elements of a business design are in place. Technologies and customerneeds need to be developed over many years before a new industry can be created. During that time,companies begin a transformation journey. They build the factories, warehouses and technologyinfrastructure, and hire the employees they will need. They develop new capabilities such as solutionselling, business consulting or new service delivery concepts. They may need to transform the salesforce or replace it entirely with new technology. Companies may need to get agreement on standards,test product and service concepts with customers and build alliances with selected business partners,to prepare for and shape the emerging industry.

When to create strategy and begin transformation

The right time to create a new strategy and to transform an industry is when a company is successful,or at least not in crisis. During periods of crisis, business leaders are distracted by firefighting activitiesand the required resources are often in short supply. It becomes difficult to attract key business partners

Page 22



and suppliers, the most capable employees abandon the sinking ship and access to investment capitalis restricted. When shareholders press for short-term performance improvements, the natural tendencyis to cut costs rather than invest for the longer term. The required capabilities and enablers do not getput in place and opportunities for innovation and growth are not exploited.

White-space opportunities are often spotted first by industry outsiders who then create new businessdesigns and go about the business of industry transformation. Incumbents often tend to rely far too longon their traditional business models, particularly if they have been successful. They take the view thatwhat worked well in the past

must also work in the future. It can take a fresh set of eyes to see the wood as distinct from the trees.The challenge for industry incumbents – leaders and laggards alike – is to continually reinvent their ownindustries and create new ones. To do this they must develop a vision of the future, then configure abusiness design and implement a strategy that aims at building it. The need for business designinnovation and transformation is real and immediate.

[16 ]Adrian J Slywotzky, Value Migration, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, 1996 (p 4) [17 ]Gary Hamel and C K Prahalad, Competing for the Future, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, 1996(p 108) [18 ]Gary Hamel and C K Prahalad, The core competence of the corporation, Harvard Business Review, May–June 1990 (pp 79–90) [19 ]Michael Hammer, The Agenda: What every business must do to dominate the decade, Random HouseBusiness Books, London, 2002 (p 253) [20 ]Nobuyuki Idei, Sony press release, Transforming Sony into a ‘Personal Broadband Network SolutionsCompany’ [Online] www.sony.net [accessed 29 March 2001] [21 ]Nobuyuki Idei, Sony press release, Transforming Sony into a ‘Personal Broadband Network SolutionsCompany’

Page 23


http://www.sony.net



SUMMARY

In this chapter I examined the causes of change in today’s business environment. I concluded that thesechanges have made leading a company to success much more difficult. I outlined the shifting needs ofcustomers, shareholders and employees, and suggested that the needs of business partners andsociety will figure more in strategic thinking in the future. I argued that while productivity improvementsand the adoption of ‘best practices’ are important, they are often confused with strategy. In reality, ‘bestpractice’ is more operational than strategic.

I proposed that companies invest at least as much into looking for opportunities for innovation and growthas they do in reducing costs, although both are important. I argued that every company needs a vision (aview of how things will be different) and a strategy (decisions on what must be done), and must becapable of executing it (it must be able to make things happen). I suggested that that strategy shouldaim to create customer value, should be oriented towards innovation and growth and should be based onan understanding of customer needs (both today and in the future). I argued that strategy starts with thecustomer. I suggested that the needs of some customers are changing: some customers want lowercosts, others want solutions.

I proposed that business leaders should attempt to transform both their companies and their industries.The company and the industry must be created, shaped and transformed over time. I suggested that abusiness design be created (based on the business vision) to guide the transformation. The designshould outline the need for future capabilities (things the company should be able to do) and enablers(things a company should have to get things done), and describe the customer interface (how value willbe created and delivered to the customer). The transformation journey can be long and difficult. It shouldstart sooner rather than later. In Chapter 2 we outline a transformation that took place in British food retailing, over several decades,during the latter half of the 20th century. This example aims to demonstrate how whole industries can betransformed through new business designs that create and deliver exceptional customer value. In Chapter 3 we describe how products are changing and how low-cost business models are emerging. InChapter 4 we describe how services are changing and how solutions business models are emerging. Inthe remaining chapters we explore aspects of the solutions business model, many of which are stillevolving.

Page 24




NOTES 1. Booz Allen Hamilton, CEO succession 2002: deliver or depart [Online] www.bah.com [accessed 12May 2003] 2. Louis Gerstner, Who Says Elephants Can’t Dance?, HarperCollins, London, 2002 (p 273) 3. Jeremy Rifkin, The Age of Access, Penguin Books, London, 2000 (p 90) 4. The Economist Intelligence Unit, Extending the Enterprise, The Economist Intelligence Unit, London,1999 (p 4) 5. Peter Drucker, The Effective Executive, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, 2001 (p 3) 6. Fred Moody, Mr. Software, New York Times Magazine, 25 August 1991 (p 56) 7. The Work Foundation and The Future Foundation, The Ethical Employee, 2002 (p 1) 8. Peter Jauhal, The rewards should be justified by the results, Sunday Times (London), 7 July 2002(Business Section) 9. The Economist Intelligence Unit, CEO Agenda: Corporate priorities for 2003, The EconomistIntelligence Unit, London, 2003 (p 2) 10. Philipp M Nattermann, Best practice does not equal best strategy, McKinsey Quarterly, no 2, 2000(pp 22–31) 11. Warren Buffett, Letter from the chairman, Berkshire Hathaway Annual Report, 1984 (quoted fromCharles Roxburgh, Hidden flaws in strategy, McKinsey Quarterly, no 2, 2003, p 35)

12. Philipp M Nattermann, Best practice does not equal best strategy 13. Louis Gerstner, Who Says Elephants Can’t Dance? (p 228) 14. Peter Drucker, The Practice of Management, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, 2001 (p 35) 15. The Economist Intelligence Unit, CEO Agenda: Corporate priorities for 2003, The EconomistIntelligence Unit, London, 2003 (p 5) 16. Adrian J Slywotzky, Value Migration, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, 1996 (p 4) 17. Gary Hamel and C K Prahalad, Competing for the Future, Harvard Business School Press, Boston,1996 (p 108) 18. Gary Hamel and C K Prahalad, The core competence of the corporation, Harvard Business Review,May–June 1990 (pp 79–90) 19. Michael Hammer, The Agenda: What every business must do to dominate the decade, RandomHouse Business Books, London, 2002 (p 253) 20. Nobuyuki Idei, Sony press release, Transforming Sony into a ‘Personal Broadband NetworkSolutions Company’ [Online] www.sony.net [accessed 29 March 2001]

21. Nobuyuki Idei, Sony press release, Transforming Sony into a ‘Personal Broadband NetworkSolutions Company’

Page 25


http://www.bah.com

http://www.sony.net



Chapter 2: Transformation in Food Retailing Howard Cox, Simon Mowatt, Martha Prevezer, Mark Cerasale and Merlin Stone

INTRODUCTION

Transformation can occur when companies combine industry-shaping strategies with effective execution.Such transformations occurred in the United Kingdom in the frozen foods and chilled ready mealsindustries during the second half of the 20th century. More women entered the workforce after theSecond World War. Pressure to balance a full working day with household chores created opportunitiesfor labour-saving innovations (which their new income meant they could afford). Frozen foods offeredconvenience to an increasingly busy and wealthy population. During the 1980s and 1990s, consumersbecame more affluent, sophisticated and discerning. They demanded food that was easier to prepareand tastier, for which they were prepared to pay a premium. The ready-chilled foods sector emerged.

The frozen foods sector emerged as a result of proprietary technology innovations that allowedcontinuous-process manufacturing of standardized products. Vertically integrated firms dominated thefrozen foods industry. In the early days, a major challenge for frozen food manufacturers was to raiseawareness of their new products. They achieved this through mass-media advertising. Another inhibitorwas the need for special cold storage cabinets in the retail environment.

Manufacturers resolved this problem by providing them to retailers on favourable terms. In this way,frozen food manufacturers created frozen foods markets that grew in size and diversity during the secondhalf of the 20th century.

By contrast, proprietary manufacturing techniques were not critical to the chilled ready meals industry.Non-proprietary information management systems were the key to success with chilled ready meals.Chilled ready meals used established technologies of food preservation and established distributionchannels. However, the products’ short shelf life created new and complex logistical issues, whichmeant that manufacturing had to be based on batch rather than continuous process production methods.A major challenge was to match supply and demand over relatively short time periods. This wasachieved through expert supply chain management and new inventory control systems. Verticallyintegrated firms are less effective in such an environment. Market-making retailers, not manufacturers,emerged as industry leaders. Retailers were able to bring their products to customers by leading andcoordinating networks of suppliers and distributors.

Page 26




THE FROZEN FOOD INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED KINGDOM

Frozen food developed in two phases. The first, beginning in the 1930s, involved introducingquick-freezing as a way to preserve food. Quick-freezing could be applied particularly to white fish andsome green vegetables. In this phase of the development, quick-freezing had many parallels tohigh-speed canning, which had been applied to other foodstuffs since the 1880s. In each case, the useof packaging facilitated the introduction of proprietary branded goods that were supported by extensiveadvertising. The second phase moved beyond the simple preservation of foodstuffs into more innovativeforms of product development. In the United Kingdom from the mid-1950s, manufacturers of frozen foods,led by the Unilever subsidiary Birds Eye, began to introduce a range of new products such as fishfingers, beef-burgers and frozen ready meals.

The earliest applications of freezing technology to food preservation were designed to serve the cateringtrade. Towards the end of the Second World War, Unilever began to develop a market in frozen foodstuffsfor final consumers. This innovation built directly on Unilever’s experience in the mass production ofbranded packaged consumer goods. At that time, the company was one of the few non-US firms to havedeveloped an extensive management structure, with its UK-based operation featuring four productdivisions (soap, margarine, oil mills and food) overarched by a range of advisory and service departmentsthat served the entire range of the company’s international subsidiaries. These service departmentsmanaged the entire value chain, including activities such as buying, marketing, transport andadvertising.

The integrated value chain

For frozen food to be developed successfully into a mass consumer good, it was necessary to createnew markets upstream and downstream of production, and develop a supporting infrastructure. Upstreammarkets were required in which a sufficient volume of raw materials could be delivered in a way thatenabled the process of quick-freezing. Downstream markets were required to store, handle and transportthe frozen produce. Retailers were needed to store and distribute the products to final consumers.Frozen food products were new and innovative; consumers would have to be educated and informedabout their use. Only when all these things were in place was it possible to reap the potential benefits ofthe new technology.

Unilever had a long history of backward integration (of producing the food it required). A similar approachwas taken with frozen foods. Several factories were opened in the 1940s. More factories were acquiredduring the 1950s as sales grew. Birds Eye entered the broiler chicken industry in 1958, quickly buildingup its capacity to around 20 farms, and in 1965 it acquired a controlling interest in North Eastern FishIndustries Ltd to provide a direct source of Newfoundland cod. However, direct control over the provisionof chicken and fish was eventually abandoned as overproduction and falling prices during the late 1960sand early 1970s made such investments uneconomic.

The policy of backward integration was not adopted for vegetables. Nevertheless, Birds Eye did developquasi-backward integration through the use of annually negotiated forward contracts with local farmers,to whom they gave assurances of short-term renewal and, in many cases, provided seed. Seed wassupplied to allow standardization and quality control. This arrangement also ensured exclusivity for BirdsEye. This meant that this activity was quasi-integrated into the Unilever structure. The response ofgrowers was to form committees such as the Processed Vegetable Growers Association to negotiatewith Unilever on their behalf.

Creating the necessary markets downstream from the production process was more complicated.Unilever would have to apply the skills and resources it had developed to support its other foodbusinesses. Distribution and handling of the products was placed into the hands of the refrigerateddivision of the company’s transportation subsidiary, SPD. SPD utilized its national network of depotsand vehicles in a closely coordinated operation with Birds Eye’s own sales division. Independentwholesalers were integrated into the company’s frozen food distribution system in parts of the countrytoo remote to operate economically. These wholesalers were prevented (by contract) from distributingthe rival brands of direct competitors.

Creating a profitable market downstream was challenging. Unilever operated a small chain of retail stores

Page 27



but these would not provide the required sales volumes. In the early 1950s few retailers had theequipment needed to display and sell frozen food. In 1953, Birds Eye persuaded two manufacturers ofrefrigerated equipment to design and market ‘open-top’ display cabinets for use by retailers. In return,the company agreed to limit its sales to those retailers that installed them. Later, Birds Eye developed apolicy of leasing refrigerated cabinets to some of its more important retail customers on condition thatthe equipment was used for stocking Birds Eye products or other products that were not in directcompetition. Large retailers, such as J Sainsbury, developed their own refrigerated cabinets in order todisplay a larger selection of stock and eventually began to offer their own-brand products. Meanwhile,advertising, sales promotions and temporary price reductions were used to encourage consumers tochange their buying behaviour (by adopting the new products).

In pioneering the mass market for frozen foodstuffs, Birds Eye had to take responsibility for putting theinfrastructure in place that would enable products to be sold in sufficient volume to turn a profit. BirdsEye’s approach was also adopted by its two main rivals, Ross Group Ltd and Findus Ltd (a subsidiary ofNestl?, which became competitors in branded consumer markets during the 1960s. Management of thesupply chain in each case was extensive, and both companies developed integrated distributionoperations, although in the case of Findus this was a joint venture with J Lyons & Co Ltd. Their links withindependent wholesalers were made under conditions of exclusivity. However, the dominant model(integrated supply chain supported by strong brand advertising) became increasingly vulnerable duringthe 1960s as new forms of organization and market segments emerged.

The causes of change

Three developments changed the structure of the UK frozen food industry in the 1960s and 1970s. Oneof these concerned the rapid growth in demand for frozen food by the catering trade, which led to apronounced bifurcation of the frozen food industry. The other two were brought about by increasedcompetition in the market for frozen food to households. These involved the development of productdifferentiation and market segmentation on the one hand and the advancing power of multiple retailers onthe other.

Sales of frozen food increased to caterers. New competitors, with relatively modest turnover, were ableto enter the market as a result of lower advertising and packaging costs. These changes also facilitateda broadening of the distribution arrangements within the frozen food industry. In the past, retailers hadbeen supplied through manufacturers’ wholly owned distribution companies or through exclusive dealswith independent wholesalers. The growth of small-scale manufacturers serving the catering tradeencouraged companies to be set up specializing in the provision of processing, storage and distributionservices.

Cold-store companies and specialist distributors entered the market, causing it to fragment. The largercold storage companies tended to be integrated concerns that also provided processing and distributionservices. Indeed, as the role of independent suppliers expanded, the freezing capacity of these largestorage and distribution companies began to rival those of the proprietary branded manufacturers. Theincreasing number of independent distributors enabled smaller, more specialized frozen foodmanufacturers to enter the market. These included agricultural cooperatives that were formed for thepurpose of processing fruit and vegetables, and a number of small manufacturing concerns thatspecialized in manufacturing products within a defined segment of the market (vegetables, fish, meatproducts, fruit, confectionery). In some cases they specialized in a single product such as frozen potatochips (fries) or pizzas.

Frozen food retailing helped to speed up vertical industry disintegration. The need for relatively smallorders, in the small-scale segment of grocery retailing, led to the emergence of cash-and-carrywholesalers. They acted as intermediaries between the distributing wholesalers and the retailers. By themid-1970s, for example, 60 per cent of greengrocers carried a small range of frozen food, increasing theavailability of the main proprietary brands of frozen food. At the same time, the very rapid growth in salesof home freezers during the late 1960s and early 1970s created a force in the opposite direction. Asmore consumers were able to store frozen foods, sales volumes rose considerably. New home freezercentres were opened, led by the Bejam Group in 1968, which combined the sale of home freezers withthe retailing of bulk packs of frozen food. Home freezer centres allowed smaller manufacturers of frozenfood to increase sales and reduce distribution costs.

During the 1960s, supermarket shelf space was limited in the United Kingdom. The growth of home

Page 28



freezer centres enabled the industry to overcome this growing constraint on retail sales. During the samedecade, the leading multiple retailers grew in size and power, taking an increasing share of the sales ofBirds Eye’s products. Birds Eye began offering the large multiples discounts relating to turnover andallocation of shelf space. These discounts acted as entry barriers to rival suppliers that were attemptingto gain sales through supermarkets. The Monopolies Commission report of 1976 ordered Birds Eye toend the discounts on condition that other manufacturing firms also ceased such a strategy.

In reality, the main threat to the proprietary brands in supermarkets arose less from rival manufacturersthan from the multiple retailers themselves. As in other product lines, supermarkets increasingly soughtto introduce their own-label brands of goods into their freezer cabinets during the 1960s. Indeed, led by JSainsbury and Marks & Spencer, the multiples’ own brands had made significant inroads into the frozenfood market by the early 1970s. Although Birds Eye resisted the pressure to relabel its own products forretailers (although it did relabel products for the generic or unbranded market), other manufacturersproved more willing to adopt an own-label strategy. The first own-label frozen food produced for retailers’own brands was frozen fish, supplied by Ross (then a marginal manufacturer in frozen foods) in 1957.Findus, which supplied products for Sainsbury, Marks & Spencer and other leading multiples, saw theproportion of its gross sales (in value terms) accounted for by own-label products rise from under 7 percent in 1971 to 16.5 per cent just three years later. The beginnings of the own-label industry started arevolution that was to be the turning point in the relationship between manufacturers and retailers.

From the mid-1950s to the mid-1970s, the frozen food industry in the United Kingdom grew in both sizeand complexity. At the outset, only a firm such as Unilever, with vertical control over the value chain,could assemble the various components required to create and profit from the market. By the 1970s awhole raft of firms, small and large, were attracted to the market. While manufacturing remained largelya classic oligopoly, the balance of power within the value chain shifted towards the retailers. However,two decades of continuous advertising had helped establish the proprietary brands and provided themwith longevity. The frozen food market is still dominated by the ‘big four’ companies, all subsidiaries ofmultinational firms: Birds Eye Walls Ltd, Nestl?Holdings (UK), Ross Youngs and H J Heinz CompanyLtd UK. With the advent of chilled ready meals, however, an important segment of the processed foodindustry was about to be turned on its head.

Page 29




THE CHILLED READY MEALS INDUSTRY IN THE UNITEDKINGDOM

Large manufacturers of frozen foods introduced ready meals to raise the value added component of theirproducts. They were also responding to the opportunities presented by various demographic changes,notably increased female employment. British consumers took packaged foreign vacations and beganacquiring a taste for non-British recipes. An increasingly sophisticated range of products were found inthe freezers of UK supermarkets and other retailers during the 1970s, starting with TV dinners by BirdsEye in 1969. In 1975, Birds Eye’s retail product range included British staples such as cod and chipsthrough to quasi-exotic Asian offerings such as sweet and sour chicken.

The process of freezing and reconstituting meals in many cases caused the texture and flavour of thefood to deteriorate. If the dishes could be preserved by chilling rather than freezing, then a better productwould end up on the consumer’s dinner table. The logistical difficulties involved were formidable, sincethe maximum period of time that could elapse between production and final consumption of suchproducts was a matter of days rather than weeks. While it might be possible to charge a premium price,the cost in wastage would be prohibitive unless supply and demand could be coordinated withunprecedented accuracy. The retailers, not the manufacturers, were best placed to manage thecoordination of customer demand and product supply.

In the United Kingdom the chilled ready meals market was pioneered by the multiple retailer Marks &Spencer, which specialized in high-quality fresh and convenience food products. Its decision to providepremium-priced chilled ready meals was to have important consequences for supply chain managementand for the relationship between retailers and suppliers in the industry. Marks & Spencer’s long-termstrategy was to differentiate on quality. To achieve this, it had to forge close relationships with suppliers.Marks & Spencer used its many years of experience in collaborative product development to exploit alatent demand for pre-prepared ‘fresh’ ready meals during the 1980s. Unilever had supported theintroduction of freezer technology in an attempt to enable consumers to participate in the frozen foodmarket. By contrast, Marks & Spencer sought to exploit unsatisfied customer demand. Other retailers inthe UK grocery market, such as J Sainsbury, sought to emulate this strategy.

The network value chain

In the 1970s, large grocery retailers began to take control of product distribution. Sainsbury, for example,pioneered the development of dedicated regional distribution centres (RDCs) as an intermediate stage inthe distribution process. These RDCs were owned by one of a growing number of specialist distributorsbut were operated on Sainsbury’s behalf through a process of subcontracting. Sainsbury contracted outthe operation of its RDCs for two main reasons. First, there was organized labour unrest at the time,and, with inflationary pressures on wages increasing industrial action, contracting out removedSainsbury from labour management problems in the area of distribution. Second, the period was oneduring which Sainsbury and the other large retailers were using their resources to expand the numberand the geographical spread of their stores. Transportation of products from the RDCs to the stores waslargely undertaken directly by Sainsbury’s own fleet of vehicles. By the 1990s the RDC pattern hadbecome established with UK retailers, although they increasingly contracted out operations.

Retailers also began to operate primary consolidation centres (PCCs) to which manufacturers were ableto deliver increasingly small batch-driven loads, prior to their transfer to the RDCs. With PCCs, verysmall crate (rather than pallet) based deliveries can be made. Crates can accommodate partial boxesand are ideal for the delivery of low-demand, high value added products with a very short shelf life suchas chilled ready meals. In such cases the efficiency does not come from standardized delivery andeconomies of scale, but through the precise matching of supply and demand. Larger manufacturers cancoordinate the collection of stock from smaller suppliers for delivery to the PCC. Retailers usetechnologies such as Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) systems, and later the Internet, to coordinate,control and manage the supply chain from beginning to end.

Information technology as an enabler of transformation

The chilled ready meals industry evolved as a result of developments in information technology, notproduction technology. Information technology systems enabled the coordination of independent firms to

Page 30



create and deliver the product (the chilled ready meal) to the customer. Computer-controlled inventorymanagement systems are also critical in the chilled ready meals industry. Many such systems havebeen introduced since the 1980s. Electronic point of sale (EPOS) systems also enabled thetransformation of the industry. EPOS systems improve stock management by enabling retailers torecord and replenish chilled stock in the limited space available on shelves. New scanning technology,which was introduced in the mid-1980s, has also improved supply chain management. Grocery retailers,constrained by the perishable nature of their produce, were the first to move from inventory-basedsystems to customer-driven systems.

EDI and collaborative Internet technologies enabled the various players in the value chain to becoordinated in real time. This new ability to manage the supply chain allowed retailers to switch tocustomer demand-driven replenishment systems. These systems allowed the retailers to have bettercontrol of the supply chain and increased the supplier’s dependency on retailers. Information oncustomer buying behaviour was gathered from stores and loyalty cards. During the late 1990s, retailersinvested in data warehousing systems. Some retailers invested in data mining technologies allowingthem further insight into customer buying behaviour. Control of the customer interface and ownership ofcustomer data gave manufacturers a dominant position in the value chain.

Sainsbury introduced computer-controlled stock management systems and was able to gatherwholesaling information more effectively. The company extended its management control back down thevalue chain. This move also enabled the company to obtain even more control by contracting directly fordistribution services. The manufacturers had no choice but to relinquish some of their responsibilities.Sainsbury was then able to unbundle many of the services supplied by wholesaling subcontractors andgain more precise information over a variety of costs that had previously been invisible to them.

Inventory management software has given Sainsbury more information and control over the value chain.The retailer retains direct ownership of the warehouse and the computer-controlled stock managementsystem, outsourcing other activities considered to be non-core. Thus the integrated information systemunderpins and provides control over a network of independent firms revolving around the hub played bythe retailer’s head office. In Sainsbury’s terms, this arrangement represents the inverse of the conceptof ‘hollowing out’, since it allows the company to maintain control over the critical system-wideinformation while enabling the company to relinquish direct responsibility for its management.

Retailers tend to own and maintain some logistics support services directly. This enables them tobenchmark the performance of outsourced services and better understand other operating costs. Bykeeping some services in-house, the retailer has better information and is able to maintain its position ofpower and control over suppliers and subcontractors. This requires the management of many moretransactions than are involved in conventional subcontracting, but information technologies such as theInternet have greatly reduced the cost of managing these transactions. In the Information Age, anintegrated information network has replaced a corporate hierarchy as the most efficient method ofmanaging many discrete transactions.

Collaborative product development

Marks & Spencer’s chilled ready meals featured attractive packaging and were marketed as high-qualitypremium-priced products. Their pricing and positioning offered them as a substitute for take-away mealsand even restaurant food. Marks & Spencer’s customers were, in many ways, good prospects for chilledready meals. The company had already developed a range of chilled products such as meat pies andquiches under its own St Michael brand name. Expanding this range into full meals, or meal centres,was a logical step that required marketing only at the point of sale. Marks & Spencer was lessconcerned about advertising and awareness than with understanding customer preferences. This markeda shift from one-way to two-way product information flows. A proprietary charge card scheme enabledthe company to obtain detailed information about customer buying habits. Card-holding customers wereinvited to special in-store events that also allowed the company to get to know them better.

Marks & Spencer’s chilled ready meals were introduced as highvalue meal-replacement products. Assuch, their success depended on continuous new product development (NPD). Successful NPD requiredthe pooling of knowledge from many sources. When Sainsbury introduced chilled ready meals during thelate 1980s, it assembled new product development teams that included employees from foodmanufacturing and packaging companies as well as its own staff. These teams monitored purchasingpatterns and studied eating trends in restaurants before using the information gained to innovate with

Page 31



new products. They learned about customer needs and developed products to satisfy them. Despitehaving no manufacturing capability of their own, UK retailers have been able to compete head-to-headwith branded manufacturers such as Unilever. The retailers’ NPD groups also have expertise in areassuch as food technology and hygiene. They do not have direct access to manufacturing facilities, sothey tend to work closely with suppliers, who are obliged to absorb many of the costs incurred.

The chilled food manufacturers with whom the retailers collaborate are a very different group from theearly pioneers of frozen food. They are mainly smaller firms that can engage in systems of batchproduction; some are no more than micro-kitchens employing fewer than five people. Smallmanufacturers are capable of rapid and flexible development of new products, which is a critical successfactor for the retailers. The retailer supplies the manufacturer with ideas, technical help and access to itsnetwork of specialists. This activity has produced specialist food companies that provide products toseveral supermarkets. For example, Noon Food Products is a supplier of chilled Indian-style readymeals to Sainsbury (and other retailers) but does not undertake the branding, marketing or distribution ofits products. Such suppliers are expected to come up with new recipes.

The rise in ownership of microwave ovens fuelled the growth in demand for chilled ready meals.Microwave cooking created new challenges, not least with regard to packaging. There have been manyinnovations in packaging that were directly driven by the needs of consumers of chilled ready meals.Microwaveable meals need containers with different degrees of ‘transparency’ in terms of their ability totransmit, reflect and absorb microwaves. ‘Active’ packaging has been developed that can control orinfluence the effects of microwave heating. Hygiene is also a key issue with regard to chilled readymeals. Some products, for example, contain ingredients with very different heating characteristicsdepending on whether they are heated in a conventional oven or by microwave. Unless instructions areclear, food can be cooked incorrectly. Therefore, packaging must be jointly developed between themanufacturer and the retailer. The retailer will often use the packaging as part of its generic own brandmarketing strategy.

New product development in the chilled ready meals industry involves the formation of collaborativeteams drawing on a wide range of information. The retailers retain a dominant nodal position becausethey have control over the customer interface and can access customer data that provide them withinformation on customer needs and wants. Retailers also control product development and the allocationof shelf space in stores. This means that it is easier to switch suppliers than the other way around. Thissystem gives them greater flexibility than would be allowed in a wholly owned value chain and enablesthem to sense and respond to changing customer needs. Retailers are able to exert considerableinfluence and control over suppliers and partners in the value chain, even those performing high-valueactivities.

Retailers such as Marks & Spencer, Sainsbury and Tesco have exploited the market for chilled readymeals on the strength of their own-label brands. This is a clear sign of their dominance overmanufacturers in this market. To compete with retailers, manufacturers must resort to more costly directmethods such as advertising to increase sales. The retailers can promote their products in-store atmuch lower cost. Some retailers have benefited further. Tesco, for example, was able to improve itsimage dramatically during the 1990s partly through the association with quality and added value thatcame with the introduction of innovative chilled foods. Marks & Spencer, Sainsbury and Tesco accountfor well over three-quarters of total sales of chilled ready meals in the United Kingdom. Marks & Spenceralone accounts for nearly half of all sales.

Efficient information management systems have raised the ability of retailers to exert control over thevalue chain in the food industry. However, unlike the earlier forms of control exercised by largemanufacturers, based on vertically integrated organizational structures, the multiple retailers operatethrough management systems that take the form of inter-firm networks. This is perhaps most evident inthe process of new product development. Inter-firm collaboration takes the form of long-term strategicalliances with companies whose core competencies are complementary to those of the retailers. Eachfirm must assess the benefits of collaboration. Collaboration is often performed in multidisciplinary teamswhose common objective and continuous interaction help to facilitate mutual trust. The market-makingrole performed by the retailer is critical in making the collaboration a success. In the market for readychilled meals, the retailers control the customer interface, they understand their customers’ needs andthey manage the flow of information that gives them control of the collaborative network as a whole.

Page 32



Page 33




CONCLUSION

In the case of frozen food, the impact of technical innovation occurred at the production stage andrequired corresponding changes in the provision of raw materials, in the systems of distribution,wholesaling and retailing, and in the patterns of household consumption. The creation of these variousnew markets was therefore a prerequisite for the successful exploitation of the technology ofquick-freezing. Unilever and its subsidiary companies were well placed to coordinate the flows ofinformation needed to effect new processes of market intermediation. This was done partly through thecompany’s own corporate management system – as in the case of the inputs of chicken and fish, andthe mode of distribution, wholesaling and, in some cases, retailing – and partly via a process ofnegotiation and persuasion – as in the case of long-term supply contracts with vegetable farmers,quantity discounts to large retailers and mass advertising campaigns to win over consumers.

Once the new production technology had been successfully established, however, opportunities arosefor this process of intermediation to be undertaken by other actors operating at different stages of thesupply chain. In particular, in the 1960s and 1970s the multiple retailers were able to alter the mix ofinformation that reached final consumers by adding their own-label products to proprietary brands fromthe large food processors and so gain increasing influence over the information flows operating within theindustry as a whole.

The retailers’ position was further strengthened by the technical innovations that ushered in theInformation Age. Enhanced systems of information management gave retailers that invested in theappropriate technology far greater control over the process of inventory management and allowed them tointroduce products featuring much shorter shelf lives such as chilled ready meals. With improvedsystems of stock management and easier access to current consumer buying patterns and eatingtrends, retailers were also able to initiate a process of continuous product innovation by poolingknowledge with food manufacturers and packaging companies through the use of strategic alliancesfeaturing multidisciplinary teams.

Competitive advantage in the chilled ready meals industry has been gained less through technicaladvances in the process of production, and more by retailers’ ability to manage the coordination of theirsupply chain, even when competitors have access to the same suppliers and contractors. Thesuccessful innovation of chilled ready meals depended on the information management facilities thatarose as a result of the digital revolution, but it did not require large investments in the creation of newmarkets. Rather, it had the effect of changing the nature of the existing processes of intermediation thatretailers previously engaged in.

Increasing use of information technology enabled the outsourcing of the management services inwarehousing and logistics but without sacrificing control over the information flows that stemmed fromthem. It also further encouraged collaboration between complementary firms in the value adding chain,allowing pooling of complementary sources of knowledge. This, though it operated to the mutual benefitof all the parties involved, did not oblige retailers to surrender the critical information regarding patterns ofconsumer demand. Crucially, information technology supported a shift from one-way to two-wayprocesses of information exchange with customers, allowing future purchasing trends to be anticipatedand accommodated.

Page 34



Page 35




A GLOBAL MOVEMENT

Parallels can be drawn with trends occurring in the US market in the same period. Wal-Mart, forexample, has developed one of the most mature retail ecosystems in the world. Wal-Mart’s propositionis simple: good (often branded) products at low prices. K-Mart and Wal-Mart entered the discountmarket in the 1960s. While K-Mart opened stores near shopping malls and towns of more than 50,000inhabitants, Wal-Mart targeted towns of around 5,000 inhabitants, particularly in areas where they mightserve more than one town. Wal-Mart chose to compete against small stores, using its size to offerheavily discounted products. This strategy proved successful. While the area was often big enough tosupport one store, it was not usually big enough to support more than one such discounter. This enabledWal-Mart to beat its local competitors on price and protect itself from competition from its peers such asK-Mart.

Wal-Mart needed loyal and committed employees if it was to grow, which it needed to do to achieveeconomies of scale. Employees were provided with training and competitive pay and bonuses. Manystores were located in remote parts of the country. Wal-Mart’s strategy was to manage its networkclosely. Control was maintained through daily communication with the headquarters based in Arkansas.Wal-Mart also needed an effective joint purchasing and distribution system, so it set up a hub-and-spokesystem of warehouses that provided goods to stores located no more than a day’s drive from the centre.During the 1970s, Wal-Mart expanded through a process by which it targeted an area, set up a hubdistribution centre and then established as many stores in the area as could be sustained by the localpopulation. This approach proved successful and deterred potential competitors. During the 1960s and1970s, Wal-Mart focused on growth, and was quick to adopt new technologies to support its rapidgrowth. In the early 1980s, Wal-Mart launched its own satellite to stay in touch with its growingdistribution and store network. From the mid-1980s, Wal-Mart’s strategy was to consolidate. By that time it had established itself in anodal position, leading and controlling a network of suppliers, many of which were major global productmanufacturers with considerable brand power. The challenge for Wal-Mart business executives was toretain and increase bargaining power against such influential suppliers. Wal-Mart resisted pressure fromsuppliers to increase prices. By contrast, it put pressure on suppliers to continually lower their prices.The low price strategy worked and Wal-Mart engendered strong brand loyalty among its customers. Itspolicy of low prices without special sales or promotions proved popular and became a de facto norm indiscount retailing.

Growth and greater scale gave Wal-Mart better bargaining power, which it used to innovate with its valuechain. It was able to force suppliers to improve manufacturing efficiency by setting up crosscompanydistribution systems. It created innovative relationships with key suppliers, often making use of newtechnologies to improve collaboration. James Moore reports, ‘[I]n 1987, Wal-Mart and Procter & Gamblereached an unprecedented accord to work together through extensive electronic ordering and informationsharing between the companies. In return, Wal-Mart gives better payment terms than the rest of theretailing industry: on average, Wal-Mart pays its suppliers within 29 days compared with 45 days atK-Mart.’ [1 ]Wal-Mart demonstrated its credentials as an innovator in other areas too. It successfullyentered the membership discount market and was quick to use Internet technologies to improvecommunication and collaboration throughout the value chain.

[1 ]James F Moore, Predators and prey: a new ecology of competition, Harvard Business Review, May–June1993 (quoted from Don Tapscott, Creating Value in the Network Economy, Harvard Business SchoolPublishing, Boston, 1999 (p 139)

Page 36



Page 37




SUMMARY

The transformation of production processes that occurred across a range of manufacturing industriesduring the Industrial Age generated new and more complex requirements for the processes ofintermediation as well as for the production systems themselves. The development of hierarchicalorganizations provided firms with the ability to oversee directly many of these new tasks and to createthe markets that supported them. The advent of the Information Age has tended not so much to requirethe creation of new markets as to alter the nature of existing relationships of intermediation in ways thathave facilitated a much wider collection of organizational forms. In this chapter we have outlined the transformation that took place in British food retailing anddemonstrated how entire industries can be transformed through new business designs that create anddeliver exceptional customer value. Chapter 3 describes how products are changing. Many are becomingdevices for delivering services. It will also describe how low-cost business models are emerging. Chapter4 analyses how business services evolve. Many manufacturers are introducing services because theyare generally more profitable than products, and services enable the creation and delivery of solutions.Solutions are services-led. Chapter 4 describes the emergence of the solutions business model.

Page 38




NOTES 1. James F Moore, Predators and prey: a new ecology of competition, Harvard Business Review, May–June 1993 (quoted from Don Tapscott, Creating Value in the Network Economy, Harvard BusinessSchool Publishing, Boston, 1999 (p 139)

Page 39




Chapter 3: The Low-Cost Business Model Mark Cerasale

INTRODUCTION

Every year it is becoming more difficult to satisfy customers and shareholders. Homogeneity hasbecome a problem: companies offer increasingly similar products and services. Further, manycompanies use similar working practices, and so produce similar results. Powerful forces such asglobalization, deregulation, easier access to capital, new management approaches, cheaper and betterinformation technology (IT), the Internet and increasing customer power have altered the competitivelandscape for ever. It is no longer enough to make and sell a product or provide a service just like anyother. It’s time to do things differently.

The very nature of products is changing. Mass customization allows products to be tailored to the needsof individual customers. New products are brought to market more often and more quickly, causingover-supply. However, despite advances in technology, the rate of true product innovation is slowing. Atthe same time, the speed at which product and service innovation are imitated is increasing, leading toquicker product obsolescence. As a result, there is less opportunity to create and sustain healthymargins on new products. The falling cost of information technology has allowed manufacturers toembed technology, such as microchips, in many new products. When technology-rich products areconnected to the Internet they become devices for providing services. Value is migrating from products toservices.

Over-supply of products and services has made customers more powerful. Customers have becomemore knowledgeable and sophisticated, and many demand exceptional value. Some customers demandexceptional value through solutions; others demand exceptional value through lower costs. Somesuppliers have sensed and responded to these changes in customer demand and have developed andimplemented models for solution creation and delivery or low-cost supply.

Page 40




THE CAUSES OF CHANGE

What forces shaped business in the 20th century? What will shape business in the 21st century? The1980s and 1990s were decades of increasing globalization and deregulation in many industries.Unprecedented access to capital meant that many new companies were formed and existing companiescould grow. New management techniques and best practices travelled the globe and becamecommonplace in many organizations. The widespread use of information technology and adoption of theInternet enabled further efficiencies. Productivity improved, competition increased and new marketsemerged in the developed countries. Many markets became saturated with products and services.

Globalization

Globalization has increased competition. Many products and services have become commoditized.Over-supply has caused some markets to become saturated. Manufacturing continues to migrate todeveloping economies, where labour costs are low. China has successfully positioned itself to attractlow-cost manufacturing and assembly. India has become a global centre of competence for softwaredevelopment. Other developing countries are looking to emulate these examples.

Offshore companies have emerged for data entry, software development, customer support, financialservices, equipment maintenance and many other services. In the 1980s and 1990s, political stability,liberalization and the introduction of free-market economics enabled Eastern Europe, Latin America andChina to increase their participation in world trade. Developing countries can succeed by combiningadvanced communications, transportation and technologies with a low-cost workforce.

Globalization has raised the competitive bar and increased competition. Many companies are movingtheir operations to centres of excellence where they can access key resources and competencies suchas process expertise and technological know-how. Many competencies are relocated to access themost advanced and sophisticated capabilities. Thus, design might be based in Italy, technologydevelopment in the United States, engineering in Germany. Geography no longer limits access to valueadded knowledge and capabilities.

Deregulation

In the 1990s, deregulation accelerated in the United States and Europe. Telecommunications, gas,electricity and water industries transformed themselves to take up the opportunity. Industrial giantsexpanded their portfolios to take on deregulated and non-regulated products and services. Mergers andacquisitions were widespread. Companies grew in size, but in each market they met large competitorsthat had themselves crossed over their own product frontiers. Size allowed them to invest to overcomeentry barriers, and economies of scale allowed them to cut costs. Ferocious competition led to pricewars and lower margins. New global giants emerged in newly privatized and deregulated industries.Vodafone, a local UK player in the early 1990s, became the world’s largest mobile telecommunicationsprovider.

Access to capital

The state can no longer provide generous pensions. Life expectancy and medical costs are rising fast.The baby boom generation have invested heavily in the stock exchange, conscious of the need toprepare for a long and fruitful retirement. They were accompanied by a new generation of investors eagerto make a fortune, many later discouraged by dot.com disasters. Between 1995 and 2000 the NASDAQComposite Index rocketed from 755 to 4,696 and the Dow Jones Industrial Average climbed from lessthan 4,000 to nearly 11,500. This fuelled a huge boom in capital spending. Much of this fell apart in theearly 21st century, leaving individuals and corporations with assets depleted. Corporations acceleratedtheir search for low-cost solutions to their problems.

Economic growth fuelled by stock market investment and wide-scale share ownership energized the finaldecades of the 20th century. Start-ups and ventures flourished. Established companies invested in newplant and technology throughout the years of economic growth. Despite the post-millennium economicdownturn, when many investors lost much of their life savings or their pensions, a culture of investmenthas been established. Today, access to investment capital is neither the exclusive privilege ofestablished companies, nor is it the inhibitor to business it once was.

Page 41



New management approaches

Knowledge of best practice has spread throughout executive ranks through management trainingprogrammes such as those leading to MBAs. Professional services industries have evolved, andspecialist advisory and consulting firms have emerged to propagate new management ideas. The effecthas generally been positive. During the 1980s and 1990s new levels of efficiency and effectiveness wereachieved through the widespread adoption of new management approaches, techniques and tools.

Occasionally when new approaches were adopted, unexpected consequences followed. For example,during the 1970s, global scale and experience effects were cited as key competitive advantages.Companies made pre-emptive investments in large-scale plants in an attempt to secure the requiredminimum share of world capacity. While this strategy had the desired effect for many companies, insome industries it resulted in over-supply and subsequently a need for price-cutting.

Lean manufacturing, just-in-time (JIT) inventory management, total quality management (TQM), businessprocess re-engineering (BPR) and focusing on core competencies are just a few of the concepts thattransformed many companies in the final decades of the 20th century. Without appropriate regulationagainst customer demand, productivity improvements have led to over-production and over-supply. Afurther effect of homogeneity in production techniques and business practices has been a reduction inproduct and service innovation and differentiation.

Information technology

During the 1980s and 1990s, information technology moved from the data centre into the hands ofbusiness users. Information technologies such as software applications offered opportunities toautomate and integrate manual processes that were costly and prone to error. At first, business softwareapplications were often bespoke, but later on, packages became available for applications such ascomputer-aided design (CAD), enterprise resource planning (ERP), supply chain management (SCM)and customer relationship management (CRM). Business applications and e-business (using Internettechnologies to transform key business processes) combined to enable further productivityimprovements. According to Steve Hamm, Steve Rosenbush and Cliff Edwards, ‘Economists credit techspending with at least one-third of the productivity gains in the second half of the 1990s.’ [1 ] In May 2003, Nicholas Carr published an article in the Harvard Business Review entitled ‘IT doesn’tmatter’. [2 ]In it, he argues that IT is affordable and accessible to most companies, and therefore no longeroffers strategic value to anyone. Certainly there are signs of commoditization in some parts of the ITindustry; many IT products are becoming commoditized. As a result, the IT industry is entering a periodof radical transformation. In the future, products will increasingly be provided as services. The widespreaduse of the Internet and availability of more advanced information technologies has led to a new phase ofdevelopment for information technology infrastructure and software application companies. In the future,many IT services will be provided on a more variable basis, much like a utility such as electricity. Furtheranalysis of the transformation taking place in the IT industry will be provided in Chapter 5.

The Internet

Information technology allows manual business processes to be automated. The Internet has enabledmany to be transformed; some processes can be eliminated all together. E-business, the use of Internettechnologies to transform key business processes, has had a profound effect on how many companiesoperate. At first, internal business processes such as human resource management (HRM) weretransformed. Later, as the Internet and e-business became more popular and pervasive, companiesbegan connecting and integrating with their customers, business partners and suppliers.

The Internet has cut transaction costs, allowing companies to consolidate all manner of services suchas IT support that before were provided locally at greater cost. Lower transaction costs allow companiesto source services such as HRM support from third-party providers. The Internet also facilitates closercollaboration between companies, allowing them to form strategic partnerships and virtual enterprises.The lowering of transaction costs has also enabled companies to sell and distribute their products atlower cost.

Mass customization of products

For most of the last century, manufacturing was the driving force of developed economies. The productwas king. From the beginning of that century, the pace of manufacturing innovation was breathtaking,

Page 42



and customer demand seemed insatiable. Mass production transformed business and social life as newconsumer markets were created. Mass production was the optimal model for the product economy,enabling uniform products to be manufactured in large volumes. The 20th century was an age ofproduct-led consumerism.

Uniformity of the product was the key to mass production, yet mass production is based not on uniformproducts, but on uniform parts. Those uniform parts can then be mass-assembled, or mass-customized,to create many different products, tailored to the needs of each customer. In mass production, productsare produced and then markets are created to distribute them. In mass customization, products areassembled according to customers’ individual needs and specifications. Mass customization makes itnecessary for business operations to begin with the customer and work backwards. This approachworks better in the present era, now that the customer is more demanding.

Introduction of new products

The speed of introduction of new products has increased. Customers have become more sophisticatedand discerning, and are demanding more of their suppliers than ever before. This has increased pressureon suppliers to bring new products to market more quickly and more frequently. New informationtechnology systems, design, manufacturing and product management techniques have greatly reducedthe time it takes to introduce new products. For example, in the automotive industry, the number of newvehicle models has increased significantly in recent years.

According to Ralph Szygenda, group vice president and chief information officer at General Motors, ‘We’re cutting our product design cycle dramatically. A few years ago, we had a 48-month design cycle.

Today, we’re approaching 18 months,’ he said. ‘We now have web-based design iteration flexibilitylacking a few years ago. Our common digital-based systems permit teams to design vehicles globallylinked to production, procurement, and other GM functions.’ He also noted that GM has ‘integrationcenters’ around the world that connect designers, engineers, suppliers and manufacturing. [3 ]

Product innovation

Greater customer sophistication and competition mean there is more need for continuous productinnovation. However, the speed of product innovation appears to be decreasing. The frequency ofground-breaking product and service innovations has slowed in most industries. What was the last bigproduct innovation in your industry? Is there any sign yet of the next one? A study published in late2002, as many economies were sliding into recession, concluded that many consumers are not buyingbecause they are disappointed by the level of innovation in virtually all product and service sectors. [4 ]

As products become embedded with technology such as microchips and are connected to the Internet,they provide opportunities to access new services. Perhaps product innovation in the future will appearless in the form of traditional features and functions and more in the form of services delivered by theproduct? As everyday devices at home and work become ‘intelligent’ with information technology and ‘connected’ to the Internet, there will be more opportunities for innovation in service delivery.

Product imitation

While the speed of product innovation may be slowing, the speed of innovation imitation is increasing.Increasingly transient employees, many of whom are so-called knowledge workers, take valuableknowledge with them when they leave. Transient workers, flexible manufacturing and the proliferation ofinformation have greatly reduced imitation cycle times. When features and functions are embedded insoftware and services (and can be provided as upgrades over the Internet), imitation can occur almostinstantaneously.

In the automotive industry, features such as anti-lock braking and air-conditioning are standard on manyvehicles. It will not be long before more vehicles have telematics systems ‘as standard’, providing in-carentertainment and information services directly to the vehicle. Innovation imitation is not confined toproducts. It also extends to processes, organizations, policies and procedures, and, indeed, wholebusiness models.

Product obsolescence

The increasing frequency of new product introductions and the faster pace of innovation imitation have

Page 43



shortened product life cycles. Products and services are becoming obsolete more rapidly than everbefore. In the IT industry, Moore’s Law can be applied to many products. Gordon Moore, founder of Intel,predicted that the processing power of computer chips would continue to double every 18 months, whilethe cost of producing them would hold constant or decrease. While Moore’s Law applies primarily toinformation and communication technologies, similar trends appear in many industries. Rapid productobsolescence and over-production have resulted in over-supply. Surplus stock and costly inventorieshave led to price discounting and margin erosion.

Products as devices for providing services

The very nature of products is changing. Taichi Sakaiya, director general of the Economic PlanningAgency of Japan, once predicted that ‘The significance of material goods [will be] as containers orvehicles of knowledge-value.’ [5 ]Many products are embedded with information technology such asmicrochips, enabling them to be connected to the Internet and remotely accessed, managed andcontinually upgraded. As information technology content and connectivity increase, the value a productcreates migrates to the services it provides access to. Products are becoming devices through whichservices can be accessed.

In the future, products may be introduced as ‘Trojan horses’ – a means of establishing a physicalpresence in an office, a factory or the home through which new services will be provided. Manycompanies are designing products with services in mind. Microsoft may have introduced the X-Box to tapinto the multi-billion-dollar games market but it also clearly recognized an opportunity to connect a newgeneration of consumers to the Internet. In the future, the X-Box may be positioned as an alternative tothe PC for accessing all kinds of consumer services such as e-mail, television and movies.

In the manufacturing industries of the future, the services and upgrades may count more than theproduct. Investment in technology has already transformed the nature of many industrial businesses. AsJack Welch, ex-chairman and CEO of General Electric (GE) put it, ‘Investing heavily in technology forservices has changed the fundamentals of our service business. Long-term service agreements wouldn’tbe possible without these large investments in technology and?have greatly increased our intimacy withcustomers.’ [6 ]

The manufacturing industries of the future will be increasingly services-led. Products may even be seenas a cost of doing business. According to Jeremy Rifkin, ‘With the containers or platform becoming socheap to produce, and quality controls indistinguishable, the only area where opportunities exist to makemoney is in delivering expertise to customers in the form of services. While gross margins today aregenerally less than 30 percent, gross margins in service-related activities often exceed 50 percent.’ [7 ]

Some companies are turning their backs on traditional ‘cost-plus’ charging models. They make little orno profit from selling the product. Instead, they charge customers for upgrades and support services. Inthe mobile phone industry, network service providers often heavily subsidize products. Some computersoftware firms give their products away for free and charge only for upgrades and maintenance services.The challenge in using this approach is to keep customers long enough to recoup product costs. Thisdepends on whether suppliers can develop enduring relationships with customers by providing them withthe value added services they require.

Neil Gross, Peter Coy and Otis Port, in an article entitled ‘The technology paradox’, claim that

The new rules require more than ingenuity, agility and speed. They call for redefining value in aneconomy where the cost of raw technology is plummeting toward zero. Sooner or later, this plunge willobliterate the worth of almost any specific piece of hardware or software. Then, value will be inestablishing a longterm relationship with a customer – even if it means giving the first generation of aproduct away. [8 ]

The customer has replaced the product on centre stage. [1 ]Steve Hamm, Steve Rosenbush and Cliff Edwards, Tech comes out swinging [Online],http://www.businessweek.com [accessed 23 June 2003] [2 ]Nicholas G Carr, ‘IT doesn’t matter’, Harvard Business Review, May 2003 (pp 3–10) [3 ]Ralph Szygenda, Group Vice President and Chief Information Officer at General Motors, Auto EngineeringInternational, 2002

Page 44


http://www.businessweek.com



[4 ]According to a recent study published by Accenture (Stimulating Customer Demand through MeaningfulInnovation, November 2002), if consumers believe that a product will both be innovative and improve theirquality of life, 70 per cent of them are willing to pay more. The report concluded that ‘Many consumers aren’tbuying – or aren’t buying more – because they’re convinced that few companies have given them acompelling reason to do so. In short, they said, they’re disappointed by the level of innovation they value invirtually all product and service sectors.’ According to the survey, there is an untapped resource amongconsumers: a desire for both high-quality and innovative items. See http://www.accenture.com/xdoc/en/services/sba/sba_ideas_innovation.pdf. [5 ]Taichi Sakaiya, The Knowledge-Value Revolution, or, A History of the Future, trans George Fields andWilliam Marsh, Kodansha International, Tokyo, 1991 (p 60) [6 ]Jack Welch, ‘Jack, What I’ve Learned Leading a Great Company and Great People’, Warner Books, NewYork, 2001 (p 322) [7 ]Jeremy Rifkin, The Age of Access, Penguin Books, London, 2000 (p 92) [8 ]Neil Gross, Peter Coy and Otis Port, The technology paradox: how companies can thrive as prices dive,Business Week , 6 March 1995 (pp 76–77)

Page 45


http://www.accenture.com/xdoc/en/




FROM PRODUCT VALUE TO CUSTOMER VALUE

Customers are more knowledgeable and sophisticated. As the speed of product obsolescenceincreases, more customers choose services in preference to products. Customers are more selective. Inbusinesses, purchasing departments are energized with new management techniques, tools andapproaches such as supplier segmentation, supplier reduction, total cost of ownership and e-business.

In developed markets, over-supply and intense competition have made customers powerful. Ascustomers become more knowledgeable and sophisticated, some demand exceptional value. As I havealready pointed out, some customers demand exceptional value through solutions; others demandexceptional value through lower costs. Some suppliers have sensed and responded to their customers’needs: solution and low-cost business models are emerging.

Customers are more knowledgeable

After decades of product-led consumerism in developed markets, customers have become familiar withmany products and services at home and work. They have become more knowledgeable andsophisticated. The Internet provides a wealth of information and enables customers to make suppliercomparisons quickly, conveniently and cheaply, and has thereby transformed the buying process.Customers no longer rely on salespeople to supply the information they need to make informed buyingdecisions. Instead, many of them prefer to inform themselves.

Customers have more choice, are willing to consider different options and are less loyal to theirtraditional suppliers. Brand loyalty, while still important, appears to be falling. In fact, the percentage ofUS customers claiming to remain with familiar brands when buying products and services has droppeddramatically over the past 25 years. Even in the 60-plus age group, one of the most traditional andbrandloyal groups, loyalty has fallen by 20 per cent since 1975.[9]

Business buyers have also become more sophisticated. Enormous changes have taken place inpurchasing departments. These once quiet backwaters of many companies are attracting talentedemployees, encouraging innovative thinking and adopting new business practices such as ‘total cost ofownership’. Purchasing managers are more knowledgeable and willing to explore new ways for suppliersto provide exceptional value.

Don’t own the asset; get the service!

Many products become obsolete quickly. Many customers are asking themselves why they should buya product that is likely to be quickly outdated (often before they have even paid for it). Some customersare questioning whether they should be purchasing products at all and are turning instead to services.According to Jeremy Rifkin, we are entering an ‘age of access’ in which long-term product ownership isbeing replaced by short-term access to services. He says, ‘It is likely that for a growing number ofenterprises and consumers, the very idea of ownership will seem limited, even old-fashioned, twenty-fiveyears from now?To have, to hold, and to accumulate in an economy in which change itself is the onlyconstant makes less and less sense.’ [10 ]

Companies can improve shareholder value by moving costly capital assets from the balance sheet. Byleasing capital equipment, companies can improve their cash flow, particularly if their method of buyingand maintaining assets was inefficient. Externally provided services give the company flexibility andallow it to focus on core competencies – those things that it does best. For many companies, themanaging of information technology or catering services, for example, is a distraction from their corebusiness.

In an attempt to reduce overheads and to focus on core competencies, many companies have reducedtheir own support staff. Now they rely more on third parties for these support services. Some productshave become more complex. They often require integration and maintenance, and users must havespecialist training. Increasing product complexity has led to greater demand for integration services inmany industries such as IT. These services can be costly (making up a high proportion of the total cost)and are budgeted for in ‘total cost of ownership’ calculations.

Customers are more selective

Page 46



Not all suppliers are equal. Many customers believe suppliers should be treated according to the valuethey provide. As a result, the purchasing function is being transformed by supplier segmentation andreduction techniques. Supplier segmentation enables purchasing departments to invest their limited timeand resources in the most valuable suppliers: those that can create exceptional value.

In an attempt to get closer to selected customers, many procurement managers are rejectingcompetitive bidding. They view managing the tendering process as too time-consuming and expensive,particularly when this involves a large number of suppliers. Competitive bidding only keeps suppliers at adistance. It also reduces opportunities to learn about each other’s business, and there are feweropportunities for continuous improvement. A smaller number of suppliers can also reduce administrationcosts on both sides, and enables volume discounting through economies of scale.

Purchasing departments have also been quick to use Internet technologies to improve collaboration withkey suppliers. Older electronic data interchange (EDI) systems are being replaced with newer and moresophisticated forecasting and collaboration technologies. E-business is used to automate theprocurement of low-value commodities such as office stationery and other non-essential supplies.Specialist third-party procurement agencies have emerged whose job is to encourage more competition,commoditize the sale and get prices down even further.

Customers demand more value

In developed markets, over-supply and intense competition between suppliers have made the customermore powerful. More knowledge, sophistication and buying power have made customers moredemanding. Some customers demand exceptional value. New customer types are emerging. As we haveseen, one group demands exceptional value through solutions, the other through lower costs.

Customer value through solutions

The customers who demand exceptional value through solutions need external suppliers to help themunderstand their problems and opportunities for innovation and growth. They have neither the specialistknowledge nor the resources to do this themselves. Increasingly, solution creation and delivery areprovided through services. Solutions are services-led. Solution creation and delivery will be describedfurther throughout the remaining chapters of this book.

Customer value through lower costs

By contrast, customers demanding value through lower costs understand their own needs and are ableto choose and buy without a great deal of expert advice and guidance. They are knowledgeable enoughto do the research themselves, compare their options and shop around for the best deal. For manycustomers who value lower costs, salespeople and consultants are an unnecessary overhead. Cost isthe key factor in determining which suppliers they choose, so they have little brand loyalty.

The products and services they buy are widely available, undifferentiated and often perceived ascommodities. As such, performance matters less, because most products are considered ‘good enough’. Customers who value lower costs can be found in business and consumer markets where they cutacross many age and socioeconomic groups. Those baby boomers who saw their investments dwindlein the recent stock market decline, for example, are now looking to preserve what they have left. Theservices they buy in their old age will have to be provided efficiently and at low cost.

Business customers demanding value through low costs want the lowest total cost of ownership. Theirfocus is on cutting the cost of acquisition through low prices but they also look to make cost savingsfrom the procurement process and reduce the cost of maintaining the product or receiving the serviceover time. They look for opportunities to eliminate inefficiencies and wastage from distribution processesand for innovations in low-cost product support and service delivery.

The low-cost customer has led to transformation in the personal computer (PC) industry. During the1980s, when PCs were new and unfamiliar, consumers valued the information and advice provided by thesalesperson. As the PC became commoditized during the 1990s, low-cost customers emerged. Today,consumers and small business customers might research the latest products on the Internet, read PCmagazines or ask friends for advice on which computer to buy. They are able to make comparisonsbased on many factors, including financing, available software, Internet time and technical support.

Page 47



Payment can be made online and the PC delivered directly (or taken home from the store).

A similar trend has emerged in business-to-business sales. The customer does the research, comparesthe options, and acquires and owns the product at the lowest cost (and with greatest convenience).Purchasing professionals in larger companies might consult the Internet to research their buying optionsand often have access to reports from independent analysts. They meet with a representative from thesupplier to discuss prices and negotiate volume discounts. They explore options for ordering anddelivery. After factoring in all costs, they select a vendor. Over time, employees order the products andthey are delivered, installed and supported by the supplier (or a third party). The relationship with thesupplier often then continues through electronic means such as Web sites.

Emergence of the low-cost business model

How can suppliers succeed with customers demanding lower costs? Some suppliers try to differentiatetheir products by adding features and functions. Others try to confuse customers by making it hard forthem to make like-for-like comparisons – for example, by customized pricing (offering special discountson standard offerings). Product differentiation often fails when targeted at customers who value lowercosts and consider most products ‘good enough’. Customers demanding lower costs tend to focus onthe core product, not the extras, which too often just add cost and complexity to both parties.

Michael Porter perceives that ‘a firm’s differentiation stems from how its value chain relates to its buyer’schain?this derives fundamentally from creating value for the buyer through a firm’s impact on the buyer’svalue chain. Value is created when a firm creates competitive advantage for its buyer – lowers its buyer’scost or raises its buyer’s performance.’ [11 ]To succeed with customers who value lower costs, you mustgive them what they want: lower costs and less inconvenience.

Suppliers must provide a lower-cost (and easier) buying experience. The Internet and e-business offernew opportunities to re-engineer costly and complex business processes. The Internet allows customersto research, explore buying options, search for the best deals and make simple and convenientpurchases. Companies using the Internet to automate outdated sales and distribution processes haveoften been disappointed. They have not been able to take out enough cost and complexity. Newtechnologies such as the Internet provide opportunities to do things differently.

In highly competitive and commoditized markets, it is not good enough to be low cost; you must belowest cost. A fundamental transformation of sales and distribution is required to achieve this: it’s morerevolution than evolution. New technologies such as the Internet are key enablers to such businesstransformation. But it doesn’t stop there. If competitive advantage is to be sustained, supportingbusiness functions such as supply chain management must then be transformed to lower costs andincrease customer value. Working from the customer backwards, the extended enterprise (includingsuppliers and business partners) must be transformed and aligned to create and deliver lowcostcustomer value.

Over-supply and standardization on parts led to the commoditization of PCs. Customers became morefamiliar with the technology and required less expert support when making a purchase – many becamelow-cost customers. Until the early 1990s, most manufacturers sold PCs to consumers through retailstores and to businesses through distributors and field sales forces. During the 1990s, new models wereintroduced based on direct sales by telephone. Later, the Internet emerged as an important low-costchannel.

Most PC manufacturers have moved to low-cost business models. They have streamlined their supplychains, outsourced non-core activities (such as parts manufacturing) to low-cost manufacturers andintroduced build-to-order assembly processes. By applying the same low-cost thinking to businessoperations further upstream as had already been applied to sales and distribution, they have furtherreduced costs and improved customer service. Build-to-order, for example, means that customers canpersonalize PCs to their individual needs (mass customization). Build-to-order has reduced inventorycosts: cost savings can be passed on to customers in the form of lower prices. The changes that took place in the PC market during the 1990s were transformational. The field salesforce was replaced with a direct sales model enabled by technology (except for the largest customers).Networks of suppliers and business partners are coordinated to provide the product and supportingservices. Extensive use is made of partnerships and outsourcing arrangements for all activities

Page 48



considered non-core. A more detailed analysis of business partner networks and the emerging networkeconomy will be provided in Chapter 15.

The traditional field sales force was not set up to serve customers who value lower costs. It wasconceived when products could be differentiated in terms of features and functions and demand washigh, during the era of product-led consumerism. In many industries the traditional sales force is nolonger effective. Low-cost customers do not want product information; they want salespeople to makethe buying process simpler, cheaper and more efficient. Selling becomes less about explaining featuresand functions and more about facilitating the buying process. In the future, salespeople (inbusiness-to-business sales) will become more consultative, focussing on the benefits of the buyingprocess rather than the product.

However, many senior managers faced with increasingly commoditized products and services areunwilling to make the changes needed. Reducing the size of the sales force and outsourcing non-coreactivities to low-cost service providers would be viewed as failure. Many choose to focus instead onmaking marginal improvements in existing operations and productivity. They exhort the sales force tosell harder and reduce salaries and benefits to keep costs down. Morale soon starts to suffer. Anyrecovery tends to be short-lived if underlying change is taking place in the industry.

[9]David Lipke, Pledge of allegiance, American Demographics, November 2000 (pp 40–41) [10 ]Jeremy Rifkin, The Age of Access, Penguin Books, London, 2000 (p 6) [11 ]Michael Porter, Competitive Advantage, Macmillan, Basingstoke, 1985 (p 52)

Page 49




SUMMARY

If change is taking place in your industry – products are becoming commoditized and customersdemanding lower costs – you may be facing an opportunity to create exceptional customer value. Thisrequires more than best-practice benchmarking, cost-reduction initiatives and one-off productivityimprovements. It may be time to redefine your industry: to create a new low-cost business design andgo about the business of industry transformation.

In this chapter I outlined some of the forces that are shaping business in the 21st century. I explainedwhy competition has increased and how many products and services have become commoditized inmany industries. I described how products are changing, in that many are becoming devices for providingservices. I explained that many customers have become more knowledgeable, sophisticated andpowerful. Many choose services over products. I argued that some customers demand exceptional value – some through solutions, others through lower costs, and explained that new low-cost business modelsare emerging. Chapter 4 explains why many customers are choosing services over products. I explore why moremanufacturers are introducing (or planning to introduce) services. I describe how services tend to growout of products, and look at the problems many companies face when introducing services. I explain whysome customers demand solutions that are more than standard services – although solutions areservicesled. I show how new solutions business models are emerging.

Page 50




NOTES 1. Steve Hamm, Steve Rosenbush and Cliff Edwards, Tech comes out swinging [Online], http://www.businessweek.com [accessed 23 June 2003] 2. Nicholas G Carr, ‘IT doesn’t matter’, Harvard Business Review, May 2003 (pp 3–10) 3. Ralph Szygenda, Group Vice President and Chief Information Officer at General Motors, AutoEngineering International, 2002 4. According to a recent study published by Accenture (Stimulating Customer Demand throughMeaningful Innovation, November 2002), if consumers believe that a product will both be innovative andimprove their quality of life, 70 per cent of them are willing to pay more. The report concluded that ‘Manyconsumers aren’t buying – or aren’t buying more – because they’re convinced that few companies havegiven them a compelling reason to do so. In short, they said, they’re disappointed by the level ofinnovation they value in virtually all product and service sectors.’ According to the survey, there is anuntapped resource among consumers: a desire for both high-quality and innovative items. See http://www.accenture.com/xdoc/en/ services/sba/sba_ideas_innovation.pdf. 5. Taichi Sakaiya, The Knowledge-Value Revolution, or, A History of the Future, trans George Fields andWilliam Marsh, Kodansha International, Tokyo, 1991 (p 60) 6. Jack Welch, ‘Jack, What I’ve Learned Leading a Great Company and Great People’, Warner Books,New York, 2001 (p 322) 7. Jeremy Rifkin, The Age of Access, Penguin Books, London, 2000 (p 92) 8. Neil Gross, Peter Coy and Otis Port, The technology paradox: how companies can thrive as pricesdive, Business Week , 6 March 1995 (pp 76–77) 9. David Lipke, Pledge of allegiance, American Demographics, November 2000 (pp 40–41) 10. Jeremy Rifkin, The Age of Access, Penguin Books, London, 2000 (p 6) 11. Michael Porter, Competitive Advantage, Macmillan, Basingstoke, 1985 (p 52)

Page 51








Chapter 4: The Solutions Business Model Mark Cerasale

INTRODUCTION

Powerful forces such as globalization, deregulation and easier access to capital shaped business in the1980s and 1990s. At the same time, new management approaches, cheaper and better informationtechnology (IT) and the Internet improved productivity, increased competition and caused over-supply.Today, customers and shareholders are more demanding, competition is tough and product margins areeroding in many industries. Many products are commoditized, and business models are easily imitated.Despite this, there are many remaining opportunities for innovation and growth. Business leaderstransform their companies and their industries with new value-creating business models. Somemanufacturers are introducing services, which are often more profitable than products. Why buy theasset when you can get the service? Customers are more powerful, knowledgeable and discerning.Some customers demand exceptional value through lower costs, others through solutions. Newbusiness models will create exceptional customer value by meeting one or other of these two demands.

Increasing customer demand for services

Many customers are beginning to question whether they need to own some products at all. Customersbuy things for the value they receive from them: what they do, not what they are. That value is often bestprovided as a service. Robert B. Shapiro, chairman and CEO of Monsanto, gave an example ofMonsanto’s line of nylon fibre that is used to make carpets: ‘Nobody really wants to own carpet?theyjust want to walk on it?What would happen if Monsanto or the carpet manufacturer owned that carpetand promised to come in and remove it when it required replacing?’ He went on to say that his companyis ‘starting to look at all our products and ask, what is it people really need to buy? Do they need thestuff or just its function? What would be the economic impact of our selling a carpet service instead of acarpet?’ [1 ] In 1990, C K Prahalad and Gary Hamel published a landmark article in the Harvard Business Reviewentitled ‘The core competence of the corporation’. [2 ]They advocated a focus on learning rather thanphysical assets, and suggested that companies should exit activities that do not use corecompetencies. Core competencies are the things companies do best. They are bundles of skills andtechnologies that enable a company to provide a particular benefit to its customers, rather than strategicbusiness units, which are often defined by specific product-markets.

Core competency thinking has led many companies to outsource activities and whole businessprocesses. Focusing on core competencies encourages companies to identify and exploit what they dobest and enables resources to be focused on areas of value and growth. Organizations outsource manyservices today from support functions such as catering, cleaning and data processing to processes suchas supply chain management and procurement. Non-core competence activities are typically retainedonly if external third parties, for political, economic or technological reasons, cannot provide them.

[1 ]Joan Magretta, Growth through global sustainability: an interview with Monsanto’s CEO, Robert B. Shapiro,Harvard Business Review, January–February 1997 (p 83) [2 ]Gary Hamel and C K Prahalad, The core competence of the corporation, Harvard Business Review, May–June 1990 (pp 79–90)

Page 52



Page 53




FROM PRODUCTS TO SERVICES

For much of the 20th century, manufacturing was the engine of growth in most economies. Under-supplymade the product largely a scarce resource. Many goods were bought as quickly as they could be madeand product margins were sufficiently high to sustain business growth. The sales force was the primechannel for large business-to-business sales. Elsewhere, risk, cost and the responsibility for sales anddistribution were transferred to intermediaries such as retailers and distributors. Manufacturers focusedprimarily on the product and the processes involved in production. Operational efficiencies andproductivity improvements were achieved in design, engineering, manufacturing and supply chainmanagement. During the era of product-led consumerism, manufacturers were product-led.

Today’s business environment is very different. Many customers are choosing to use services ratherthan to own products. Faced with intense competition, increasing product commoditization and profitmargin erosion, many manufacturers are basing their strategies on services. Two of the world’s largestmanufacturers, General Electric (GE) and IBM, adopted service strategies during the 1990s. Shortlybefore retiring in 2002, Lou Gerstner, then chairman and CEO of IBM, wrote, ‘Our bet was this: over thenext decade, customers would increasingly value companies that could provide solutions – solutionsthat integrated technology from various suppliers and, more important, integrated technology into theprocesses of an enterprise?services-led, not technology-led.’ [3 ]

How services grow out of products

Advances in information and communications technology are changing products into devices fordelivering services. The cost of the technology continues to fall. Products such as industrial machineryand office equipment can include IT, integrated and connected across communication networks such asthe Internet. Telephone answering machines, for example, were once hardware connected to atelephone. Today, networks often provide telephone answering services. The telephone has become adevice for providing a service.

Manufacturers often introduce services for two reasons: to differentiate their products through service ‘bundling’ and to exploit new opportunities for growth. Services tend to grow out of products andcapabilities that the manufacturer already has. The transformation to a services-led business is usuallyevolutionary: it takes place over a long period (even when managed as a series of ‘Big Bang’transformation programmes). In the short term, manufacturers rarely abandon their existing customers,markets, industries and core competencies. Most do not want to venture too far from familiar territory inthe short term. Many find that introducing services is a journey. In running terms, it’s a marathon, not asprint.

Financial services

Manufacturers often provide financial services (such as loans) to their distributors. This practice isinvaluable to distributors holding large volumes of high-value stock such as automobiles. Manufacturershave also provided financial services to end-consumers for many years. Indeed, the concept waspioneered by agricultural equipment manufacturers in the United States early in the 20th century and ledto a transformation of farming industries. Large manufacturers like carmakers can borrow money on theopen market at low rates. Many have entered the financial services market with products such as creditcards, loans and mortgages. General Motors and Ford are today among the largest financial servicesproviders in the world.

Training services

Some manufactured goods such as industrial equipment and high-technology products can be complexand require user training. In the past, training was often given free, with costs absorbed into healthyproduct margins. Product margins have decreased and made this practice less sustainable. Today,training is usually priced separately. Technology such as multimedia and the Internet enables training tobe delivered at lower cost and greater convenience. The student can choose when, where and at whatpace to receive instruction. Some manufacturers have extended the scope of training services to includeother manufacturers’ products.

Page 54



Education services

Since the first factories of the Industrial Revolution, most companies have used a hierarchicalmanagement structure for decision-making and implementation. Activities were broken down into theirconstituent tasks, which were then organized for maximum operational efficiency. Blue-collar workerswere trained to perform repetitive tasks. Today’s knowledge workers perform fewer routine tasks andactivities. Knowledge workers require less prescription, supervision and instruction about their roles.However, they need to be educated to make decisions for themselves. Knowledge workers require lesstraining but more education. The ‘learning enterprise’, as advocated by Prahalad and Hamel in their workon core competencies, is made up of ‘learning employees’. Many manufacturers are moving intoeducation services by extending their existing training capabilities and infrastructure. IBM’s LearningServices division, for example, offers more than product user training. It has introduced a curriculum ofmanagement and process skills education.

User support services

Some products such as large industrial machinery or computer software are complex enough to requireconstant upgrades and user support. While future generations of products may be self-managing andself-healing, today many need support provided by people. Manufacturers use new technologies such asthe Internet to provide Q&A Web sites and 24/7 help desks to extend their range of support services,often including other manufacturers’ products.

Maintenance services

Many companies invested heavily in design, engineering and manufacturing quality management duringthe 1980s and 1990s. Many products today are extremely reliable and ‘good enough’ for most purposes.They require little maintenance. Indeed, cheaper commoditized products are often thrown away when aproblem occurs. By contrast, expensive products such as brain scanners are complex enough to requireregular maintenance. When profit margins were high, manufacturers often gave maintenance free ofcharge for a period, to differentiate their core product. Today, as margins on many products have eroded,maintenance is often charged separately.

Many customers regard support services as ‘non-core’ and will outsource them when possible.Technologies such as the Internet allow many products to be monitored, managed and maintainedremotely. Maintenance services enable manufacturers to generate revenues from their installed productsand can be the basis of enduring customer relationships. Jack Welch once noted, ‘I can expand a lotfaster by upgrading or maintaining the equipment I have installed than by trying to sell more units.’ GE’simproved financial results during that time confirmed that view. He reported that product-related serviceswere growing at ‘two or three times the rate of products themselves’. [4 ]

Business continuity services

Threat of terrorist attack, natural disaster and the loss of critical operations through systems orproduction-line failure have all increased demand for business continuity services. The consequentialcosts caused by the loss of an engine production line for just a few hours, for example, can run tomillions of dollars. Manufacturers often introduce business continuity services that go beyond productrepairs and maintenance to include expert advice and access to spare capacity. New technologiesenable remote monitoring, so faults can be predicted before they occur. Back-up services can beprovided remotely through networks such as the Internet. When tangible parts must be replaced, efficientdistribution and logistics systems allow spare parts to be kept off-site and provided just in time.

Outsourcing services

The market for facilities management and outsourcing services has grown as more customers focus oncore competencies and exit noncore activities. Companies buy many services, ranging from the basicsuch as catering and cleaning, to the more complex such as supply chain management. With facilitiesmanagement services, the customer often keeps ownership of the asset, eg industrial machinery. Withoutsourcing, the customer’s ownership of the asset often passes to the supplier. Many manufacturersuse the skills and knowledge they develop in providing maintenance and business continuity services toenter into outsourcing contracts.

Page 55



Information technologies such as the Internet have lowered interaction costs and enabled services to becentralized and provided at lower cost. It is easier and cheaper to outsource services; technology israrely a barrier. Perhaps the biggest inhibitors to outsourcing are the need for business change andissues relating to the transfer of employees to external suppliers. Given such challenges, somecompanies choose to in-source (ie give an internal department the responsibility for service provision)rather than outsource, achieving some of the same benefits through centralized shared service centres.This approach also allows skills to be retained in-house – although that may not be desirable if thoseskills are considered ‘non-core’.

From the customer’s perspective, one benefit of outsourcing is lower costs through supplier economiesof scale. The supplier consolidates capital investment, reduces operating costs and provides the servicemore efficiently using expert knowledge. These benefits can be passed on to customers in the form oflower prices and better service. Outsourcing also allows the customer access to skills, knowledge andexpertise that might not be widely available. Outsourcing creates opportunities for customers to reducecosts and extract more value from suppliers.

Outsourcing can allow customers to remove assets from the balance sheet, avoiding depreciationcharges on costly assets. From the outsourcing supplier’s perspective, outsourcing can require majorinvestment and access to substantial capital in the early days. Often the customer’s assets have to beacquired at the outset of the contract. This makes larger deals initially loss-making, and profitable onlyafter several years. Outsourcing contracts require careful management, and continuous improvements inservice delivery may be required to sustain profitability.

From the supplier’s perspective, outsourcing agreements reduce the revenue peaks and troughs oftenevident in a product business. In highly competitive markets, where brand loyalty is low and competitorsare gaining market share, outsourcing can establish strong customer relationships that excludecompetitors. The closeness of the outsourced relationship allows the supplier to identify furtheropportunities to create value – by selling additional products and services.

Outsourcing gives suppliers control of product selection and so can reduce the competitive threat.Customer value has shifted from the product to the service. If value is created through the service (andservice levels are achieved or exceeded), the customer has little interest in which products are beingused. Products are just devices to enable the service and are usually not selected by the customer.

Change today is discontinuous, making planning difficult. Many companies want to turn their fixed costsinto variable costs. Fluctuating demand creates inefficiencies for suppliers and customers. Whendemand is low, companies have excess capacity. When demand is high, they often do not have enough.Many outsourcing contracts today are agreed over a fixed period of time to a fixed service level at a fixedprice. More customers want greater flexibility. Many want to pay for the consumption of services in thesame way that they pay for utilities such as gas or electricity.

Innovations in technology and operating models allow suppliers to provide services that are more flexible,variable and adaptive. New adaptive and ‘on demand’ business models are emerging in the IT industry.Massive sums are invested to make flexible IT services more widely available. However, e-business andIT ‘on demand’ involve more than sophisticated pricing agreements: technology must support fluctuatingusage, and business processes must be transformed and integrated.

Flexible outsourcing services are not exclusive to the information technology industry. Rolls-Royce wasone of the first companies to pioneer a ‘power by the hour’ service in the aerospace industry.Traditionally, airlines purchased engines and took responsibility for maintenance and stocking spareparts. With ‘power by the hour’, Rolls-Royce keeps both ownership and the maintenance responsibilitiesfor its engines after they are installed on the aeroplanes. This arrangement is similar to a rentalarrangement. The airline pays Rolls-Royce for every hour the engine runs.

Integration services

While some products have become commoditized, others have become more complex. High-technologyproducts often need to be integrated with each other through systems and networks. Competition hasincreased the number and variety of products available. Often they are not designed to work together;they are incompatible. The absence of standards raises the cost and complexity of integrating products

Page 56



from many suppliers. However, customers demand greater compatibility and standardization. Incompetitive markets, achieving consensus between manufacturers on standards is challenging.Manufacturers resist pressure to standardize, unless their technology is to become the standard!Standardization may lead to commoditization, which cuts margins and allows customers to substitutecheaper products. In the IT industry, numerous attempts have been made at standardizing, with onlylimited success.

Customers do not have the skills, knowledge or expertise to integrate many complex products. Forexample, fewer companies outside the IT industry consider information technology integration a corecompetency, so they retain few skills in this area. Moreover, integration skills are often specialist andtherefore in short supply. This makes them expensive. However, as the need for products to be ‘connected’ increases, the demand for integration services is growing significantly in many industries.Manufacturers with experience in installing, implementing and integrating their own equipment canextend their capabilities to include other manufacturers’ products. Many, particularly in the IT industry,have introduced integration services.

Business consulting services Most challenges of line-of-business or functional senior managers relate to the processes they areresponsible for. A process is any linked group of tasks carried out by several groups or functions thattogether create customer value. Michael Hammer and James Champy were among the first to articulatethe benefits of taking a process approach to improving business performance. In their book Reengineering the Corporation, [5 ]they outline the inefficiencies often inherent within and betweenbusiness processes.

For the customer, the problem of integration also extends to processes. Customers require integration ofproducts with products, products into business processes and processes with other processes. Indeed,the challenge may be to re-engineer a process or abandon it altogether – which is often made possibleby using new technologies such as the Internet. So it is increasingly important for suppliers to haveprocess knowledge; product knowledge is less valuable.

As a first step into consulting, manufacturers often redeploy existing staff into consulting roles. Theyoften know a lot about how their own company operates – their own processes and organization – andhave experience in fixing their own problems. Manufacturers help customers achieve organizational andprocess integration, reengineering and address transformation challenges in the course of providing themwith products. Many manufacturers have skills such as project management that are not explicitlyrecognized. Such skills, knowledge and capabilities may form the basis of consulting services. Somecompanies look outside their own organizations to fill capability gaps – hiring skilled individuals andacquiring consulting firms.

Suppliers introduce consulting services because they are profitable. Specialist technical knowledge,organizational skills or process reengineering skills are not widely available and can be charged at apremium. Business consulting services can form the basis of enduring customer relationships. If themanufacturer is able to create value, the customer will invest time and other resources to improve therelationship. Like outsourcing, consulting allows suppliers to identify further opportunities to createvalue.

Consulting can give the manufacturer early sight of further opportunities. This allows the manufacturer toprepare an offer in advance of competitors. However, the supplier has a duty of care to act in thecustomer’s best interests. Consulting requires trust. Expert advice should not be influenced byproprietary products and services (if they are not right for the customer). When IBM introduced businessconsulting services, it recognized the need to remain product-agnostic. Lou Gerstner, ex-IBM chairmanand CEO, pointed out that ‘the services unit would need to be able to recommend the products ofMicrosoft, HP, Sun and all other major IBM competitors if that, in fact, was the best solution for thecustomer. Of course, we’d have to maintain and service these products as well.’ [6 ]

Problems with services

Introducing services may not be a panacea for all manufacturing companies. Incumbent service providersmay have in-depth knowledge of a customer or an industry, unique capabilities developed over manyyears and access to specialist skills that are in short supply. Incumbents can have considerablegoodwill and extensive customer relationships that are difficult to supplant.

Page 57



Introducing services is a marathon, not a sprint. Ask any executive in a services company and they willtell you that competition is fierce in service industries too. Globalization and deregulation have increasedcompetition and have caused over-capacity and service commoditization in many areas. Running aservices business is not easy. Services should be higher margin than products, though if they are poorlymanaged, losses often arise. Labour-based businesses require new financial and management systems.Combining a service business with an asset-based business can be particularly challenging. A moredetailed analysis of business design considerations is provided in Chapter 15.

[3 ]Louis Gerstner, Who Says Elephants Can’t Dance?, HarperCollins, London, 2002 (p 123) [4 ]Claudia H Deutsch, Services becoming the goods in industry: not enough profit in making things, New YorkTimes, 7 January 1997 (p 4) [5 ]For more information on process re-engineering, see Michael Hammer and James Champy, Reengineeringthe Corporation, Nicholas Brealey Publishing, London, 2001 [6 ]Louis Gerstner, Who Says Elephants Can’t Dance? (p 130)

Page 58




FROM SERVICES TO SOLUTIONS

Customers will invest resources to build relationships only with those suppliers that are capable ofcreating and delivering exceptional value.

Customers are more knowledgeable

Enormous changes have taken place in purchasing departments. Many have become centres ofexcellence, with talented employees and new working practices. Purchasing managers are moreknowledgeable and innovative. They constantly seek new ways to work with suppliers to create value.They use new management techniques and approaches such as ‘total cost of ownership’, suppliersegmentation and supplier reduction.

Customers are more selective

Not all suppliers are equal. Many customers treat suppliers according to the value they provide.Purchasing managers apply supplier segmentation and reduction techniques to target and identifysuppliers capable of creating exceptional value. ‘Total cost of ownership’ techniques (often including thecost of complementary products and services) enable purchasing managers to better understand valuepropositions. Many customers are willing to invest time and other resources with the most valuablesuppliers to improve mutual understanding. Suppliers unable to create exceptional value are excluded.

When price is not the main consideration, many purchasing professionals reject competitive bidding.They view the tendering process as too time-consuming and expensive. Competitive bidding can keepvalue added suppliers at a distance. It can also reduce opportunities for mutual understanding andcontinuous improvement. From the customer’s perspective, supplier segmentation and reduction improvethe targeting of scarce resources, create economies of scale and reduce administration costs (on bothsides).

From production to distribution Signs of the emergence of customer-led consumerism have been around for many years. In a landmarkarticle in the Harvard Business Review in 1960, entitled ‘Marketing myopia’, [7 ]Theodore Levitt arguedthat companies were too concerned with the products they produced and not concerned enough with thecustomers they served. He argued that businesses should plan from the customer backwards ratherthan from production forwards. In many markets, the customer, not the product or service, is the scarceresource. Suppliers are forced to create greater value for a smaller number of customers.

From the supplier’s perspective, becoming customer-led requires radical business transformation. Duringthe era of product-led consumerism, business designs were created to maximize operating efficiencies.Management resources were focused on production. Today, those resources are focused on distribution.To become customer-led, suppliers must transform their businesses. Nowhere is the need fortransformation more evident than in the sales and distribution functions (although ultimately change mustoccur throughout the business). From the supplier’s perspective, sales and distribution are the functionsclosest to the customer and, in many companies, have remained unchanged for decades.

Mass customization of services

Product mass customization was widely introduced in the final decades of the 20th century. Thisallowed products to be tailored to customers’ individual needs and represented a paradigm shift for manymanufacturers. Companies that once saw themselves as manufacturing companies with distributioncapabilities began to see themselves as distribution companies with manufacturing capabilities. Focusshifted from production to distribution, with the production process becoming a function of sales andmarketing. Mass customization of products set a precedent. Customers now require the same level oftailoring and customization from service providers.

[7 ]Theodore Levitt, Marketing myopia, Harvard Business Review, 38, July–August 1960 (pp 45–56)

Page 59



Page 60




CUSTOMER VALUE THROUGH SOLUTIONS

Services do not create exceptional customer value; they deliver it. Products can deliver customer valuetoo. Services create exceptional value when they are customized to satisfy a customer’s needs.Exceptional value is created for a customer when a supplier combines services and products in waysthat address customers’ problems or help customers exploit opportunities for innovation and growth.Solutions create and deliver customer value. Solutions are services-led.

According to Michael Hammer,

In the customer economy?you must go beyond merely giving them [customers] your products andservices; you need to help them solve the problems that motivated them to ask for your products andservices in the first place?It goes beyond simplifying your customers’ interactions with you to deliveringsolutions to your customers’ problems, of which your products and services in their native forms are butsmall pieces. [8 ]

He goes on to assert:

When products are well-differentiated, customers may be willing to pick and choose from among thebest ones and endure the trouble of integrating them. But in a world of commoditized products andpowerful customers, the key to success lies in turning your focus away from yourself and your productsand toward your customers and the solutions they seek. [9 ]

Solution customers

For solution customers, the specifications of the product or service are less important than theireconomics. Value resides in the process, not the product. Value is defined in terms of how the productis used, not its features and functions (what it does). As a result, responsibility for purchasing decisionsmoves from technical specialists to senior administrators and business executives. Senior executivesare responsible for the ‘bigger picture’ of systems, processes and activities in which the product orservice is used.

Neil Rackham describes them as extrinsic value customers:

These customers focus largely or exclusively on the benefits or extrinsic elements of the value equation.For them, value is not intrinsic to the product itself but lies in how the product is used. Extrinsic valuecustomers are interested in solutions and applications?They put a premium on advice and help. Theyexpect sales people to give them new understanding of needs and options. They will willingly invest time,effort and cost in working with sales people to create customized solutions. [10 ]

This is confirmed by Dennis Courtney, chief information officer at Dunlop Tire Corporation:

The products that a supplier offers are only a small part of the equation. Generally we could get what weneed from several places, so it’s not unique. These suppliers who try to sell the product – who try toshow us their stuff is better – are missing the point. What we’re looking for goes beyond the product. We’re looking for business understanding, we’re looking for whether they can adapt to our special needs orwhether they can advise and help us. We want their sales people to add something worthwhile on theirown account. [11 ]

Here is an example of the kind of solution we are considering. The Manufacturing Vice President of a

small US company, Company X, that produces specialist high-tech components calls in a trustedsupplier to discuss a problem that she just can’t figure out. Despite many attempts to close the gap,one of Company X’s manufacturing sites is unable to achieve the same productivity levels as its maincompetitor, based in Japan. The Manufacturing Vice President has worked successfully for many yearswith one supplier in particular. She values his advice and his company’s ability to solve Company X’sproblems. Company X runs a tight ship, so there aren’t many internal resources available to throw at theproblem. The customer has faith in the supplier’s ability to understand her issues, explore the optionsand create the right solution.

Page 61



The supplier suggests starting with some analysis to get to the bottom of the problem. Manufacturingprocess consultants from the supplier’s business consulting team perform the study. They discover thatthe productivity problem is caused in the final stages of the manufacturing process: when the goods arepacked by hand. After consideration of the options with the customer and consultation with numerousCompany X vice presidents, the consultants recommend either outsourcing the packing of thecomponents to a third party (specialists in that area) or installing new packing equipment. Both wouldinvolve making changes to the day-to-day running of the business – in particular, its processes.

The Manufacturing Vice President is not keen on outsourcing the packing activities entirely. At the sametime, she had not budgeted for the major capital investment that would be involved in installing newequipment so early in the financial year. The supplier proposes an innovative solution. The supplier’sconsultants will re-engineer the packing process, and the supplier’s integration specialists will deliverand install the new equipment. Company X’s employees will operate the machinery but it will besupported and maintained by the supplier. Company X will not buy the machinery. Instead, a charge willbe made every time a component is packed. No other supplier offers such a service. The solution iscreated and delivered.

Solution creation and delivery Solution creation and delivery aims to create exceptional customer value and is best provided on afoundation of mutual trust and understanding between customer and supplier. Solution creation anddelivery is different from product marketing, selling and distribution. Traditional approaches tend to pushproducts into the market. That may have worked well when demand was high but is often less affectivenow that the customer is a scarce resource. Solutions business models are emerging. Capabilities andenablers often found in companies providing business solutions are presented in Figure 4.1.

Figure 4.1: Companies providing business solutions: capabilities and enablers

People performing many roles are involved in creating and delivering solutions. Solution marketers mustfocus less on product value and more on industry value and more complex offerings. Solutionsalespeople must help customers understand their problems and opportunities for growth and innovation.To do this, solution salespeople must get to know their customers at least as well as their customersknow themselves. Often, opportunities to create value must be discovered and made explicit; they arenot always obvious. Solution salespeople help the customer to understand and evaluate the optionsavailable even if that means choosing to work in partnerships or to use competing products. Solutionsalespeople and consultants must also become adept at helping customers with the execution andmanagement of change. This may require implementing a new system, re-engineering processes,retraining employees or installing new plant in a factory.

The nature of service delivery is changing. While there are some very real differences between productsand services, services are often defined, packaged, sold and delivered as products – in many ways,much like durable goods. New processes, management techniques, tools and pricing models allowmany services to be delivered in the form of long-term relationships, such as on demand in the ITindustry. When a long-term service arrangement, such as outsourcing, has been established, solutiondelivery and operations specialists must remain focused on innovation and creating further customervalue if the relationship is to endure.

Solutions are not for everyone

Page 62



The opportunity to introduce solutions may be great in many industries, but solutions are not foreveryone. Juliet Johansson, Chandru Krishnamurthy and Henry Schlissberg strike a note of caution,suggesting that too many companies may enter the solutions market and fail, for one of three reasons:

Some believe they are selling solutions when they are just bundling products thatcreate little value when offered together. They then find it hard to recover theextra costs of providing the products as solutions.

Some underestimate the difficulty of selling solutions. They cost more todevelop, have longer sales cycles and require deep knowledge of the customers’businesses.

Many sell solutions just like products. They do not understand the need torethink their sales approach. [12 ]

The key to success with solutions is an understanding of customer needs – today and tomorrow.Strategy and execution are required in equal amounts. Introducing solutions (or transforming entirely intoa solutions enterprise) is a long and challenging journey, but for many it is a journey well worth making.According to Johansson and colleagues,

When a company offers true solutions, its investment can pay off in several ways. Besides generatinghigher margins for itself and additional value for customers, it might find that it can build longer-lastingand more profitable relationships with them. Sometimes solutions open doors to new markets and evenreduce or eliminate competition, in effect decommoditizing sales. [13 ]

Emergence of low-cost business models

As we have seen, while some customers value solutions, others value lower costs. Customersdemanding value through lower costs understand their own needs and are able to choose and buywithout a great deal of expert advice and guidance. They are knowledgeable enough to do the researchthemselves, compare their options and shop around for the best deal. Salespeople and consultants areviewed as an unnecessary overhead; cost is the key factor in determining which suppliers they choose.The products and services they buy are widely available, undifferentiated and often perceived ascommodities. As such, performance matters less.

Business customers who want value through low costs want the lowest total cost of ownership. Theirfocus is on cutting the cost of acquisition through low prices, but they also want cost savings from theprocurement process and to cut the cost of maintaining the product or receiving the service over time.They look for opportunities to eliminate inefficiencies and wastage from distribution processes and forinnovations in low-cost product support and service delivery. Some suppliers, such as PC manufacturers, are transforming their companies and their industries tosatisfy the needs of customers who value lower costs. Low-cost business models are emerging in manyindustries. A more comprehensive analysis of the commoditization of products, the transformation ofmany products into services and the emergence of low-cost business models was provided in Chapter 3.

[8 ]Michael Hammer, The Agenda: What Every Business Must Do to Dominate the Decade, Random HouseBusiness Books, 2002 (p 38) [9 ]Michael Hammer, The Agenda (p 39) [10 ]Neil Rackham, Rethinking the Sales Force, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1998 (p 17) [11 ]Neil Rackham, Rethinking the Sales Force (p 11) [12 ]Juliet Johansson, Chandru Krishnamurthy and Henry Schlissberg, Solving the solutions problem, McKinseyQuarterly, no 6696, 2003 (pp 117–18) [13 ]Juliet Johansson et al., Solving the solutions problem (pp 117–18)

Page 63



Page 64




SUMMARY

In this chapter I explained why many customers are choosing services over products. I observed thatmore companies, particularly manufacturers, are introducing (or planning to introduce) services, anddescribed how services tend to grow out of products. I explained that there are problems with introducingservices: many have become commoditized. I argued that customers are more powerful, knowledgeableand selective. They choose to work with suppliers who can create exceptional customer value. Somecustomers want exceptional value in the form of lower costs; others want solutions. New solutionsbusiness models are emerging. Many companies, in both manufacturing and service industries, are attempting to transform theircompanies and their industries with a solutions strategy. Some companies are cautious or unable tochange quickly; they plan to introduce solutions over time with an evolutionary approach. Othercompanies plan to reinvent themselves through more ambitious transformation, more akin to revolution.Examples of how industries and companies are transforming themselves with solutions will be providedin Chapter 6. A number of companies, such as IBM, are transforming themselves to satisfy the needs of bothemerging customer types – by lowering costs and introducing solutions. Transformation in the ITindustry and IBM’s introduction of services and solutions will be described in Chapter 5. Several of theremaining chapters in this book provide insight into key solution capabilities and business designs.

Page 65




NOTES 1. Joan Magretta, Growth through global sustainability: an interview with Monsanto’s CEO, Robert B.Shapiro, Harvard Business Review, January–February 1997 (p 83) 2. Gary Hamel and C K Prahalad, The core competence of the corporation, Harvard Business Review,May–June 1990 (pp 79–90) 3. Louis Gerstner, Who Says Elephants Can’t Dance?, HarperCollins, London, 2002 (p 123) 4. Claudia H Deutsch, Services becoming the goods in industry: not enough profit in making things, NewYork Times, 7 January 1997 (p 4) 5. For more information on process re-engineering, see Michael Hammer and James Champy, Reengineering the Corporation, Nicholas Brealey Publishing, London, 2001 6. Louis Gerstner, Who Says Elephants Can’t Dance? (p 130) 7. Theodore Levitt, Marketing myopia, Harvard Business Review, 38, July–August 1960 (pp 45–56) 8. Michael Hammer, The Agenda: What Every Business Must Do to Dominate the Decade, RandomHouse Business Books, 2002 (p 38) 9. Michael Hammer, The Agenda (p 39) 10. Neil Rackham, Rethinking the Sales Force, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1998 (p 17) 11. Neil Rackham, Rethinking the Sales Force (p 11) 12. Juliet Johansson, Chandru Krishnamurthy and Henry Schlissberg, Solving the solutions problem, McKinsey Quarterly, no 6696, 2003 (pp 117–18) 13. Juliet Johansson et al., Solving the solutions problem (pp 117–18)

Page 66




Chapter 5: Transformation in the InformationTechnology Industry Mark Cerasale and Merlin Stone

The rapid growth that the information technology (IT) industry experienced in the 1990s has slowed.According to Steve Hamm, Steve Rosenbush and Cliff Edwards, the early years of the 21st century werethe worst ever experienced, much more serious than the earlier IT recessions of 1985 and 1990.[1] In anarticle entitled ‘IT doesn’t matter’, [2 ]published in May 2003, Nicholas Carr argues that profound changehas taken place: IT infrastructure has become commoditized. IT customers, suppliers and industrycommentators have responded with passion. However, innovation is still alive and well in the IT industry:new products, services and business models are emerging.

DOES IT MATTER?

Carr argues that the commoditization of IT followed the pattern of many other widely adoptedtechnologies, such as railways and electrical power. He claims that since IT is affordable and accessibleto all, it no longer offers strategic value to anyone. He argues that although chief executives consider ITto be of strategic value, particularly in gaining a competitive edge and in creating new business models,this does not mean that IT’s value to companies has increased. He argues that what makes a resourcetruly strategic and a basis for sustained competitive advantage is not ubiquity but scarcity. [3 ]

He argues that there should be a distinction between proprietary and infrastructural technologies. Theformer can be owned by a single company and give long-term strategic advantage. The latter offer morevalue when shared between companies. Their characteristics ‘make it inevitable that they will be broadlyshared – that they will become part of the general business infrastructure’. [4 ]The opportunity for gainingadvantage from an infrastructural technology is brief. As soon as the benefits are widely understood,companies begin investing in the infrastructure, and a process of ‘build-out’ begins. By the end of thisphase,

the rush to invest leads to more competition, greater capacity, and falling prices, making the technologybroadly accessible and affordable. At the same time, the buildout forces users to adopt universaltechnical standards, rendering proprietary systems obsolete. Even the way the technology is usedbegins to become standardized, as best practices come to be widely understood and emulated. Often,in fact, the best practices end up being built into the infrastructure itself?Both the technology and itsmodes of use become, in effect, commoditized. [5 ]

He argues that IT is a classic infrastructural technology, with characteristics that guarantee very rapidcommoditization. IT is a transport mechanism and as such is more valuable when shared than inisolation. IT’s history is characterized by increased interconnectivity, interoperability, homogenization offunctionality, standardization and scalability, which ‘dooms most proprietary applications to economicobsolescence’. [6 ]He argues that the Internet is accelerating IT’s commoditization by providing an idealdelivery channel for generic applications, allowing companies to buy ‘web services’. [7 ]

Carr urges IT managers to focus less on strategy and innovation and more on operations and costreduction. He suggests they focus more on making IT systems work. ‘When a resource becomesessential to competition but inconsequential to strategy, the risks it creates become more importantthan the advantages it provides?Today, no company builds its business strategy around its electricityusage, but even a brief lapse in supply can be devastating.’ [8 ]He argues that, similarly, an IT disruptioncan have devastating effects.

Bob Evans reports on the response of Ralph Szygenda (CIO of General Motors) to the article: ‘NicholasCarr may ultimately be correct when he says IT doesn’t matter?Business-process improvement,competitive advantage, optimization, and business success do matter and they aren’t commodities. Tofacilitate these business changes, IT can be considered a differentiator or a necessary evil. But today, it’s a must in a real-time corporation.’ [9 ]Rick Whiting reports on the response of another General Motorsmanager, Tony Scott: ‘Brakes are a commodity, but I don’t think anybody would say they don’t matter.’ [

10 ]

Page 67



Richard Wallace reports on the response of Craig Barrett (chairman and chief executive of Intel), whichwas that Carr’s article absolutely misses the point and that common infrastructures may allowmovement of material but do not allow the introduction of intellectual content or value.

IT is the vehicle by which you take information and data and turn it into intellect content?Intel can’tdesign a next generation chip without IT infrastructure, Boeing can’t design an airplane and GM can’tdesign a new automobile without an advanced IT and communications infrastructure. And you can’tindex the human genome or tailor drugs on individual DNA makeup without IT infrastructure. [11 ]

[1]Steve Hamm, Steve Rosenbush and Cliff Edwards, Tech comes out swinging [Online], Business WeekOnline [accessed 23 June 2003] [2 ]Nicholas G Carr, Harvard Business Review, May 2003 (pp 3–10) [3 ]Carr, IT doesn’t matter, p 4

[4 ]Carr, IT doesn’t matter, p 4


[6 ]Carr, IT doesn’t matter, pp 5–6



[9 ]Bob Evans, Business technology: IT is a must, no matter [Online], http://informationweek.com [accessed19 May 2003] [10 ]Rick Whiting, CIOs sure think IT matters [Online], http://informationweek.com [accessed 23 May 2003] [11 ]Richard Wallace, Intel’s Barrett fires back in IT relevance debate [Online], http://eetimes.com [accessed 15May 2003]

Page 68


http://informationweek.com


http://eetimes.com




http://eetimes.com


THE NATURE OF INNOVATION

Peter Drucker highlights the tendency of IT companies to focus more on their technology than thebusiness value it creates:

In large measure the high casualty rate of knowledge-based industry is the fault of the knowledge-based,and especially the high-tech, entrepreneurs themselves. They tend to be contemptuous of anything thatis not ‘advanced knowledge’, and particularly of anyone who is not a specialist in their own area. Theytend to be infatuated with their own technology, often believing that ‘quality’ means what is technicallysophisticated rather than what gives value to the user. In this respect they are still, by and large,nineteenth-century inventors rather than twentiethcentury (or twenty-first-century) entrepreneurs. [12 ] Further analysis of business innovation is provided in Chapter 7. In a forward-looking article first published in the Harvard Business Review in 1991, John Seely Brownsuggested that change was imminent in the IT industry:

As computing power becomes ubiquitous?it will become more and more invisible, a taken-for-grantedpart of any work environment, much as books, reports, or other documents are today?Indeed, at somepoint in the not-too-distant future – certainly within the next decade – information technology will becomea kind of generic entity, almost like clay. And the ‘product’ will not exist until it enters a specificsituation, where vendor and customer will mold it to the work practices of the customer organization.When that happens, information technology as a distinct category of products will become invisible. Itwill dissolve into the work itself. And companies like ours [Xerox] might sell not products but rather theexpertise to help users define their needs and create the products best suited to them. Our product willbe our customers’ learning. [13 ]

[12 ]Peter Drucker, Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, 2001 (p 109) [13 ]John Seely Brown, Research that reinvents the corporation, Harvard Business Review, August 2002 (p108)

Page 69




INNOVATION IN THE IT INDUSTRY Innovation is still alive in the IT industry. This is not the place to review the enormous progress still beingmade in terms of speed, reliability and lower costs. However, innovation in the IT industry is not confinedto products. Services are changing too. During the 1990s there was more need to integrate informationtechnologies through systems and networks. New technology suppliers entered the market and greatercompetition led to more choice for IT customers. In the absence of widely adopted standards, the costand complexity of integrating products from many suppliers was often considerable. Many companies donot have integration skills, knowledge or expertise; these are seldom considered a core competency(except in the case of IT suppliers). IT integration skills can be highly specialized and are often in shortsupply. Systems integrators emerged. Initially, customers used system integrators to transform andintegrate core business processes, such as enterprise resource planning (ERP), using businesssoftware packages from SAP and others. Later, the Internet provided new opportunities to transform andintegrate core business processes. At first, internal processes such as human resource management(HRM) were integrated. Eventually, many customer, supplier and business partner processes wereintegrated too. Further analysis of the evolution of the network economy will be provided in Chapter 15.

According to Michael Hammer, ‘The Last Big Thing was demolishing the walls within enterprises. TheNext Big Thing that will dominate business discourse for the coming decade is the destruction of wallsbetween enterprises.’ [14 ]He continues, ‘[U]ntil now, processes and the information systems that supportthem have stopped at the corporate edge. No longer. Now we recognize that corporate boundaries are noless artefacts than functional ones, and that processes may span them as well.’ He cites the example ofthe order fulfilment process that turns orders into deliveries, demonstrating the absurdity of repeatedrekeying and reprinting of information. He argues that the Internet is the critical technology forinter-enterprise process integration. [15 ]

Indeed, it is not unusual for technology- or knowledge-based innovations (such as the Internet) to developover many years before finding value-creating applications. According to Peter Drucker, ‘Knowledge-based innovation has the longest lead time of all innovations. There is, first, a long time spanbetween the emergence of new knowledge and its becoming applicable to technology. And then there isanother long period before the new technology turns into products, processes, or services in themarketplace.’ [16 ]

The Internet and broadband networks enable many IT products, such as software applications, to beprovided as services. Customer relationship management (CRM) applications, for example, are oftenprovided as services. According to research from Aberdeen Group, ‘Companies are increasingly lookingto rent rather than buy software, changing the nature of the CRM marketplace in the process.’ [17 ]

The Internet has lowered interaction costs and enabled services to be centralized and provided at lowercost. Some companies choose to do this ‘in-house’ through shared service centres (SCCs); otherschoose to outsource. Core competency thinking has fuelled the growth in IT outsourcing. By focusing onthe things they do well (their core competencies), companies are encouraged to identify and exploit whatthey do best. This allows resources to be focused on areas of value and growth. Many companies alsoturn to IT outsourcing to reduce costs. They aim to avoid depreciation charges on costly assets byremoving them from the balance sheet. External service providers can often consolidate capitalinvestment and reduce operating costs through economies of scale. They can often improve servicedelivery through the application of expert knowledge and provide access to skills and expertise that arenot widely available.

The needs of some customers are changing with regard to technology, IT services and suppliers. SteveLohr writes, ‘Most corporate executives say there is a lot they can do now with technology to givethemselves an edge?Customers are also pressing for greater flexibility in how they buy computingresources, including paying only for as much product as they use, as if they were buying electricity.’ [18 ]

Steve Hamm, Steve Rosenbush and Cliff Edwards report:

[Sam] Palmisano [CEO and chairman of IBM] is overhauling IBM to win back the dispirited. He thinksthe answer is to make computing simpler, to shift the burden of managing tech systems from corporatecustomers to experts, such as IBM. Called on-demand computing by IBM, and utility computing byothers in the industry, the idea is simple: Much of this complexity can be removed by using software to

Page 70



better stitch together applications and computers – and to deliver computing power to customers via theInternet. Rather than selling computers by the box, the plan is to sell computing as a service. [19 ]

Christopher Koch writes:

In 2000, IBM created a series of internal divisions, now called Emerging Businesses Opportunities(EBOs), that focus, among other things, on developing new technologies for the different pieces ofon-demand, including utility (essentially pay-bythedrink IT), autonomic (software that automaticallydiagnoses and fixes computer problems), grid (pooling computers to form a single virtual entity),business process integration and Linux. [20 ]

[14 ]Michael Hammer, The Agenda: What every business must do to dominate the decade, Random HouseBusiness Books, London, 2002 (p 167) [15 ]Hammer, The Agenda, p 171 [16 ]Peter Drucker, Innovation and Entrepreneurship, p 99 [17 ]Rental CRM is on the rise, says Aberdeen Group [Online] http://crmforum.com [accessed 27 June 2003] [18 ]Steve Lohr, NYT, Ringing the death knell on tech’s high-growth era [Online] http://iht.com [accessed 5 May2003] [19 ]Hamm, Rosenbush and Edwards, Tech comes out swinging

[20 ]Christopher Koch, IBM’s new hook [Online] http://cio.com [accessed 1 July 2003]

Page 71


http://crmforum.com

http://iht.com

http://cio.com


http://crmforum.com

http://iht.com

http://cio.com


IBM’S SOLUTIONS JOURNEY

IBM is responding to the needs of its customers for e-business solutions on-demand. Solutions are notnew to IBM. According to Michael Hammer,

In the 1950s, IBM rose to great success with such a strategy (more value-added)?IBM’s genius was torecognize that none of its customers wanted computers per se. What they wanted were solutions totheir business problems of the day: payroll processing, accounting, and inventory management. IBMsurrounded its basic computers with a host of related products and services that would help thecustomer solve these problems, such as application software packages, system analysis services,installation, training, and ongoing maintenance?Every business generation seems to forget, and thenrediscover, this very basic principle. [21 ]

The Lou Gerstner era

When Lou Gerstner joined IBM, the company refocused on customer needs and solutions. By that time,the IT industry had changed, and IBM was in crisis. Indeed, one of Gerstner’s first tasks was to refocusthe company on its customers. McKinsey reports:

Two months after taking the helm as CEO of IBM, in 1993, Lou Gerstner asked each of his top 50managers to speak to at least five customers and report back on how to meet their needs. The 50managers’ immediate subordinates were encouraged to do so as well. Operation Bear Hug involved morethan 1,000 conversations with customers and led IBM to change its thinking on their needs and then tocreate distinctive offerings to meet these needs – developments that led to the company’s entry into themarket for total business solutions. [22 ]

Their discussions with customers and market research indicated that there was a growing demand forservices. Gerstner recalls:

I believed that the industry’s disaggregation into thousands of niche players would make IT services ahuge growth segment of the industry overall?For IBM, this clearly suggested that we should grow ourservices business?which was still seen as a second-class citizen next to IBM’s hardware business However, the more we thought about the long-term implications of this trend, an even more compellingmotivation came into view. If customers were going to look to an integrator to help them envision, design,and build end-to-end solutions, then the companies playing that role would exert tremendous influenceover the full range of technology decisions – from architecture and applications to hardware and softwarechoices. [23 ]

Lou Gerstner’s second big bet was that stand-alone computing would give way to networks. Gerstnerwrote:

That may not sound like a very big or risky bet today [2002]. But, again, this was in the context of the1994 time frame, well before the Internet became mainstream. The first rumblings of change were there.You could find certain industries, particularly telecommunications, that were buzzing about the ‘information superhighway’, a dazzling future of high-speed broadband connections to the workplace,home, and school. If this kind of ‘wired world’ came about, it would change the way business andsociety functioned. It would also change the course of computing in profound ways. For one thing, it wasvirtually certain that world would be built on open industry standards. There would be no other way tofulfil the promise of ubiquitous connections among all the businesses, users, devices, and systems thatwould participate in a truly networked world. If that standards-based world came to pass, it wouldrepresent a major shift in the prevailing competitive landscape. [24 ]

According to Gerstner,

There were several reasons customers were pouring so much investment into services. First, skilled ITprofessionals were in such short supply that millions of IT jobs went unfilled. Customers simply couldn’tstaff up to do what needed to be done. But the main reason came back to?the customer’s overpoweringdesire for someone to provide integration. At first that was just the integration of technologies. But as thenetworked computing model took hold, it created whole new dimensions around integration, forcingcustomers to integrate technologies with core business processes, and then to integrate processes –

Page 72



like pricing, fulfilment, or logistics – with one another. [25 ]

Under Lou Gerstner and his team, IBM Global Services became the world’s largest IT and businessservices organization.

The Sam Palmisano era

When Sam Palmisano took over the reins from Lou Gerstner in 2002, the IT industry was changingagain. The network economy was emerging. Competition was intense and change discontinuous. Therewas increasing pressure to reduce costs and find new sources of innovation and growth. Palmisano setabout transforming IBM into a more responsive, variable, focused and resilient ‘on demand’ business. Hisaim was to enable IBM (along with its partners, suppliers and customers) to better respond to changesin demand, market opportunities and threats. IBM plans to help its customers become on demand businesses too. The ‘e-business on demand’ visionrequired an industry agenda-setting strategy, a plan to acquire new capabilities and enablers. ‘Ondemand’ involves more than sophisticated pricing agreements; technology must support fluctuatingusage and business processes must be transformed and integrated. Business Week reports:

The project?puts Big Blue in the vanguard of a massive computing shift. The company starts by helpingcustomers standardize all of their computing needs. Then, in the course of the next 10 years, it willhandle growing amounts of this work on its own massive computer grids?The eventual goal is to imbuethese systems with deep industrial expertise so that IBM is not only crunching numbers and dispatchinge-mails but also delivering technology that helps companies solve thorny technical problems – fromtesting drugs to simulating car crashes. [26 ]

IBM’s ‘on demand’ model requires business expertise and consulting capabilities. At the time of IBM’sacquisition of PWC Consulting, Sam Palmisano commented,

Clients are not only looking for innovative ideas to improve their businesses, they are seeking a partnerwith deep business expertise and the ability to exploit leading open standards-based technology to turnthese ideas into bottom-line business benefits. This acquisition underscores our commitment to thisstrategy. [27 ] According to The Economist,

Technology no longer sells itself simply because it is new. Real power is flowing to those firms that havebegun to work out not what to sell, but how to sell it. IBM’s answer to this problem was its purchase,last July [2002], of PWC Consulting. This deal merged PWC’s business consulting with IBM’s hardware,software and IT consulting businesses?By packaging business consulting with IT, IBM now hopes to sellits customers full, allsinging, all-dancing, business ‘solutions’, rather than vague promises about thebenefits of new hardware or software. [28 ]

The article goes on to cite how IBM is helping car industry customers in Detroit use data sucked out ofengines during services to reduce car recalls and how, at a research centre near White Plains, NewYork, technologies have been combined to allow people to shop from home via an infra-red scanner builtinto a handheld computer. It claims:

IBM hopes that from these consulting engagements will cascade demand for its software, hardware andsystems specialists. From the customer’s perspective, however, IBM is now selling something quitedifferent – a commitment to improve a specific part of the business, with payment more clearly linked toresults. The famously weak accountability of consulting and IT should improve. [29 ]

The article observes, ‘ O]n demand?has acquired a broad, business-consulting message (the newsales model), pointing customers to the ability of technology to increase the flexibility of theirbusinesses in response to volatile, unpredictable customers – thus making the leap to an n-demand business.’ [30 ]

[21 ]Michael Hammer, The Agenda, pp 39–40 [22 ]Juliet Johansson, Chandru Krishnamurthy and Henry Schlissberg, Solving the solutions problem, McKinseyQuarterly, no. 6696, 2003 (p 121) [23 ]Louis Gerstner, Who Says Elephants Can’t Dance?, HarperCollins, London, 2002 (p 124)

Page 73



[24 ]Gerstner, Who Says Elephants Can’t Dance? (p 125) [25 ]Gerstner, Who Says Elephants Can’t Dance? (p 132) [26 ]Business Week , cover story, ‘The new Blue’, 17 March 2003 [27 ]Linda Rosencrance, IBM to acquire PWC Consulting for $3.5 billion [Online], http://computerworld.com[accessed 30 July 2002] [28 ]The Economist, Is Big Blue the next big thing? [Online] http://economist.com [accessed 19 June 2003] [29 ]The Economist, Is Big Blue the next big thing? [30 ]The Economist, Is Big Blue the next big thing?

Page 74


http://computerworld.com

http://economist.com





INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY IN THE ‘ON DEMAND’ WORLD

Companies that want to transform themselves from product providers to services providers will need thiskind of infrastructure to connect with and add value for their customers. This requires what IBM calls ondemand computing. The way IT has evolved has left most companies with a computing infrastructure thatis heterogeneous, widely distributed and increasingly complex. Moving to solutions provision requires anew computing architecture that allows them to leverage their own existing assets as well as thoseoutside traditional corporate boundaries.

On demand computing is the latest stage in the evolution of e-business technology. e-Business changesa business’s interactions with customers in many ways:

New distribution channels. For example, new distribution channels are createdthrough the use of pervasive technologies – technologies that allow customers to bereached anywhere, from anywhere. e-Business also facilitates disintermediation – thebypassing of existing agency and intermediary networks – and has the power todisrupt existing value chains.

New markets. Once a brand has established a significant online following, newmarkets can be reached and others can be created.

New business models. e-Business enables direct and simultaneous interactionbetween all parties in the value chain: buyers, sellers, information providers,regulators, etc. This has the potential to create disruptive business models such asthe e-marketplace.

Transparent marketplace. In its ultimate incarnation, the World Wide

Web offers unlimited information about an unlimited number of products and services to the entirepopulation of the world. Where this is applied to virtual or information-intense products, the entire valuechain can become transparent to all its members. Buyers can have access to real-time information oncurrent prices, interest rates and commission charges, and can at any time select the mostadvantageous deal. In a transparent market, only the fittest will survive; only those suppliers with themost responsive products and service coupled with the lowest cost bases will be able to compete.

e-CRM. Electronic interactions with customers are by nature 100%computer-recorded. Every customer action can be tracked, yielding far moreinformation about customers than was available in the past. When this tracking iscoupled with the ‘deep computing’ capabilities of modern technology, individuals canbe analysed and targeted on a one-to-one basis in a way never possible hitherto. The ‘transparent marketplace’ is some way off, but in the meantime, e-CRM offers apowerful means of attracting and retaining customers.

Reduced costs and improved service. Last but by no means least, e-businessfacilitates lower prices by reducing operational costs, while enabling better customerservice, and product flexibility through business optimization. e-Business has a bigimpact not just at the point of customer sales and service, as commonly understood,but because many processes can be made much more effective and efficient throughe-automation, knowledge management and self-service.

Note that in large companies, e-business often helps to overcome the disadvantages of size, allowingthem to reap advantages. So many applications are focused on internal transactions andcommunication. For many companies, a much higher proportion of e-business applications relate to theirdealings with outside parties: customers, suppliers, business partners, and the like. For largercompanies, internal communication (including training) can be problematic simply because there are somany people to keep informed, and here e-business has certainly come into its own, particularly for staffwho are customer-facing and therefore often need to have access to the same information as thecustomer.

Critical success factors in e-business

The critical success factors in exploiting e-business to enhance customer management include thefollowing:

Value proposition. The products and services offered must add up to a trulycompelling value proposition for the target audience.

Page 75



Trusted brand. Interacting with a computer can be highly impersonal, so effortmust be invested into creating an experience for customers that encouragestrust.

Multi-channel customer management. In many industries, customers expectconsistent sales and services over all channels, both physical and virtual.

Web site quality. There are many aspects of quality in Web sites, eg usability, ‘stickiness’, resilience, security, continuity of service. All must be of a highstandard if the e-business value proposition is to be well received in practice.

Culture/language/geography. Despite the global nature of the World Wide Web,the reality is that geography and ethnicity create huge differences in culture andof course language. Successful e-businesses recognize that different Web sitesare required for different audiences.

Modelling stages of evolution of e-business states

IBM uses a particular model of e-business evolution. We define six ‘Internet states’. Businesses movefrom state to state according to their organization’s needs or goals, so it is not necessarily right for aparticular company to move to more advanced states as soon as possible. It is normal to find differentbusiness units in very different Internet states. It is not uncommon to find large companies with anadvanced, successful Internet-only arm, but with many of its employees not having access even to anintranet.

The six states may be summarized as follows. Each assumes the existence of all of the previous ones: 1. 1. Access – some people or everyone has access to the Internet, usually just

for e-mail. A very simple Web site may be maintained. 2. 2. Publish – a ‘static’ multi-page Web site for information purposes only. 3. 3. Transact – the Web site supports one- or two-way transactions with the end

user, but does support fully integrated processing of transactions. 4. 4. Integrate internally – use of e-business to transform the internal

organization and processes, radically reducing costs and optimizing thebusiness.

5. 5. Integrate externally – use of e-business to create a seamless, transparentprocess across the entire value chain, from customer through intermediarythrough all supplier tiers.

6. 6. Adapt dynamically – use of Internet technologies as the foundation foroperating in a digital, virtual community. For example, a fully e-integratedinstitution can seamlessly in-source or outsource processing functions asdemanded by market conditions and changing company structures.

These are summarized in three main stages, as shown in Figure 5.1.

Figure 5.1: The IBM model of stages and states of e-business

The main determinants of the need for continued investment and movement between states are usuallyorganizational capabilities, rather than technical capabilities.

Let us consider the model in more detail.

Early stage

The e-business journey often begins with simple initiatives that extend market reach. This involvesexperimentation. Network capabilities and technologies are used to interact and transact with

Page 76



customers, suppliers, partners and employees.

Access

Employees communicate via e-mail, and a single, static home page provides contact information. Theapproach is straightforward and low cost, but employees may not have all the required skills. However,for most companies the Web is now essential. It gives staff an easy way to search for ideas as well as away to communicate with customers, suppliers and colleagues.

Publishing

A multi-page Web site is used to communicate with prospects and customers. Much valuableinformation is provided through the Web site, but resulting interactions are handled by phone, fax ore-mail. The approach is still straightforward and low cost, but value is hard to quantify. However, eventhis approach helps the company reach new markets, often at very low cost.

Transactions

Customers, suppliers and/or employees carry out transactions online. Existing stand-alone applicationsare adapted with a browser interface. In larger companies there may be several different initiatives: thefinance department has one for credit control; the sales department one for prospecting; customerservice has one for managing queries, complaints and service calls; human resources has one foremployees; and the buying department one for suppliers. Each function thereby improves its efficiencyand quality. However, fears about feasibility, return on investment, security and privacy start to occur.

Integrating stage – internal

Here, the volume and complexity of customer, supplier, partner and employee transactions handled viathe Internet site increase. The company needs a reliable, scalable e-business infrastructure thatsupports e-commerce and supply chain management and customer relationship management initiativesby integrating disparate applications and data inside and outside the organization. Most companiesstreamline their own operations first, linking their internal systems before turning their attention tointegrating their systems with those of their partners, suppliers or customers. Here, the main problem islack of critical integration skills. However, if these can be overcome, integrating processesenterprise-wide leads to increased productivity, streamlined operations, reduced costs and bettercustomer service.

Integrating stage – external

Business processes are transformed to integrate customers, suppliers and partners in a consistentapplication environment, whether Internet, intranet or extranet based. Examples include supply chainsintegrated across organizations and collaborative product development systems. Integration with externalpartners involves a cultural shift that many companies find hard, owing to fear of lock-in or of a shift in thebalance of power in the relationship. In cases where one or more parties to the cooperation are ‘mobile’(eg with calling sales or service people, or involved in the logistics business), this stage involvesextensive use of wireless and pervasive computing technology. In less developed countries, wheretelecommunications infrastructures are often weak and where wireless technology is helping countries ‘skip a stage’, wireless may be a necessity, not a luxury.

Advanced stage

Here, a company re-examines its business model to determine which functions are essential to its valueproposition. Support functions, such as human resources, accounting, information technology andperhaps even sales and marketing, are outsourced to increase efficiency and reduce costs. The Internetis used as the computing platform for transactions and interactions, to create a fluid environment wheresuppliers, partners, customers and employees come together in new ways, integrating businessprocesses and sharing knowledge within and across organizational boundaries.

Dynamic adaptation

Page 77



Here, business processes that have been integrated using software and systems infrastructure aredynamically assembled as needed to address a specific problem or business opportunity – without theintervention of information technology staff. This new business model, called a ‘business web’, allowscompanies to respond quickly to changing customer needs and market conditions. Although fewcompanies have reached this stage, those that have show that great competitive advantage can beachieved by narrowing their focus to their core competencies – complementing them with a network ofoutside specialists connected through the Internet. However, security, privacy, skills and technologyissues, as well as legal, governmental and regulatory considerations, must be addressed. Standards arecritical to success at this stage.

In this, the most advanced, form, companies have so focused their businesses that they can providetheir products and services on demand, because their processes and systems are fully linked withcustomers and suppliers and able to respond to individual customer needs automatically. This has beenachieved by very few companies but has been a target ever since we were introduced to the concept of ‘just in time’. Successful diffusion of a new approach to management takes time. Success depends strongly on howfamiliar the different participants in the network of firms, suppliers, partners and customers are with thetechnology as well as their ability to deal with the management issues involved. [31 ]For example, a studyof the diffusion of e-business in consumer goods marketing (where many of the suppliers involved aresmall agencies) identified many different diffusion processes at work (see Figure 5.2).[32 ]We must alsoremember that many of the next generation of entrepreneurs will have grown up in a consumers’ e-world.Here, the statistics showing the number of people using e-business technology to manage manyaspects of their lives (whether playing multi-player Web-based games or using text messaging to takepart in television competition or to lobby governments) confound even the most optimistic experts. [33 ]

Figure 5.2: Diffusion processes taking place within the diffusion of the Internet in branded consumer goodsproducts

On demand IT

On demand IT operations have four main characteristics: integration, openness, virtuality and autonomy.

Integration

Businesses become more powerful when they integrate horizontally, connecting the vast amounts ofdata, legacy systems and custom business applications that are spread across their internal operations,partners, suppliers and customers. Real-time transaction processing capabilities and data integrity ofthe highest order will be necessary to handle the choreography of customer data, capital, healthcarerecords and engineers’ designs. Data-mining and decision support systems will supply the analysisneeded to extract insight and make decisions on the fly.

Openness

Open standards allow all technologies to connect and integrate. They have been adopted widely in theform of Java, XML, Web services, emerging grid protocols and Linux. Open standards make IT – and

Page 78



business itself – more modular. Many partners can come together, and their systems and applicationstalk to each other to allow them to work together. Companies can quickly implement new end-to-endsolutions to meet their current business needs. They can choose best-of-breed solutions tailored to theirenvironment.

Virtuality

Increasingly, customers are using computing provided in a utility-like manner, whether from their owninternal systems or acquired across the Internet. Technologies such as grid computing allow distributedcomputing resources to be shared and managed as if they were one large, virtual computer. They aretypically first implemented inside companies, as ‘intra-grids’, allowing businesses to increase theutilization of their existing computing assets. Then they move beyond corporate boundaries. The ultimatepay-off will come when businesses tap into only what they need, when they need it.

Autonomy

In an on-demand world, business leaders must be free to focus on managing the intricacies of businessrather than the complexities of technology. Security, workload balancing, software upgrades, storage –the technology will eventually be able to manage itself. IBM is creating technologies that canself-diagnose, self-configure and selfheal, much like the human autonomic nervous system. Already,many of its software and hardware offerings include some autonomy.

[31 ]E M Rogers, The Diffusion of Innovation, Free Press, New York, 1983 [32 ]T Stone, A study of the effects of the Internet on branding in FMCG companies, unpublished BAdissertation, International Business Unit, Manchester Metropolitan University, 2002

[33 ]M Lindstrom with P Seybold, BRANDchild, Kogan Page, London, 2003

Page 79




SUMMARY

In this chapter we looked at some aspects of transformation in the IT industry. We outlined NicholasCarr’s argument that IT infrastructure has become commoditized, and presented the response of someindustry customers, suppliers and commentators to Carr’s ideas. We described some of the innovationshappening in IT and the role of the Internet in many of them. We suggested that many customers want ‘on demand’ products, services and solutions. We outlined the evolution of services and solutions in IBMand presented some views on how IBM is responding to the needs of its customers with e-businessproducts, services and solutions on demand. We explained that ‘on demand’ computing is the latest stage in the evolution of e-business. Wedescribed some of the ways that e-business changes a business’s interactions with customers. Wepresented some of the critical success factors in e-business and provided an overview of IBM’s model ofe-business evolution. Finally, we outlined the four main characteristics of ‘on demand’ IT operations:integration, openness, virtuality and autonomy. In Chapter 6 we describe how change is creatingopportunities to create and deliver business solutions on demand in many industries – not just the ITindustry.

Page 80




NOTES 1. Steve Hamm, Steve Rosenbush and Cliff Edwards, Tech comes out swinging [Online], BusinessWeek Online [accessed 23 June 2003] 2. Nicholas G Carr, Harvard Business Review, May 2003 (pp 3–10)

3. Carr, IT doesn’t matter, p 4



6. Carr, IT doesn’t matter, pp 5–6


8. Carr, IT doesn’t matter, p 9 9. Bob Evans, Business technology: IT is a must, no matter [Online], http://informationweek.com[accessed 19 May 2003] 10. Rick Whiting, CIOs sure think IT matters [Online], http://informationweek.com [accessed 23 May2003] 11. Richard Wallace, Intel’s Barrett fires back in IT relevance debate [Online], http://eetimes.com[accessed 15 May 2003] 12. Peter Drucker, Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, 2001 (p 109) 13. John Seely Brown, Research that reinvents the corporation, Harvard Business Review, August 2002(p 108) 14. Michael Hammer, The Agenda: What every business must do to dominate the decade, RandomHouse Business Books, London, 2002 (p 167) 15. Hammer, The Agenda, p 171 16. Peter Drucker, Innovation and Entrepreneurship, p 99 17. Rental CRM is on the rise, says Aberdeen Group [Online] http://crmforum.com [accessed 27 June2003] 18. Steve Lohr, NYT, Ringing the death knell on tech’s high-growth era [Online] http://iht.com [accessed5 May 2003]

19. Hamm, Rosenbush and Edwards, Tech comes out swinging 20. Christopher Koch, IBM’s new hook [Online] http://cio.com [accessed 1 July 2003]21. Michael Hammer, The Agenda, pp 39–40 22. Juliet Johansson, Chandru Krishnamurthy and Henry Schlissberg, Solving the solutions problem, McKinsey Quarterly, no. 6696, 2003 (p 121) 23. Louis Gerstner, Who Says Elephants Can’t Dance?, HarperCollins, London, 2002 (p 124) 24. Gerstner, Who Says Elephants Can’t Dance? (p 125) 25. Gerstner, Who Says Elephants Can’t Dance? (p 132) 26. Business Week , cover story, ‘The new Blue’, 17 March 2003 27. Linda Rosencrance, IBM to acquire PWC Consulting for $3.5 billion [Online], http://computerworld.com [accessed 30 July 2002] 28. The Economist, Is Big Blue the next big thing? [Online] http://economist.com [accessed 19 June2003] 29. The Economist, Is Big Blue the next big thing? 30. The Economist, Is Big Blue the next big thing? 31. E M Rogers, The Diffusion of Innovation, Free Press, New York, 1983

32. T Stone, A study of the effects of the Internet on branding in FMCG companies, unpublished BAdissertation, International Business Unit, Manchester Metropolitan University, 2002 33. M Lindstrom with P Seybold, BRANDchild, Kogan Page, London, 2003

Page 81



http://informationweek.co

http://eetimes.com

http://crmforum.com

http://iht.com

http://cio.com




http://informationweek.co

http://eetimes.com

http://crmforum.com

http://iht.com

http://cio.com




Page 82




Chapter 6: Industries transforming Mark Cerasale, Merlin Stone, Glenn Taylor and Bryan Foss

INTRODUCTION

Many business leaders in manufacturing and service industries are transforming their companies andtheir industries with solutions strategies. Some companies plan to introduce solutions over time; othersplan to reinvent themselves through more ambitious transformation.

According to Peter Drucker, market and industry structures are brittle and disintegrate, often quickly.

When this happens, every member of the industry has to act. To continue to do business as before isalmost a guarantee of disaster and might well condemn a company to extinction. At the very least thecompany will lose its leadership position; and once lost, such leadership is almost never regained. But achange in market or industry structure is also a major opportunity for innovation. In industry structure, achange requires entrepreneurship from every member of the industry. It requires that each one askanew: ‘What is our business?’ And each of the members will have to give a different, but above all a new,answer to that question.’ [1 ]

Changes in a market or an industry are often spotted first by outsiders. Industry incumbents tend to relytoo long on their traditional business models, particularly if they have been successful in the past. Thechallenge for industry incumbents, leaders and laggards alike, is to focus on innovation and growth, toreinvent their own industries and companies, and to create new ones. In this chapter we examine thesolution transformation in business-to-business retailing, broadcast technology (media andentertainment), aerospace and defence, freight and distribution and retail financial services, as astimulus to this process.

[1 ]Peter Drucker, Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, 2001 (p 69)

Page 83




FAST-MOVING CONSUMER GOODS INDUSTRY Despite high demand for products, some areas of retailing experienced creeping commoditization asearly as the 1960s. Particularly in business-to-business sales, greater availability and familiarity withmany household products made customers more sophisticated and discerning. Increased competitionbetween manufacturers made retailers more powerful. This was seen in the British market for frozen foodand chilled ready meals (see Chapter 2). Retailers introduced their own labels, and prices started to fallas the shadow of commoditization fell across some packaged consumer goods markets. As largeretailers became more powerful and knowledgeable, their buyers needed less help from manufacturers’salespeople. Salespeople were forced to abandon their traditional product focus in favour of new valueadding activities. The role of the salesperson was transformed.

Manufacturers attempted to fight commoditization by building their brands through advertising, whichbecame more expensive as channels proliferated (print, radio, television, etc). When buyers wererelatively unsophisticated and consumer demand was high, the role of business-to-business salespeoplewas to provide information about products and deal with the administration of orders. As their productsbecame increasingly commoditized, manufacturers questioned how salespeople could best add value.They asked themselves what benefit could be provided to their customers (the retailers) when thecustomer bought their products. They concluded that what the retailer actually valued from themanufacturer was managerial services – that is, advice on procurement, inventory management anddisplay. The role of the salesperson shifted from communicating the value of products to creatingcustomer value by improving the way products were bought, held in stock, presented and sold toconsumers.

Peter Drucker explains:

The salesman has become a serviceman whose first responsibility is to help the customer work out hisown problems. He will, of course, push the company’s products. But he is expected to advise thecustomer objectively and impartially on how much of the competitor’s products he needs, how to displaythem, how to sell them. And he is being judged by service standards and paid first for serviceperformance. Selling the company’s own product has become a by-product. [2 ]

According to Michael Hammer,

Over the last decade, vendor-managed inventory (VMI) has become widespread in the supermarketindustry, where it is often called CRP (continuous replenishment of product) or ECR (efficient consumerresponse). Given the similarities among brands in the same product category, retailers have acquirednew power in their relationships with their vendors. Indeed, the latter can now succeed in only one way –by solving the retailers’ business problems in addition to supplying them with goods. Consumer goodsmanufacturers have come to recognize that supermarkets do not care about their products as such, butthey do care about the profits they can derive from those products. Supermarkets see products asmerely a troublesome means to a triumphant end. [3 ] The relationship between retailers and suppliers has been transformed by communication andinformation technologies such as Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) and, more recently, the Internet. Inmany cases, new technologies have replaced costly salespeople altogether. Retailers, distributors andmanufacturers come together in virtual networks. These are often led and coordinated by retailers, whosedirect relationship with consumers gives them power over other partners in the value chain. The power tocoordinate a coalition of partners in a value network is illustrated through the Wal-Mart example in Chapter 2, and is described in more detail in Chapter 15.

The value added services provided by suppliers in the retail industry are not restricted to food products:they extend to nonperishable goods such as newspapers and magazines too. People still read a lot, butthey want to read more selectively, so the range of weekly and monthly magazines has exploded. At thesame time, cost pressures have favoured supermarkets, which take a much larger share of themagazine market than traditional newsagents. However, this has brought a new set of problems forsupermarkets, whose management systems and processes are more suited to food. The distribution systems used by magazine suppliers differ from those for other categories. Retailersfound that the category was getting out of control. Display was poor; there were problems with unsoldstock. So, in the United Kingdom, retailers have turned to the concept of category leader to make thiscategory work for them. For example, Sainsbury, Tesco and Asda (a subsidiary of Wal-Mart) have turned

Page 84



to Associated Newspapers Ltd, publisher of the United Kingdom’s leading, and very profitable,mid-market Daily Mail, granting it preferred supplier status – in effect, making it a category partner. TheDaily Mail has developed new delivery and display systems for Sainsbury, and has introduced Sainsburyto the Retail Display Agreements (RDA) concept. It is now generating revenue from RDAs at thecheckouts and on newspaper display racks with customized magazine displays. The Daily Mailexchanges this for space to promote other titles within the Associated Newspapers portfolio. This is oneof the best recent examples of industry knowledge being used by a company to add solutions to whatwas formerly just a range of physical products.

[2 ]Peter Drucker, The Practice of Management, Butterworth-Heinemann, 2001 (p 51) [3 ]Michael Hammer, The Agenda: What every business must do to dominate the decade, Random HouseBusiness Books, London, 2001 (p 44)

Page 85




THE MEDIA AND ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY

The media and entertainment industry includes major television networks, cable programming networks,radio broadcasters, film and television production companies, interactive media companies, andpublishing and printing companies. Industry players are facing dramatic process and technologychanges as a result of industry consolidation, new government regulations and global competition. At thesame time, the industry is in the midst of a transformation as technology moves from analogue to digital.This transformation is challenging traditional business models and creating new opportunities forinnovation and growth. Media and entertainment companies are under intense pressure to work faster and more efficiently.Continuous innovation and creativity are critical to success, and ‘content is king’. The major playerscompete fiercely to create, manage and distribute information, news and entertainment. This was oncedone using analogue technology, and relied on processes performed by people. Today the content isoften in digital format, and many processes are automated or have been eliminated. During the 1990sthe Internet became a dominant communications channel. The industry looks set for another period ofchange as broadband networks become more widely adopted. As the cost of access to broadbandtechnologies goes down, more people will use broadband services for work, shopping, entertainment,etc. Sony’s strategy aimed at exploiting the opportunity this provides was described in Chapter 1.

Broadcast technology manufacturers

Broadcast technology manufacturers have traditionally supplied the media and entertainment industrywith products, including television cameras, outside broadcast and editing equipment, microphones,professional monitors, and sophisticated content management and transmission systems. By the late1990s, broadcast technology manufacturers’ customers had largely replaced their analogue technologywith newer digital equipment. Most television production studios, for example, had a mixture of digitalbroadcast and media management equipment, together with a small amount of older analoguetechnology. Broadcast technology had reached maturity. There were fewer product innovations, and newinnovations that did emerge were quickly imitated. Standardization on digital technology led tocommoditization and pressure to lower prices. The number of product suppliers continued to increase –many of them now coming from emerging countries with low labour costs. Customers became lessloyal, and adopted a ‘pick and mix’ approach.

The convergence of broadcast and information technology (IT) has led to more competition from the topend of the consumer electronics market. Many digital products such as video cameras have becomecommodities. Indeed, many consumer video cameras are now considered ‘good enough’ to be used inprofessional markets. The relaxing of public broadcast legislation and the opening of markets tocompetition in many countries has led to a proliferation of broadcasters, some with fewer than a dozenemployees. Broadcasters at the lower end of the market often use lower-cost ‘consumer’ technology tomatch their budgets.

By contrast, digital broadcast infrastructure has become more complex. Convergence between media,telecommunications and information technology industries has meant that traditional broadcasttechnology manufacturers are faced with new competitors (many from the IT industry). Physicalanalogue devices traditionally used for capturing, managing and distributing content can be replaced bysoftware applications. Furthermore, customers need more specialist support to integrate their complexbroadcast and information technology systems. Specialist consulting and systems integrationcompanies have entered the industry.

Media and entertainment solutions

The needs of customers in the media and entertainment industry are changing. Some customers want aproduct or service at the lowest possible cost; others want end-to-end solutions. In response to the needfor lower-cost products, many broadcast technology manufacturers have adopted lower-cost sales anddistribution models. They have set up Web sites to supply and support dealers and selected endcustomers with lower-end products such as entry-level cameras and microphones. The customers usingthe Web site (technicians, engineers or resellers) are generally knowledgeable about the products. Theycan access product information and other services such as stock availability directly on themanufacturer’s computer systems without the need to meet a salesperson.

Page 86



By contrast, the digital broadcast systems end of the market is increasingly consulting and services-led.Many broadcast technology manufacturers have service capabilities that were originally developed tosupport their products. They include systems consultancy and implementation, integration, projectmanagement, operational support and maintenance. Experts are often available to advise customers onless technical issues. Some broadcast technology providers are reconfiguring their various servicesdivisions and partnering with third parties (ie distributors and specialist software houses) to enter themarket for broadcast technology solutions.

Corporate communications solutions

Some broadcast technology manufacturers have seen new opportunities for corporate communicationssolutions in markets outside the media and entertainment industry. They have sensed a growing need forcontent in many forms (information, news, entertainment, etc) and plan to reach customers overbroadband networks via various platforms: personal digital assistants, mobile cellular phones, etc. Byusing broadband technology, content can be delivered to anybody, anywhere, at any time. Manyorganizations, such as large multinational companies, could set up their own broadcasting functionsusing the Internet and broadband networks to communicate more effectively with their employees.

There are many applications for corporate communications solutions: companies looking to lowereducation or travel costs by using videoconferencing and ‘Web casts’; hospitals performing medicalprocedures remotely, making use of limited specialist medical resources; commercial sportsorganizations such as professional baseball and soccer teams launching media services; advertisersdirectly promoting their brands on giant screens in shopping malls and airports – and many more. Whileengineers and technicians bought broadcast technology products in the past, solutions customers willbe line-of-business executives (from human resources to marketing). Broadcast technologymanufacturers must learn to work with these new customers.

Strategy and transformation

The media and entertainment industry is transforming. Faced with stronger competition andcommoditization, some manufacturers have begun the transition to ‘solutions provider’. They are enteringtheir existing ‘media and entertainment’ markets with new solutions and entering entirely new marketswith ‘communications’ solutions (in some cases even creating new markets). This strategy requiressubstantial transformation: of culture, organizational structure, roles, responsibilities, skills, processes,policies, procedures and measurements.

Page 87




THE AEROSPACE AND DEFENCE INDUSTRY

Aerospace and defence is a global industry made up of designers, manufacturers, and companies thatservice military and commercial aircraft, ships and spacecraft, and related equipment. These productsare manufactured in low volumes over long periods of time, so there are limited cost benefits fromtraditional economies of scale. Product research and development effort is intense and constant.

The aerospace and defence industry has its origins in government defence and space exploration. As aresult, the industry is strongly influenced by governmental regulations and legislation. Governmentstraditionally focused on product performance and have often been willing to pay product developmentcosts in advance. Consequently, product development cycles have been long, and design and productionrequirements have been stringent. This practice of financing and initiating programmes has tended togenerate high overheads for aerospace and defence manufacturers. Governments usually provideoperating capital throughout the initial design phases of the contract. Aerospace companies havebecome large and bureaucratic, and their programmes frequently run over budget.

In the 1990s the industry consolidated through mergers and acquisitions. Consolidation in thecommercial air transport market left only two global players: Airbus and Boeing. These areconglomerates each containing several aircraft companies. Emerging nations such as China and otherFar Eastern countries are beginning to establish themselves in the market. The commercial airlineindustry has suffered a setback in the period since 11 September 2001. By contrast, in view of thegreater global geopolitical uncertainty, defence budgets may rise.

Procurement in the defence industry

Each government has a department of defence, or a similar body, which provides and maintains thecountry’s defence capability. The procurement process is usually long and drawn out, and can changeradically over time. Costing, feasibility assessments, political or defence issues of the day for thecountry and its allies, predictions of peace or war, and home economic conditions can all have an effecton purchasing decisions.

Bidders are sought to own the prime contract. However, one contractor cannot provide the whole productalone, so joint ventures or alliances are needed. In the early stages, the major suppliers of eachcomponent align themselves as potential partners with one or more bidders so as to improve theirchances. When a bidder (or consortium) is chosen, confirmation of the initial design mock occurs andthe manufacturing programme starts. Programme partners often have many alliances with suppliers.Each supplier has a complex set of supply relationships.

Project management is a key capability in this environment. Costs are typically fixed, and usually somepayment is made in advance. Occasionally this appears in the form of government grants. Investmentsare usually large. Initial costing and expected return calculations rely heavily on benefits being realizedwithin expected timescales. This complexity means that learning and knowledge management are keysupplier capability requirements. Leading suppliers are normally part of the design team and are involvedin deciding which components are used. They own the intellectual capital for the life cycle of any givencomponent. During the design and manufacturing process, members of the alliance work as a virtualteam, sharing knowledge, financial risk and goals.

The ‘operator’ is typically the military (air, sea or land) of whichever government is buying the product.Once operational, the product is managed by the operator. The operator maintains configuration andasset tracking for each individual machine, together with a permissible alternative to certain componentsand the maintenance and service intervals for some current components. Suppliers develop and modifysome key components and work closely with the operator to ensure that updated configurations areintroduced at the right time. The aircraft is monitored, and usage information is used for schedulingservices.

Politics and the pressure to reduce costs

The level of spending available for defence and related activities usually depends on a country’sdisposition to hostilities. Most countries are members of at least one alliance. ‘Sharing’ among severalalliance members helps to keep costs down. The economic health of a country may not greatly affect

Page 88



spending on defence – the perception being that threats must be prepared for regardless of expense.However, in stable environments the amount of money available for the military is usually under constantscrutiny. The big savings often demanded cannot be achieved by ‘tinkering’, so procurement efficiencyinitiatives are common. Initiatives to lower costs often appear in the form of price negotiations or moreinnovative uses of resources such as ‘power by the hour’.

e-Business and the need for efficient logistics

Service providers must consider the frequently changing location of aircraft and associated assets.When a decision is made to service equipment, it must be out of service for a minimum time. There aretwo major cost implications. First, the right resources (men, equipment, skill and technical data) mustbe brought together with the right parts. Failure to coordinate the process extends the service time,increasing costs. Second, the number of equipment items needed assumes a certain turnaroundcapability for maintenance and repair. An efficient support service can minimize these costs.Coordinating logistics depends on getting the right information to the right part of the supply chain.e-Business techniques can cut the time and complexity of collecting and sharing such information, andremove the knowledge barrier to market entry. If information is made openly available, any company withthe right service capability can participate.

The nature of aircraft products

The maintenance of an aircraft depends on hours in use but also elapsed time. Service requirementsdepend on activity. A unit must be ready for action at short notice. Therefore, a support infrastructuremust be in place even if it is not being used, which means that high fixed costs are incurred. Theaverage military aircraft is about 10 years old and was designed about 10 years before that. Since mostaircraft were designed and built, there have been advances in electronics, particularly in avionics forenemy tracking, flight management and diagnostics. Coordination in international air traffic has improved.It is now mandatory to have standard flight tracking and communication facilities to operate in manycountries. Environmental impact of noise and emissions also relate to the aircraft’s age. These factorscreate a growing market in retrofit of components, and offer new service opportunities.

New product programmes

The number and type of new product programmes determines which service providers are present in themarket. In the past, customers bought a product that included some initial support. When thatagreement terminated, the service was provided in-house or through subcontracts. In the future,customers may no longer buy the product, choosing a service instead. Service levels will be determinedaccording to the number of equipment items available at any one time. There will be variable costparameters according to requirement. This reverses the traditional sequence of events: product supplyfollowed by service is replaced by service provision that includes the product. Companies that can doonly one thing will be disadvantaged. They will be less able to attribute costs across the different stagesof the product life cycle. Companies offering global solutions are most likely to take prime contractorroles, adopting an intermediary position between smaller service companies and the customer.

Solution capabilities and enablers

The number of electronic and digital components in an aircraft is likely to continue to increase. Supplierswill require new knowledge and skills in this area. They will have to invest in new equipment and provideglobal support. Defence products are, by their nature, mobile, and customers are spread across theglobe. Any company offering a credible service must be able to operate globally. The service providermust also have a local infrastructure and workforce to support the contract. Companies will have to learnto collaborate in new ways or grow through acquisition. Friendly nations looking for opportunities toreduce costs by sharing supplier services will demand that their suppliers collaborate.

More focus on outsourcing

Outsourcing is set to increase. In many countries the military are finding it harder to recruit skilledpeople. Systems are more complex. Service staff and maintenance engineers need constant training,even for simple service tasks. Constant training is costly. Moreover, the industry competes for softwaredevelopment talent with games manufacturers, IT specialist developers and other high-tech industriesthat seem more attractive to candidates. Moreover, the strength of a force is often measured by itsheadcount. Outsourcing non-fighting roles is seen as a way of redirecting personnel without muchpolitical impact, while cutting costs.

Page 89



Conclusion

Defence suppliers have always provided some support services. Usually this support took the form ofcontracting, where the supplier managed major programmes. These services are evolving into solutionsin which suppliers take responsibility for solution provision, maintenance programmes for in-serviceequipment, training, information management, and dealing with logistics and the supply chain. Serviceand support markets are immature but growing quickly. Total solutions such as lifetime maintenance areincreasingly introduced on new purchases. It may take suppliers many years before some of theserelationships become profitable (perhaps 10–15 years). Initial investments are high. In the short term,suppliers are trying to maximize opportunities to provide value added services in relation to existingproducts.

Page 90




THE FREIGHT AND DISTRIBUTION INDUSTRY

The freight and logistics industry is faced with customers, many of whom now demand: a partnership relationship rather than a shipper relationship; easier access to shipment information in real time; greater levels of service; reduced shipment handling times; lower user costs, including much more accurate on-time delivery, allowing them to

manage their own logistics more tightly.

Technology is important because one service that logistics companies supply to their customers isinformation about the shipment. Having up-to-date, accurate information about where the goods are, whatcondition they are in, who signed for receiving the shipment, when it was picked up and when it wasdelivered is just as important as transporting the goods.

The increasing emphasis on customer service here has made the information that accompanies aconsignment as important as the movement of the physical goods itself. Customers want either toaccess this information easily and in real time or get it automatically if any deviation from the plannedshipment occurs. Because of the increased emphasis on customer service and logistics, freight andlogistics companies are beginning to work more closely with their customers, their customers’customers, and sometimes even with their competitors. Many of these companies are findingthemselves acting as allies, competitors and customers all at the same time. They are realizing thateach company is an integral part of the supply chain. However, as a company shifts roles,communication between companies can be confusing.

The challenge confronting logistics companies is to seek competitive advantage through using IT toimprove customer service and cut costs while developing new logistics offerings. This makes IT animportant part of the corporate agenda. IT is now one basis of a freight or logistics provider’s businesscapabilities and competitive edge.

Globalization, supply chain management and e-commerce are transforming the industry. The trend istowards manufacturers and distributors outsourcing logistics to strategic partners. This is leading toalliances, acquisitions, mergers, subcontracting and niche marketing. Consolidation produces largercompanies that have an expanded traffic base, reduced overhead costs and improved service. Supplierscan also become global entities by recreating themselves as virtual global companies. By formingpartnerships with other companies that complement their offerings, these companies can provideend-to-end services to their customers. These partnerships allow companies to provide expandedservices without making additional investments.

A new trend is the rapid movement of national postal services into the transportation segment. Becauseletters are increasingly being created in a digital format and delivered over the Internet, these postalservices are pursuing other revenue possibilities. The most aggressive ones are the German, Dutch andUK postal services, followed closely by the United States Postal Service (USPS). Other postal unitsaround the world are expected to follow this movement. Many of these national postal services aremoving into transportation by becoming privatized and then acquiring companies that allow them toexpand their offerings. After privatization, they purchase companies such as global forwarders, logisticscompanies and express integrated carriers.

The fastest-growing segments in the industry include the express and integrated carriers such asFederal Express, UPS and DHL. These carriers are growing faster than the carriers in othertransportation markets because their services allow shippers and consignees to reduce costs in areassuch as inventory, insurance and labour. As customers focus on core competencies, they areoutsourcing these operations to third parties.

The growth of these companies has been helped by transformation since the mid-1990s from service tosolution companies. Previously the service was ‘productized’ – typically, differentiated by thecharacteristics of the individual shipment: size (from letter to shipload), frequency, urgency, fragility, andso on. However, in the early 1990s, many client-side companies came under pressure, whether becauseof costs or because they found it hard to manage their increasingly complex logistics operations. This

Page 91



applied particularly to the electronics manufacturing industry. Here, product life cycles were collapsingand reliability was increasing, increasing the risk of manufacturers and distributors being left withobsolete inventory. Companies tried to cut costs by moving from servicing by replacing components toservicing by replacing modules – even asking customers to do it themselves. This brought the spectre ofexpensive, rapidly obsolescing inventories of expensive modules being scattered at different levels of theinventory chain all over the world. However, when the modules were needed, they were needed quickly,increasing the cost of movement. Similar pressures were appearing in many other industries, particularlythose with a strong science or technology element, such as the pharmaceutical and automotiveindustries. But the same general pressures were also visible in almost every industry that producedphysical goods for distribution over countries and continents. Typically, the lower the cost/bulk ratio ofthe good being transported and the higher the daily volumes, the more the ‘heavy end’ of the logisticsindustry was involved (ie firms used to shipping container-loads of the same product rather than individualpackages).

So, client companies turned to their logistics providers with the question ‘How can we do it better?’ Ofcourse, the wiser logistics companies had noted the pressures and were already approaching theirclients with the statement ‘We think we can do this better for you – give us the chance!’ It became clearthat although the slightly more complex service products (eg those offering faster delivery, bookable atshorter notice, with more comprehensive and rapid tracking and tracing) could help client companiescope with some of the pressures on them, the only comprehensive answer lay in outsourcing of thecomplete logistics operation. This meant the outsourcing supplier taking full responsibility for some of orall the physical movement element of the client’s supply chain and many of the associated information,communication and documentation systems.

This required suppliers to transform themselves from simple service product suppliers to servicessuppliers, though the core offering of the supplier normally stayed the same. In most cases it needed tobe more comprehensively and clearly modularized, so that those configuring the services for their clientscould establish and then deliver against standards promised to customers.

In most cases, special divisions were set up, sometimes focusing on the needs of one sector, egelectronics. Market research and related analysis and planning were used to identify the needs of eachsegment and to determine how the services needed to be configured and then delivered. Staff had tounderstand the language, organization, needs and operating norms of the client industries, and in manycases staff were recruited from the target industry. New types of logistics staff needed to be recruitedtoo, especially by the high-speed logistics companies. In their original form, these companies were notused to managing inventories. Their vision of success was based on rapid order-taking, with goods beingmoved through buildings that emptied every day, prior to the next batch of shipments. Suddenly theywere being required to manage and account for stock. They also needed to adopt e-business technologyeven more rapidly. They had already found it useful in terms of reducing costs for their traditionalbusiness: customers could now log on, order pick-up, and then track and trace a consignment using theWeb, thereby cutting the supplier’s call-centre costs sharply. But now their clients’ logistics managersrequired advanced, consolidated information and reporting, enabling them to focus on ensuring that theoutsourced contract was running smoothly.

A particularly crucial area was pricing. Before, these companies were used to pricing using a relativelysimple formula based on the characteristics of individual shipments or combinations of shipments. Nowthey had to price for contracts in which the service being delivered was inventory availability, notmovements. In many cases they were being asked for ‘value pricing’ by their clients – pricing that coulddemonstrate not just improved performance but overall cost saving. In fact, this proved to be a boon formany of these suppliers, as they found that once they were organized to supply services, they could doit far more cheaply than their clients, not just because of their knowledge and because of their sharedinfrastructure of transport, warehousing and information systems, but also because their disciplines offast movement allowed their clients to save significant sums in terms of avoided product obsolescence,deterioration and pilferage, and also reduced inventory finance costs. There was simply far less inventorylying around or being transferred between different levels of distribution. The value price was thereforemuch more profitable to both parties. Today, the global logistics management industries is one of the very best examples of how companiescan transform themselves – indeed, must transform themselves – into services companies to meet theneeds of their most demanding customs. This case study shows that this can apply even when thecompany already considers itself to be one of the best service companies in the world – as UPS, FedEx

Page 92



and DHL certainly did in the field of global rapid logistics. [4 ] [4 ]For more on how the outsourced services works, most major providers’ Web sites provide many casestudies. For a description of the transformation at UPS, see G Hamel, Leading the Revolution, HarvardBusiness School Press, Boston, 2002, ch 7 (pp 211–21). For more on the development of the logisticsindustry, see D Waters (ed), Global Logistics and Distribution Planning, 4th edn, Kogan Page, London, 2003,especially ch 13: A McKinnon, Outsourcing the logistics function (pp 212–32)

Page 93




RETAIL FINANCIAL SERVICES

The financial services industry is a strange mixture of innovation and conservatism. At the innovativeextreme are the new companies that have emerged to dominate the credit card (eg MBNA in the UnitedStates), short-term savings (eg ING Bank in the Netherlands) and general or property and casualtyinsurance markets (eg Direct Line in the United Kingdom). They have achieved their dominance by focuson simplification, using the best direct marketing techniques in all channels – direct mail, call centresand the Internet – and wherever possible outsourcing non-core activities and partnering with largerfinancial services and other companies. They have been joined by other companies with a very strongcost focus, such as the Royal Bank of Scotland, which has partnered with companies such as retailersto provide own-label financial services. At the other extreme are the life and pensions companies, whosegood investment performance until the stock market boom ended allowed them to persist with deeplyinefficient, paper-bound practices and complex distribution systems, in some countries underpinned bycomplex, low-quality and ever-changing regulatory regimes that never allowed these companies to focuson efficiency. Somewhere in the middle are conventional banks, some of which have adopted efficientapproaches, including outsourcing, partnering and improved supply chain management, but many ofwhich are still very inefficient by manufacturing industry standards.

However, things are changing. Extreme cost and regulatory pressures are now forcing these companiesto consider radical approaches to management. The clear separation of manufacturing from distributionin the life and pensions sector is just the first step – and is still uncompleted by many companies.However, the most significant development is the emergence of a new range of services allowing thesecompanies to outsource much of their activity to suppliers specializing in the provision of the relevantservices. These suppliers include systems companies such as IBM and the growing number ofinformation services suppliers in countries such as India (for systems development and call-centreactivity). The more closely financial services companies work with these services specialists, the easierit is for them to focus on their own customers and on strategies for ensuring that these customers getthe best value for money.

In the past 20 years or so, several financial services companies have pioneered a move towards servicesprovision, although progress towards a solutions business model continues slowly and in isolated areas.In the 1980s and 1990s, UK niche commercial insurer Independent Insurance developed full-servicepackaged solutions for sale through a tiered broker network. Examples included:

Prior risk management assessments and advice designed to help the clientunderstand and manage operating risks. These detailed surveys and riskassessments enabled Independent Insurance to help the client reduce its insurancecosts while making the most attractive, yet viable, premium offer.

Delivery of product and service combinations that would assist the insured with theearly recovery of its business. This also enabled the insurer to limit or reduce itsliability for business interruption and total loss to be recovered. In turn, this may haveenabled lower reinsurance premiums to be paid.

Recognition that in small business the owners can benefit from simplified andpackaged insurance arrangements, for example combining the insurance for directors’cars with that for goods vehicles, property, liability, health, etc.

Unfortunately, Independent Insurance became insolvent for balance sheet reasons and no longer trades,but St Paul’s Insurance continues to provide similar services for commercial clients.

Since its launch as the first major UK direct insurer, Direct Line has developed a wide range of additionalservices for its customers. These were at first limited to small supportive services for motor policies,such as legal assistance for financial recoveries (eg policy excess) resulting from road accidents. Overtime, further services were developed, including breakdown recovery, new and used car sales, and loansand other financial products. When each service was launched, access was often initially givenpreferentially to selected customers, then broadened later.

A major composite insurer planned to offer total solutions for retirement, health, home, travel and carownership. The idea was to package together an extensive collection of products and services thatrecognized customers’ need for a simplified and full-scope service. The boundaries between previouslyseparate insurance products would have become blurred (eg between health and travel insurance, or

Page 94



between travel insurance and contents insurance), enabling both the provider and the customer to benefitfrom cost reductions. Despite a significant planning exercise, the insurer eventually decided not toproceed, as the results were unlikely to provide a reasonable return on investment. Its life productscontinued in a relatively stable fashion, although its distribution channel strategy changed dramaticallyfrom direct to via alliances.

Globally, the life insurance and investment business continues to be product based. However,intermediaries play a strong role, and this provides a services-like context for advice and total offerings.Traditional and novel products can be combined to meet the needs of clients who can afford these offers.New custom-built investment plans and personalized pensions portfolios can be profitably offered tocustomers with a reasonable amount to invest, with advice and product set-up often provided on a feebasis.

While the financial services industry has trialled various solutions approaches over the years, much ofthe industry remains product focused. Progress is constrained by tradition, regulation and market inertia.Only those companies with mass customization capabilities, or the ‘craft’ customization capabilitiesrequired to service the combined needs of smaller numbers of higher-value customers, have madeprogress towards becoming solutions businesses.

Page 95




SUMMARY

In this chapter we have described how opportunities to create and deliver exceptional customer valuethrough solutions are emerging in several industries. We provided examples from the media andentertainment, aerospace and defence, freight and distribution, and retail financial services industries.There are many more examples. In some industries, such as retailing, solutions and collaborationbetween customers and suppliers are already well established. In others, such as retail financialservices, they are less so. Often the first steps towards introducing solutions are modest, and limited inscope. Solution transformation can take many years. In other cases, change is occurring more rapidly.Some broadcast technology providers, for example, are in the process of creating new industries andreinventing old ones. Chapter 1 assessed some key factors determining successful business strategy and transformation. Itwas suggested that business strategy should be oriented towards innovation and growth. In Chapter 7we will explore the concept of innovation and explain why innovation is more important than ever. We willprovide some definitions of innovation, how it can be managed and why it can be difficult to achieve. Wealso look at three ways to encourage successful innovation: by providing leadership, by cultivating theenvironment and through idea management. Finally, we use Peter Drucker’s ‘systematic innovation’approach to explore some of the most common signs of solution opportunity. We hope this will helpreaders identify opportunities for innovation and growth in their own industry, providing the basis forsuccessful business strategy and transformation.

Page 96




NOTES Peter Drucker, Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, 2001 (p 69) Peter Drucker, The Practice of Management, Butterworth-Heinemann, 2001 (p 51) Michael Hammer, The Agenda: What every business must do to dominate the decade, Random HouseBusiness Books, London, 2001 (p 44) For more on how the outsourced services works, most major providers’ Web sites provide many casestudies. For a description of the transformation at UPS, see G Hamel, Leading the Revolution, HarvardBusiness School Press, Boston, 2002, ch 7 (pp 211–21). For more on the development of the logisticsindustry, see D Waters (ed), Global Logistics and Distribution Planning, 4th edn, Kogan Page, London,2003, especially ch 13: A McKinnon, Outsourcing the logistics function (pp 212–32)

Page 97




Chapter 7: Business Innovation Abigail Tierney and Mark Cerasale

INTRODUCTION

Last year, one of the authors of this chapter wanted a bottle of perfume for her birthday, but this year shewants some rest and to have some fun. The currency of the transaction is changing, and she is nowwilling to pay for time as well as lovely smells. She is not unusual in this. Six out of ten Europeans feelthey have all the things they need. [1 ]We are all increasingly overloaded with information – and thisapplies to sellers as well as buyers. How often do you buy something from someone who knows moreabout what you are buying than you do? These points illustrate why businesses face a potentially hostileenvironment in which the customer is increasingly at the centre of the stage.

In today’s business environment, change is constant and discontinuous, and its pace ever-increasing.Suppliers must find new ways to create and deliver exceptional customer value. To turn change intoopportunity, companies must become more innovative, and embrace innovation to maximize exploitationof opportunities generated by turbulent markets. Companies must learn to keep reinventing themselvesand their industries. Opportunities for growth will not come through operational efficiency alone. Even inindustries and markets that are shrinking, leading innovators are continually reinventing their products,their solutions, their processes and even their customers.

Business history over the past 50 years is littered with companies (some very large) that fell by thewayside by failing to innovate. There are, however, many examples of companies that embracedinnovation and survived and prospered. 3M, for example, one of the leading innovative organizations,views innovation as a crucial instrument for winning in this highly competitive and unpredictableenvironment, and for countering turbulent economic times. [2 ]In contrast, low performers view innovationas an unaffordable luxury, rather than the opportunity to move ahead of competitors. They arepreoccupied with cutting costs and with survival. Innovators like 3M are exploiting the opportunity toreassess business performance and organizational strategy, to out-think and out-learn their competitors,to emerge stronger and more competitive.

Lou Gerstner, the CEO who led IBM’s turnaround during the 1990s, commented:

In almost every industry, globalization is leading to overcapacity, which is leading to commoditizationand/or price deflation. Success, therefore, will go to the fittest – not necessarily the biggest. Innovationin process – how things get done in an enterprise – will be as important as innovation in the products acompany sells. [3 ]

Strategic imperatives for innovation

Let’s look at some of the facts relating to innovation. On average, a 10 per cent increase in thepercentage of turnover from new products and services is correlated with a 2.5 per cent increase in therate of revenue growth. [4 ]There is a clear positive correlation between research and developmentintensity (R&D spend as a proportion of sales) and sales growth. [5 ]A 10 per cent increase in thepercentage of turnover from new products and services is associated with an increase in totalshareholder revenue of nearly 9 per cent, year on year. [6 ]Companies with less than 10 per cent of theirturnover from new products and services have a 30 per cent chance of shrinking rather than growing. [7 ]

Given these facts, why are so many companies not committed to innovation? Perhaps it is because theydon’t really know what innovation is!

[1 ]Martin Hayward (the Henley Centre), Why business will be harder in the future, presentation given at ‘TheThird Horizon: An evening with inspired leaders’, 9 June 2003

[2 ]B Brullo, A tradition of innovation, in Innovation: Making it happen, Confederation of British Industry, 2002 (p22) [3 ]Louis Gerstner, Who Says Elephants Can’t Dance?, HarperCollins, London, 2002 (p 270) [4 ]T Davis, Innovation and Growth: A global perspective, PricewaterhouseCoopers, London, 2001 (p 23)

Page 98



[5 ]129

[6 ]T Bradshaw, The innovation imperative, in Innovation: Making it happen, Confederation of British Industry,London, 2001 (p 42) [7 ]T Davis, Innovation and Growth (p 23)

Page 99




WHAT IS INNOVATION?

Innovation is one of those words that appears straightforward, but ask someone to explain what theymean by it and you get many different answers. To confuse things further, it is often interchanged with ‘invention’. Peter Drucker provides a useful definition of innovation and the role of the entrepreneur: ‘Innovation is the specific tool of entrepreneurs, the means by which they exploit change as anopportunity for a different business or a different service.’ [8 ]It is more than product-line extensions orclever branding. In Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Drucker suggests that a change is needed in our approach toinnovation similar to the one that occurred in scientific research in the 19th century. Invention was onceassociated with a lone genius struggling against tremendous odds, relying on flashes of inspiration togenerate a new idea. Over time, invention was transformed. It acquired quasi-‘scientific’ planning,organization, predictability, disciplines and credibility. Drucker argues that if companies are to becomemore entrepreneurial and innovative, then something similar must happen with regard to innovation.Innovation should no longer be seen as the domain of a few bright sparks toiling away in R&Ddepartments. Innovation must become continuous, enterprise-wide, collaborative and customer focused.A company that is serious about innovation is committing itself to a long, and often unfamiliar, journey.

Entrepreneurs are individuals and companies that use innovation to their advantage. They see change asnormal and embrace opportunities to do things differently. The French economist J B Say was perhapsthe first to define the term ‘entrepreneur’. He wrote, ‘The entrepreneur shifts economic resources out ofan area of lower and into an area of higher productivity and greater yield.’ [9 ]Say defined entrepreneurshipin terms of supply, as changing the yield of resources. However, entrepreneurship can also be explainedin demand terms, as changing the value and satisfaction obtained from resources by the consumer.

Gary Hamel, a leading thinker on innovation, and chairman of innovation consulting firm Strategos,believes that innovators typically view the world through four lenses. According to Hamel, they look fordeeply held conventions and challenge them; they look for change in the world and understand therevolutionary potential of the change; they empathize with customers and anticipate their needs; andthey view their organizations less as businesses and more as skill sets. [10 ]Innovative companies searchcontinuously for new and different ways to create and deliver value. They are constantly on the lookoutfor change, because change provides the opportunities for the new and different.

[8 ]T Davis, Innovation and Growth (p 25) [9 ]P Drucker, Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, 2001 (p 17) [10 ]P Drucker, Innovation and Entrepreneurship (p 19)

Page 100




CAN YOU MANAGE FOR INNOVATION?

There is some disagreement over whether it is possible to manage for innovation. One school of thoughtsays that the most successful innovation is based on serendipity, and you cannot manage for this; youcan only create an environment where it is more likely to occur. The second, and increasingly dominant,school of thought believes that innovation is a disciplined, systematic and organized process. Thebest-known proponent of this approach is Peter Drucker, who upholds the belief that ‘entrepreneurs needto search purposely for the sources of innovation, the changes and their symptoms that indicateopportunities for successful innovation. And they need to know and apply the principles of successfulinnovation.’ [11 ]Bob Brullo, the managing director of 3M UK and Ireland, agrees with Drucker, stating that ‘the innovative success 3M has enjoyed has never depended on one-off discoveries or moments ofeureka. It has been based on a deliberate and rigorous commitment to the technological development ofcustomer-focused products.’ [12 ]

In reality, both a sense of unpredictability and a sense of process are critical to success. An open stylethat fosters eureka moments is one side of the equation. This means thinking differently about theboundaries of your organization, and the relationships between internal functions, potential partners andnational contexts. This approach is not mutually exclusive with the line favoured by Drucker and 3M. Theother side of the equation is a systematic process that channels creativity towards innovative newsolutions. Even if you opt for a ‘white-space’ approach at the start, it is absolutely critical to have aprocess in place to ensure that the ideas that emerge get quickly to market. Viewed in this way,innovation and entrepreneurialism are disciplines with rules that can be learned, applied and managed.

[11 ]G Hamel, Innovation Now, Fast Company, 65, December 2002 (p 115) [12 ]P Drucker, Innovation and Entrepreneurship (p 17)

Page 101




WHAT ARE COMMON INHIBITORS TO INNOVATION?

Too many companies are constrained by inertia. They opt for optimization and incremental, continuousimprovement rather than radical change – which, when required, can be more rewarding. Theirmanagement culture and systems – metrics, measurement systems, compensation, policies andprocesses – encourage modest incremental progress. However, in competitive markets, modestimprovement is often not enough. Instead of avoiding change as something that is uncomfortable,innovative companies embrace change and turbulence; they see the opportunities in Schumpeter’s ‘creative destruction’ to grow and evolve.

Many companies avoid making the needed changes because they believe change is ‘risky’. Their beliefis correct, particularly if change is handled poorly, but there is risk in most economic activity. Also, it isoften riskier to do nothing, or make small changes when bigger ones are needed. There is also atendency to look back to more successful times with nostalgia. Managers often continue with outdatedpractices for too long, hoping for a return to the ‘good old days’, which may never materialize. Somepeople are simply unwilling to change, learn about new things and adapt accordingly.

Innovation is often restricted because creativity by itself is not enough. Innovation without execution ismeaningless, because it never delivers value. 3M makes the distinction between creativity as thinkingabout novel ideas, and innovation as the successful implementation of those ideas. [13 ]John Kao, thefounder of the ‘Idea Factory’, argues that if all innovation practices are based on the creation of ideas(ideation) alone, all you will produce is a collection of ideas. [14 ]

Many companies lack the ability to sense and respond to the changes around them. In large hierarchicalorganizations, senior managers often focus on day-to-day management. With some exceptions, theyspend more time with subordinates than with customers, and so lose touch with changing customerneeds. As they rise in seniority, managers tend to take more responsibility for strategic and structuraldecisions, and less for decisions that transform operations or that transform the experience ofcustomers or staff. Lack of customer insight can be an inhibitor to innovation, such as whether to investin creating solution delivery capabilities.

[13 ]B Brullo, A tradition of innovation (p 21)

[14 ]B Brullo, A tradition of innovation (p 21)

Page 102




HOW YOUR COMPANY’S PROCESSES, STRATEGIES ANDORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE CAN SUPPORT INNOVATION

The requirements for successful innovation fall into three broad categories.

Leadership

Being innovative is a strategic choice. Leaders need to be disciplined to achieve their objectives. Thismeans defining a clear strategy for delivering innovative results. It means defining what is meant by ‘results’. It means abandoning projects that are not delivering the results. This is often the most difficultpart of innovation. Abandoning an idea in which you invested, one that you initiated and nurtured, meansadmitting failure and disappointing those who gave birth to the original concept. In the solutionsenterprise, this obstacle is more serious, because failure can lead to an impasse where you must eitherreinvent your company or die. To survive and be innovative, leaders must not only create new strategies,but also question whether their current strategies could be different.

There is a strong relationship between leadership practices and innovation, as it is leaders who createthe environment for innovation and support the transformations triggered by innovations. Every leadercalls for new products and new solutions, but often these same leaders disparage new thinking.Companies move in the direction that its leaders define and push towards. However, if radical innovationis the objective, management rules and processes that are designed to produce predictable, reliable,repeatable results are not going to work. These traditional management methods will producepredictable, reliable and repetitive solutions. Leaders should seize the opportunities to loosen their gripon the organizational mind, and embrace management techniques that encourage organizations to thrivein ambiguity.

It is important to focus an entire corporation on innovation. For example, 3M’s strategy is designed to gobeyond incremental improvements. 3M aims for 10 per cent of sales to come from products andsolutions developed in the previous year, and communicates this objective throughout the organization.This target focuses the whole of 3M on innovation, and creates a sense of urgency and momentumacross all lines of business. [15 ]

Another task for aspiring innovative leaders is to develop a brand identity for innovation. Employees arethe most critical asset for innovation, so innovation depends on executives developing a sense ofmembership and responsibility among their employers. The brand should foster the belief that theimpossible is possible, and give employees the courage and motivation to step into the unknown. As theimpassioned leader of Apple, Steve Jobs developed an innovation strategy that famously fosteredconfidence and belief in all his employees. Jobs chose to involve all employees in the innovationprocess, and fostered a sense of ownership. With this trust came empowerment, and passion for theproducts and solutions that were being developed.

Cultivating an innovative, creative environment

Innovation is a supreme motivator of people. New ideas generate excitement among employees andcreate an atmosphere of expectation, of being part of developing something new. Cultivating anenvironment that encourages employees to be creative will ultimately benefit many components of thebusiness, which in turn will feed back into the innovation process.

Creativity comes naturally to some, but is difficult for others. Innovation is a discipline. As with otherdisciplines, one can teach the needed skills, including creative thinking, logging ideas, representingideas, securing senior sponsorship and understanding the different stages of idea development. As wellas creativity training, staff should be encouraged to ask obvious questions. Often people fail to speak upnot because they have no ideas or questions, but because they do not want to look stupid. Singapore’sNational Library Board tackled this issue by running a series of ‘Ask Stupid Questions’ forums foremployees. These events, where ignorance was applauded, generated more than 300 ideas. [16 ]

Companies that are serious about innovation must also give their staff time to think about new horizons.Advanced Tissue Science Inc replaces or repairs damaged tissues and organs. Employees devote 80per cent of their time to existing product lines, but for the remaining 20 per cent they are allowed to workon anything they find exciting and longer term. According to their vice-chairman, Gail Naughton, this

Page 103



deliberate strategy ‘keeps their energy and enthusiasm alive’. Furthermore, this programme is not justthe prerogative of the R&D department, but also reaches departments such as corporatecommunications. [17 ]

An innovative organization is one that takes risks. This calls for a high level of commitment to doingsomething original, because by its very nature, taking risks means there will be unpleasant as well aspleasant outcomes. An innovative organization needs to tolerate failure, because if you want change youneed variety, and with variety comes risk of failure. Lack of failure is evidence of a lack of imagination.So, innovative companies give staff the freedom to take risks, and ensure that they understand that awell-managed failure does not reflect badly on them.

Most companies that take innovation seriously reward employees for it. The most popular form of rewardis stock option. Interdigital Communications Corp, which develops wireless technologies, rewards itsemployees with 2,000 options, one-third given when the patent is filed and two-thirds once it is granted.It also encourages an atmosphere of competition by holding an annual Inventors’ Dinner for those whohave filed or been awarded patents. At the dinner, some cash rewards are presented, including one forthe individual or team named as inventor of the year’s most valuable patent. [18 ]

In a solutions business, sustaining your innovation depends upon your people, who conceive and deliveryour solutions, so you need to make sure you keep them. The ‘war’ for talent that raged during the1990s means that corporations recruited many new voices not afraid of challenging the status quobecause they do not fully understand how things are ‘supposed to be done’. They are full of fresh ideasand have a desire to be heard. [19 ]While innovative organizations depend on managers who activelyrecruit talented people, the real winners are those managers who are able to manage the talent pool bydeveloping, exciting and retaining the talent. The new recruits, sometimes labelled ‘maverick’, arebursting with entrepreneurial enthusiasm, but will move on if they don’t receive a sympathetic ear whenquestioning the status quo.

New voices alone are not enough for innovation. A solutions enterprise must balance what Thomas Kuhncalls ‘the essential tension between tradition and innovation’. [20 ]Successful exploitation of creative ideasdemands people who think out of the box, bend the rules, and spot connections that others miss.However, it also relies on individuals who know all the rules and understand how the company works, asthey will be key champions in ensuring that an innovation passes through all the processes. While thiscombination of innovation and tradition can sometimes be found in a lone individual, this is rare, so Kuhnclaimed that it is the professional group rather than the individual innovator who must display thecharacteristics of tradition and innovation simultaneously. Under such conditions, ‘the nature of the jobto be done will invariably combine, to ensure that all group members will, to a greater or lesser degree,be pulled in both directions’. [21 ]

Enterprises are paid to create wealth, not control costs. However, this is not reflected in traditionalmeasurements. It would be interesting to see how many chief executives and board directors know whatproportion of their turnover comes from new products and services. It is difficult to improve what youcannot see, so innovative companies need to measure innovative output in terms not just of profits, butalso of customer perceptions over time.

One reason why many companies do not measure their innovation process is that doing so is too hard.The result is that they do not know how successful they are at innovating. Those that do measure tendto focus on the internal measurements such as revenue growth and sales volume. Return on investmentand customer satisfaction are also popular measures. However, there is little use of customerfocusedmeasurements, which is worrying, given the growing importance of customers. One option for measuringinnovation performance is a balanced scorecard that reflects the relationships between the results andthe steps that produced them, and provides the required depth while being simple to use. [22 ]A possiblemetric in the balanced scorecard could be the number of patents that have been filed. While this is not aperfect measure of a company’s innovativeness, businesses that spend money on patents are protectingearlier investments in R&D, and those investments indicate a commitment to innovation.

Idea management

If leadership and the business environment encourage new ideas, a mechanism is needed for managingand harvesting these ideas. There is a direct relationship between the number of ideas generated and thenumber of innovations that bear fruit. [23 ]This means that entrepreneurs should never bank on one big

Page 104



idea. Instead, they should develop an innovations portfolio. A portfolio approach to innovation increasesthe probability of a successful launch, as well as the quantity of new ideas. [24 ]Each idea in the portfoliois pursued or abandoned as conditions warrant and resources allow. With this approach, executives playthe role of editor, looking for the patterns that emerge from the collection of ideas and ensuring theyreceive a fair hearing.

While whiteboards and Post-it notes are still the most common repository for ideas collection, systemssuch as ‘Idea Central’ from Imaginatik are becoming more popular. The concept behind ‘Idea Central’ issimple. According to Imaginatik Research, corporate innovation programmes tend to producehigher-value ideas if they are limited to a specific time period and focused on a specific corporateobjective or challenge. In contrast, many corporate suggestion systems are open-ended (they have nostart or end dates) and are not focused on a specific objective. This tends to result in a small quantity ofpoor-quality ideas. [25 ]With systems such as ‘Idea Central’, all ideas, both successful and unsuccessfulones, are catalogued so that they can be extracted in the future. Storing them in this way also enablesknowledge-sharing across the organization.

Innovative companies give much attention to market research, because a critical success factor forinnovation is the ability to predict future market and business trends. These companies create closeconnections with external work, to help them figure out what is needed in the market and which newproduct designs might be feasible. Marketing research should play a crucial role by orchestrating marketprobes, delving into the latent needs of consumers, working with leading users and watching competitivemoves. Marketing is responsible for interpreting and communicating what has been learned aboutemerging needs and the scenarios that might develop. This ensures that new solutions remain alignedwith emerging needs, and adapt to competitive moves.

Strategic partnering with customers, academic institutions and industry leaders can create this kind offoresight. Teamwork of this kind is an important source of new and differentiating solutions. It bringspeople with different perspectives together to focus on a particular strategic issue. Although thesealliances have been facilitated by developments in collaborative technology, few companiessystematically manage for this kind of collaboration. They therefore fail to harness the creativity thatstems from the tensions between different cultures and approaches.

One company that is connecting itself to external sources of innovation is Procter & Gamble, whosegoal is to have at least 50 per cent of its new products originate outside the organization. Thisprogramme is called ‘Connect and Develop’, and is managed on a global scale by Larry Huston, whosetitle is ‘R&D manager, innovation and knowledge leadership’. According to Huston, organizations need tolook outside their own walls, because current spending on R&D is not sustainable. [26 ]To get access tothe best brains, Huston taps into established networks that already have contract mechanisms in place.These can range from a group of suppliers, a government lab, a venture capital network, and evenProcter & Gamble’s own alumni.

A critical community to connect with is that of customers. As successful innovation is customer driven,all innovation strategies should include tactics for getting close to customers so as to understand theircurrent needs and how they are evolving, along with the intensity and the urgency of those needs. Thevice-chairman of Advanced Tissue Sciences Inc believes that customer contact is imperative formotivating folks in the trenches. Naughton explains that they ‘bring in burn victims and families of burnvictims, or diabetic patients who have been spared an amputation because of our product, and we makesure that all of our associates understand how their work has touched people’s lives’. [27 ]

This strategy tackles the challenge of globalization. After a period of mass customization, customersnow want local diversity. Globalization has become localization. So a key challenge is how to benefitfrom global scale while delivering personalized or local solutions. This concern has a trust component,which has come to the fore partly as a result of the fall of Enron, Andersen and WorldCom. All thismeans that consumers feel that it is hard to find trustworthy providers. In this cynical world, referral andword of mouth are becoming more significant in buying decisions. Martin Hayward of the Henley Centresuggests that the way to tackle this distrust is to get rid of smoke and mirrors and make things realagain, by putting a personal face on products and services and by creating solutions for your customersthat are local and specific, and that come with guarantees, provenance and substance. [28 ]Customerswant a solution the way they want it. They don’t want to hear anything other than ‘made for me’.

Page 105



For innovators, an accelerated pace of knowledge and innovation is both vital and natural in today’sinformation-driven marketplace. The home of innovation has shifted from the centralized R&D groups toinnovation as an enterprise-wide process that affects all aspects of the organization. At its core,innovation is knowledge production – a social process that accounts for evolution not just in productsand technologies, but in every fabric of the company, touching all aspects of its culture, strategy,processes, solutions and organization. True innovation is based on the recognition that a solutionembodies a number of design variables, all of which must be constantly revisited and the assumptionson which they are based challenged. Innovation cannot be a part-time strategy; it must be engrained intohow you manage your organization. Leaders who want to make innovation a reality in their organizationmust see it in terms of capability and commit the same kind of commitment, persistence, energy andinvestment that they commit to other capability challenges, such as supply chain management andcustomer service.

[15 ]http://www.dialogonleadership.org/Kao-2000cp.html [16 ]B Brullo, A tradition of innovation (p 24)

[17 ]T A Stewart, Singapore learns to innovate: are creativity and effective management irreconcilable?,www.business2.com, 21 November 2001 [18 ]L Buchanan and T Singer, The innovation factor: a field guide to innovation,www.inc.com/magazine/20020801/24449.html, 1 August 2001 [19 ]L Buchanan and T Singer, The innovation factor

[20 ]B Axelrod, H Handfield-Jones and E Michaels, The War for Talent, Harvard Business School Press,Boston, 2001 [21 ]20 change in a creative environment, see R J Sternberg, What is the common thread of creativity? Itsdialectical relation to intelligence and wisdom, American Psychologist, 56 (2001), pp 360–62, and LiamHudson, Contrary Imaginations: A Psychological Study of the English School Boy, Penguin, Harmondsworth,1967 [22 ]B Axelrod et al, The War for Talent (p 343). For further discussion on the requirements for stability andchange in a creative environment, see R J Sternberg, What is the common thread of creativity?, andLiamHudson, Contrary Imaginations [23 ]T Davis, Innovation and Growth (p 23) [24 ]T Davis, Innovation and Growth (p 33) [25 ]T Davis, Innovation and Growth (p 33) [26 ]http://www.innovationtools.com/Resources/ideamgmtdetails.asp?ContentID=84 [27 ]E Schonfeld, Outsourcing innovation: if you want to find the best new ideas, follow Procter & Gamble’s leadand enter the nexus, www.business2.com, 30 May 2003 [28 ]L Buchanan and T. Singer, The innovation factor

Page 106


http://www.dialogonleadership.org/Kao-2000cp.html

http://www.business2.com

http://www.inc.com/magazine/20020801/24449.html

http://www.innovationtools.com/Resources/ideamgmtdetails.asp?ContentID=84






Page 107



WHAT ARE THE SIGNS OF SOLUTION OPPORTUNITY?

Peter Drucker argues that innovative companies should adopt a structure, method and discipline forinnovation. According to Drucker, ‘systematic innovation’ consists in the purposeful and organizedsearch for changes, and in the systematic analysis of the opportunities such changes might offer foreconomic or social innovation. Most innovations exploit change that is already under way. Systematicinnovation is a diagnostic discipline. It involves a continuous and systematic examination of the areas ofchange that typically offer opportunities to create value.

Drucker cites seven signs of innovation opportunity. [29 ]Innovation opportunities come from unexpectedoccurrences such as successes or failures within the enterprise, or unexpected outside events such asincongruities, new process needs, demographic changes, changes in perception and new knowledge(often a new scientific invention). The seven signs provide a structure for identifying opportunities forinnovation. The signs can be used to help identify opportunities to create and deliver value throughsolutions.

Unexpected occurrences: successes

A sure sign of emerging solution opportunity is unexpected successes. Many companies operate inmature industries with commoditized products and services. Salespeople selling industrial machinerymight find their win rate much improved by consistently focusing on business value rather than productfeatures and functions, while collaborating with business partners to create a comprehensive offering.Managers may dismiss such unexpected ‘solution’ successes because they are unfamiliar. Sometimesmanagers do not even see unexpected solution successes because their reporting systems do notcapture them. If a distributor is involved, a manufacturer may be unaware that a new customer segmenthas been created. So managers should investigate and analyse unexpected successes to identify andexploit solution opportunities. Reporting systems should capture relevant information.

Unexpected occurrences: failures

Another sign of solution opportunity is ‘the failure that should never have happened’. Why do companieswith market-leading products sometimes lose to inferior competitors with products that are no morethan ‘good enough?’ Even the most carefully planned products and services often fail. Unexpectedfailures may be put down to ‘politics’ or irrational customer behaviour. A series of unexpected failurescan act as a wake-up call to complacent companies. According to Peter Drucker, ‘if something failsdespite being carefully planned, carefully designed, and conscientiously executed, that failure oftenbespeaks underlying change and, with it, opportunity’. [30 ]Further investigations through ‘loss reviews’and meetings with customers are learning opportunities and often the first steps in recognizing solutionopportunity.

Unexpected outside events

Unexpected successes or failures take place within the (often extended) boundaries of an enterprise.Events outside an enterprise also create opportunities to introduce solutions. Markets maturing, newgeopolitical landscapes, economic crises or booms, social upheaval, changing buying behaviour or newtechnologies can all create solution opportunities. Companies can use existing capabilities to exploitchanges caused by outside events. Drucker asserts that the unexpected outside event ‘may be the areathat is particularly suited for innovation by the large and established enterprise. It may be the area inwhich expertise matters the most, and in which the ability to mobilize substantial resources fast makesthe greatest difference.’ [31 ]

Incongruities

Have you ever considered an industry or a process and thought, ‘There must be a better way of doingthis?’ Those working in the industry or managing part of a process often ask themselves that question,but nobody does anything about it. Incongruities are often taken for granted. You may hear, ‘That’s justthe way we do things around here.’ Incongruities are symptoms of the need for change and indicateopportunities for innovation. If a company’s sales are increasing more slowly than its competitors’ in arapidly growing market (despite having similar products and services), then an incongruity exists.

People often make unfounded assumptions about reality. This can lead to wasted effort and

Page 108



inefficiencies. Innovative companies are quick to sense and respond to differences between perceptionand reality. For many years, a common belief was that personal computers should be sold to businesscustomers through a dedicated field sales force or distributors. Today, most PCs are sold to businessesthrough direct sales and distribution channels such as the Internet. Direct Line did the same in motorinsurance in the United Kingdom. Differences between perception and reality are often found at anindustry level. Innovations often appear simple and obvious once they are established.

The difference between what suppliers believe their customers value and what they actually value isanother area of opportunity for innovation. Suppliers often misunderstand what the customer is buying,believing that the customer values their product or service just as the supplier does. One enlightenedcosmetics company executive was once famously quoted as saying, ‘In the factory we make cosmetics,in the shops we sell hope’ – he or she clearly understood the difference. Customers rarely seethemselves as buying what the producer or supplier delivers. Customers’ expectations and values areoften very different. Innovative companies look for differences between supplier and customer perceptionsof value and attempt to exploit those differences.

Process needs

According to Michael Hammer and James Champy, writers on business process re-engineering, aprocess is ‘a collection of activities that takes one or more kinds of input and creates an output that is ofvalue to the customer’. [32 ]Process need is a fertile area for solution opportunity. According to PeterDrucker,

The incongruity within a process, its rhythm or its logic, is not a very subtle matter. Users [customers]are always aware of it?There is, however, one serious limitation. The incongruity is usually available onlyto people within a given industry or service. It is not something that somebody from the outside is likelyto spot, to understand, and hence is able to exploit. [33 ]

It is therefore often easier for a company already operating in an industry or market to be the first tointroduce solutions in that industry. Core processes, those that define and differentiate a company, usually cut across organizationalboundaries and are not confined to single functions. Many experts in business process re-engineeringbelieve that selling is not a core process. The activities involved in traditional selling are, indeed,generally confined to the sales function. Traditional product-led marketing, sales and distribution do notcreate value for solution customers. Selling is a connected series of tasks and activities that are just onepart of an overall value-providing process. In the solutions area we call this the ‘solution creation anddelivery process’. Solution customers gain value from the tasks and activities performed in the processof solution creation and delivery. These tasks and activities must be closely connected. They must alsobe performed in new ways. Introducing solutions often requires substantial business transformation.These ideas are described in detail in Chapter 9.

Industry and market changes In May 2003, Nicholas Carr published an article in the Harvard Business Review entitled ‘IT doesn’tmatter’. [34 ]In it, Carr argues that just like many widely adopted technologies such as railways andelectrical power, information technology is now a commodity. He claims that since IT is affordable andaccessible to all, it no longer offers strategic value to anyone. There are signs of commoditization insome parts of the IT industry. Many manufacturers have responded to increasing commoditization ofPCs with direct sales and distribution – they have introduced low-cost business models. Faced withfalling margins caused by such commoditization, many technology companies are introducingIT-enabled solutions. Chapter 5 provided further analysis of the transformation occurring in the ITindustry. Industry convergence can also provide opportunities to introduce solutions. The computing,communications and media industries are converging. So there is, for example, a growing market for ‘telematics’ solutions. The next generation of motor vehicles will probably be fitted with technologyenabling new information and entertainment services to be provided directly to the dashboard. In Chapter6 we illustrated the convergence of the IT, communications and media industries with the example of abroadcast technology manufacturer aiming to exploit its existing customer base and enter new marketswith ‘communications solutions’.

Demographics Demographic changes in population size, age structure, employment, education, status and incomeprovide solution opportunity. As customers become more sophisticated and less homogenized, more

Page 109



customer segments emerge. New segments such as older parents, older singles, single-parent children,minority ethnic groups, urban vis-?vis rural, younger and richer retirees, destitute retirees, anduneducated graduates are emerging. These offer opportunities for innovation. Consider today’sgeneration of working ‘ thirty-somethings’. They can no longer rely on a job for life, or on a reasonablestate pension. Their investments in stocks (shares) may be worth less than they expected. However, theproducts and services available to them such as bank accounts, mortgages, life assurance andpensions often require expert knowledge to manage successfully. In the future, banks may introducelong-term ‘personal financial solutions’ to satisfy the (often latent) needs of the ‘thirty-something’workforce. Opportunities for innovation may be obvious to industry outsiders, and therefore new entrantsare often quick to exploit them (so perhaps the supermarkets will get there first with that one).

Changes in perception

There may be differences between reality and perception in an industry or market. However, perceptionis an uncertain barometer. It may be hard to know whether real differences exist. Even after extensiveanalysis and planning, it may be wise to start small and test the water when introducing new solutionsbased on changes in perception. Drucker gives the example of ship containers. Established shippingcompanies focused on cutting transit time and cost by making ocean-going ships faster and morecost-effective. However, this was not the issue, as ships were already very efficient in transit. The realproblem lay in loading and unloading cargo, which kept ships in port and tied up valuable harbour space.When the shipping container was developed, it could be pre-loaded on land before the ship arrived, thenquickly loaded on to the ship when the latter arrived in port. So, ocean transit became much morecost-effective and efficient.

New knowledge

New knowledge is perhaps the best-known form of innovation. It is often associated with technology andscience, and has two characteristics. First, there is a long lag between a discovery and its practicalapplication. Thus it was 26 years before chemotherapy translated into sulpha drugs, and 38 years beforethe diesel engine led to diesel propulsion. Second, it is nearly always the result of the convergence ofseveral discoveries and breakthroughs. The computer, for example, was the result of five differentdevelopments in technology. In business settings, new knowledge is usually acquired through research and development (into eitherproducts or services). R&D can provide opportunities for competitive advantage in companies providingsolutions. IBM, for example, is developing new self-diagnosing, self-healing and self-managingtechnologies to create and deliver on demand computing solutions. Further analysis of the role ofresearch and development in a services-led solutions company is provided in Chapter 15.

[29 ]Martin Hayward, Why business will be harder in the future

[30 ]P Drucker, Innovation and Entrepreneurship (pp 32–118) [31 ]P Drucker, Innovation and Entrepreneurship (p 41) [32 ]P Drucker, Innovation and Entrepreneurship (p 50) [33 ]Michael Hammer and James Champy, Reengineering the Corporation, Nicholas Brealey, London, 2001 (p38) [34 ]P Drucker, Innovation and Entrepreneurship (p 61)

Page 110



Page 111




SUMMARY In this chapter we have explained why innovation is more important than ever. We provided somedefinitions of innovation and have shown how it can be managed and why it can be difficult to achieve.We looked at three ways to encourage successful innovation: by providing leadership, by cultivating theenvironment and through idea management. We then used Peter Drucker’s ‘systematic innovation’approach to explore some of the most common signs of solution opportunity. In the next chapter, AbigailTierney will provide insight into one of her roles in IBM, that of Business Innovator. She describes howshe became interested in innovation and what she now does to enable innovation within IBM, with itsbusiness partners and customers. Abigail provides some examples to show how IBM is trying to putinnovation into everything it does. In Chapter 9 we explore the process of solution creation and delivery,in which continuous innovation is critical to success.

Page 112




NOTES

1. Martin Hayward (the Henley Centre), Why business will be harder in the future, presentation given at ‘The Third Horizon: An evening with inspired leaders’, 9 June 2003 2. B Brullo, A tradition of innovation, in Innovation: Making it happen, Confederation of British Industry,2002 (p 22) 3. Louis Gerstner, Who Says Elephants Can’t Dance?, HarperCollins, London, 2002 (p 270) 4. T Davis, Innovation and Growth: A global perspective, PricewaterhouseCoopers, London, 2001 (p 23) 5. T Bradshaw, The innovation imperative, in Innovation: Making it happen, Confederation of BritishIndustry, London, 2001 (p 42) 6. T Davis, Innovation and Growth (p 23) 7. T Davis, Innovation and Growth (p 25) 8. P Drucker, Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, 2001 (p 17) 9. P Drucker, Innovation and Entrepreneurship (p 19) 10. G Hamel, Innovation Now, Fast Company, 65, December 2002 (p 115) 11. P Drucker, Innovation and Entrepreneurship (p 17)

12. B Brullo, A tradition of innovation (p 21)

13. B Brullo, A tradition of innovation (p 21) 14. http://www.dialogonleadership.org/Kao-2000cp.html

15. B Brullo, A tradition of innovation (p 24) 16. T A Stewart, Singapore learns to innovate: are creativity and effective management irreconcilable?, www.business2.com, 21 November 2001 17. L Buchanan and T Singer, The innovation factor: a field guide to innovation, www.inc.com/magazine/20020801/24449.html, 1 August 2001

18. L Buchanan and T Singer, The innovation factor 19. B Axelrod, H Handfield-Jones and E Michaels, The War for Talent, Harvard Business School Press,Boston, 2001 20. B Axelrod et al, The War for Talent (p 343). For further discussion on the requirements for stabilityand change in a creative environment, see R J Sternberg, What is the common thread of creativity? Itsdialectical relation to intelligence and wisdom, American Psychologist, 56 (2001), pp 360–62, and LiamHudson, Contrary Imaginations: A Psychological Study of the English School Boy, Penguin,Harmondsworth, 1967 21. B Axelrod et al, The War for Talent (p 343). For further discussion on the requirements for stabilityand change in a creative environment, see R J Sternberg, What is the common thread of creativity?,andLiam Hudson, Contrary Imaginations 22. T Davis, Innovation and Growth (p 23) 23. T Davis, Innovation and Growth (p 33) 24. T Davis, Innovation and Growth (p 33) 25. http://www.innovationtools.com/Resources/ideamgmtdetails.asp?ContentID=84 26. E Schonfeld, Outsourcing innovation: if you want to find the best new ideas, follow Procter & Gamble’s lead and enter the nexus, www.business2.com, 30 May 2003

27. L Buchanan and T. Singer, The innovation factor

28. Martin Hayward, Why business will be harder in the future 29. P Drucker, Innovation and Entrepreneurship (pp 32–118) 30. P Drucker, Innovation and Entrepreneurship (p 41) 31. P Drucker, Innovation and Entrepreneurship (p 50) 32. Michael Hammer and James Champy, Reengineering the Corporation, Nicholas Brealey, London,2001 (p 38) 33. P Drucker, Innovation and Entrepreneurship (p 61) 34. Nicholas G Carr, IT doesn’t matter, Harvard Business Review, May 2003 (pp 3–10)

Page 113




http://www.inc.com/magazine/20020801/24449.html






Page 114




Chapter 8: The Business Innovator Abigail Tierney

INTRODUCTION

I am not the once-typical blue pinstripe suit IBM salesperson. I am also not the white-coat technical kindof IBMer. I am somewhere in between. It was not IBM as a technology company that attracted me; itwas IBM as a change organization. I am not a technology expert, but I’m passionate about whattechnology can do.

I am the Marketing Manager for IBM’s Strategy Consulting Practice. For the purpose of this chapter,however, I am going to describe one particular aspect of my job: the part that focuses on innovation. Ihave to answer questions like:

How do I facilitate innovation within IBM’s consulting business? How do I take that innovation to customers, so they become aware of our

capabilities?

Page 115




MY BACKGROUND

I first became fascinated by the concept of innovation when I studied history and philosophy of scienceat the University of Leeds. As I learned more about the process of ‘doing science’, I was intrigued by thesocial factors that lead to scientific discovery and by what drives the people who make thebreakthroughs. After completing my degree, I went to Oxford to do a doctorate in which I examined thefactors that facilitate innovation in organizations. I chose to focus on a network of neurophysiologists thatspanned 100 years and four generations. Nineteenth-century British physiology is generally consideredamong commentators to have been ‘stagnant’ and lagging far behind its leading European counterparts.However, within a couple of decades of the turn of the 20th century, the discipline underwent anexperimental revolution, and a group of four Cambridge-trained scientists and their prot wereleading the world. The purpose of my thesis was to uncover the factors that facilitated the achievementsof these scientists.

Drawing on many primary sources, the thesis showed that the ‘lone genius’ idea of scientificachievement failed to explain the achievements of the neurophysiologists or the mechanisms by whichthese achievements became recognized. It showed that a broader understanding of scientificachievement, combining a collective view of scientific creativity with the cultural context of institutionalstructures and social networks, offered a more powerful way of analysing scientific achievement andinnovation. What emerged was a picture of innovation via collaboration, driven by creative networks,informal structures and passionate individuals.

While still studying for my doctorate, I realized I did not want to be an academic. I found that academiawas an ideas factory with little opportunity for the ideas to influence the world. I was worried that I wouldwrite books that only my students would read. In the United States you can be an academic and work atthe same time; but in the United Kingdom this is still unusual. Since joining IBM I realize there are manypeople who do this, but as a student I had no way of knowing that.

Page 116




MY JOB

After deciding to build a career outside academia, I began to look for an organization where the ideas Ihad developed in my graduate studies would be valued. I was also seeking a learning organization,where I would be encouraged to continue developing my ideas in collaboration with my colleagues. Aftermeeting Paul Horn, the Senior Vice-President for Research at IBM, IBM went straight to the top of mylist. When I joined IBM in October 2002, my manager reinforced my opinion of IBM as an innovativecompany by asking me to write my own job description. This told me that IBM was interested not just inmy CV, but also in new ideas.

I joined the UK marketing team as a Marketing Innovator. My job description was to develop a marketingprogramme to help IBM build stronger relationships with business buyers. The central aim was tochange these buyers’ perceptions of IBM from that of a pure technology company to that of an innovativesolutions provider. To reach this aim, we developed a cross-industry thought leadership programme toengage our clients directly with IBM’s innovation. It had three main components:

Collaboration. Chapter 7 argued that innovative companies do not rely solely on theirown resources for new ideas. Instead, they cultivate creativity through collaborationrather than contemplation. They work with customers, academics and influencers toenhance their own creativity, and to bring new perspectives to bear on their businessdesign, strategic objectives, and portfolios of products and services. Collaborationalso helps innovation, because if customers are involved from the start, it is morelikely that the resulting product or solution will meet their needs. Also, communicationand knowledge transfer are much easier than when innovation is done in isolation fromthe market.

Trust. It was, and it still is, a tough time for IT companies to try to build trust. Themarket was less than receptive. So, we needed to find a way of regaining trust. Oneaim of the programme was to build relationships with customers that would help us tobecome seen as the ‘passionately curious trusted adviser’. This required a change inmindset on our part. The previous mindset was that we had the answers. Now, therelationship we aim to build with our customers is more cooperative. We want to helpcustomers think through the issues and move forward. The environment is full ofclutter. Customers need to know that if a particular IBMer doesn’t have the answersthey are looking for, we’ve got a huge organization behind us that will help find them.

IT buying behaviour. After the dot.com era, IT spending is under close scrutiny byline-of-business executives. The changing decision-making unit means that tosucceed we must build customer relationships beyond but not excluding the ITmanager. To do this, we must engage in issues that keep the CEO awake at night,and find ways to produce content that adds value in these discussions.

On the basis of these strategic imperatives, I worked with a team to develop a customer-driven innovationprogramme. Each pillar of the programme already existed in IBM, so I wasn’t creating anything fromscratch. Instead, my aim was to find a way of bringing together the various parts so as to generate ideasof interest to UK businesses and encourage our customers to participate. Let’s examine the variousaspects of the programme, and explain how they lead to innovation inside and outside IBM.

The emerging business opportunities Chapter 7 explored the tension between eureka- and goal-based innovation. The innovation work that I dois based on the idea that while eureka innovation must be encouraged, innovation can be managed as asystematic process. Today, we take for granted such IT staples as the Internet, wireless communicationand IT outsourcing. These too were just concepts – created in the laboratory or conceived of in the mind.Their commercial success came partly from IBM’s ability to bring these ideas to the market. Ourcustomers expect us to continue to deliver new, leading-edge solutions. We must keep extending ourboundaries. We need to help clients succeed, by identifying and exploring the movements that are goingon ‘below the radar’.

IBM calls these ‘emerging business opportunities’ (EBOs). Identifying and nurturing them plays a vitalrole in transforming technologies from IBM’s R&D laboratories into innovative solutions that addresscustomer needs. They are also an essential element in creating and nurturing an innovative companyculture. IBM manages EBOs very differently from other business. Rather than focusing on traditional

Page 117



measures, such as revenues and signings, we look at what products may result and what milestonesshould be achieved before more investment is committed. EBOs currently represent a relatively smallpart of total Global Services revenue, though they are growing at a faster rate than our core businesses.However, EBOs mean more to IBM than just the revenue they can deliver. They challenge IBM’s abilityto sense changes in the marketplace, and respond to them in a rapid and relevant manner.

The mission of EBOs is to develop new products and solutions. Somewhere in our current EBO portfoliothere may be a concept as big as the Internet. If we’re able to identify it and be the first to lead it to itspotential, we’re going to create almost incalculable value for IBM, and our customers.

The Cynefin Centre

EBOs are not limited to the newest software or hardware, but also include innovative consultingmethods. One such is the Cynefin (pronounced Kun-ev’in) Centre for Organizational Complexity. Thisvirtual centre is at the forefront of an emerging management discipline and practice based on the scienceof complex adaptive systems. Moving beyond the very traditional, process-bound ways of doing thingsthat stifle creativity and out-of-the-box thinking, it is creating a rich, diverse environment for people toreconsider intractable problems in new ways. The approach is truly collaborative, and harnesses a rangeof perspectives. The Cynefin leaders draw on a variety of business functions, as well as academic andscientific disciplines around the world. The Cynefin Centre focuses on high-participation action researchprojects, seeking fresh, practical insights into the nature of organizations and markets, using modelsthat recognize the inherent uncertainties of social systems. The basis of all programmes is creatingfocused interactions between many sources of knowledge to enable the emergence of new meaning andinsight.

One Cynefin project that I helped to lead was ‘Conflict and Continuity’. This was developed in responseto the demand for a new style of leadership development that would fit the challenges that leaders face.In contrast to traditional classroom-based development, this programme was founded on theunderstanding that leaders learn more from each other, and in practical situations, than they do fromeducators. Our response to this need was to set up an action research initiative led by IBM andLancaster University Management School (LUMS) in association with Burnley Partners. We pioneeredan innovative approach to leader development, bringing leaders from the community and business sectortogether to look at leadership in conditions of uncertainty. The model was to be based on LUMS’s highlyacclaimed leadership programme for National Health Service chief executives working with senior leadersin other organizations such as the police.

The approach was designed to give leaders the opportunity to work together to broaden their thinking,create new models and theories, and to put the results into practice immediately in the organizationsthey lead. The aim of IBM and LUMS in designing this new leadership initiative was to create a differentlearning environment in which leaders could refresh and renew their understanding of leadership withintheir own situation, through working with leaders in an entirely different context on their intractableleadership problems. We wanted to create a learning environment in which business leaders could learnfrom others’ perspectives and leadership dilemmas, and at the same time give back some leadershipinsights into the intractable problem they were working on. This successful project will be followed bythe ‘Paradox of Culture’ programme. This will be the flagship Discovery Programme, and will draw oneclectic influences such as complexity, narrative, philosophy and anthropology.

The Institute for Business Value

I am also the marketing lead for the Institute for Business Value (IBV). The aim of the IBV is to providesenior executives with strategic insights that address critical challenges faced by organizations in theirquest for business value in today’s rapidly changing, technology-enabled environment. The Instituteprovides research and analysis, dialogue with industry experts, and client events focused on criticalindustry and cross-industry issues. Formed in December 2001, the IBV is staffed with experiencedindustry consultants worldwide. Throughout the year, IBV teams collaborate with business executivesfrom leading companies and with IBM professionals on studies. With access to resources such as IBMResearch, the Institute staff can provide ‘insider’ business guidance prior to widespread knowledge andadoption of new technologies. My daily involvement with this unit includes ensuring that the IBVinterfaces with the marketing organization. This is absolutely critical for success, as the marketingleaders for the industries and service areas within our consulting practice are charged with sensing thekey issues in the market and working out a strategy for how IBM should respond, and help customers

Page 118



respond. This extensive marketing network ensures that the Institute produces innovative ideas that hitour customers’ ‘sweet spots’.

Another mechanism that ensures that the IBV does not become an ivory tower is its membershipprogrammes, including the Marketing and Customer Strategy Forum and the Knowledge andOrganizational Performance Forum. Participants on these programmes have access to insights into keyevents that are transforming business and entire industries. They also provide a forum for multi-clientinteraction with thought leaders, practitioners, outside industry experts, consultants and researchers.Here too, leaders are brought into the centre of the idea generation process and are encouraged to driveIBM’s strategic agenda.

On Demand Innovation Services

The traditional heartlands of innovation in IBM are the laboratories. However, until a couple of years ago,the typical employee of IBM Global Services would have found it difficult to collaborate with the R&Ddepartments. However, the recent acquisition of PricewaterhouseCoopers Consulting and the creation ofBusiness Consulting Services (BCS) placed IBM firmly on the map of solutions providers and led to areassessment of the relationship between R&D and services. This triggered the decision to create a newresearch division called On Demand Innovation Services (ODIS), which enables IBM’s scientists tocontribute to the services part of the business. Instead of focusing on software and hardwaredevelopment, the new division will assist IBM consultants. ODIS will comprise a team of researcherconsultants who possess deep understanding of business process in specific industries and have aproven track record of creating innovative technologies and standards for business.

ODIS will pursue three goals in partnership with BCS: give customers the research, innovation and deep business insight they need to

transform to an ‘on demand’ business model; leverage this expertise to accelerate IBM’s transformation to an ‘on demand’

model; stimulate new research initiatives to create the solutions practices of tomorrow.

These objectives support the three components that I listed at the beginning. The opportunity to take ourcustomers into our previously out-of-bounds laboratories will take us further towards our goal of buildingrelationships with customers based on trust. ODIS’s collaborative model will also increase theinnovations’ speed-to-market. Clients will be able to tap directly into the expertise of researchers byhaving them craft solutions that might not appear in off-the-shelf products. From a marketing perspective,ODIS is also a valuable way of facilitating relationships with key business decision-makers.

ODIS will use our Innovation Teams. These are laboratories for business practices, made up of a mix ofpeople from consulting, creative and technical from both IBM and the client. The joint staffing ofInnovation Teams represents a long-term investment from IBM and the client in committing leadership,technology and openness in sharing to create an innovative environment focused on transforming acompany. My role in these centres is threefold. My own background in innovation means that I am calledupon to advise on project delivery and the cultural issues around innovation. Marketing also has a role toplay, especially in terms of creating new value propositions and new markets for the products andsolutions that result. The final role, and perhaps the one I enjoy the most, is providing thought leadershipto the customer, often bringing together the full breadth of IBM’s capabilities, including the IBV and theCynefin Centre.

Extreme Blue: an IBM idea incubator

A further source of innovation for IBM is Extreme Blue, a summer internship programme designed tostrengthen IBM’s ability to attract and retain top developers and entrepreneurs while incubatingleading-edge technology projects. IBM started Extreme Blue during the Internet boom in order to attractand nurture top-talent.

Extreme Blue’s vision is to be the leading vitality programme for talent, technology and businessinnovation within IBM. The programme is organized around IBM’s emerging business opportunities, andinterns get hands-on experience working on these strategic projects. By focusing on discovery-driven,proof-of-concept projects that are designed to answer a crisp business question, Extreme Blue projectsprovide clear validation for emerging business opportunities.

Page 119



The three-year-old programme spans seven laboratories: three in the United States (at Austin;Cambridge, Mass.; and Silicon Valley, California) and, for the first time, four outside the United States,in the United Kingdom, Israel, Germany and Switzerland. The UK and German sites are developmentlaboratories; those in Israel and Switzerland are research laboratories. Extreme Blue internship studentswork for various organizations, from IBM Global Services to IBM Server Group.

The programme has two objectives: To be a leading internship for attracting, motivating and retaining diverse top

business and technical talent, specifically for both university interns andearly-career IBMers.

To be a leading laboratory for innovating, implementing and testing strategic,discovery-driven projects focused on emerging business opportunities. Studentswho participate in the programme are actively encouraged to forget the rules, andare given the freedom to do so without the bounds of a tight structure.

Staff members interview potential sponsors for ideas surrounding emerging technologies and businessopportunities from IBM Research and each of IBM’s divisions. Project selection is based on theexpertise, vision and ‘passion’ of the business and technical mentors who will work as team members inthe summer.

The mentors act as domain experts and are fully immersed in the project teams throughout the summer.The mentor provides the vision and experience to the team, and extends the interns’ network into IBM sothey access the depth of resource and expertise IBM offers. Mentors provide this expertise to allExtreme Blue internship teams and help foster a creative and collaborative environment where greatideas are incubated into real business for IBM.

A recent Extreme Blue project focused on security. Although it was the hottest IT topic in the businessworld, it meant different things to different people. In many ways, this chaos was reminiscent of the earlydays of e-business, when elements did not easily come together to form a whole. One effective solutionfor e-business was the development of a maturity model, and this same approach offered the promise ofsimplifying the view of security as well. IBM Global Services funded an Extreme Blue team thatconceived and built a new model for security, focused on senior executives, mapping business plans andgoals to levels of security and their associated technical details through a new ‘trust chain’ model. Initialtesting with real IBM customers received positive feedback.

Page 120




CONCLUSION

I love my job. I also realize how fortunate I am to be able to say that. I think what I enjoy the most is thatbecause I am working at the very heart of innovation, no day is ever the same. Everything is also evolvingand new challenges emerging. That is one reason I have found this chapter difficult to write, as I don’thave such a thing as ‘an ordinary day’. I am always learning and my brain is always working.

Page 121




Chapter 9: Solution Creation and Delivery Mark Cerasale and Alan Clark

WHAT SOLUTION PROVIDERS DO

Solution providers do three things to create exceptional customer value: 1. They help customers understand the issues and opportunities they are facing.

Some of these are unique to individual customers; others are common to manyplayers in the same industry.

2. They help customers to assess the options for solving the problems or exploitingthe opportunities. Some options can be provided entirely by the provider; othersrequire partners.

3. They work with customers to create and deliver a unique solution. Solutions areservices-led but differ from traditional services because they must be customized tocreate and deliver exceptional value.

Solution creation and delivery is performed in teams, often by people from many functional areas,including sales, marketing and consulting. Salespeople play a central role in solution creation anddelivery. However, traditional business-to-business field sales forces are usually poorly equipped tocreate and deliver solutions. The role of the salesperson in many companies today is to communicateproduct value. Many salespeople know little about the processes in which their products are used anddo not understand the issues and opportunities the products and services are being used to resolve orexploit.

Page 122




THE NEED FOR BUSINESS TRANSFORMATION

Many companies lack people who are able to create and deliver solutions. Most also lack the requiredprocesses, organization, tools, knowledge and infrastructure for solution creation and delivery. Solutioncreation and delivery requires business transformation. Modest operational improvements are rarelyenough. Traditional sales incentives, for example, do not encourage salespeople to invest time andresources in developing enduring customer relationships – a prerequisite for solution creation anddelivery. They encourage product salespeople to push products at customers instead of working withcustomers to generate a new type of value-creating pull. Existing measurement systems are based onproduct-selling business models – a single piece of business rather than continuing revenue streamsthat might start small and grow over time. New management systems are needed.

Most business-to-business field sales forces survived the programmes that transformed manufacturing,design, engineering and supply chains in the 1980s and 1990s. Many companies introduced customerrelationship management (CRM) programmes in the late 1990s. Most of these aimed to improveproductivity by adopting best practice and reducing costs through initiatives such as call-centreautomation and consolidation. Fewer CRM programmes aimed at innovation and growth throughbusiness transformation. Many companies now recognize the need to do things differently (rather thanthe same things better). Sales and distribution must change dramatically in companies that plan tointroduce solutions.

Page 123




TRADITIONAL SALES AND DISTRIBUTION

While demand for products and services was high, selling often focused on the needs of the seller.Sellers were preoccupied with their need to convert their products into cash. For much of the 20thcentury, sales forces existed to communicate value, not create and deliver it. Value was largely createdand delivered by the product. Salespeople were less interested in satisfying buyer needs by meansbeyond the product itself. Rackham wrote: Even in sophisticated business-to-business sales, until the late 1970s most corporations taughtsalespeople that their role was simply to thrust products forcefully at potential customers. An influentialsales book of the time, Compelling Selling by Philip Lund, advised readers to concentrate exclusively onthe product, not to let the customer talk more than absolutely necessary but instead to ‘close wheneverpossible, even if you’re miles from the order’. [1 ]

Traditional sales and distribution channels were established to push products on to the market. Theywere created as much for the convenience of suppliers as of customers. Many sales, marketing anddistribution functions became organizational silos, often working almost entirely in isolation. Theinefficiencies of this model were sustainable in a seller’s market but not today. Many manufacturersfocused on production and passed responsibility for sales and distribution entirely to intermediaries suchas dealers and retailers. Manufacturers needed long production runs that produced large inventories offinished goods (products waiting for customers to order them). Stock was usually held by distributors. Ifthe manufacturer made an unpopular product, the distributor took the risk of it not selling. Traditionaldistribution channels also allowed manufacturers to avoid the cost of processing and administering manysmall orders. The distributor collates them into fewer, larger orders and carries the cost incurred (onbehalf of the manufacturer). Today’s distribution channels have changed little. They continue to be madeup of independent companies that buy and sell products and services (adding margin) until they reachthe final consumer.

In the 1980s and 1990s, many companies adopted new management approaches, best practices andbuild-to-order techniques, and implemented related software applications (such as inventorymanagement systems). Distribution was often improved but less frequently transformed. Perhaps thegreatest opportunity for transformation came with the emergence of the Internet in the late 1990s. Somebusiness models, such as book retailing, were disrupted. The majority were made more productivethrough improvement (companies were able to do much the same thing but cheaper, faster or moreaccurately).

Solution creation and delivery differs from traditional selling. It requires business transformation.However, traditional product selling will not disappear overnight; it will dominate many industries for yearsto come. Many customers have built up great expertise in the use of some products and will continue tobuy products rather than solutions (although many will choose to make their purchases throughlower-cost channels). Some products and services (in areas such as biotechnology, for example) arecomplex and require considerable explanation. Customers may need consultation to understand aproduct and how it compares to competitive offerings. Over time, new methods, processes and practiceswill replace and complement traditional selling. New models for selling, marketing and distributingproducts and services are emerging.

[1 ]Neil Rackham, Rethinking the Sales Force, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1998 (p 125)

Page 124



Page 125




THE EMERGING DEMAND FOR SOLUTIONS

Enormous changes have taken place in purchasing departments. These once quiet backwaters (in manycompanies) are attracting talented employees looking for opportunities to innovate. Purchasingmanagers and other business buyers have become more demanding, powerful and knowledgeable. Theyare identifying new opportunities for value creation and are willing to invest resources in working withselected suppliers. New management techniques, tools and approaches such as supplier segmentation,supplier reduction and total cost of ownership have been introduced. Purchasing departments have alsobeen transformed by the adoption of e-business, which allows better collaboration between buyers andsellers.

In business-to-business sales, traditional product buyers are often more concerned with features,functions, price and availability. For solution customers, the specifications of the product or service areless important than their economics. Value is defined in terms of how the product is used and thereforeresides at the process level. As a result, responsibility for purchasing decisions tends to move fromtechnical specialists to senior administrators, line-of-business managers and executives who areresponsible for solving business problems and exploiting opportunities for business innovation andgrowth. Industry, market or organizational knowledge is more valuable to solution customers thanproduct knowledge.

Solution customers can also be technical, especially in new and emerging industries. Some customersrequire a different type of technical solution from their suppliers. McKinsey notes that

Corning Cable Systems faces this challenge as it moves from providing fibre-optic cable to offeringcomplete opticalinterconnection solutions. To work with the customers for such solutions – the buildersand operators of server farms and Internet data centres – Corning must learn to deal with these ‘ eheads’as opposed to the ‘Bell-heads’ of its traditional telecommunications customers. [2 ]

Technical expertise may also be required when a customer is growing rapidly (when access to specialistresources inside the company may be limited).

A solution creates exceptional customer value by solving a problem or exploiting an opportunity. Someproblems and opportunities are obvious; others are latent and less explicit. Solution providers must haveexpert knowledge and know the customer’s business at least as well as the customer does if latentopportunities and problems are to be identified and addressed. Sometimes outsiders are best placed toidentify a customer’s problems and opportunities. According to Handy,

Organizations find it very easy to grow accustomed to their blemishes. Remarks like ‘that is acharacteristic of this industry’ often mean ‘we’ve had this squint for so long that it has become part of ouridentity’. The usefulness of outsiders in organizations, as consultants, directors or advisors, oftenconsists mainly in pointing out that one does not necessarily have to have a squint. [3 ]

Some companies are not short of good ideas; they are just short of people who can execute them. Levittargues that creative types tend to confuse the getting of ideas with their implementation – that is,confuse creativity in the abstract with practical innovation; not understand the operating executive’sday-to-day problems; and underestimate the intricate complexity of business organizations. The troublewith much of the advice business is getting today about the need to be more vigorously creative is,essentially, that its advocates have generally failed to distinguish between the relatively easy process ofbeing creative in the abstract and the infinitely more difficult process of being innovationist in theconcrete.

He goes on to say, ‘What is often lacking is not creativity in the idea-creating sense but innovation in theaction-producing sense, i.e. putting ideas to work.’ He claims, ‘The scarce people are those who havethe know-how, energy, daring, and staying power to implement ideas.’ [4 ]

Core competency thinking has led many companies to focus on the things they do well. Many haveoutsourced functions such as information technology and retain only a skeleton staff in areas consideredto be ‘non-core’. As a result, they depend more on external suppliers to act as ‘agents of change’ to helpwith the management of transformation within their own organizations. Successfully managing change

Page 126



requires expert knowledge. Transformation management expertise that is provided by external suppliersmay be invaluable to companies with a history of failed internal change programmes. However, mostchange programmes require a team of internal and external people, each bringing different skills andknowledge.

Many customers do not have the specialist knowledge or the resources required to address someproblems or opportunities and must look to partners and suppliers for support. For example, aprocurement manager looking to reduce the cost of purchasing office equipment might look to externalsuppliers with knowledge of online buying processes and technology integration skills. A team might beput together which would include some of the customer’s employees who would have knowledge ofexisting corporate procurement processes, technology infrastructure or company culture. Solutions areoften created and delivered by teams made up of people from the solution provider, its business partnersand the customer’s organization. In this example, the customer might select a supplier thatdemonstrated:

knowledge of the customer’s industry; knowledge of the customer’s organization; a willingness to be flexible and collaborate to create the best solution; knowledge of online purchasing processes and re-engineering skills; knowledge of Internet technologies and integration skills; the ability to make things happen; the ability to manage and improve the solution over time.

Solution customers want more than standard products and services – many of which they can buy orprovide themselves. Solution customers demand customization. Product mass customization allowedproducts to be tailored to customers’ individual needs. Mass customization of products set a precedent.Today, many customers demand the same level of tailoring and customization from service providers.Solutions are created and delivered through customization and are services-led.

Product mass customization represented a paradigm shift for many manufacturers. Companies thatonce saw themselves as manufacturing companies with distribution capabilities began to seethemselves as distribution companies with manufacturing capabilities. Focus shifted from production todistribution, with the production process becoming a function of sales and marketing. A similar paradigmshift is required to move successfully from products and services to solutions.

In a world of discontinuous change, the challenge for many companies is to turn fixed costs into variablecosts. Fluctuating demand creates inefficiencies for suppliers and customers. When demand is low,companies have excess capacity. When demand is high, they often do not have enough. Many servicedelivery contracts today are agreed over a fixed period of time to a fixed service level at a fixed price andare packaged much like a tangible product. Customers want their service providers to be more flexibleand adaptive. They want their suppliers to act more like partners, sensing and responding to their needs,and sharing more of the risk. More flexible services such as ‘power by the hour’ are emerging. TheInternet has lowered transaction costs between business units and companies. When informationtechnology, such as microchips, is embedded in products, services can be delivered at the speed oflight and varied according to demand.

Over time, customers may become dissatisfied with services that lack flexibility. The businessenvironment is constantly changing, and competition is fierce in many industries. Customers are underpressure to innovate, grow and reduce costs simultaneously. Inflexible service delivery contracts restrictthe customer’s ability to change and innovate. As a result, many service contracts are terminated earlyand are replaced with new ones (often with an alternative service provider). The challenge for serviceproviders is to continue to provide exceptional value over the long term if they are to maintain enduringcustomer relationships. Many customers want continuous innovation during the delivery phase (after thesolution has been created, when the service is up and running). An increasing number of customerswant business solutions on demand.

[2 ]Nathaniel W Foote, Jay Galbraith, Quentin Hope and Danny Miller, Making solutions the answer, McKinseyQuarterly, no 3, 2001 (p 3) [3 ]Charles Handy, Understanding Organizations, Penguin Books, London, 1999 (p 326) [4 ]Theodore Levitt, Creativity is not enough, Harvard Business Review, August 2002 (pp 137–38) (firstpublished in 1963)

Page 127



Page 128




SUPPLIERS INTRODUCE SOLUTIONS

Rifkin poses the question

How, then, does a company successfully win market share when the quality of its goods is virtuallyindistinguishable from its competitors’ and everyone’s making too much of the same product? Theanswer, say a growing number of companies, is to abandon sales altogether. In a buyer’s market,getting in the customer’s door means letting go of the idea of selling a good or service, as radical as thatmight seem. The supplier has to represent zero cost to the customer. But without sales, how does thevendor make money? By co-managing the customer’s operations, improving its performance and profit,and sharing in the gains. The point that needs to be emphasized is that the supplier sells nothing to thecustomer. Instead he lends his know-how and expertise to help run the customer’s business. Thecustomer, in effect, becomes a client and partner. [5 ]

Solutions are unique, although many are similar. Solution creation and delivery requires more thancomplementary product and service ‘bundling’. Bundling allows core products and services to bedifferentiated but starts with the needs of the supplier. Solutions start with the needs of the customer –one customer at a time. According to Michael Porter, ‘Bundling simplifies the buyer’s shopping task.Offering the bundle may also reassure the buyer that all the items in the bundle will work, and reduce thebuyer’s perceived risk of purchase. A single point of responsibility, a single place where complaints canbe lodged, and a single service organization may also be valued by buyers.’ [6 ]Solutions provide a singlepoint of responsibility but are different from product and service bundles. Solutions are uniquelyconfigured and customized to create exceptional customer value.

Solutions are highly differentiated. According to Porter, ‘Differentiation will not lead to a premium price inthe long run unless its sources remain valuable to the buyer and cannot be imitated by competitors.Thus a firm must find durable sources of uniqueness that are protected by barriers to imitation.’ [7 ]Asolution is customized during the process of creation. This makes it difficult for competitors to imitate ormake price comparisons (often allowing higher prices to be charged). Prices can be based on value tothe customer rather than supplier cost-plus. Suppliers that continue to innovate during service deliverycan differentiate their solutions even after they have been created. By sensing and responding to thecustomer’s needs over the long term, the solution provider becomes a partner as much as a supplier.According to IBM’s Institute of Business Value,

Sense and respond is an integral part of the Johnson Controls International (JCI) business – in fact, thecompany has taken the concept quite literally. For customers across the United States, JCI designs andmaintains building systems – including temperature-control systems, mechanical equipment, buildingautomation systems, lighting, and fire and security systems. As part of its maintenance offerings, JCIcan design a custom service strategy exclusively for a particular customer, based on that customer’sspecific business goals. JCI’s service strategies include traditional aspects of support like fixingequipment when it breaks (reactive) and performing scheduled maintenance like lubrication and cleaning(preventative). But what sets JCI apart are its predictive and proactive support capabilities. By puttingsensors in place, JCI can detect signs of a problem and correct it before the customer ever experiencesan equipment failure. And because it knows which building areas and equipment are most critical to thecustomer – like operating rooms in hospitals – the company can use specialized analysis techniques inthose areas to identify the root cause of equipment problems and implement a true solution – not simplyfix problems. JCI has proven so adept at sensing and responding to customer needs that it can now offerits customers guaranteed responsiveness – and share in the value that it helps create. For example, insome performance contracts, JCI guarantees an increase in positive cash flow, which the customer canthen use to pay for major facilities improvements that JCI implements. By increasing the customer’soverall revenue, JCI becomes difficult to replace – an indispensable part of the customer’s ownvaluecreation process. [8 ]

[5 ]Jeremy Rifkin, The Age of Access, Penguin Books, London, 2000 (p 91) [6 ]Michael Porter, Competitive Advantage, Macmillan, Basingstoke, 1985 (p 428) [7 ]Michael Porter, Competitive Advantage (p 153) [8 ]Sharon Arthur and Jonathan Cooper, Industrial Enterprise Business Transformation: Three parts structure,two parts flexibility, IBM, White Plains, NY, 2002 (p 7)

Page 129



Page 130




SOLUTION CREATION AND DELIVERY PROCESS

Many companies have tried to provide their customers with solutions and had limited success. Many failbecause they do not recognize the degree of business transformation required to create and deliversolutions. Improvement is about doing the same things better; transformation is about doing thingsdifferently. While it is possible to have some short-term success without major change, generallycompanies that want to move from products to solutions must transform themselves. Sales, marketingand distribution activities must be oriented towards value creation and less towards valuecommunication. They must become less focused on pushing products and more focused on helpingcustomers buy and use them. Hammer wrote:

From the customers’ point of view, a company exists only to create value for them, to provide them withresults. Yet in far too many companies, the actual creation and delivery of customer value is not theresponsibility of any particular individual. One searches in vain for people who are focused on andresponsible for the end-to-end work of filling customer orders; on seeing new products through fromconception to realization; or on resolving customer problems. Instead, the work that creates results forcustomers is broken into pieces and scattered across numerous departments and units. In thesecompanies, workers, managers, and departments focus on each of the steps that lead to creatingresults for customers, but no one focuses on all the steps together as a unit. One person takes thecustomer call, another gathers needed information, a third decides what is to be done, a fourth takesaction, and no one oversees the whole thing. These companies?suffer from a crisis of process. [9 ]

Hammer and Champy define a business process as ‘a collection of activities that takes one or morekinds of input and creates an output that is of value to the customer’. [10 ]Core processes define anddifferentiate a company. Solution creation and delivery is a core process of a company providingsolutions. Existing processes may require reengineering and new sub-processes may need to becreated. Some organizations failed to achieve substantial benefits through process re-engineering in thepast and have become sceptical of the approach. By contrast, many companies have found thatsolutions can be created and delivered only by taking a process approach – by removing the artificialboundaries that exist between activities (or putting some entirely new ones in), or by making hand-offseasier (or removing them altogether).

During the 1980s and 1990s, re-engineering programmes were aimed at improving product design,engineering and manufacturing processes. During the late 1990s, many companies began re-engineeringtheir customer relationship management processes. Ned Lautenbach, a senior vice president in chargeof worldwide sales and service at IBM, has commented on the role of process in customer managementat IBM:

Success in a global marketplace demands disciplined processes. You can’t run a successful businesswithout them. To be the best solution provider, we must have processes that allow us to leverage all ofour strengths and resources on a worldwide scale. CRM is the way we run our business. It gives us theability to support our customers anywhere in the world. It’s what brings the different parts of our businesstogether to design, develop, and install unique solutions for customers, large or small. [11 ]

Processes usually cut across organizational boundaries; they are rarely confined to single functions.Solution creation and delivery is usually performed by people from many functional areas (from manyinternal business units, external business partners and the customer’s organization). A solution creationand delivery process is needed to allow people to focus on the work they are performing, not the way itis organized. It can allow solution creation and delivery to become ‘ institutionalized’ (passing from theindividuals who perform it to the organization). Process design is important, because without it, activitiesmight be performed differently every time. Processes and subprocesses can provide discipline andstructure to complex activities – enabling consistency and raising the bar for everyone. Without an opportunity management sub-process, for example, opportunities are often managed on an ad hoc basis, with individuals deciding what constitutes a good opportunity (everyone has their owndefinition). Bidding a solution often requires the involvement of numerous skilled professionals such astechnical consultants, who are scarce and whose time can be expensive and must therefore bemanaged carefully. Without an opportunity management process, teams can spend too much timeproviding unnecessary detail on bids that are poorly qualified, which increases the overall cost of biddingand reduces win-rates. A solution opportunity management subprocess can improve solution sales

Page 131



forecasting and human resource management (solutions are services-led).

Many companies have developed solution creation and delivery processes and sub-processes includingsolution selling, opportunity management, solution design and delivery, offerings development andcustomer satisfaction management. Solution sales management subprocesses may also requirere-engineering. Michael Bosworth claims, ‘Whether we manually implement solution selling or useautomated tools, solution selling is a change not only in the selling process but in the salesmanagement process.’ [12 ]

Solution customers generally perform the following sequence of steps when creating and consuming asolution. They:

1. assess the business environment – identifying problems and opportunities; 2. create a business strategy (decide what to do); 3. develop a plan of execution based on their needs to solve problems or exploit

opportunities; 4. explore the options for solving a problem or exploiting an opportunity; 5. select a solution option based on an understanding of value to be created; 6. make a purchase – after they have addressed their concerns; 7. create the solution with the supplier; 8. evaluate success continuously during solution delivery with the supplier; 9. look for further value-creation opportunities during consumption with the supplier.

Solution providers generally perform the following sequence of steps when creating and delivering asolution (corresponding to the solution creation and consumption steps performed by the customer).They:

1. understand the customer’s business environment – identifying their problems andopportunities;

2. create a solution strategy (decide where to try to create value for the customer); 3. develop a plan of execution with the customer – helping to shape the customer’s

vision; 4. describe their capabilities – deciding at this stage whether to go any further; 5. define the solution in collaboration with the customer; 6. sign contracts – after resolving the customer’s concerns; 7. create the solution with the customer; 8. evaluate success continuously during solution delivery with the customer; 9. look

for further value-creation opportunities during delivery with the customer.

This list of steps or activities does not constitute a solution creation and delivery process. Such aprocess differs by industry and solution type and must be tailored to both. The list does, however,provide a broad outline of many of the steps or activities that are often performed.

The solution provider must align solution creation and delivery activities to those performed by thecustomer in solution creation and consumption. There are similarities between the process of solutioncreation and delivery and the way in which professional services are sold and delivered. Maister claims, ‘The single most important talent in selling professional services is the ability to understand thepurchasing process (not the sales process) from the clients’ perspective. The better a professional canlearn to think like a client, the easier it will be to do and say the correct things to get hired.’ [13 ]

Challenges with the process of solution creation and delivery relate less to the hand-offs betweenactivities and sub-processes and more to the need to create order, discipline and consistency withinthem. The management of solution creation and delivery activities can be improved by defining steps andputting milestones in place. Milestones might be in the form of a letter from the customer confirming anopportunity (during the solution creation phase) or a completed customer satisfaction questionnaire(during the solution delivery phase). These milestones can be used to improve solution sales forecasting,since they enable sales executives to view all prospects via a consistent grading system. Milestonescan help less experienced solution salespeople because they are often based on what worked well inthe past. The process approach and the use of tools such as milestones help to shift information andknowledge from the individual to the organization. This is increasingly important as employees becomemore transient.

Peter Drucker once wrote, ‘The essence of economic activity is the commitment of present resources to

Page 132



future expectations, and that means to uncertainty and risk.’ [14 ]Customers tend to work with suppliersthey know and can trust to reduce uncertainty and risk. Personal relationships are important in solutioncreation and delivery. Trust moves from the product to the individuals involved in creating and deliveringthe solution. Similarly, Maister has recognized the importance of trust in selling professional services, ‘First and foremost, it is most firms’ experience that time spent marketing to existing clients is morelikely to result in new business: Existing clients represent higher-probability prospects. This is becausethe ability to win the client’s trust and confidence is a dominant influence in the sales process ofprofessional services.’ [15 ]

Many suppliers underestimate the time required to develop mutual understanding and trust. In solutioncompanies, less time is spent pushing general information at customers and more time is spentlistening to their needs. Similarly, Maister writes, ‘For professional service firms, no less than for otherkinds of business, a primary means of achieving a competitive advantage is to have a betterunderstanding of the wants and needs of clients than does the competition. This deeper understanding, ifit is to be obtained, comes from a very straightforward activity: listening to clients.’ [16 ]A deepunderstanding of the customer’s business and industry is a prerequisite to solution creation and delivery.Solution customers expect suppliers to invest resources (often a lot of time) into getting to know themand their business.

Knowledge about a customer’s industry, market and business (how they operate, their threats and theiropportunities) is essential in solution creation and delivery. According to Michael Bosworth, ‘People wantto buy from people who validate them, who understand their business, who see the world through theireyes, who share their vision, and who empower them to see themselves in control of their problem.’ [17 ]

Slywotzky writes:

[I]n business to business settings, understanding a customer’s decision system means knowing asmuch (or more) about the customer’s business as its management does. It requires a level ofrelationship well beyond the traditional sales re-purchasing agent, supplier–customer structure. It meansunderstanding functionality, systems economics, customer power, and the customer’s entiredecision-making system. [18 ]

According to McKinsey,

Solutions take longer than products to sell; typically, three or four times as many calls are needed toclose deals. The longer sales cycle means that companies offering solutions to their customers mustusually change their sales teams and selling styles – the bigger the problem and the larger the deal, themore people must be persuaded. In sales of a product, by contrast, only a single representative or teamis typically needed to explain its value for the customer, and sales cycles are relatively short. A teamselling solutions must understand the business of the customer at least as well as the customer doeswhile developing partnerlike relationships with its senior decision makers. A technology company thatrevamped its sales and incentive structures to focus on solutions, for example, came to understand itscustomers so completely that when asked for a bid, it would submit two: the one the customer hadrequested and one it thought would actually meet the customer’s needs. [19 ]

[9 ]Michael Hammer, The Agenda: What every business must do to dominate the decade, Random HouseBusiness Books, London, 2002 (p 53) [10 ]Michael Hammer and James Champy, Reengineering the Corporation, Nicholas Brealey, London, 2001 (p38) [11 ]Neil Rackham, Rethinking the Sales Force (p 196) [12 ]Michael T Bosworth, Solution Selling, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1995 (p 184) [13 ]David H Maister, Managing the Professional Service Firm, Free Press Paperbacks, New York, 1993 (p111) [14 ]P Drucker, Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Butterworth-Heinemann, 2001 (p 23) [15 ]David H Maister, Managing the Professional Service Firm (p 98) [16 ]David H Maister, Managing the Professional Service Firm (p 61) [17 ]Michael T Bosworth, Solution Selling (p 38) [18 ]Adrian Slywotzky, Value Migration, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, 1996 (p 15)

Page 133



[19 ]Juliet Johansson, Chandru Krishnamurthy and Henry Schlissberg, Solving the solutions problem, McKinseyQuarterly, no 6696, 2003 (p 122)

Page 134




SOLUTION CREATION AND DELIVERY PEOPLE

Solutions are services-led. They are created and delivered by teams of people (often enabled byprocesses, knowledge and technology). Solution teams usually include supplier, business partners andcustomer employees. Every solution provider is different, but most have at least the following four roles:

solution salespeople (client managers, principals, partners, etc); specialist consultants (technical architects, process experts, etc); project managers (programme managers, etc); service delivery managers (outsourcing managers, etc).

Solution salespeople

The solution salesperson is primarily responsible for developing and managing customer relationshipsand leading teams of people in the creation and delivery of solutions. He or she is often called a partner,principal or client manager, depending on the type of organization he or she represents. Partners andprincipals are usually found in professional services firms or consulting divisions. Partners and clientmanagers can both be found in solution companies such as IBM.


They [solution providers] typically structure account teams around a customer-relationship ownersupported by industry experts and technical specialists, target relatively small pools of customers withsimilar business needs, and try to focus more on senior executives who have fiscal responsibility forbusiness units and less on the buyers or technical managers whom product sellers usually approach. [20 ]

What type of person makes a good solution salesperson? Solution salespeople must demonstrate anin-depth knowledge of the customer’s business and industry. They must be able to build strong personalrelationships through their ability to continuously create and deliver value for the customer over time;solution companies tend to avoid moving their salespeople too often, to allow this to happen. They mustbecome a trusted adviser. This may demand specialist knowledge (about an industry, for example). Withproduct sales, the customer must have trust in the product. By contrast, with solutions the customermust trust the people involved in creating and delivering the solution.

Customers look to solution salespeople to facilitate innovation. Processes should be designed to allowthe solution salesperson enough freedom for creativity and customization while providing appropriategovernance (to ensure quality, consistency and profitability). Solution salespeople must be able to leadteams of people, because solutions are created and delivered in teams. These skills can be found inmany professional services firms and solutions companies but are less frequently found in product salesorganizations, where salespeople tend to be more independent and are less used to having control overthe creation of what they are selling (the product is predefined). Maister comments:

Partners’ autonomy has been justified in the professions because of the need to customize workactivities to fit each client’s needs. Professionals have demanded (if not always retained) the right topractice as they see fit, subject to minimal constraints: Only the service provider knows a particularclient’s circumstances and needs; no one can second-guess. This view, however, was more valid in thedays of the generalist than in today’s marketplace of specialization. Partners are more interdependentthan when each served his own stable of clients: Now, coordination of a number of specialists is arequirement, bringing with it a demand for leadership. [21 ]

Building value-based relationships, selling consultatively and team orchestration are unfamiliar territory tomany salespeople, who are often more comfortable working alone in hierarchical organizations. Someare unwilling to change; some are unable to change. However, few companies introducing solutions can(or indeed want to) replace their entire sales force. Instead, they adopt a number of strategies to acquirethe capabilities they need over the long term. This may mean that the transformation takes longer butcan be less disruptive in the short term. Sales force transformation programmes often involve the salesforce being trained in solution selling techniques and provided with industry knowledge, new solutionselling processes, methods and tools. The cultural change required to introduce solutions should not beunderestimated. According to Neil Rackham,

Page 135



Consultative selling rests on salespeople who become close to the customer and who have an intimategrasp of the customer’s business issues?selling consultatively involves a mutual investment of time andeffort by both seller and customer. Listening and gaining business understanding are more importantselling skills than persuasion; creativity is more important than product knowledge?Because these aredemanding skills, good consultative salespeople are hard to find. Organizations that want to develop animproved consultative selling capability can easily become hostage to highly paid ‘rock-star’ salesperformers. For this reason?effective consultative sales efforts increasingly use diagnostic tools, salesprocesses, and information systems to allow ordinary mortals to perform well in the increasinglysophisticated consultative selling role. [22 ]

Many companies choose to transform their existing sales force; others also hire externally, targetingbusiness executives with strong network relationships and deep industry knowledge. Some companieslook for solution salespeople from within their own management teams. Business managers often haveconsiderable expertise in and knowledge of business processes and know how to manage people andchange. Solution sales professions and new career paths offering opportunities for career progressioncan be used to encourage senior managers to take on new roles in solution creation and delivery.

Solution sales managers

In traditional product-led companies, first- and second-line sales managers spend much of their timemanaging their business, performing tasks and activities such as gathering and reporting forecasts.Some meet regularly with customers to maintain relationships. Many do so only during an escalationprocess – to help close a critical sales opportunity or resolve a particularly messy dispute. By contrast,in successful solution organizations, senior managers spend much of their time with customers, workingwith solution salespeople to develop opportunities, and they continue to nurture key customer executiverelationships. According to Charles Handy, ‘Professional organizations, for instance, never use the word anager?but find expressions like Senior Partner?That is because they have traditionally separated thetraditional leadership role from the administrative or fixing roles.’ [23 ] Solution sales managers can improve the performance of their teams through coaching. Coachingprovides the reinforcement needed to maintain and enhance solution creation and delivery skills.However, sales managers who became successful in product-led sales businesses often have littleexperience in solution creation and delivery. Transformation programmes should be targeted towards theneeds of sales managers as much as salespeople. Further insight into how to manage the change fromproducts to solutions is provided in Chapter 16.

Specialist consultants

Solutions companies usually employ specialist consultants, although some choose to partner forconsulting capabilities. Convergence is occurring between many consulting, outsourcing and solutionscompanies. Betsy Kovacs, president and CEO of the Association of Management Consulting Firms,wrote:

[T]here’ll be a further broadening of what we mean by ‘ consultancy’, and a blurring of boundariesbetween industries and professions. This will be caused by consulting firms adding new services to theirexisting portfolio, particularly in outsourcing, and offering a broader array of services such as law, as wellas competition from non-traditional sources such as nonconsulting organisations. Why would a parceldistribution company, like FedEx, launch a consulting service? Because it realises that it’s delivering ‘solutions’ as much as parcels. [24 ]

Specialist consultants are required to create and deliver solutions. Some companies choose to hire fromthe outside; others attempt to retrain their existing employees, who may already have a great deal ofexpertise in and knowledge of a particular process or industry. Consultants are often organized intoteams by industry, sector, customer or competency area. This allows resources to be managed andenables knowledge to be shared more effectively. Knowledge management systems allow consultants(and others) to collaborate in communities. Some aspects of solution creation and delivery, such assolution design, are often managed as projects and delivered by teams that may come together only forshort periods of time.


Nokia’s front-end Customer Operations unit, which supplies turnkey systems to wireless service

Page 136



companies, includes consultants with deep experience of the customers’ business who try to ensurethat the solution makes customers more competitive. Meeting these staffing requirements can causeorganizational stress: young, open-minded people are hired from the outside and leapfrog older, lessflexible staff. Toughest of all can be finding unit leaders who are both talented business builders andeffective negotiators with senior managers inside and outside the organization?these front-end units areamorphous. They configure and reconfigure their teams according to the project and its various stages. [

25 ]

Project managers In many product-led companies, project management (for example, to coordinate the installation of somenew industrial machinery) is often performed on an ad hoc basis or not at all. Some product-ledcompanies have dedicated project managers but do not charge the customer for their time. Whenproduct margins were high, many product-led companies absorbed the cost of additional services (suchas project management) in the price of the product.

By contrast, solution creation and delivery activities are often complex, and are performed by teams ofpeople who must be coordinated and managed. Some resources, such as specialist softwareprogrammers, are scarce, and their time must be scheduled long in advance. Project management isessential for managing costs and quality. In solution companies, project management is often a fulltimejob with distinctive competencies, skills, professions and career paths.

Service delivery managers Service delivery managers often provide their expertise during the creation of solutions, but their primeresponsibility is for ongoing delivery after the solution has been created. They must ensure thatcontracts perform to agreed service quality levels and maintain control over ongoing service deliverycosts. The objective for companies introducing solutions is to create exceptional customer value –becoming less of a supplier and more of a partner. Service delivery managers must look beyond thebasic service and identify opportunities for improvement and innovation if enduring relationships are to bemaintained over the long term. Further assessment of the role of innovation in solution creation anddelivery was provided in Chapter 7.

[20 ]Juliet Johansson et al, Solving the solutions problem (p 123) [21 ]David H Maister, Managing the Professional Service Firm (p 292) [22 ]Neil Rackham, Rethinking the Sales Force (p 26) [23 ]Charles Handy, Understanding Organizations (p 322) [24 ]Fiona Czerniawska, Management Consultancy, What Next?, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, 2002 (p140) [25 ]Nathaniel W Foote, Jay Galbraith, Quentin Hope and Danny Miller, Making solutions the answer, McKinseyQuarterly, no 3, 2001 (p 6)

Page 137




SUMMARY

In this chapter we described how the business environment is changing. We assessed and explainedthe growing demand for business solutions on demand. We argued that product and service suppliersmust transform their sales and distribution functions and their entire business models if they are to besuccessful as solution providers. We explained how traditional sales and distribution evolved, and arguedthat neither supports solution creation and delivery. We suggested that traditional product sales anddistribution will not disappear overnight because they still create value for some customers. However, weput the case that low-cost and solution business models will emerge and, in many cases, will replaceproduct sales and distribution. We looked at the benefits of introducing solutions from the supplier’s perspective. We argued thatcompanies should adopt a process approach to solution creation and delivery. We explained thatenduring customer relationships are based on trust and the ability of solution providers to continuouslycreate and deliver customer value. This requires innovation in solution creation and delivery. Finally, weoutlined the roles of solution salespeople, specialist consultants, project managers and service deliverymanagers. In Chapter 10, Glenn Taylor provides insight into his role as a Customer RelationshipManager (a solution sales role) at IBM.

Page 138




NOTES 1. Neil Rackham, Rethinking the Sales Force, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1998 (p 125) 2. Nathaniel W Foote, Jay Galbraith, Quentin Hope and Danny Miller, Making solutions the answer, McKinsey Quarterly, no 3, 2001 (p 3) 3. Charles Handy, Understanding Organizations, Penguin Books, London, 1999 (p 326) 4. Theodore Levitt, Creativity is not enough, Harvard Business Review, August 2002 (pp 137–38) (firstpublished in 1963) 5. Jeremy Rifkin, The Age of Access, Penguin Books, London, 2000 (p 91) 6. Michael Porter, Competitive Advantage, Macmillan, Basingstoke, 1985 (p 428) 7. Michael Porter, Competitive Advantage (p 153) 8. Sharon Arthur and Jonathan Cooper, Industrial Enterprise Business Transformation: Three partsstructure, two parts flexibility, IBM, White Plains, NY, 2002 (p 7) 9. Michael Hammer, The Agenda: What every business must do to dominate the decade, RandomHouse Business Books, London, 2002 (p 53) 10. Michael Hammer and James Champy, Reengineering the Corporation, Nicholas Brealey, London,2001 (p 38) 11. Neil Rackham, Rethinking the Sales Force (p 196) 12. Michael T Bosworth, Solution Selling, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1995 (p 184) 13. David H Maister, Managing the Professional Service Firm, Free Press Paperbacks, New York, 1993(p 111) 14. P Drucker, Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Butterworth-Heinemann, 2001 (p 23) 15. David H Maister, Managing the Professional Service Firm (p 98) 16. David H Maister, Managing the Professional Service Firm (p 61) 17. Michael T Bosworth, Solution Selling (p 38) 18. Adrian Slywotzky, Value Migration, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, 1996 (p 15) 19. Juliet Johansson, Chandru Krishnamurthy and Henry Schlissberg, Solving the solutions problem, McKinsey Quarterly, no 6696, 2003 (p 122) 20. Juliet Johansson et al, Solving the solutions problem (p 123) 21. David H Maister, Managing the Professional Service Firm (p 292) 22. Neil Rackham, Rethinking the Sales Force (p 26) 23. Charles Handy, Understanding Organizations (p 322) 24. Fiona Czerniawska, Management Consultancy, What Next?, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, 2002(p 140) 25. Nathaniel W Foote, Jay Galbraith, Quentin Hope and Danny Miller, Making solutions the answer, McKinsey Quarterly, no 3, 2001 (p 6)

Page 139




Chapter 10: The Customer Relationship Manager Glenn Taylor

INTRODUCTION

My name is Glenn Taylor and at the time of writing (2003) I work for IBM United Kingdom as a ClientExecutive. Today, everyone seems to have the title ‘manager’, ‘executive’ or ‘leader’. My business cardis blank. This allows me to explain in 10 seconds what I do and why it is of value. My aim here is to dothe same, but in more detail. I am one of those people who constantly question how they do things. I amopen to new ideas and like to learn from many sources. Over the years, I have learned to update mycompetencies to gain more of the success I seek.

My career in the IT industry

I started my career in the early 1970s when I was lucky enough to fall into a job in informationtechnology (IT) operations as a Data Control Clerk (then one of the lowest functions). At that time, thedemand for IT skills was exploding, and I quickly moved up through the ranks, from operations throughmanagement and eventually into programming. From programming, like many of my peers I progressedinto systems analysis. As a Systems Analyst, I sat down with people and tried to work out what theywere trying to do and whether information systems could help. When we found opportunities to dosomething better using IT, I would help my customer go through a change programme. We wouldchoose the right technologies, configure them, and deploy them to achieve specific business objectivesthat were laid down in advance.

During the mid-1980s I switched to the supplier side of the fence as a programme manager. Fromprogramme management I moved quite quickly into a sales role. I realized it was just like running aprogramme but with different milestones. It was better paid and there was more glory. It seems to bethat talkers often get paid more and have bigger cars than doers! I joined IBM in 1996. First I soldproducts, then services. In my current job as Client Executive, I sell (and help customers to buy)everything IBM does.

Page 140




SOLUTION SELLING

IBM searches constantly for ways to keep its products and services competitive – for new areas ofinnovation. Since I joined IBM, we have introduced many new services that generate revenues in theirown right. I have seen outsourcing grow over the past few years. It seems to me that helping customersachieve their objectives by doing non-core activities for them is an opportunity for every business. In myopinion, solution selling is the art of adding as much value for your customer as possible.

My role as a solution salesman is to understand and manage the continuing cycle of interactionsbetween my company and the customer, and to ensure that the cycle results in business growth. Agood starting point in explaining the role would be to look at how business gets done. A number ofactivities must happen for business to grow through this cycle.

Many people believe creating awareness is the job of marketing. I believe it extends to any interactionwith a customer that leaves them with an impression of you. Sometimes one can create awarenessdeliberately through marketing and promotions such as product brochures or personal calls. At othertimes, awareness is created less deliberately. An impression can be left by customers talking to eachother about a salesperson, or even by how a salesperson is dressed. I am conscious of this when I meetwith customers, even socially. At IBM we also follow formal guidelines for business conduct.

At IBM we use a solution selling method with steps linked to a process. Most selling starts whenawareness leads to demand. This is where I help customers to get curious about what we can offer, andI try to turn that curiosity into real interest. I do this by relating our offerings to the customers’ specificsituation – their problem or opportunity. This often involves being innovative and being open to manyoptions.

One of the benefits of the solution sales process is that it contributes to customers’ awareness of me asa salesman and the organization I work for. A feedback loop is created that presents opportunities formore business. Better awareness creates more demand and the cycle continues.

When done well, solution selling improves customer satisfaction. This is important, particularly if thesolution involves delivering a service over time. If you set an expectation and fail, you will leavecustomers upset by the experience. That can be a real problem if, like me, you work with the sameclients over a number of years. On the other hand, if you meet or exceed customers’ expectations, theywill be warmed by the experience.

Customer satisfaction is important, and we measure it regularly. I know from experience that customersatisfaction contributes to loyalty. Customers may open additional opportunities in other parts of theirbusiness and may refer you to other customers. I have learned too the importance of ‘doing what yousay’. Customers will tell other individuals in the same company about a bad experience, and that cancause problems for future campaigns.

The loyalty sword cuts both ways. If you let customers down by not ‘doing what you say’, the solutionselling process breaks down. It is very hard to talk yourself out of something you have acted yourselfinto. Trust is key to successful solution selling. So, if you fail customers by delivering a poor service,you risk leaving a wound that stays open for many years. Customers have lots of choice about whomthey do business with. It’s critical to get things right, even after the solution has been sold. Delivery isimportant too.

Following a solution selling process and delivering against expectations are both vital for success.However, contacts with customers are complicated. Many interactions are needed between my teamand our customers, often over long periods. The sum of these interactions makes up the customerrelationship. It is my job to make sure that that relationship remains strong. It has to be said that eachindividual has the power to improve that relationship, and it is my job to help him or her. Understandingand managing a team of customer-facing resources, often from different parts of IBM, is critical increating solutions.

How we are organized

I look after customers from the same industry grouping. This grouping is deliberate. We call it ‘clustering’

Page 141



, and it improves industry value. The customers who buy IBM’s solutions, as opposed to our productsand services, are often line-of-business managers, not IT managers. The sales team assigned to anaccount is expected to call at line-of-business level and should be capable of engaging in a conversationthat creates value for customers. Customers talk about business problems, so industry knowledge isimportant.

Being in a cluster makes it easier to learn and understand my customers’ industry. It makes me feelmore comfortable engaging outside their IT department, at line-of-business director level. To have valueadded discussions with senior line-of-business customers, I need to know about their markets andunderstand their strategic and tactical issues and opportunities. The product and services sales teamsare also aligned to specific clusters. This improves industry and market knowledge. We also get betterconsistency in the way the team builds solutions and engages with customers.

What I do

My job is to build and manage customer relationships. I analyse individual players within our customersand decide which we need to know and who needs to know us. IBM has had relationships with most ofits customers for many years. However, individuals change, and in a business development situation weneed to know all the right people. I maintain a profile of each important person, which I am happy toshare with them if they ask. The profile is a living document that captures a customer’s biography,current role and their responsibilities. It also describes our strategy for developing the relationship.

The relationship development strategy is a quarter-by-quarter plan to move the relationship from thecurrent status to a stronger one. This might include corporate hospitality as well as IBM and customermeetings. We use trade associations, links with education establishments, and country and industryforums as opportunities to engage with the targeted customer. Of course, we also ask for meetings!After all, value has to be exchanged – it can’t be just one-way! This does not mean I am the only onewho calls on the customer. On the contrary, we plan coverage using the whole team, so we have theright people engaged with the customer at the appropriate time. Opportunities may emerge from alllevels of the customer’s organization and with any member of our team. We use a formal trackingprocess that highlights opportunities when they are identified and communicates them automatically tothe team for further attention.

I am responsible for developing a value proposition to meet the customers’ individual needs. The valueproposition describes how IBM could create value for the customer. To sell successfully, I mustunderstand IBM’s capabilities well enough to position a competence and its relevance to the situation. Ialso need to know enough to coach IBM’s specialists and business partners in the customer needs. Inpractice, my background and interests determine the level of detail I go into.

The sales leader is responsible for selling individual products and services, ‘owning’ opportunities andupdating our reporting systems, which allow management, and other interested parties, to monitorprogress and pipeline. Sharing responsibility is hard in a matrix organization. Line management needinformation and expect their respective customer-facing teams to know all the issues relating to eachopportunity in some detail, so they can step in if required.

Creating a solution

I rarely make a cold call on a line-of-business executive without having done some research on issues ofinterest to him or her. It is important to be able to offer a comment or two on a potential opportunity orthreat the customer is facing – the beginnings of the relationship plan. This gets easier as experience ofthe industry grows. It also gets easier with practice at articulating value propositions. Longevity on theaccount helps too.

Most new customers are both interested and surprised to hear how many touch points exist betweenIBM and their company. We work right across our customers’ organizations. Customers are usuallykeen to discuss their issues and explore how we can help. They want to make sure they are getting fullvalue from us. We have a business consulting capability in a division called Business ConsultingServices (BCS), formed following IBM’s acquisition of PricewaterhouseCoopers Consulting and mergerwith IBM Business Innovation Services. This enables us to discuss strategic issues with the customerand focus on very specialist business areas. BCS helps to shape the customer’s thinking and providesthe consultants who help to create many of our solutions. We also have a services division called

Page 142



Integrated Technology Services (ITS); I use them when specialist information technology skills areneeded.

Many customer line-of-business managers and directors are focused on operations. They are often moreconcerned with immediate activities rather than future projects we like to discuss with them. They rarelyhave time to step back and explore alternatives. This is understandable.

I am always looking for new opportunities to discuss impending business issues and possible solutions.Through these discussions I try to get ‘mind-share’ with the customer and present IBM as offering a wayforward. We rarely discuss products or even our services during those early discussions. Sometimes thechallenge looks similar to something we’ve done with another customer, so we can address it quickly.At other times, IBM’s capabilities need to be reconfigured to suit the particular circumstance. In manyways, the first type of challenge is more attractive. If we’ve done something similar before, we canapproach it with more predictability, we can reuse knowledge and we have more credibility at the outset,so it’s lower-risk.

As the opportunity gets clearer, we have to shape it. I try to do what makes most sense for thecustomer. A team is put together which is responsible for creating the solution. It is my role to act asthe customer’s friend, to ensure we’re doing the right things and to make sure we’re leveraging all of ourcapabilities. The individual product businesses that are represented in the solution each have their ownperspective. We often debate the best way forward.

A big difference between solution selling and product selling is visible at this step of the cycle. In aproduct selling situation the opportunity is often clearer: someone else has previously thought throughthe change project and specified the requirement for a product of particular characteristics. Productsalespersons tend to sell against that requirement; they arrive quite late in the buying process. Thisapproach still works on many occasions; parts of our business are still product-led.

A solution approach is different in two key areas. First, calling on customers earlier in the buyingprocess means we can help to shape their thinking. It also gives us advanced warning of the emergingopportunity. Second, by working with customers to explore their needs, I can introduce other IBMcapabilities that customers may require. This increases the size and attractiveness of the opportunity.This approach often uncovers additional elements of the project that need to be considered, such asorganizational change management, but that are not directly linked to the technology (though they areimportant all the same). In any change programme, success depends as much on changing people’sbehaviour and the processes by which they work as on the quality of the technology used. The solutionapproach tries to balance all the components needed. At the same time, it gives us the opportunity toincrease our involvement with the customer. This affects how customers perceive us in terms of addedvalue.

As the opportunity progresses, I need to ensure that our relationships are healthy. I call this ‘check andbalance’. I try to ensure that we are on the right track. I input my knowledge of the customer’s prioritiesand how things get done within that organization.

I must justify the investment of resources to my management. We cannot pursue every opportunity. Wemust be sure that our solutions create value for the customer and are good business for IBM. We have aformal opportunity management process for this. It is my responsibility to ensure that the process isadhered to.

From there on, my role is a consultative one, throughout the deal closure process up to solution delivery.I oversee the delivery mechanism to ensure that customer satisfaction is maintained. If customersatisfaction becomes a problem, then I step in and own the resolution of the issue. Once the solution isup and running, I meet with the customers with whom we’ve developed new relationships during theengagement and look for additional opportunities that may be available?and so the cycle continues.

As you can imagine, we may have many transactions with a customer happening at the same time. It isa challenge to keep everyone who is working on the account up to speed with what they need to know. Ihave learned from experience that the best way to do this is to appoint myself as communications hub. Ibecome the centre of communications, and all the team regularly update me on activity. I absorb theinformation and pass back relevant knowledge from other areas. People also have to decide how to act

Page 143



upon this knowledge. This is my approach to communicating ‘dynamic’ information. We use knowledgemanagement systems too, and they can be really useful. For example, we have a formal structure foraccount planning and documentation that helps the team share understanding of business issues andongoing activity.

We do several things to help with building and managing teams. The alignment of teams on to the samecluster helps put some structure around how we work together. Sometimes it is best not to over-managethings. Building a shared vision, trust, leadership and fellowship is left to the individual teams, and ittakes deliberate management to engineer these attributes in a team. As team communicator, I work tobuild trust within the team.

Sometimes I take the role of team leader – in the sense that I shape the composition of the team. I alsotry to shape the strategy we follow, so that we have the right ingredients for success. I don’t mean ‘leader’ in the sense that I make all decisions. The aim is to get ownership of the way forward by theteam and commitment to deliver against that. For each opportunity, we assign the lead role to the mostappropriate person.

Trust between team members must be built over time. It is easier to get commitment and agreement onactions when there is trust – and with trust comes what I call ‘followship’: that is, people willing to be ledby their peers. ‘Followship’ allows each product representative to feel more comfortable about the idea oftheir product or service being part of a wider solution from IBM. It means they will allow another productrepresentative to take the lead in a sales opportunity even if they are not from the same division. Gainingthat level of trust can only be achieved over time and requires much team-building and effectivecommunication.

My team is very experienced. Any one of the brand leaders could hold a discussion with the customer, asenior line-of-business executive, and do the team justice. Since we can all ‘call high’, we try to makecoverage of the key customers a shared task rather than an individual bottleneck, so I am not always theone who identifies and shapes an opportunity at the beginning. Also, when experienced businessconsultants are engaged from the outset, I do not usually need to be involved. I do, however, ‘ghost’ allopportunities to make sure we are leveraging the value of our entire organization, ie by broadening theoverall relationship, helping with internal processes and ‘care-taking’ the cycle through to delivery.

Page 144




CAREER DEVELOPMENT

I joined IBM as an ‘experienced hire’. At my previous company I had undertaken many professionalselling training courses and workshops, and had performed the role in a number of situations. Therefore,my starting point for career development was very different from that of somebody new to sales. IBMhas ‘professions’ for many job families, including sales. To achieve accreditation and certification in aprofession, specific competencies must be acquired and demonstrated. Certification as Client Executiveis important because it is a gateway for access to promotions, and determines the size of the accountsthat you are allocated.

To become an accredited Client Executive, I had to achieve a number of goals that required sometraining. I had to prove I possessed certain competencies. We compared my capabilities with a profile ofthe skills and competencies that IBM judges are those that a Client Executive should exhibit. Theyinclude insight into the customer environment; ability to discuss at line-of-business level; knowledge ofIBM offerings; and personal behaviour styles.

As soon as the gap is bridged, the next formal step is nomination to attend the Client Executive training,which is held at a prestigious European business school. The course aims at improving knowledge ofstrategic and operational issues. Three one-week modules are interspersed with distance learningactivities. We write a strategic white paper on a business issue facing our customers, which helps us toput the learning into practice. I produced a report outlining the opportunities and threats facing mycustomer in the aerospace and defence industry. After completing the training and submitting the paper,I had to demonstrate a track record in building appropriate customer relationships, and I had to explainan executable account strategy and present a tactical plan for achieving the expected growth. Myknowledge in this area was tested in a series of one-on-one interviews and a presentation. Salespeopleshould revisit this certification every four years or when moving to a customer in a different industry.

Page 145




CONCLUSION

Being a Client Executive is a very satisfying job in IBM. It allows you to create opportunities from yourown knowledge and relationships and those of your colleagues. It can be frustrating. The challenges ofdelivering customer satisfaction can be overwhelming – but it is well worth it. My job is also largelyportable, as most of my skills involve understanding customers and fostering a team approach todelivering value. My individual influence over this is directly related to the respect that I win (or not) fromthe other team members, and so building a team with strong team attributes is critical. IBM believes thatthis role is vital to the development of commercial business relationships. This is especially true in today’s markets.

Page 146




Chapter 11: Solution Marketing Mark Cerasale

INTRODUCTION

Solution marketing is much more than services marketing, although there are some similarities betweenthe two. Marketing must be transformed to support the creation and delivery of solutions. Solutionmarketing combines industry marketing, offerings marketing and relationship marketing. Marketingstrategy must create exceptional customer value. For it to do this, marketing must be at the heart ofbusiness strategy. Accordingly, new marketing roles and responsibilities are needed.

The growth and widespread adoption of the Internet in the late 1990s created new opportunities formarketers. It gave marketers unprecedented access to customers. New online approaches were adoptedfor researching and measuring customer needs, testing new marketing concepts and introducing newproducts. Marketing departments, agencies and other suppliers were quick to adopt e-mail and set upextranets. During the 1990s, some companies began using new information technologies, such as datamining, to support marketing activities. Marketers expected these technologies to herald the beginningof a new era of innovation. Unsurprisingly, the recent economic slowdown appears to have dampened thespirit of marketing innovation. Marketing has become less strategic and more operational. Yet the needfor marketing transformation has never been greater.

IBM conducted research in 2002 to test the marketing climate. Senior marketing executives were askedabout their most pressing challenges and priorities. Participants were representatives from largeUK-based organizations, including not-for-profits, from many industries including retail banking,consumer electronics, government, insurance, retail, travel, telecommunications and transportation. Theresearch found that the top 10 challenges are (in order of priority):

1. measuring marketing effectiveness; 2. managing and executing campaigns; 3. building a customer-centric information system to support decision-making; 4. fostering the brand through innovation; 5. improving the return on marketing technology investments; 6. reducing the cost and complexity associated with using multiple agencies; 7. developing a customer information strategy across the enterprise; 8. developing and managing the company’s brand online; 9. distributing marketing information to decision-makers via marketing intranets;10. customer relationship management through the use of extranets. [1 ]

The findings suggest a strong focus on operational effectiveness, productivity and cost reduction.Improving the return on marketing technology investments and reducing the cost and complexityassociated with using multiple agencies, for example, both ranked highly. In a depressed economy,marketing budgets are often cut, and there is more pressure to improve productivity. Fewer resourcesare expected to do more. Marketing operations are measured and inspected for opportunities to improveoperational effectiveness.

Running a tight ship is no bad thing. However, problems begin when there is too much focus onshort-term operations and too little focus on longer-term innovation and growth. Operational changes atbest provide opportunities for marginal improvement. At worst, they can be disruptive and are notworthwhile. They are in effect like ‘moving deckchairs on a sinking ship’. Marketing strategy should beoriented towards innovation and growth. Marketing innovation and transformation is about doing thingsdifferently for superior results.

The IBM research found that innovation has not been entirely neglected. ‘Fostering the brand throughinnovation’ was indeed one of the priorities.

When marketing focuses too much on cost (and not enough on innovation and growth), it relegates itselfto the operational level of a support function. Yet it has long been understood that marketing is far morethan a support function. Marketing is strategic, and a central function of every company. We (the authorsof this book) agree with Drucker’s view:

Page 147



Because it is its purpose to create a customer, any business enterprise has two – and only these two –basic functions: marketing and innovation?Marketing is the distinguishing, the unique function of thebusiness?It is the whole business seen from the point of view of the final result, that is, from thecustomer’s point of view. Concern and responsibility for marketing must therefore permeate all areas ofthe enterprise. [2 ]

When marketing strategies are planned and executed well, they create exceptional customer value andcompetitive advantage.

In some industries, such as fast-moving consumer goods, marketing permeates the enterprise. However,in many other manufacturing and service industries, the marketing function is often a lonely functionalsilo. Some employees do not know what marketers do; they confuse marketing with advertising orselling. Ironically, for a function that has image as one of its main concerns, marketing too often has animage problem. It is time for marketing to re-establish itself, to be transformed in both style andsubstance. It must become synonymous with customer value, innovation and growth. To achieve this,the focus of marketing must change from communicating the value of products and services to creatingvalue for customers.

[1 ]Anthony Marsella, IBM Special Report, Marketing Transformation: An agenda for change, 2003 (p 2) [2 ]Peter Drucker, The Practice of Management, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, 2001 (pp 35–36)

Page 148




FROM PRODUCT TO CUSTOMER VALUE

For most of the 20th century, manufacturing was the engine of growth in most economies. Customerdemand for products was high, and under-supply made suppliers powerful. Economic growth after theSecond World War made consumers wealthier. In Western economies, social status was achievedthrough product ownership. New products were introduced and improved to satisfy customers’ everyneed, and customers snapped them up. The greatest challenge for many companies was to maintainlevels of production to satisfy growing demand while managing costs to maintain a healthy profit.Management resources were invested in improving the product and production; distribution andconsumption were of less concern. The 20th century was an era of product-led consumerism.

Marketing was primarily a broadcast discipline. It was grounded in practices developed for sellingmass-produced goods to homogeneous markets. Marketers were responsible for creating andbroadcasting messages about their products and services through the mass media. Brand-building wascentred on awareness. Marketers would create a position for a product and use the mass media toadvertise it. In this way, brands became known for specific attributes. Marketing aimed to targetproducts at customers. Some customer needs were obvious and explicit; others were less so (like thosefulfilled by the Sony Walkman). Product benefits were often communicated in terms of features,functions and performance – for example, ‘Daz washes whiter’. Consumers were less discerning andpoorly equipped to challenge such claims. As more products and services entered the market andconsumers became more familiar with them, customers became more sophisticated and discerning.Products were differentiated by adding new features and functions. Performance improvements madethem faster, cheaper, bigger or, sometimes, smaller (the Sony approach).

Some marketing tools and techniques that emerged during that era are less relevant today. Theeffectiveness of focus groups, market research, surveys and the like can be limited. Focus groups, forexample, were more effective when markets and customers had similar, often less complex, needs. It isless likely that a focus group – made up of carefully selected individuals, who are paid for their time andasked a series of carefully crafted (and therefore somewhat restrictive) questions – will provide insightinto the needs of today’s more sophisticated and less homogeneous customers.

During the era of product-led consumerism, marketing planning was often little more than incrementaltactical planning. Targets were set out in strategic business plans, market share being a commonmetric. Marketing planning was about making the numbers add up, about achieving short-termshareholder expectations. As demand steadily increased and markets grew, change was predictableand could be planned. While marketing planning was focused on growth, it often had less to do withinnovation. Innovation is about doing things differently. Few senior marketing executives were willing torock the boat by trying something different. They focused their energies instead on glamorous,high-profile advertising campaigns. Why take unnecessary risks? In many markets, a strong hand on theorganizational tiller was enough to achieve most marketing objectives.

The causes of change

Powerful forces such as globalization, deregulation and greater access to capital transformed businessduring the 1980s and 1990s. Competition increased, and over-supply caused many markets to becomesaturated. Today, change is discontinuous and unpredictable. Workers are more mobile andknowledgeable about products. Technology and processes are quickly imitated. The rate of productinnovation is slowing, and rapid imitation is commoditizing many products and services. Products andservices are more similar and less easily differentiated; features, functions and performance count less,many being perceived as ‘good enough’. Widespread adoption of new management approaches and theuse of information technologies such as the Internet have improved productivity. Quality programmes andthe pervasive use of best-practice manufacturing processes have raised the bar in product design andmanufacturing. There is now little room for sustainable competitive advantage through the activitiesinvolved in production. The customer, not the product, is now the scarce resource. Product-led consumerism has beenreplaced by customer-led consumerism. Signs of this change have been around for many years. As wasmentioned in Chapter 4, in a landmark article in the Harvard Business Review in 1960, entitled ‘Marketing myopia’, [3 ]Theodore Levitt argued that companies were too concerned with the products theyproduced and not concerned enough with the customers they served. He argued that businesses should

Page 149



plan from the customer backward rather than from production forward. It is now much more important forcompanies to understand and quantify customer needs and to focus on maintaining or increasing theirshare of customers’ business.

Customer relationships have come to the fore. It is harder to compete on products’ attributes and moredifficult to sustain a competitive advantage through products and production. However, the need forproductivity improvements has not gone away: knowledgeable and powerful customers are still sensitiveto pricing anomalies. Suppliers must simultaneously compete on the quality and ingenuity of theirproducts and the quality of their customer relationships. Many more companies are looking to createand deliver customer value through things that are extrinsic to their products, focusing more on how theyare used. The competitive battleground has moved from production to marketing, sales and distribution.Indeed, IBM’s research results suggest an overall shift in focus towards improving customer relationshipmanagement. Building a customer-centric information system to support decision-making and customerrelationship management through the use of extranets, for example, was a high marketing priority.

The Internet and the Net generation

The Internet creates innovation opportunities, but also the need for different approaches to marketing.The Internet is a disruptive technology; it has disrupted marketing. It may not have changed the world inthe way suggested (unrealistically) by commentators during the heady days of the dot.com boom in thelate 1990s, but it has undoubtedly transformed our social and commercial landscape. The Internet andthe mobile phone have changed how we work, making it easier for companies and individuals tocommunicate and collaborate, and they have changed the way we live. For example, young people todayexpect to have access to information, to communicate and interact in ways that were impossible just afew years ago. The Internet and the mobile phone are the main media for engaging with today’steenagers, who spend millions of dollars each year on clothes, food, music, movies and games. [4 ]

According to a recent report on youth marketing sponsored by IBM,

[The teenage] group is seen as a lucrative market in its own right, but as interests, consumer choicesand a variety of experiences fracture the demographic, marketers need to look beyond demographics,numbers and media speak. Teens these days are?independent entities, who alone and with alignedpeers create their own rules of engagement and social behaviour. Overall, in today’s society teens arestill motivated by the same aspirations of previous generations?The difference today is the new channelsand content distribution that they use.

The report concludes:

The core value of the teen is to communicate and be heard. While teens complain that they have lessand less public spaces to hang-out in, they are making the on-line world their milieu, their domain wherethey develop personal relationships with others and get closer to those who they admire and respect, therealm where they play and learn new things?Teen brands should learn to understand such emergingbehaviour to get closer to their target audience to establish more truthful binds with them. [5 ]

Teen marketers have come to realize that above-the-line advertising and sales promotions are lesseffective than online teen communities in getting many products and services adopted. Marketing toteenagers has been transformed. Teenagers are used to highly flexible personalized environments thatthey can influence. They are used to trying things out for free, so marketers will have to think of newbusiness models – perhaps giving the basic service away for free, then charging later for value addedservices. As teenagers enter the workforce, in just a few years’ time, they will bring with them the habitsand norms of their online world: chat sites, role-playing games, 3D virtual reality and viral mobilemessaging.

The Internet is not the exclusive domain of the young. It is used by consumers in most socio-economicgroups, mostly for gathering information. The Internet allows customers to make supplier comparisonsquickly, conveniently and cheaply. It has transformed the buying process. Many customers no longerrely on salespeople for the information they require to make informed buying decisions. Instead, they arewilling to search for information and inform themselves. The Internet makes switching suppliers easiertoo. As a result, customers are becoming less loyal to traditional suppliers. Communities of interest andbuying groups have emerged on the Internet. However, the Internet has also facilitated the tying ofbusiness customers and their suppliers more closely together, in a services relationship.

Page 150



[3 ]Theodore Levitt, Marketing myopia, Harvard Business Review, 38, July–August 1960 (pp 45–56) [4 ]Martin Lindstrom, BrandChild, Kogan Page, London, 2002 [5 ]Agents of Change White Paper, Teenagers: Mobile lifestyles trends, Spero Communications, 2003 (p 1)

Page 151




THE IMPORTANCE OF SERVICES CAPABILITIES ANDENABLERS

Growth in business services is due in large part to core competence thinking. In 1990, C K Prahalad andGary Hamel published an article entitled ‘The core competence of the corporation’ [6 ]in which theysuggested that companies should exit activities that do not use core competencies. Core competencies(or capabilities) are things a company does well. They are bundles of skills and technologies that enablea company to provide a particular benefit to its customers and are, therefore, unlike strategic businessunits (SBUs), which are usually defined by specific product-markets.

Companies are abandoning many more non-core activities and are turning to external suppliers toprovide them instead. Services industries such as IT outsourcing are growing rapidly. A major challengefor marketers, as suppliers of consumer and business services, is to move their brands from the productlevel to the capability level. IBM, for example, was once synonymous with mainframe computers. In the1990s the brand became associated with e-business transformation services and in the new millenniumwill become increasingly associated with on demand transformation services.

Enablers are the tangible and intangible assets a company has that enable things to get done. Theyinclude offices, factories, brands, products and employees. Today, many companies are attempting toimprove their balance sheets by selling off costly physical assets that depreciate, often preferring tolease them instead. This has further fuelled the growth in business services. Companies increasinglylook for outside partners to do things for them. A network economy is beginning to emerge. Thewidespread adoption of the Internet and new technologies has made working with external partnerscheaper and easier. Lower transaction costs mean that more services can be sourced externally. In theemerging network economy, companies can access capabilities and enablers without taking ownershipof them. Marketing managers often outsource activities to third parties, including creative thinking foradvertising campaigns and the management of customer databases. The network economy will allowfurther collaboration to take place.

[6 ]Gary Hamel and C K Prahalad, The core competence of the corporation, Harvard Business Review, May–June 1990 (pp 79–90)

Page 152




MARKETING: THE LOW-COST ROUTE

Customers that demand value through lower costs are usually familiar with the products they need(which are often commodities). Cost is the key factor in determining which suppliers they choose. Theywill research their options, compare prices and shop around for the best deal. These customers oftenjoin communities of interest where they can get advice and recommendations. They are able to chooseand buy without a great deal of expert advice and guidance from traditional intermediaries such assalespeople. They use consumer reports, read Internet or magazine reviews and listen torecommendations from friends. They use the Internet to access relevant information, conduct research,compare buying options and purchase with the minimum of cost and inconvenience. They value lowercosts above all else, so they often have little brand loyalty.

To succeed with customers demanding value through lower costs, suppliers must improve the buyingexperience by making sure it is simpler and allows self-help. Suppliers must also take cost out ofeverything they do while retaining as much value as possible. The low-cost business model requireslow-cost sales, marketing and distribution. New technologies such as the Internet are key enablers toproviding low-cost value. But it doesn’t stop there. If competitive advantage is to be sustained, supportingbusiness functions such as supply-chain management must continuously be transformed to removecosts and increase customer value. Working from the customer backwards, the extended enterprise(including suppliers and business partners) must be transformed and aligned to create and deliverlow-cost customer value.

Since the early 1990s, PCs have become largely commoditized. PC manufacturers satisfy the needs ofcustomers for low-cost personal computers with low-cost business models. Working from the customerbackwards, they have adopted low-cost distribution channels such as the telephone and Internet whileremoving operating costs through innovations such as build to order and efficient inventory management.Web sites can be a cost-effective way to help customers access the information they need. Field salesforces are often costly. Most PC manufacturers have replaced their field sales forces (for all but thelargest business customers) with a direct sales channel. Low-cost customer support can be providedthrough call centres, and self-help through Web sites.

Technologies such as the Internet provide opportunities to lower marketing costs. Companies tend tostart with simple publishing. There are many benefits from providing ‘brochure-ware’ on the Internet.Paper-based publishing can be expensive compared to digital alternatives. Content in digital form can beused in more ways than traditional print. Publishing on the Internet also allows information to remaincurrent; traditional methods may require a new print run. Online publishing also extends reach, socustomers in distant markets have easy access to up-to-date information. As customers become morefamiliar with new technologies such as the Internet and more people go online, companies can introducetwo-way interaction.

The Internet provides opportunities for interaction and personalization that are too costly in the offlineworld. The ability to personalize, configure and compare products can be provided by stand-aloneapplications and configurators. These are often integrated into backoffice systems and give the customeraccess to real-time information through Web sites. Companies providing a forum for online discussioncan monitor customer feedback. Business intelligence technologies such as data-mining software canbe used to track, analyse, evaluate and examine complex trends and behavioural patterns. Personalizedmessages and offers can then be targeted at individual customers, improving timeliness and responserates. Data management technologies allow a more comprehensive view of customer interactions.Databases enable low-cost e-mail campaigns. The tools, techniques and technologies of low-cost andinteractive marketing are familiar to many marketers. The IBM research suggests that informationtechnology and the Internet are high on the marketing agenda. Building a customer-centric informationsystem to support decision-making and developing and managing the company’s brand online wereidentified as priorities.

Page 153



Page 154




SERVICES MARKETING VERSUS SOLUTIONS MARKETING

Some customers demand exceptional value through solutions. Solution customers need to solvecomplex problems or exploit new opportunities for value creation. They may not have the specialistknowledge or the resources required, and often look to partners and suppliers for support. Solutionproviders do three things:

1. They can help customers understand their issues and opportunities. 2. They help with assessing the options available. 3. They can work with the customer to create and deliver a unique solution. Solutions

are customized and services-led.

While solutions marketing and services marketing have some similarities, they are fundamentally verydifferent. Towards the end of the 20th century, service industries replaced manufacturing industries inmany developed countries. As labour costs increased in developed countries, manufacturing andassembly activities migrated to the developing world. Four characteristics should be considered withrespect to services marketing:

intangibility (a service cannot be seen or tested in some way before it is bought); inseparability (a service is sold, then produced and consumed at the same time); variability (quality depends on who provides the service and when, where and how it is

provided); perishability (services cannot be stored for later sale or use). [7 ]

Traditional product marketing techniques do not always work well with services. In a product business,products are often standardized and can be stored in some way. In a services business, the customerinteracts with a service provider, whose service quality may be inconsistent. The service outcome isaffected by the service provider and its supporting processes. So, service providers must consider thequality of the performance of employees who are in contact with customers. Employees must bemarketed to. Equally, attention must be paid to the interaction between buyer and seller. In productmarketing, product quality usually depends less on how the product is acquired. In services marketing,service quality depends on the service and the quality of its delivery.

A service company can differentiate its service delivery in three ways: through people, through thephysical environment and through process:

People. One way a company can distinguish itself is by having the best employees inthe industry. However, workers have become more mobile, changing jobs every fewyears – so attracting and retaining the best employees can be difficult (particularly inindustries requiring specialist skills).

Physical environment. A service provider can develop a superior physical environmentfor delivering the service. More people work from home today. Consultants,salespeople and other service professionals often provide their services at thecustomer’s office or factory, thus removing opportunities to differentiate the offerthrough the physical environment.

Process. A service provider can develop a superior process for providing a service,although knowledge is quickly disseminated (often through mobile workers), andprocesses can be rapidly imitated. Service industries are quick to adopt ‘bestpractices’ because fewer of them are embedded in physical goods.

Despite the differences, many companies package, market, sell and deliver their services like products.Service products are preconfigured, often with a fixed price and duration (eg a night at a hotel or a trip onan aeroplane). In the 20th century, as we have seen, the introduction of product mass customization,allowing products to be tailored to the needs of customers, represented a paradigm shift for manymanufacturers. Companies that once saw themselves as manufacturing companies with distributioncapabilities began to see themselves as distribution companies with manufacturing capabilities. Focusshifted from production to distribution, with the production process becoming a function of sales andmarketing. Mass customization of products set a precedent. Customers now require the same level oftailoring to their needs from service providers.

There are similarities between solution marketing and services marketing. Solutions are services-led.However, solutions differ from traditional products and services. Each solution is unique – customized to

Page 155



create and deliver customer value. Solutions cannot be preconfigured since they are constantly definedand redefined during the solution creation and delivery process. Delivery can form the basis of enduringcustomer relationships that evolve over many years. These characteristics make solutions difficult toimitate and commoditize. A new approach to marketing must be adopted to succeed with solutions.Marketing must become synonymous with the creation and delivery of customer value.

[7 ]For more on definitions and classifications of services, see John E Bateson, Managing Services Marketing:Text and readings, Dryden Press, Orlando, FL, 1989, and Christopher H Lovelock, Services Marketing,Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1991

Page 156




SOLUTION MARKETING

Solution marketing is more like professional services marketing than product marketing. Threeapproaches are emerging: industry marketing, offering marketing and relationship marketing.

Industry marketing demonstrates that the solution provider understands the customer’s industry and has unique insight. This is a prerequisite to solution creation anddelivery.

Offering marketing helps customers understand what value can be created anddelivered.

Relationship marketing ensures that value is communicated, created and delivered tothe right customers at the right time.

It is likely that new tools, techniques and methods will appear in coming years as companies introducesolutions and innovate further through experimentation.

There are similarities between solution marketing and professional services marketing. Maister claimsthat the following tactics can be used to attract new professional services customers:

Don’t spread your marketing activity too thinly. It is always better to give moreattention to a smaller, well-selected audience.

Marketing works when it demonstrates, not when it asserts. Marketing tactics that illustrate one’s competence such as seminars and speeches

are more powerful than brochures or direct mail. ‘In person’ marketing tactics have more impact than the written word – unless it is in

the form of something like a highly customized letter. Professional services are not a ‘mass’ business; clients are acquired one at a time, and any marketing program mustreflect this. [8 ]

According to Maister,

Finally, marketing must be a seduction, not an assault. It must not scream, ‘hire me!’ but must gentlysuggest ‘Here is some concrete evidence as to why you may want to get to know me better’. Marketingis truly about attracting clients – doing something that causes them to take the next step (such astelling you about their problems). Since all clients are sceptical, they need to be given a good reason toexpose their problems to you, and need to do so without feeling that, by responding, they arecommitting themselves to go all the way. The marketing tactics that best meet these tests aresmall-scale seminars, speeches, articles, and proprietary research. What all four have in common isthat they all involve giving something to the prospective clients – new facts, new knowledge, new ideas.They pass the test of trying to capture the market’s attention by ‘ demonstrating’ the firm’s usefulness,not just asserting it. [9 ]

Price

Traditional products and services (sold as products) are usually priced on a cost-plus basis. By contrast,solutions can be priced according to value created and delivered to the customer. A solution aims tocreate exceptional customer value, greater than is usually factored in to the cost-plus model. If thesolution involves services delivery through outsourcing, for example, the supplier and customer mayagree to share the benefits of any productivity improvements. Value pricing through shared risk andreward contracts can benefit the customer. Less investment may be required in the start-up phase,reducing the customer’s risk. Value pricing may give the solution provider additional incentive to beresponsive in the delivery phase.

Value pricing can also benefit the solution provider. If the solution creates and delivers exceptional value,the supplier can receive greater than annual returns – more than could be negotiated on a fixed pricebasis. Moreover, solutions are made up of products and services that are customized and integrated in away that makes it very difficult for a customer to attempt to pick and choose individual components.Since solutions are highly customized, competitors struggle to make like-for-like price comparisons.

The brand

An established brand can be an advantage for traditional product and service companies trying to

Page 157



introduce solutions; for some it is a disadvantage. Strong banner brands can be extended, but brandvalue alone is not enough to succeed with solutions. Trust is a key component of solution creation anddelivery – trust in people, not products. Solutions are services-led. The customer must trust theindividuals providing the service. An established brand may allow the salesperson to start a dialogue witha customer, but equally it may discourage a customer who sees the supplier as a ‘box shifter ’. Someproduct-led companies have chosen to establish separate brands for their solution businesses. Othershave chosen to extend their banner brands.

According to Gary Hamel and C K Prahalad,

[W]hat Sony and other global brand leaders have done is to consciously build ‘banner brands’ that spanmultiple products and businesses and which help customers transfer great experiences with today’sproducts into great interest in and enthusiasm for tomorrow’s products. A trusted brand is a ‘warrant’ tocustomers that the new product or service will perform to a high standard. Such a warrant may beparticularly important when the goal is to establish new competitive space by creating an entirely newproduct category. The more innovative the product, the more customers are likely to require the securityof a brand that has proven itself trustworthy in the past?The goal of a banner brand is simple: to helpcustomers transfer the goodwill that has been built up through positive experience with one of thecompany’s products to other products it offers or intends to offer. [10 ]

Team working

Solution creation and delivery requires marketers, salespeople, service delivery managers, partners andcustomers to work in teams. Rackham claims, ‘One of the hardest silos to break down in anycross-functional sales effort is the pernicious and often impenetrable wall that has grown up in manycorporations between the sales and the marketing functions. Sales behaves as if marketing were animpediment between the sales force and its customers. Marketing treats sales as a low-level executionarm.’ [11 ]In solution creation and delivery, ‘offering your honour’ and ‘honouring your offer’ are combined,requiring close teamwork.

Many companies that market solutions encourage staff from different functions to move to the samelocation to work in small teams, often on a project or campaign basis. To exploit emerging solutionopportunities in a dynamic market, for example, solution marketers and salespeople may need to meetregularly to share information, or they may come together in communities enabled by knowledgemanagement systems. According to Gary Hamel and C K Prahalad, ‘market research carried out arounda new product or service concept is notoriously inaccurate. Market research is great for refining existingproduct concepts, but is of little use in helping a company better target its development efforts aroundemerging markets.’ [12 ]

Industry marketing

Companies in a given industry may be unique but they have similar problems, opportunities andoperating models. They share customers, competitors and suppliers. A solution provider must help thecustomer understand issues and opportunities that are often determined by the industry in which thecustomer operates. To do this, a solution provider must know individual customers and their industrywell. Industry expertise is also a key factor in determining the selection of professional servicessuppliers. Maister claims, ‘In any professional service there are three key benefits that clients seek:expertise, experience, and efficiency.’ [13 ]He asserts:

Clients increasingly select their professional service providers not only on the basis of local presenceand functional expertise, but also on the extent to which the provider has experience and special insightinto the peculiar problems and needs of the client’s industry. Now the professional firm must coordinateits activities across office boundaries not only as to functional speciality, but also its industryexperience. [14 ]

Traditional product-led companies often lack industry-specific knowledge. Many hire industry experts asthey make the transition from products to solutions. Marketers must work with these experts todisseminate their industry knowledge more widely. Solution marketers become educators: they educatecustomers, business partners, their colleagues and themselves. Knowledge management systems canbe used to make available industry information such as trends and key issues. [15 ]

Thought leadership marketing

Page 158



Customers expect solution providers to have more than the minimum of information about their industry,their issues and their opportunities. They expect solution providers to be trusted advisers, providinginsight and value added ideas. They expect them to provide thought leadership. Thought leadership maybe a prediction (based on expert knowledge), a point of view, or insight into a particular issue oropportunity. It is often communicated through white paper publications, articles, books and brochures; apublishing strategy may be required. The aim of thought leadership marketing is to communicate a pointof view that engages the customer. More than communicating value, thought leadership creates value forcustomers, perhaps educating them on an issue. It may offer them insight into a problem, or providesuggestions on how to exploit an opportunity. Thought leadership can be used to enhance a brandimage, perhaps by demonstrating a propensity to innovate, or expertise in a certain field. The aim ofthought leadership can be to plant a thought or provide an idea that ultimately grows into an opportunityto create value. Best practice is often about keeping up, while thought leadership creates opportunitiesfor innovation and growth.

Offering marketing You cannot market or sell a solution just as you would a product or service. You must create and delivera solution for a customer. A product can be defined in terms of features and functions and certaintangible qualities. A service can be ‘productized’ and defined in terms of attributes such as duration andprice (eg a hotel room for the night). By contrast, every solution is unique. It is tailored to the needs ofindividual customers and therefore difficult to articulate before it is created. Offerings enable marketers tocommunicate solution value. The relationship between offerings, solutions, capabilities and enablers isshown in Figure 11.1.

Figure 11.1: Relationship between offerings, solutions, capabilities and enablers

According to Rackham,

Because most organizations see the role of the sales force as value communication rather than valuecreation, they provide their salespeople with a range of value-communicating tools such as productdescriptions, brochures, or even multimedia presentations?But relying on brochures doesn’t work for theconsultative sale, where product complexity and customized solutions make these one-waycommunication tools less and less effective. It would clearly be a more powerful contribution to valuecreation if the sales organization provided tools that helped their salespeople to diagnose customerproblems or understand customer issues more deeply – tools, in other words, that played an active rolein helping salespeople to identify and create value. [16 ]

A solution creates and delivers customer value; an offering communicates it. An offering is a frameworkthat enables a discussion with a customer about that customer’s unique needs – the issues andopportunities facing the customer. An offering is a tool for communicating value and may also include ahigh-level implementation route map. Solutions are often created in projects that are structured into aseries of discovery phases. An offering is best presented in around four slides in a presentation format oron a single poster-sized sheet of paper. The message should be uncomplicated and describe at leastthe following four things:

1. how much customer value will be created; 2. what will be done; 3. how it will be done;

Page 159



4. where something similar has been done before.

An offering is similar to a sales reference story. Bosworth claims:

I have learned that buyers will allow sellers to make intelligent assumptions early in the relationship?Mydefinition of an intelligent assumption is one that relates to both a buyer’s industry and job title, and thatbased on your product’s or service’s capability, there is a high probability critical issue about which thatthe buyer is likely to be curious. In other words, in a reference story, we are telling a potential buyer astory about how someone in his industry, with his job title, has already figured out how to solve a difficultproblem to which the buyer relates. [17 ]

Of course, the problem or opportunity may not have been solved or exploited; it may be based on anentirely original idea. As a minimum, the offering provides an opportunity to engage in a dialogue anddiscover the customer’s real problems and opportunities.

Offerings allow the solution provider to demonstrate competence and experience. According to Maister,most clients

recognize that their problems have probably been faced and dealt with by other companies, require lesscomplete customization, and are probably not crisis issues. Accordingly, they will be shopping less forthe sheer brain power of critical individuals and more for an organization that can bring past experienceto bear in solving these problems. A high level of expertise is still required, and efficiency is notirrelevant, but extensive experience with similar problems is worth more to the client than an extradegree of intellect or a few dollars of savings. [18 ]

A common error is to excessively pre-configure or ‘productize’ a solution. Suppliers often attempt todescribe the solution like a product – in terms of its features and functions. Some detail can bereassuring to customers who want to reduce their risks. Many customers do not want to be at the ‘bleeding edge’. There may be many possible service and product combinations and configurations to asolution. Components must be configured and customized according to each customer’s needs, whichare discovered during the solution creation process. Suppliers that can present all the right information inadvance of any discovery activity, which is when the supplier and customer understand the problem oropportunity in detail, may give the customer the impression that they are selling a ‘one size fits all’product or service rather than creating and delivering a solution.

Thinking of an offering in product terms can be helpful sometimes. An offering should allow the solutionprovider to offer value to one customer that has already been created for another customer (although thesolution can never be identical, because it must be customized). For example, if a solution providercreates a solar-powered factory in India, there may be demand from a different customer for a similar onein Australia. The second factory will not be the same (it must be customized) but will create similarcustomer value (which can be articulated in an offering). Markets can be segmented, and detailedqualitative and quantitative market research performed on the number of similar solution opportunities inan industry or market – much in the same way as product market research is performed. According to Johansson et al, vendors generally offer a solution

when they can solve a problem by applying some level of expertise and, at times, a proprietary method.They must develop unique insights into the customer and its industry and use those insights to createan integrated, customized solution that really works better than the available alternatives. What makes asolution valuable and distinctive is that it focuses on results and is meaningful to a broader customerbase. Only then will vendors have the kind of offering – one delivering measurable value to customers –that is needed for a winning solution. [19 ] Foote and co-workers observe that ‘IBM’s Global Services unit, for example, creates repeatablesolutions. It takes ideas developed by front-end industry units and makes those ideas more modular andscalable so that they can be used by customers in many sectors; thus an e-banking solution created fora leading-edge customer has been adapted as a general e-commerce solution.’ [20 ]This is shownschematically in Table 11.1.

Page 160



Table 11.1: Replicable solutions development process' simplified

Stage Conception

Assessment,development andleadership

Finaldevelopment andlaunchpreparation

Launchandroll-out

What Createsthe initialproduct forthe firstcustomer(oftenknown asFOAK first of akind).

Identifiesproduct asa solutionscandidate.Designatesthesuccessfulindividualsolution ashavingpriority forresources.Forms theteam.Providesresources.

Codifiesandstandardizes.

Delivers asolutionsplatform tomanycustomers.Rolls it outacrossregion andworld,accordingto IBMcustomerpriorities,customerneeds,patterns ofinnovativetakeup ofservices,profitability.

Who by IBMcustomeraccountteam,workingwithproductand servicespecialists,consultants, projectmanagers,ITarchitectsand otherIBMprofessions.

Cross-unitgeographicleadershipteam, egAmericas,EMEA(Europe,MiddleEast,Africa),AsiaPacific.

Cross-unitGlobalServicesteam,includinghardware,software,servicesandindustryunits.

Global andregionalindustryteams.Customeraccountteams.

Maister points out that some companies ‘are focused on the services they bring to market, and buildtheir success by investing heavily in the chosen areas. They succeed through focus, muscle, andconcentrated efforts in a few hand-picked areas.’ [21 ]Solution creation and delivery resources such asconsultants are expensive. Marketing must play an instrumental role in understanding the market and indeciding where to invest. Marketers must work with salespeople, resource deployment specialists andbusiness managers to ensure that the right offerings are being developed to maximize customer valuecreation and market opportunity. Marketers become central to strategic business decisions (decidingwhat to do and where).

Companies need to carry out much market and customer research before committing too many

Page 161



resources to an offering or solution area. Solution opportunities may be selected on their strategic value (perhaps when entering a new sector); their attractiveness (often in terms of their size in revenue and profit terms); how easy they are to exploit (often determined by which capabilities and

enablers are available).

Some solution providers have developed more formal offerings development processes based on existingnew product introduction processes (used to bring traditional products and services to market). Theprocess approach can help to make offerings development more efficient and effective.

Relationship marketing

Relationship marketing is an approach adapted from product and service marketing. It is perhaps themost mature of the three emerging approaches in solution marketing. It has its roots in key accountmanagement, customer service and direct marketing. In many ways, relationship marketing is theantidote to advertising. Relationship marketing ensures that value is communicated, created anddelivered to the right customers at the right time. [22 ]

Relationship marketing allows a solution provider to establish enduring customer relationships.According to Maister, ‘Most professional firms say that their existing clients represent the most probable(and often the most profitable) source of new business.’ [23 ]As has been stated repeatedly in this book, inmany industries today the customer (not the product) is the scarce resource. The amount of investmentrequired to attract and develop a relationship with a solution customer can be substantial. When acustomer commits him- or herself to working with a competitor, a second supplier may be excluded formany years – particularly if service delivery is provided in the form of an outsourcing contract or somesimilar arrangement. Information technologies such as databases and Web sites can be used to improverelationship marketing.

Community marketing

Relationship marketing can be targeted at individuals and groups of individuals (or communities) withsimilar interests, issues and opportunities. Business community marketing is similar to lifestylemarketing, which is usually targeted at consumers. According to Rifkin,

The goal of lifestyle event marketing is to create lifelong relationships with niche communities andinterest groups by positioning the company as an active cultural partner and player?Marketingforecasters predict that the next major wave of lifestyle and event marketing initiatives will involvegrass-roots community events and activities?For example, neighbourhood and community-wide festivalshave risen by 10 percent every year for the past five years, and companies have made sure to be veryvisible in both the financing and the overseeing of the events. [24 ]

Business community marketing events might include seminars and conferences on areas of interest andvalue to the customer. A solution provider might host a business community Web site.

[8 ]David H Maister, Managing the Professional Service Firm, Free Press Paperbacks, New York, 1993 (pp 121–22) [9 ]David H Maister, Managing the Professional Service Firm (pp 121–22)[10 ]Gary Hamel and C K Prahalad, Competing for the Future, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, 1996(pp 277–78) [11 ]Neil Rackham, Rethinking the Sales Force, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1998 (p 199) [12 ]Gary Hamel and C K Prahalad, Competing for the Future (p 262) [13 ]David H Maister, Managing the Professional Service Firm (p 21) [14 ]David H Maister, Managing the Professional Service Firm (p 346) [15 ]For more on the use of knowledge in solution creation and delivery, see Chapter 13 [16 ]Neil Rackham, Rethinking the Sales Force (p 155) [17 ]Michael T Bosworth, Solution Selling, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1995 (p 74) [18 ]David H Maister, Managing the Professional Service Firm (p 21)

Page 162



[19 ]Juliet Johansson, Chandru Krishnamurthy and Henry Schlissberg, Solving the solutions problem, McKinseyQuarterly, no 6696, 2003 (p 121) [20 ]Nathaniel W Foote, Jay Galbraith, Quentin Hope and Danny Miller, Making solutions the answer, McKinseyQuarterly, no 3, 2001 (p 7) [21 ]David H Maister, Managing the Professional Service Firm (p 321) [22 ]For an introduction to relationship marketing, see Merlin Stone, Neil Woodcock and Liz Machtynger,Customer Relationship Marketing, 2nd edn, Kogan Page, London, 2002 [23 ]David H Maister, Managing the Professional Service Firm (p 97) [24 ]Jeremy Rifkin, The Age of Access, Penguin Books, London, 2000 (p 176)

Page 163




SUMMARY

In this chapter I explained why I believe that marketing needs transforming. I argued that marketing mustchange if it is to create and deliver value to emerging customer groups who demand more value. Ioutlined how better access to information, increased competition and over-supply in many industrieshave made some customers more knowledgeable, powerful and discerning. I suggested that customersare becoming a scarce resource and customer relationships are more important. I argued thatcompetition is moving from production to marketing, sales and distribution. I explained how the Internetallows opportunities for marketing innovation. For some groups, such as teenagers, it has become aprime marketing channel. I described the needs of some customers for more value through lower costs, and explained howmarketing can add value in the low-cost business model. I presented some of the approaches, tools andtechnologies currently being adopted. I described the needs of some customers for more value throughsolutions, and explained how marketing can add value in solution creation and delivery. I explained someof the similarities and differences between solution marketing and services marketing (particularlyprofessional services marketing). Finally, I provided a brief outline of three approaches that are evolving insolution marketing: industry marketing, offering marketing and relationship marketing. In Chapter 12,Lucia Cuttle provides insight into her role as an Industry Marketing Manager at IBM.

Page 164




NOTES 1. Anthony Marsella, IBM Special Report, Marketing Transformation: An agenda for change, 2003 (p 2) 2. Peter Drucker, The Practice of Management, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, 2001 (pp 35–36) 3. Theodore Levitt, Marketing myopia, Harvard Business Review, 38, July–August 1960 (pp 45–56) 4. Martin Lindstrom, BrandChild, Kogan Page, London, 2002 5. Agents of Change White Paper, Teenagers: Mobile lifestyles trends, Spero Communications, 2003 (p1) 6. Gary Hamel and C K Prahalad, The core competence of the corporation, Harvard Business Review,May–June 1990 (pp 79–90) 7. For more on definitions and classifications of services, see John E Bateson, Managing ServicesMarketing: Text and readings, Dryden Press, Orlando, FL, 1989, and Christopher H Lovelock, ServicesMarketing, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1991 8. David H Maister, Managing the Professional Service Firm, Free Press Paperbacks, New York, 1993(pp 121–22) 9. David H Maister, Managing the Professional Service Firm (pp 121–22)10. Gary Hamel and C K Prahalad, Competing for the Future, Harvard Business School Press, Boston,1996 (pp 277–78) 11. Neil Rackham, Rethinking the Sales Force, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1998 (p 199) 12. Gary Hamel and C K Prahalad, Competing for the Future (p 262) 13. David H Maister, Managing the Professional Service Firm (p 21) 14. David H Maister, Managing the Professional Service Firm (p 346) 15. For more on the use of knowledge in solution creation and delivery, see Chapter 13 16. Neil Rackham, Rethinking the Sales Force (p 155) 17. Michael T Bosworth, Solution Selling, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1995 (p 74) 18. David H Maister, Managing the Professional Service Firm (p 21) 19. Juliet Johansson, Chandru Krishnamurthy and Henry Schlissberg, Solving the solutions problem, McKinsey Quarterly, no 6696, 2003 (p 121) 20. Nathaniel W Foote, Jay Galbraith, Quentin Hope and Danny Miller, Making solutions the answer, McKinsey Quarterly, no 3, 2001 (p 7) 21. David H Maister, Managing the Professional Service Firm (p 321) 22. For an introduction to relationship marketing, see Merlin Stone, Neil Woodcock and LizMachtynger, Customer Relationship Marketing, 2nd edn, Kogan Page, London, 2002 23. David H Maister, Managing the Professional Service Firm (p 97) 24. Jeremy Rifkin, The Age of Access, Penguin Books, London, 2000 (p 176)

Page 165




Chapter 12: The Industry Marketing Manager Lucia Cuttle

BACKGROUND

Over the past nine years I have enjoyed various roles in business-to-business marketing. I spent a thirdof my career in a traditional product marketing role at Lucas Aftermarket Operations, a global automotiveparts manufacturer and distributor. There I was responsible for marketing a range of electrical automotiveparts in Europe, the Middle East and Africa (EMEA). I spent another third of my career as a marketingmanager in the professional services environment at PricewaterhouseCoopers, then the world’s largestprofessional services firm. There I was responsible for marketing audit, tax, corporate finance, businessrecovery and management consulting services to the global automotive industry. The past three yearshave been spent with IBM, where I have held several industry marketing positions. My current position isAutomotive Marketing Manager, where I am responsible for marketing IBM’s services, solutions andproducts to the automotive industry across EMEA. I have a Diploma from the Chartered Institute ofMarketing and a BSc degree in Management Sciences, with a specialism in marketing from theUniversity of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology (UMIST).

Page 166




INTRODUCTION

In this chapter I aim to share my perspectives as an Industry Marketing Manager in today’s businessenvironment at IBM, reflecting on a role in which I am neither a pure product marketing manager nor apure services manager, but somewhere in between. By exploring the main differences between theproduct-led as against the services-led marketing approach, drawing on my own experience, I shallcompare the reality with the theory of marketing and suggest how the role can deliver real business valuein a services-led matrix organization.

Page 167




THE ROLE

As the Automotive Industry Marketing Manager for EMEA, I spend most of my time focused on threekey areas: market planning, relationship-based marketing and ‘Team IBM’, with the aim of deliveringrelevant go-to-market campaigns that help increase mind share and a market leadership position for IBMin the automotive industry. Working closely with my colleagues in sales, I develop relationship-basedmarketing campaigns that help to generate new opportunities for our industry thought leaders and keyaccount partners to build deep, lasting relationships with the most senior board members of our targetaccounts. By developing these business relationships, IBM becomes better placed to win the morestrategic business and technology transformation engagements. This in turn helps produce revenue forthe more traditional IBM hardware and software products. Our ultimate measure of success in industrymarketing is to secure trusted business adviser status, as perceived by the ‘C-level’ executives andline-of-business directors in our main customers. This requires from us relentless focus on the businessissues that matter most to auto industry executives. From a marketing perspective, it means workingclosely with the rest of IBM’s marketing community in product marketing, brand and country marketingteams to deliver clear, consistent, relevant and credible messages to position IBM as the businesspartner of choice to customers in the automotive industry.

Page 168




MARKET PLANNING

In my experience there are different approaches to market planning, depending on whether you areworking within a product-led or a services-led environment. The product-led approach requires marketingto be in the driving seat, owning the market and business planning activity through which product rangeand market segments are defined. It focuses on the traditional marketing mix elements such as theproduct, pricing strategies, channel enablement and promotional activity, to ‘push’ products into themarket. Marketing takes responsibility for this activity so as to determine and drive the strategy toenable the organization to meet its business objectives. In a services-led world there are fewer tangibleproduct attributes that help differentiate your product from those of competitors. You cannot see or touchthe service in the same way as you can with a product. In most cases, your customers have to buy itfirst before experiencing it. There is more risk associated with buying a service, and heavy reliance onthe people delivering it, so the business planning process in a services-led world requires the alignmentof many stakeholders, including marketing, but not just marketing. In a services-led organization,marketing still plays a key role in market and business planning activity by providing the marketplacewith insight and analysis. However, marketing is not fully accountable for this process, as it is in aproduct-led world.

IBM manages a very well-defined process. We complete two business planning cycles during any givenyear: one that takes a long-term view – a three- to five-year planning horizon, and one that focuses moreon the short term, defining the business planning goals and objectives for the following year. Themarketing function is responsible for kick-starting and then driving the market planning process, but theend result is a business plan that is ‘owned’ by the business unit – be it a product or services brand oran industry practice area. We follow a top-down approach, driven globally, with well-defined objectives,milestones and deadlines. Marketing plays an important role in this process by highlighting marketplacetrends and opportunities. This market analysis is an important input, enabling our business leaders tomake strategic choices about the future direction of their business. At the end of the planning cycle IBMhas a set of interlocked plans with a consistent look and feel that have clearly stated business andfinancial metrics explicitly communicating the contribution of each business unit to the overall global IBMbusiness plan.

While IBM is successful in managing an effective global strategic planning cycle in which all itsconstituent parts actively participate, the characteristics and structure of the market planning process asdefined today are still, at their core, product based, though they are moving towards the services model.This is not uncommon with organizations whose roots are in a traditional product structure. IBMrecognizes this and is taking steps to change fundamentally how it will operate its planning cycle in thefuture. Rather than emphasizing the product brand (such as Z-series, Websphere or BusinessConsulting Services), as it does today, IBM in future will place the emphasis on the industry dimension.In this way, IBM will be more able to examine closely the issues that matter to the enterprises in themain industries on which IBM focuses, and to plan strategically the end-to-end solutions that deliver realbusiness value to these customers in a way that differentiates IBM from competitors.

To me, as an industry marketing manager, this makes absolute sense, and gives me a very excitingchallenge. Of course, I will be watching carefully to see if the tilting of the matrix towards the industrydimension will change how marketing budgets are allocated; in the past they have been product branddriven. This will tell me whether IBM truly embraces the services model, which normally goes to marketby industry. Of course, quite a lot of IBM’s customers still like to buy advanced IT products, so thebalance is a delicate one.

Page 169



Page 170




RELATIONSHIP MARKETING

IBM has recognized for some time that there is an increasing need to focus on building relationshipswith line-of-business executives, owing to their increasing importance in the decision-making authorityassociated with strategic business and IT projects. While relationship marketing is not a new marketingconcept or approach, it has not been an area of focus until recently. This focus is mainly in IBM’sindustry marketing community, and has gained greater momentum since the acquisition of PWCConsulting (which was integrated in to IBM’s Business Consulting Services division); their marketingapproach was more relationship based. A good proportion of my marketing budget and time, as anindustry marketing manager, is allocated to developing and executing a targeted relationship marketingprogramme that drives:

a fully collaborative sales and marketing effort at an account level, creatingopportunities to develop key relationships within an account – here marketing acts asthe door-opener to enable new line-of-business relationships to be established;

additional opportunities within selected accounts/industry segments – focusing ondriving wallet share growth for target accounts;

improved awareness and consideration for IBM as a business consultant with deepindustry insight, with a unique perspective and execution capability, specifically withthe most senior executives and functional decision-makers and influencers of theselected top companies.

My view is that this marketing-led approach is essential for IBM to continue to differentiate itself in themarket as well as being able to deliver the ‘full equation’ – that is, IBM’s ability to deliver real value to itscustomers through demonstrating innovative thinking, rapid and effective execution, and accountabilityfor results. The higher up the value chain we position our capability, the more we must speak tocustomers in their language. Mass marketing campaigns or even direct marketing initiatives cannotdeliver this level of personalization today. IBM must focus relentlessly on the issues that matter to theline-of-business executive at a specific customer and translate each value proposition into the languageof the customer so that it will resonate more effectively with that customer. Not only must wedemonstrate IBM’s understanding of our customers’ unique business issues, but we must also showclearly why IBM is better placed to help solve their business problems and convince them that we candeliver meaningful results that produce real business value for them.

The critical elements for the delivery of an effective relationship marketing programme of this kind are: Strong business leader sponsorship, committed industry consultants and subject

matter experts (SMEs), and a truly collaborative approach across the organization. Recognition that it is resource intensive. It demands a truly joined-up sales and

marketing effort. In particular, industry thought leaders and SMEs must makepersonal commitments to the programme for it to succeed.

A measurement system that supports relationship programme objectives, includingmetrics and indicators that go beyond the traditional ‘opportunity identification’ and ‘revenue won’ targets.

Page 171




Page 172



‘TEAM IBM’

Working in a complex matrix organization such as IBM requires considerable teamwork, especially in anindustry marketing role, where a key objective is to present clear, consistent messages to the industry.In theory this sounds straightforward, but in practice it is one of my biggest challenges.

With IBM’s broad portfolio of products, services and solutions, and an army of marketing specialistsresponsible for building marketing campaigns to stimulate demand for them, I must spend a lot of mytime on internal marketing and communication activities. This helps to ensure that communications toour customers in the auto industry are consistent and to build on the research papers (‘points of view’)and solution focus that we have developed for the industry. I work closely with four major internalaudiences: the extended marketing community; the dedicated automotive sales and consulting teams;corporate communications, which includes media relations; and the sales and marketing teams focusedon the small and medium business (SMB) market. Collaboration with these important stakeholders isessential to enable effective industry-based marketing programmes. Each group has a unique role toplay, to help make the right impact that produces business results for IBM in the automotive industry.The commitments I have made to ‘Team IBM’ as part of IBM’s formal people management process areas follows:

Team IBM marketing: excite the relevant brands and primary country marketingteams across EMEA such that they choose to invest in auto-specific marketingcampaigns;

Team IBM sales: team with the focus automotive account teams to deliver relevantmarketing programmes that help them build deep relationships with the C-level andline-of-business executives;

Team IBM corporate communications: work seamlessly with corporatecommunications to ensure that we make a significant impact in terms of coveragewith the major media and analyst reporters who cover the auto industry;

Team SMB: team with the extended auto network, in particular SMB, such that thesector-led industry campaigns can be effectively leveraged and reused to help growrevenue and share in the SMB market.

Page 173




CONCLUSION

I have tried to share some perspectives on what life is like as an industry marketer at IBM. I should alsohighlight some of the personal attributes needed for success in this role. First, I believe that passionabout the industry you are marketing to is essential. This is an important motivating force, and helpsdistinguish someone who is good at the job from someone who does an outstanding job. Second, someexperience of working in the industry is also important. This helps position you credibly with the industrythought leaders and earns you the right to participate actively in the business strategy discussions –essential for you to translate the strategy into strong marketing programmes. Third, the ability to exciteand influence others about your industry is central to securing commitment in terms of the budget andresources needed to make a visible difference in the industry. Finally, you must have the personal beliefand determination that you really can make a difference and deliver real business value to the team andto your industry.

Page 174




Chapter 13: Knowledge Management John Griffiths, Mark Cerasale and Merlin Stone

WHAT IS KNOWLEDGE?

Data, information and knowledge are often used interchangeably in conversation. They are, however, verydifferent. Data are the building blocks of information that have not yet been arranged into meaningfulpatterns, eg map coordinates. Today, data are usually numerical, binary and represented in a formsuitable for processing by computer. Information adds intelligence to data and puts it into context, eg aplace name on a map. Knowledge comes from the ability to interpret information, and hence add value toit. Thus, being able to interpret a map and find the best route from A to B is a knowledge-buildingactivity. The trainee taxi driver in London spends several months riding around the capital on amotorcycle acquiring ‘The Knowledge’. Knowledge is characterized as either explicit or tacit. Knowledge that can be captured andcommunicated is often referred to as explicit knowledge. Tacit knowledge is less tangible. Nonaka andTakeuchi, in their ground-breaking work The Knowledge Creating Company, [1 ]were the first to articulatethe differences between these two types of knowledge in a business context. It was their contention thatJapanese companies drew their competitive edge from their abilities to convert tacit knowledge intoexplicit forms.

Explicit knowledge

Explicit knowledge is often obvious and articulated. It consists of facts, interpretations, ideas, expertise,conclusions and insights that can be communicated to others via words, symbols, pictures, video andaudio. We know that we know explicit knowledge, but all too often it is not captured. When a majordefence manufacturer in the United Kingdom moved its production facilities from an ancient factory to abrand new site, it started having quality problems in final vehicle production. Only after discussion withthe production workforce did management come to understand that a number of final assembly ‘procedures’ or workarounds had been documented on the walls of the old factory, now demolished.

Formal knowledge captured in manuals, training guides or instruction sheets is explicit. Formalknowledge may include beliefs or guidelines to behaviour, if set down as formal policies. Formal orexplicit knowledge can be recorded and retrieved using knowledge management systems. Immediatebenefits are often achieved in organizations purely through better access to such knowledge. In the past,formal knowledge was often captured on paper and retrieved from filing systems. Today, it is more oftencaptured electronically, stored on databases and made available over networks. Intranets, for example,are used in many companies to provide access to such knowledge. Intranets and new technology enablecustomization. Customization allows individuals to extract information that is relevant to them, allowingthem to turn information into knowledge.

Tacit knowledge

Tacit knowledge is often less obvious and unarticulated. Tacit knowledge comprises ‘soft’ informationabout markets, customers, processes and activities. It is a valuable enterprise resource but is normallyimplicit, rarely stated and seldom captured. An example is the repertoire of skills, such as use of wordsand body language, that facilitate customer acceptance in a foreign country. Making tacit knowledgeexplicit can be rewarding but is difficult to achieve. Attempts to formalize or capture it can cause it tolose its value. Poor interpretation and articulation of tacit knowledge can lead to all manner ofdistortions.

Tacit knowledge cannot be explained fully even by an expert. Often, it can be transferred from oneperson to another only via a long apprenticeship. For example, learning to whip cream to exactly theright consistency is best done by practice. Polanyi’s famous saying ‘We know more than we can tell’ [2 ]

highlights the idea that many human skills remain unarticulated, known only to the person who has thatskill. Once, tacit knowledge was conceived of at the individual level. However, it is now recognized that itexists in the organization as well.

Tacit knowledge is hard to manage because often we do not know that we know it. It resides in mentalmodels, behaviours, organizational culture, intuition, hunches, experiences, etc. Knowledge can also be

Page 175



embedded in organizational understanding manifested in processes, products, services, structures,methods, techniques, etc. Tacit knowledge must be made explicit before it can be managed andcommunicated so that others learn and build on it.

[1 ]I Nonaka and H Takeuchi, The Knowledge Creating Company, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1995 (p 9) [2 ]M Polanyi, The Tacit Dimension, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1966

Page 176




KNOWLEDGE WORKERS

For much of the 20th century, manual workers were common in most organizations. Managers wereconcerned with how to organize their work to improve their productivity. Today, knowledge working hasreplaced physical labour in many industries. The knowledge worker is now predominant.Knowledge-intensive industries, such as software and biotechnology, have emerged. Even industriessuch as manufacturing and retailing rely on more information.

The job for life is a thing of the past. Few workers have career horizons of more than five years, andmany have several careers. Valuable information exists in employees’ heads in the form of knowledge –of how a process works, a machine operates or a technology integrates. Knowledgeable employees arein short supply and prone to move on if they are not treated well. As they move between companies,they disseminate valuable knowledge. While that often cannot be avoided, knowledge managementsystems can be used to capture and retain much of that knowledge.

As Maister puts it, ‘I could think of two groups of assets for a professional. The first group of assets onwhich my career was based was my inventory of knowledge and skills. Professionals get paid for theirtime, but that’s not what we sell. We sell knowledge and skill. The second asset was my clientrelationships.’ [3 ]The challenge for many organizations is to transfer as much of that knowledge aspossible from the individual to the enterprise. Otherwise, workers can take it with them when they go.

[3 ]David H Maister, Managing the Professional Service Firm, Free Press Paperbacks, New York, 1993 (p144)

Page 177




KNOWLEDGE PRODUCTS

The nature of products is changing too. Many products have information technology embedded, enablingthem to be connected to the Internet and remotely accessed, managed and upgraded. As informationtechnology content and connectivity increase, the value a product creates migrates to the services itprovides access to. Products are becoming devices through which services can be accessed. Manycustomers prefer services to product ownership. They ask themselves why they should buy a productwhen it may be out of date before it is even paid for.

Many products will become knowledge based, and they will be created by knowledge-based businesses.According to Stan Davis and Jim Botkin,

Smart products, created by knowledge-based businesses, can be identified by a variety ofcharacteristics: they are interactive, they become smarter the more you use them, and they can becustomized?Customers become learners when they use smart products, which both oblige and helpthem to learn. Businesses will move toward making their offerings smarter because they will profit fromdoing so. When their customers use those products, they will be engaging in an educational process. [4 ]

In the Information Age, the rapid pace of change means that people must continue learning way beyondminimum years offered by government, religious and charitable organizations. People will need to updatetheir education throughout their lives. Employees will have to continually add to their knowledge base toincrease their value and their earning power. Most companies do not yet see their customers aslearners, nor do they see themselves as educators. This will require a major change in thinking.

Davis and Botkin claim:

Consumers as a learning segment are also underestimated: they will be the newest and largest learningsegment in the twentyfirst-century marketplace. As information technologies become so much friendlierand smarter, and as they become intrinsic to more and more products and services, learning willbecome a by-product (and by-service) of the customer’s world.

They also assert:

Business, more than government, is instituting the changes in education that are required for theemerging knowledge-based economy. School systems, public and private, are lagging behind thetransformation in learning that is evolving outside them, in the private sector at both work and play, withpeople of all ages. Over the next few decades, the private sector will eclipse the public sector as ourpredominant educational institution.

[4 ]Stan Davis and Jim Botkin, The coming of knowledge-based business, Harvard Business Review,September–October 1994

Page 178




CUSTOMER KNOWLEDGE

Customers are more demanding: some want exceptional value through lower costs, others want itthrough solutions. The Internet allows many customers to search and find information, making themmore knowledgeable. Customers can make quick and easy product comparisons and shop around forthe best price. Hence, the Internet has become a prime channel for low-cost sales and distribution.Some products, however, are more complex and require integration into broader networks. This forcescustomers to develop new knowledge or acquire it from suppliers as a service. Many customers are notparticularly interested in product and price. They are more interested in exploiting the opportunities tocreate exceptional value, which exists in changing the broader set of processes and activities in whichthe product is used.

As a result of higher demand and knowledge complexity, customer-serving personnel must answerincreasingly difficult questions more quickly. The questions that now come to a human being such as a ‘product expert’ or ‘process expert’ now require more sophisticated logic and even judgement. Thequestions are not only from consumers; service customers may also include a co-worker or acollaborator at another company. Retail, financial services, high-tech, pharmaceuticals and many otherindustries face this knowledge work challenge. Using the most up-to-date knowledge separates industryleaders from their competition.

Increasingly, a firm’s success depends on its ability to respond rapidly to any type of opportunity orthreat. Having knowledge on demand – what is needed, when it is needed – is critical for firms tofunction optimally in a demanding business environment. The aim is to get work done faster, moreaccurately, with individuals and groups making decisions more quickly and with better insight. Usingknowledge to inform complex decision-making is a key driver of competitive advantage in today’seconomy. Because service activity has overtaken manufacturing as the engine of the industrializedeconomy, the knowledge that service-providing personnel need has become more important. Thesuccess of product manufacturing firms – and the services surrounding the design, development, salesand use of their products – depends on responsive, adaptable and resilient knowledge processes andsystems. So, to thrive in increasingly complex business environments, service providers andmanufacturers must be able to tap into knowledge ‘on demand’.

Page 179




THE VALUE OF KNOWLEDGE

‘What you don’t know won’t hurt you.’ Quite why this old proverb became popular is not very clear. Notknowing what foods to eat or which animals are dangerous is not a good recipe for survival. In businesstoday, what you do not know can hurt you. What you know can mean the difference between successand failure. Being effective in business depends on ‘knowing’ a great deal – not just about yourcustomers, but also about yourself: your capabilities, processes, systems, successes and failures. Ascompetitors catch up with their technology, knowledge-rich, knowledge-managing companies can moveto new levels of efficiency, quality and creativity.

Drucker asserted that a commercial enterprise has only two functions, to innovate and to market,concluding that all its other activities are costs. He also wrote, ‘[W]e now know that the source of wealthis something specifically human: knowledge. If we apply knowledge to tasks we already know how to do,we call it productivity. If we apply knowledge to tasks that are new and different, we call it innovation.Only knowledge allows us to achieve those two goals.’ [5 ]Knowledge is a key enabler for the successfulenterprise, knowledge management a key capability. Both allow a company to achieve operationalefficiencies, to innovate, and to create and deliver exceptional customer value. As Slywotzky andMorrison put it, ‘[the scope of what companies do] will change as smart companies aggressively shifttheir offerings from high physical content to high knowledge content. Knowledge content is harder tocreate and is often more highly value by customers. It is how value will be created in the future.’ [6 ]

Knowledge in a network economy

Rifkin believes that access to experiences through services is replacing product ownership in thenetwork economy. He argues that tangible property is becoming more marginal to the exercise ofeconomic power, while intangible property is becoming more central.

Ideas – in the form of patents, copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets, and relationships – are being usedto forge a new kind of economic power composed of megasuppliers in control of expanded networks ofusers?Being able to control the ideas of commerce, rather than just the tools, operating processes, andproducts, gives the new genre of global corporate suppliers an advantage unmatched in previouseconomic history. Having a monopoly over ideas in each commercial field allows a few firms to grab holdof the workings of an entire industry. [7 ]

Knowledge and operational efficiency

The demand for more learning and management education grew during the 1980s and 1990s and is likelyto continue to increase in the 21st century. Best-practice knowledge has spread throughout executiveranks through management training programmes such as those leading to an MBA. Professionalservices industries have evolved, and specialist advisory and consulting firms have emerged to propagatenew management ideas. Companies have achieved new levels of efficiency and effectiveness through thewidespread adoption of new management approaches, techniques and tools. Lean manufacturing,just-in-time (JIT) inventory management, total quality management (TQM), business processre-engineering (BPR), e-business and core competencies are just a few of the concepts that transformedmany companies in the final decades of the 20th century. There are, however, disadvantages to thewidespread sharing and adoption of common management and production techniques. Withoutappropriate regulation against customer demand, productivity improvements have led to over-productionand oversupply. A further effect of homogeneity in production techniques and business practices hasbeen a reduction in product and service innovation and differentiation.

The speed of new product introduction has increased. Customers have become more sophisticated anddiscerning, and are demanding more of their suppliers. This has increased pressure on suppliers to bringnew products to market more frequently and more quickly than ever before. New information technologysystems and design, manufacturing and product management techniques have greatly reduced newproduct introduction times. You only have to browse car manufacturers’ Web sites to see how many newcars are introduced every year in the automotive industry.

Knowledge and innovation

Greater competition has increased the need for product innovation. However, the speed of productinnovation is decreasing. The frequency of ground-breaking product and service innovations has slowed

Page 180



in most industries. As products become embedded with technology such as microchips and areconnected to the Internet, they allow access to new services. In future, product innovation may takeplace in the services more than in the core product. As everyday devices at home and work become ‘intelligent’ with information technology, and connected to the Internet, the opportunities for innovation willbe limitless.

While the rate of new product innovation may be falling, the speed of innovation imitation is increasing.Increasingly transient employees, many of whom are knowledge workers, take valuable knowledge withthem when they leave. Transient workers, flexible manufacturing and the proliferation of information havegreatly reduced imitation cycle times. When features and functions are embedded in software andservices or can be provided as upgrades over the Internet, imitation can occur almost instantaneously.Innovation imitation is not confined to products and the production process. It also extends to otherprocesses and, indeed, whole business models. The increasing frequency of new product introductions –mostly imitations – has shortened product life cycles. Products and services are becoming obsoletemore rapidly. Rapid product obsolescence and over-production have resulted in over-supply. Surplusstock and costly inventories have led to price discounting and profit erosion.

How do you institutionalize (in a company) something like innovation? Innovation takes talent, ingenuityand, above all, knowledge. The history of invention is littered with good ideas and products brought tomarket by one company but successfully exploited by others. Drucker[8] cites the example of thepassenger jet aircraft, brought first to the market by the British company De Havilland but exploited moresuccessfully as a commercial product by Boeing and Douglas. De Havilland forgot to take account ofwhere customer value might lie (payload and size for routes on which jet engines would give an airlinecompetitive advantage).

[5 ]Peter Drucker, The new productivity challenge, Harvard Business Review, November–December 1991 (pp 69–79) [6 ]Adrian J Slywotzky and David J Morrison, The Profit Zone, Three Rivers Press, New York, 2001 (p 33) [7 ]Jeremy Rifkin, The Age of Access, Penguin Books, London, 2000 (p 57) [8]Peter Drucker, The new productivity challenge

Page 181




KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT

Knowledge management seeks to develop the techniques and technologies for identifying, cataloguingand sharing enterprise know-how. The central idea is that companies have a huge potential for new ideasand increased creativity but may not be able to access the knowledge that they already possess.Quantifying or even cataloguing existing knowledge can be a daunting task, but the results can bestartling. Davenport and Prusak cite an example from a consortium of hospitals in New England thatundertook a knowledge-sharing programme between heart surgeons. The result was a 24 per centreduction in mortality rates for coronary bypass operations. Indeed, they claim that even a simplecompany ‘yellow pages’ exercise can yield dramatic results. In one study they undertook, managersspent up to 30 per cent of their time just directing people to the right sources of knowledge. [9 ]

A recent survey of the market capitalization of companies reveals a growing difference between themarket value and their net assets, particularly in ‘knowledge-intensive’ industries such as consultancies,pharmaceutical companies and software businesses. [10 ]Knowledge management is therefore an enablerto obtaining further investment. The effective management of knowledge in the enterprise should alsobecome a core competency in businesses today if they are to maximize their value in the eyes of apotential buyer. According to Handy, the relationship between the price paid for new acquisitions and thebook value of their assets was measured for 391 large US organizations between 1981 and 1993. Themean price was 4.4 times the book value. The difference was not entirely due to goodwill, but was thebuyers’ best estimate of the intangible assets lying behind the official balance sheet. [11 ]

Once people with the same interests and problems are connected, this opens up great potential forcreativity and innovation. Even small companies can buy the technological tools. Most people areequipped with a PC linked to a network and to the Internet; they have personal productivity tools such asword processors and spreadsheets. They could therefore share information over an intranet, a shareddatabase or through the use of groupware. Knowledge management is not exclusively about technology.Many companies look to create offline opportunities to get people together too. Social events,conferences and regular meetings between people with similar interests (including customers) can beorganized. Yet very often, in companies both large and small, vital customer knowledge is insidesomeone’s head. How can this be shared?

Effective knowledge management involves building on the intellectual capital and assets of those whohave attempted to solve the same problems previously, reusing their knowledge. The idea here is to tryto improve the corporate memory of the enterprise by bringing together the complex web of knowledgethat includes the skills and experience of the staff, intellectual capital assets such as R&D, andcorporate information systems. Knowledge management tends to focus on unstructured information,although there is an overlap with structured information systems such as decision support, datawarehousing and data mining. If this flow of formal and informal information can be brought togethercoherently, the enterprise will be able to innovate and obtain a real competitive advantage. Knowledgemanagement ultimately offers a perspective on the overall use of information in an organization. Tools arenow being developed for the analysis of large amounts of unstructured information, a process known asdocument mining.

How knowledge management improves customer relationship management

Conversations around the coffee machine by knowledge workers sharing what they know may becomethe most important form of work. One of the greatest opportunities for the future lies in a company’sability to identify, capture, create and use the knowledge that it has of its customers, their needs andthe relationship they share. By the same token, one of the greatest challenges facing companies is themanagement of customer knowledge. It is not easy, even in small organizations, to capture theknowledge passed on by customers. Data from perhaps dozens of points of contact with a singlecustomer have to be codified in databases, managed properly and then recalled at the right time tobenefit both the company and the customer. Nor is it easy to identify those people or teams in theorganization who have very positive relationships with customers, understand the real elements of thisrelationship and then replicate them.

The core proposition in knowledge management is that competitive advantage depends on being able tomarshal and exploit what is known not just by individuals but also by teams. Customer relationship

Page 182



management adds a new dimension. It focuses not only on what managers know about their owncustomers and prospects and those of the competition but also on what customers know about theirown needs. At the same time, customers may have different states of knowledge about suppliers’characteristics and abilities to meet their needs. This means that they may have a different view of thecurrent state of the relationship between themselves and their suppliers. For example, a mistaken beliefabout the level of a supplier’s knowledge may lead to a worse relationship. The customer may expectthe supplier to have knowledge of transaction patterns and of their requirements based on the customer’s past behaviour, which the supplier is unable to action. Some pizza companies can ‘recall’ the preferredtoppings of their regular customers. If the pizza company can do this, the customer may expect theutility company, the travel company and the financial services company to match that level ofknowledge-based service.

Where intermediaries are present, companies need to focus on the transfer of customer knowledgethrough distribution channels. The focus of knowledge management must be broadened to encompassthe knowledge of all the participants in the value chain, including the final customer. This generates lotsof data. In some cases the data can be pulled together relatively sensibly to produce information aboutthe customer. However, the data do not, in themselves, enable the organization to act knowledgeably inits relationships with the customer. The critical success factor is to develop a learning process thatenables the organization to identify key information needed to sustain the relationship with customers. Ina services-based relationship this information is much ‘deeper’ than in a product-based relationship.

[9 ]T H Davenport and L Prusak, Working Knowledge, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, 1998 [10 ]Charles Handy, The Hungry Spirit, Arrow, London, 2002 (p 160) [11 ]Charles Handy, The Hungry Spirit (p 160)

Page 183




KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT IN TRADITIONAL COMPANIES

For much of the last century, change was continuous and could be planned. Markets were product-led,not customer-led, and there was a long lead-time for product changes. Even today, in more competitivemarkets, functional towers are the dominant organizational structure. Charles Handy described thisorganizational form as Apollonian. He comments:

The organization chart, a series of boxes piled on top of each other, was his logo, reductionism hismethodology. Take the work of the organization, break it down to its component parts, put those parts ina logical and hierarchical relationship and then, if you have got the logic right and everyone does whattheir role requires and the manual lays down, inputs will be transformed into outputs with maximumefficiency. [12 ]

Work is divided up to achieve maximum efficiency and economies of scale. There is littleknowledge-sharing between towers, since each function focuses on its own tasks and activities.

Knowledge is seen as a basis for power. There is little incentive or need to share the knowledge basebecause this would devalue the current work structure. Large Apollonian companies therefore tend tocompartmentalize knowledge. The idea of mass production, for example, is that benefits come fromknowing how to operate your piece of a repetitive process at lowest cost, so knowledge in mostmanufacturing companies is highly specialized. Normally, tacit and explicit knowledge are limited toworking procedures and workarounds for specific tasks. There is little need to share knowledge exceptwithin a small specialist group, ie the small group of workers who perform the same tasks. Productstend to be designed and developed on a one-off basis, although development costs are now forcingcompanies to share common components.

In some ways, every business is a knowledge business. According to Philip Evans and ThomasWurster,

In many industries not widely considered information businesses, information actually represents a largepercentage of the cost structure. About $300 billion – is the cost of capturing, storing, and processingsuch information as patients’ records, physicians’ notes, test results, and insurance claims. Morefundamentally, information is the glue that holds together the structure of all businesses. [13 ]

[12 ]Charles Handy, The Elephant and the Flea, Random House, London, 2001 (p 59)[13 ]Philip B Evans and Thomas S Wurster, Strategy and the new economics of information, Harvard BusinessReview, September–October 1997

Page 184




KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT IN LOW-COST COMPANIES

Explicit knowledge resides in formulae, textbooks, manuals or technical documents. Zuboff makes auseful distinction between embodied, or action-centred, skills and intellective skills. [14 ]Action-centredskills are developed through actual performance (learning by doing). In contrast, intellective skillscombine abstraction, explicit reference and procedural reasoning, so they can be represented assymbols and therefore easily transferred. Some customer contact staff know exactly how a customerwants to be handled in a wide range of situations. This expert knowledge is hard to capture and share.On the other hand, the script provided for call-centre agents on their VDU screen makes availableexplicit knowledge about how a dialogue should be sustained. So the answer has to be to make it easyfor customers and let them personalize for themselves and then embed that in computer systems (thelow-cost business model). Evans and Wurster comment: When information is carried by things – by a salesperson or by a piece of direct mail, for example – itgoes where the things go and no further. It is constrained to follow the linear flow of the physical valuechain. But once everyone is connected electronically, information can travel by itself. The traditional linkbetween the flow of product-related information and the flow of the product itself, between the economicsof information and the economics of things, can be broken. What is truly revolutionary about theexplosion in connectivity is the possibility it offers to unbundle information from its physical carrier?theexplosion in the number of people and organizations connected by networks are [ sic] freeing informationfrom the channels that have been required to exchange it, making those channels unnecessary oruneconomical. [15 ]

According to Neil Rackham, one cost-effective way to improve low-cost sales and distribution is to makesure that knowledge is embedded in systems rather than people: ‘Most sales forces spend an inordinateamount of money and effort trying to teach product knowledge to their salespeople. It’s a cheaper andbetter approach to put knowledge into an easy and accessible electronic format. Although this isespecially true of transactional sales, it’s probably good advice for sales of all kinds.’ [16 ]

A key factor in the effective exploitation of knowledge in any enterprise is the understanding that much ofthe total knowledge base comes from customers and suppliers, ie the extended enterprise. So, aknowledge management strategy must incorporate the ability to capture, store and disseminateknowledge coming from these external sources. While some of this requirement can be met through thedeployment of customer relationship management (CRM) and supply chain management systems, weshall see later that these systems are only part of the solution. Smart use of Web-based tools canautomate the process of knowledge capture, particularly with a base of customers that are willing toperform ‘self-service’ and reveal their preferences through interactive questionnaires.

Equally, where companies have opened up their knowledge management processes to their suppliers,great results have been achieved through incorporating their suggestions for innovation and costreduction into process re-engineering activities or product development. A good example of this is theChrysler ‘Score’ programme in the 1990s. It took ideas for improvement from suppliers and shared thebenefits back with them when implemented. This eventually saved Chrysler over $1 billion per annum inreduced costs.

[14 ]S Zuboff, In the Age of the Smart Machine, Basic Books, New York, 1988 [15 ]Philip B Evans and Thomas S Wurster, Strategy and the new economics of information, Harvard BusinessReview, September–October 1997 [16 ]Neil Rackham, Rethinking the Sales Force, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1998 (p 270)

Page 185



Page 186




KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT IN SOLUTION COMPANIES Knowledge is both an enabler and an essential capability for the creation and delivery of solutions.Companies now realize that their ability to add value through their operations is no longer simply thecombination of capital investment in land, plant and raw materials, and the labour required to process thematerials into finished products. Much more value can now be delivered through the knowledge of howthose products can be used to create further value for the customer, or the knowledge itself can becomethe ‘product’, as it is with consultancy. Further analysis of how services such as business consultancygrow out of products was provided in Chapter 4.

In a solutions enterprise, knowledge management is of special significance. There is an intimateconnection – strategic and operational – between suppliers and customers. Each day, the company canlearn new ways of meeting its customers’ needs. Customers also can learn new ways in which they canget better service from suppliers. Far more than in a product-based relationship, this learning will dependon soft factors – how the processes and people of each party interact with each other to create value forboth. However, this all takes place within the flux of everyday activity, and so this learning risks beinglost. It is therefore absolutely essential for solutions enterprises to work with their customer-partners andtheir supply chain partners to develop shared approaches to knowledge management that go acrossorganizational boundaries.

Service and solution-based companies require a wider knowledge base, and reuse of existingknowledge. They require a networked community-based approach to knowledge sharing, focusing on:

Market dynamics. Is the market growing or shrinking, by geography or sector? Competitor activities. Which competitors are active in the sector? How can we differentiate our offerings? Customer business drivers. What are the customers’ priorities, and what pressures is

the customer facing? Customer organization and politics. Who in the customer organization has the power

and the ability to make decisions? Whom do they rely on for advice? Requirements definition. What requirements does the customer have in mind? Can we

influence these requirements by doing some initial consultancy work? Problem-solving. What is the root cause of the customer’s problem? Have we met this problem elsewhere? Is the problem well defined? Potential solutions. What solutions have we proposed elsewhere?

How successful were they at delivering benefit to the customer? What are the risks associated witheach solution?

Potential business partners. Where do we need to use partners to provide thecomplete solution? What other risks does this create? Who are our business partnercontacts? What is their delivery track record?

Best-practice service delivery approaches. What worked elsewhere? Who wasinvolved and are they available to work on this opportunity?

Commercial factors (cost, pricing, scope, customer satisfaction criteria, etc) on aglobal basis.

Contract management (cost-tracking, deliverables, etc). Which contracts are makinga loss? What actions should be taken to correct the situation?

l References (industry related, solution related, etc). Which customers are willing toact as a reference for this opportunity? What benefits did they achieve?

Consultancies and other professional services companies are among the most advanced in usingknowledge to enable the creation and delivery of solutions. According to Maister, ‘In any professionalservice there are three key benefits that clients seek: expertise, experience, and efficiency.’ [17 ]

Knowledge management supports these through capturing and diffusing data on people and offerings(expertise), client references (experience) and efficiency (methods). Further explanation of howknowledge management enables solution creation, delivery and marketing was provided in Chapters 9and 11.

Knowledge management infrastructure

The creation and delivery of solutions is dependent on the effective management of information andknowledge. New information and knowledge management technologies are key enablers in most

Page 187



companies providing solutions. Many companies, particularly manufacturers, require new informationtechnology systems to support the new business model, and for knowledge management: CVs andskills databases, planned resource availability, opportunity management systems for opportunitytracking and pipeline management, virtual team rooms for project communications, account planning andcontact management, online training and education, links to transactional systems. New systems maybe required to support, for example, time recording such as utilization (recording what consultants dowith their time).

Knowledge to support team working

Solutions are created and delivered by teams. In enterprise terms, a team of workers brings to a taskknowledge that is embedded in its members and their interactions as a team. The potential for newknowledge is embedded in the team and its interactions. The team possesses embedded knowledge.New products and services, innovative ideas, represent embodied knowledge (realized knowledge).Therefore, the customer-facing team’s task is to manage the transition from embedded to embodiedknowledge in order to improve the way in which customer relationships are handled at different points ofcontact, and to feed back new insights to product and service development teams.

As soon as members of a team get together, there is the potential to create new knowledge. This newknowledge is the result of a combination of both explicit and tacit knowledge. Combining explicitknowledge is rather easy. However, the degree to which the potential new knowledge resulting from theintegration of tacit knowledge is realized depends on several variables. Madhavan and Grover use theterm ‘embedded knowledge’ [18 ]to describe the potential knowledge resulting from the combination ofindividual team members’ stores of tacit knowledge. A cross-functional team is brought togetherbecause its members have collective knowledge that cannot be held efficiently by any of its individualmembers. However, this collective knowledge is not present when the team is assembled; it is onlypotentially present.

Knowledge and organizational design In the network economy, companies will increasingly collaborate with each other to create and deliverexceptional customer value. Knowledge management is an essential capability to support collaborationbetween business partners and customers. The Internet has lowered transaction costs, allowingcompanies to collaborate in ways that were not previously possible, redefining company boundaries.Ronald Coase and Oliver Williamson suggest that the boundaries of the corporation are defined by theeconomics of exchanging information. [19 ]While organizations allow the exchange of rich information in anarrow internal group, markets allow the exchange of less rich information in a larger external group.Where one mode becomes less cost-effective than the other determines the boundaries of the company.Further information on the network economy will be provided in Chapter 15.

Charles Handy suggests that organizations will become more federal in the future as fixed hierarchiesbreak down under pressure to be agile and satisfy the needs of all stakeholders. He proposes thatbusinesses will break down into manageable business units, with more autonomy than the strategicbusiness units of today’s large organizations.

These individual units, however, can still be co-ordinated centrally provided that the right information isavailable at the right time. Information, however, is one of the few things that we seem to be certain tohave in more abundance and in greater variety than ever before. It is just as well because one of the fewconsistent findings of the research on organization structures has been that more decentralization isalways accompanied by more information. [20 ]

The benefits of knowledge management

In a traditional product-led company it has often been difficult to justify an investment in knowledgemanagement. However, there are several benefits coming from successfully implementing a knowledgemanagement strategy, particularly in a solutions enterprise:

The storage of explicit knowledge in electronic form means that it can be quicklyretrieved and reused for the next proposal or project. This can dramaticallyreduce the time taken to respond to customer queries or requests for informationand proposals.

The time put into creating templates for deliverables saves many times that effortacross multiple projects and improves the quality of the deliverable for thecustomer. This could be the difference between winning and losing in a

Page 188



competitive situation. The reduced time for access to previous solutions will also drive down the cost of

solution design, through reuse of solution components. This will also reduce therisk of failure during delivery, through the use of ‘tried and tested’ approaches.

The proficiency of practitioners will be increased, owing to their ability to quicklypick up knowledge and expertise from others in the organization, increasing theirconfidence in tackling complex problems.

There will be reduced loss of intellectual assets from turnover of staff, as assetswill be captured when they are created.

Faster ‘on-boarding’ of new employees will be possible, owing to their ability toaccess knowledge more readily.

There will be reduced risk from failed projects, and also reduced risk of rogueprojects with costs that go out of control, through the sharing of best practiceand experience from previous projects.

[17 ]David H Maister, Managing The Professional Service Firm (p 21) [18 ]R Madhavan and R Grover, From embedded knowledge to embodied knowledge; new product developmentas knowledge management, Journal of Marketing, 62 (4), 1998 (pp 1–12) [19 ]R H Coase, The nature of the firm, Economica, 4 (4), 1937 (p 386), and Oliver E Williamson, Markets andHierarchies: Analysis and antitrust implications, Free Press, New York, 1975 [20 ]Charles Handy, Understanding Organizations, Penguin Books, London, 1999 (p 365)

Page 189




SUCCEEDING WITH KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT

There are four major elements that need to be in place to form a successful knowledge managementstrategy. These can be summarized as:

making knowledge visible; building knowledge intensity; building a knowledge infrastructure; developing a knowledge culture.

Making knowledge visible

One of the first steps in creating a knowledge management strategy is to understand who in theorganization has experience and expertise in any particular area. The old adage ‘it’s not what you knowbut whom you know’ still holds good in a knowledge-based organization. A simple survey of theorganization, asking the questions ‘what knowledge do you need to do your job?’ and ‘who do you go to,or where do you go to get this knowledge?’, will reveal the underlying knowledge network and knowledgeflows. The question ‘what knowledge do you need to do your job?’ will also reveal the taxonomy orcategorization of knowledge elements. These knowledge elements can also be categorized in terms oftacit or explicit, and the taxonomy can be published to the organization, together with a definition ofeach term.

A good idea early on in the development of a knowledge management strategy is to publish the resultsof the knowledge survey in the form of an internal yellow pages, or ‘knowledge map’, available to all inthe organization. This will help with the ‘on-boarding’ of new employees and can form part of theinduction process. A restricted version of the yellow pages could also be used with customers andsuppliers. Putting the results in a document on an intranet means that each employee can ensure thathis or her entry is kept up to date. A qualification process should follow on from the survey, so that forkey competencies some form of accreditation should be part of the career structure for knowledgeworkers.

Building knowledge intensity

Once competence has been established in the organization, the leading practitioners can come togetherto promote and improve their areas of interest. This can be achieved either through co-location or, morelikely, through regular meetings, telephone calls and videoconferences. Where co-location is notpractical, or less suitable for the business, an alternative approach is to build a virtual centre around acommunity of practice. This community requires a leader who will set standards for the practice, anddecides who has the competency to join the community. There can be several levels of communitystatus, typically ‘core team’, ‘practitioners’ who have been trained by the core team, and other interestedmembers.

The leader of a community of practice is also responsible for knowledge management processes, forexample the editing of journals, and controlling the content of knowledge systems. Knowledge evolvesand requires constant maintenance and updating. Recognition and reward for outstanding contributionsencourages others to contribute. Networking is facilitated via communities of practice. New employeescan quickly find out who else shares their interests. This speeds up the establishment of networks oflike-minded practitioners.

Building a knowledge infrastructure

Building the infrastructure means building a common network across the organization serving all thecommunities, alongside other traditional communication vehicles such as journals, newsletters andcorporate newspapers. The aim is to give easy access to both external and internalinformation/knowledge sources. This used to be done by means of a library with relevant books andjournals, but today is done via Internet and intranet access through browsers from the office desk orhome computer. Today’s knowledge tools vary from access to transactional information (eg Siebel as anenabler for CRM) to document-based systems such as Lotus Notes or Web-based browsers forintranet/Internet access. The advantage of the latter browser-based tools is that the same user interfacecan be used for a wide variety of information sources. Collaborative tools such as Lotus Sametime canalso be used to support communities for real-time interactions on a global basis.

Page 190



In the future, wireless technologies and pervasive computing devices will enable access. Knowledge willbe accessible on different devices in any location in a form controlled by the knowledge worker.

Intelligent data analysis and ‘fuzzy logic’ technologies will enable the filtration of irrelevant informationand ensure that the knowledge worker receives only the latest version of the information needed toperform his or her role. Future systems will also include virtual reality training simulators: putting theuser into training scenarios based on real-time inputs. These facilities will combine skills training anddevelopment with interactive knowledge systems to provide ‘just-in-time’ access to the right knowledgerepositories and experience.

Developing a knowledge-based culture

The move to a knowledge-based culture in a large organization must be sponsored at the highest level.BP’s CEO, John Brown, made knowledge management a cornerstone of his business strategy. He wasvisibly committed and supported change to a new culture. As with any other organizational change,rewards must be given by senior management to members who show the behaviour needed to increasethe effectiveness of the knowledge management strategy. These include attending knowledgemanagement training sessions or courses, taking on knowledge management roles and responsibilities,and contributing to repositories of intellectual capital. A key behaviour that must be measured andrewarded is knowledge-sharing. This requires trust in each other, knowing that intellectual capital will notbe misused by others in the organization and that the originator of significant steps forward in terms ofknowledge assets will be recognized and rewarded.

Leadership and mentoring are essential to ensure that senior management understand the value ofknowledge management and support the development of programmes and policies to make them areality. High-level support is essential. Senior executives must understand what knowledge managementoffers, and play an active role in the decision-making process. Executive input is essential, becauseknowledge management touches almost everyone in the organization. Many of the processes inknowledge management involve human interaction, so the support of top human resource executives isimportant.

Potential problems

‘Knowledge is power.’ Organizations usually run into major cultural problems when adopting a knowledgemanagement initiative. People do not like to share their best ideas. They believe that doing so dilutestheir standing in the organization and can impede their ability to get ahead. Most people are used to anenvironment that is highly competitive, and have never learned to share. In a highly political corporateenvironment, knowledge equals power. Getting people to understand that knowledge-sharing is for thegreater good of all requires significant culture change.

People do not like to use other people’s ideas for fear of making themselves look less knowledgeable.People also like to consider themselves experts at their own job and prefer not to collaborate withothers. Changing this mindset is not easy, because most people have operated within aknowledge-hoarding environment for a long time. Once people start to see the value of sharingknowledge, barriers begin to fall and a transformation in thinking and action can start. Of course, areceptive organization also needs people with the skills and willingness to learn. Openness and diversityare key issues for effective learning in organizations. Confidence and trust are important too, if existingpersonal or corporate beliefs are to be challenged openly and changed.

Advocacy and the ability to put a personal view persuasively are often rewarded more than an ability toinquire into complex problems. It is usually true that people at the top of an enterprise have more turf toprotect than anybody else. They are often the people who shaped the enterprise in its present form asthey rose through the ranks. It needs a mature team and a supportive culture before most people willadmit in public that they do not understand something or, indeed, will change their beliefs or say theyare willing to change.

To deal with this, the enterprise should set up competency networks. These are initiatives to promotethe sharing of knowledge. When these initiatives fail, it is usually for one of a number of reasons.Sometimes they are under-resourced. They may be unrecognized as part of the personnel appraisalprocedure or they may be seen as threatening, non-core activities that cut across organizationalstructures. In these circumstances, sharing of best practice is the first thing to be dropped when

Page 191



something important needs doing that is on the boss’s performance contract.

Page 192




CONCLUSIONS

Knowledge management is a fundamental capability for tomorrow’s successful solutions enterprise.However, increasing knowledge implies changing sets of beliefs. The higher the level of management,quite often the more ingrained the beliefs, so the bigger the change effort required.

Learning involves both personal and team skills. It cannot happen without resources such as time,money, leadership and rewards. Nor can it happen without a culture that encourages the capture of tacitknowledge in explicit forms.

Knowledge management must be supported technologically by an easy vehicle for data capture such asan intranet. Groupware such as Lotus Notes is good for this purpose. The material technology must bebacked up with social technology (training, coaching and appraisal) and with reward and recognitionsystems. The captured knowledge must be analysed and distributed to the people who can best use theinformation through intelligent software and knowledge management processes.

Page 193




SUMMARY

In this chapter we described the differences between data, information and knowledge. We suggestedthat knowledge intensity is changing the nature of employees, products and customers. We argued thatknowledge enables operational efficiencies and innovation, and is therefore valuable in business. Wesuggested that knowledge must be managed for many reasons, not least to improve customerrelationship management. We described how knowledge is managed in traditional service and product-led companies. We alsoassessed the role of knowledge and its management in emerging low-cost and solutions businessmodels. Finally, we outlined some of the benefits of knowledge management and described the fourelements that need to be put in place to form a successful knowledge management strategy. In Chapter14, Kevin Wheatly provides insight into the role of the Knowledge Manager at IBM.

Page 194




NOTES 1. I Nonaka and H Takeuchi, The Knowledge Creating Company, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1995(p 9) 2. M Polanyi, The Tacit Dimension, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1966 3. David H Maister, Managing the Professional Service Firm, Free Press Paperbacks, New York, 1993(p 144) 4. Stan Davis and Jim Botkin, The coming of knowledge-based business, Harvard Business Review,September–October 1994 5. Peter Drucker, The new productivity challenge, Harvard Business Review, November–December 1991(pp 69–79) 6. Adrian J Slywotzky and David J Morrison, The Profit Zone, Three Rivers Press, New York, 2001 (p33) 7. Jeremy Rifkin, The Age of Access, Penguin Books, London, 2000 (p 57)

8. Peter Drucker, The new productivity challenge 9. T H Davenport and L Prusak, Working Knowledge, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, 1998 10. Charles Handy, The Hungry Spirit, Arrow, London, 2002 (p 160) 11. Charles Handy, The Hungry Spirit (p 160) 12. Charles Handy, The Elephant and the Flea, Random House, London, 2001 (p 59)13. Philip B Evans and Thomas S Wurster, Strategy and the new economics of information, HarvardBusiness Review, September–October 1997 14. S Zuboff, In the Age of the Smart Machine, Basic Books, New York, 1988 15. Philip B Evans and Thomas S Wurster, Strategy and the new economics of information, HarvardBusiness Review, September–October 1997 16. Neil Rackham, Rethinking the Sales Force, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1998 (p 270) 17. David H Maister, Managing The Professional Service Firm (p 21) 18. R Madhavan and R Grover, From embedded knowledge to embodied knowledge; new productdevelopment as knowledge management, Journal of Marketing, 62 (4), 1998 (pp 1–12) 19. R H Coase, The nature of the firm, Economica, 4 (4), 1937 (p 386), and Oliver E Williamson, Marketsand Hierarchies: Analysis and antitrust implications, Free Press, New York, 1975 20. Charles Handy, Understanding Organizations, Penguin Books, London, 1999 (p 365)

Page 195




Chapter 14: The Knowledge Manager Kevin Wheatly

I have been a Knowledge Manager for almost 10 years. It is a job that does not exist in every company.In the past 10 years I have seen the role of knowledge manager become more prominent withinorganizations that have adopted knowledge management (KM) strategies. I have also seen severalchanges in the role and of its title. I have been called a Knowledge Manager, Knowledge Officer,Knowledge Broker and, my least favourite, a Knowledge Integrator. The role has changed as many timesas the job title. Today, knowledge manager is a respected position within many organizations. It is also,I am pleased to say, a role that is often far more closely linked to the business goals and strategy of theorganization than ever before.

What are the goals and objectives of knowledge management? Ultimately, a company wants tounderstand and use better what it knows. It also wants to identify what it should know that it does notknow, which helps it avoid constantly reinventing the wheel. It may involve tapping into previouslyunrecognized capabilities of either an individual or, possibly, a department within the firm. When acompany understands what gaps there are in its knowledge, it can create or acquire the missingknowledge – enabling the company to retain its competitive advantage.

When I started my KM career I was at a top 5 global consulting company in the United Kingdom.Knowledge management was then closely linked to the traditional business research role. Most peoplein KM jobs had a library/research background. This made sense, as the role was biased towards contentmanagement. So, it was logical for the team looking after external research/information also to be theteam that managed internally produced content.

However, it became clear that the role of a knowledge manager was very different from that of thesecondary researcher. The researcher role was often reactive: responding quickly to questions andrequests from practitioners. KM, on the other hand was more about reusing knowledge, packaging it sothat it could be easily accessed, identifying gaps in knowledge and also understanding who knew whatwithin a community. A knowledge manager needed to be proactive – seeking to change people’sbehaviours, encouraging and promoting sharing, acting as a catalyst for change.

Knowledge management, and so the knowledge manager, started to look towards the business directionof the firm. Rather than concentrate on just location and storage of knowledge, there was a concertedeffort to understand where the business was moving. The focus moved to equipping consultants withtools that would help them sell and deliver initiatives derived from the business strategy, as well aschanging the behaviours and attitudes towards knowledge-sharing.

As the role moved from simply looking at content management issues, eg posting and finding materialsin databases, knowledge managers have had to work more closely with the business to understand itsneeds. The position has become more one of trusted business adviser, suggesting and identifyingissues where KM can increase the business’s effectiveness.

An excellent example is the identification of knowledge gaps. Many knowledge managers wax lyricalabout this, but identifying and filling these gaps is not easy. The newly created Learning and Knowledgeorganization in IBM’s Business Consulting Services has been working with the business, first tounderstand its needs to win and deliver projects, second to identify significant gaps in knowledge thathinder the winning and delivering of work. However, the third and final step is critical: the Learning andKnowledge organization has an internal budget it can use to enlist consulting practitioners who are notcurrently working on projects (who are ‘on the bench’). They can be used to help create, shape andharvest what is needed to fill the knowledge gaps. The role of the Knowledge Manager here is to partnerwith the business to identify the gaps and then manage the process by procuring the appropriate subjectmatter experts and ensuring that the end materials are captured and communicated to the community.This third step has been a significant change. By using ‘benched’ resources to help develop thebusiness, we ensure that valuable resources are not wasted and that those resources can furtherdevelop their expertise. Now the KM team is working more closely and proactively with the business.There is a shared purpose and goal. The relationship is truly collaborative and partnered rather than thatof customer and supplier.

Page 196



This change in focus from content management has also meant that a very different skill set is needed.The emphasis is more on people than on tools such as databases. As the focus of the knowledgemanager has shifted, so has the type of person who makes a good knowledge manager. Althoughresearch skills are useful, the main skill is the ability to establish, maintain and develop strong workingrelations with management and project teams. The knowledge manager must listen to all sides and havea clear view of the overall knowledge management strategy.

To illustrate this, let me use a recent example from IBM. In IBM, small communities often come togetherand provide their own solutions to sharing and collaborating. Typically these efforts work well. However,they can be less effective as the number of people involved increases. Wider visibility of capabilities andskills may be left purely to chance meetings and exchanges. Clearly, this could lead to missedopportunities, both for the company and for individuals in the small community. One particular teamcame to me with a problem. The database they had used was no longer going to be supported and theywondered if I knew how to ensure that their database continued to exist. My first reaction was one ofexcitement and amazement that such a small community had been running so successfully for such along period of time without wider recognition in what was a burgeoning subject area. In this case it wouldhave been easy to provide a solution that allowed the community’s database to remain as it had beenbefore, with limited access and visibility. This would have been a missed opportunity. Instead, why notprovide the team with their own collaborative space but within a much wider community, so that theycould have the opportunity to grow, and to promote their expertise? They chose the latter option. Thisshows an important ability a knowledge manager needs: to take a step back from the detail and look atthe bigger picture. This may mean that the solution of a local problem is not always the one the localteam wants, but it allows the knowledge strategy to remain coherent and focused.

A second KM skill is communication. The knowledge manager must be able to articulate messages andthemes. Communicating change is very important. I have spent much time promoting people andprojects that have shared or reused knowledge, or used subject matter experts by involving them incommunities. Simple success stories are a powerful, easy way of demonstrating the value of knowledgemanagement. They also show leaders the value that knowledge managers can bring to the business!The role is often one of mediation and collaboration. Here, knowledge managers must link various othersupporting functions. This applies particularly in marketing, where goals are often shared betweendifferent teams. Human Resources are involved too, because encouraging and promotingknowledge-sharing involves incentives and measurements.

When knowledge managers focused on research and content management, their role was a lonely one.The new role encourages and cries out for collaboration. In IBM and in my previous company, acommunity of knowledge managers was developed. Common processes and practices were developed,shared and implemented. This greatly increased the effectiveness of knowledge management worldwideby cutting duplication and also by allowing innovation to be replicated. Within IBM, this community ofknowledge managers has increased dramatically over the five years I have been with the company. Withthe recent acquisition of the former PricewaterhouseCoopers Consulting (PWCC) group, it has becomeimportant for knowledge managers across geographies, industry and solution areas to collaborate.Although the knowledge manager encourages project teams to share and collaborate, it is all too easyfor the community of knowledge managers to forget to share and collaborate among themselves!Besides giving greater credibility to the knowledge manager, practising what they preach can giveknowledge managers a rich source of examples. Often, in various knowledge manager communities inwhich I have worked, ideas that have been shared grow to become company-wide practice, as the ideais built upon and cross-fertilized by the whole community. The effective reuse of ideas and collaborationis after all one of the major themes that knowledge managers promote. It is always far easier to illustratewith real case studies than just theories.

There is a real danger of knowledge managers’ over-elaborating and concerning themselves with thestrategic end of KM. Many papers have been written about the importance of knowledge management.But how does this help knowledge managers start to implement a KM programme in their organization?

I strongly believe that there is no one right way to launch a KM programme. An analogy I often use toexplain KM is this: when a new set of buildings on a university campus was finally completed, thebuilders and campus authorities decided not to lay pathways between the buildings. Instead theyopened the buildings and then waited to see which way people would take between the buildings. Overthe period of a few weeks clear pathways could start to be observed where the grass had been worn

Page 197



away. The next step was for the builders to go back in to pave over these worn dirt tracks so peoplecould get to the buildings by the best route. Knowledge management is like this. People are all different.Companies are made up of people. So the best way to manage knowledge will vary from company tocompany. Successful approaches to KM even within one company may vary from community tocommunity.

Using my time at IBM as a case study, let me show how KM can grow in an organization. I shall giveexamples that can be initiated on a local community level and indicate the directions that IBM as awhole took that really helped embed knowledge management into its culture.

When I first joined IBM Global Services there were very few other Knowledge Managers in the company.There was an overall strategy, but few people were in a position to ensure that the strategy becamereality. As my manager at the time suggested, ‘You have a blank canvas; paint a picture. That will reallyhelp us.’ At that time, KM was relatively piecemeal. I realized it would not be practical to use myprevious company’s current model as a starting point. Instead, it could be used as a benchmark ofwhere IBM could go, but with the benefit of ensuring that we did not make the same mistakes, and alsomaximizing innovation and creativity, which were stronger in the IBM culture.

Knowledge management can all too often become overcomplicated. As a knowledge manager you canlose sight of where you want to be. Developing a strategy is key, but just as important is developing amap to assist your journey there. Identifying quick wins and key influencers is absolutely critical. Themore people you can have on your side, the better. If your community appreciates and understandswhere you are trying to go, then it is far easier to deliver the benefits of effective KM.

As the group that I had joined was relatively new within the company and was hiring new people all thetime, it became obvious that people did not know where to find important knowledge. This also meantthat they did not have a place to share their knowledge. A simple quick win was to create pointers towhere some of the best existing content was. IBM is a very large, complex organization. It has contentin many places.

It also became clear that as this new community of people grew, they needed a single place to start tocollaborate and share knowledge. At this time I was working in the European oil and gas consultingpractice, so I set out to find where other, similar practitioners were within IBM. Once a large enoughgroup of people had been identified, the next task was to bring them together as a community.

The KM system we had at the time was called the ICM AssetWeb (ICM stands for Intellectual CapitalManagement). This was made up of several community databases ‘owned’ by the practitioners. Thepractitioners were responsible for the quality of the content in the database and also for identifying gapsin the community’s knowledge. So the Knowledge Manager’s role was crucial as the catalyst to get thecommunity and database launched, as well as in providing continuing support to ensure that thecommunity remained active.

Knowledge management is not just a technology issue, so launching a database was never going tosolve this particular community’s knowledge problems. The role I had as the Knowledge Manager was toembed the knowledge-sharing ethos into the community and keep it alive. This involved communicationand education, two activities that have always taken up much of my time as a knowledge manager.

People are creatures of habit. In most communities where I have worked, sharing is not a habit thatcomes easily. It is for the knowledge manager to challenge and change this by demonstrating the valueof sharing and reusing knowledge. Within IBM, innovation is the culture, but this culture had to bechanged to encompass the following simplified steps:

1. Check whether someone has created this before. 2. If not, then create it. 3. Think how the new creation could be useful to someone else. 4. Share.

In these four simple steps there is much work. First I had to understand why people were not checkingwhether something had been created before. Navigation of the information was the main problem, owingto the many sources available. Education classes and time spent with individual practitioners paiddividends here. We also now use ‘webinars’ (intranet-based education to deliver basic training). The value

Page 198



of individual sessions cannot be overestimated: they enhance the relationship knowledge managers havewith the community they serve. The knowledge manager learns through these processes: severalinitiatives have resulted from hearing at first hand about the frustrations of communities. Repeatedly inIBM, an effective communication strategy has greatly helped to point people to the best places and toother people.

The third and fourth steps are probably the most difficult of all. Here is what I did. Knowledgemanagement is a work stream that can operate effectively when it runs parallel to the business strategy.Unfortunately, all too often it sits as a support function to the main business. Knowledge management isfar more effective when it is linked with other parts of the business. To address the sharing issueidentified above, I began to examine the annual appraisal process. I found that contribution to the KMsystem was part of everyone’s commitments, but it was not being measured effectively. So, I started towork closely with the HR function. First we communicated to everyone that we would be measuring theKM contribution more strictly. We started an incentive programme involving public recognition for thewinners, to get the practitioners to contribute.

Knowledge management is often a journey of discovery, and this was certainly so with our programme.Many practitioners were just contributing knowledge to the system at the very end of the year. Amythical figure of ‘two documents’ suddenly sprang up in conversation, but no one really knew where ithad come from. However, we weren’t too disheartened, as at least we had encouraged practitioners tounderstand where the important places were on the KM system and had educated some for the first timeon how to contribute. So we started to work with HR again to change the contribution measurementprocess for the next year.

Rather than focus on the individual, we decided it would be better to measure projects and teams. Also,we would clearly state that success would be based on consistent contribution throughout the year. Atfirst when we looked at the results at the end of the year we did not find much difference in the number ofcontributions. However, when we looked closely we saw that contributions were of far higher quality andthat much more thought had gone into how they could be reused. The final stage of the journey was forus to add, in the following year, some measurements of reuse of knowledge.

KM is clearly not just about process. As I mentioned earlier, IBM is an innovative company and has triedsuccessfully on a number of occasions to use some of its technological innovations to assist with KM.We have run a number of truly global discussions forums over the past two years that have beentremendously successful. Examples include ConsultantJam and WorldJam. These forums were run overa fixed period of 72 hours with over 50 managed sub-forums. All the forums were open, everyone wasfree to express their view and anyone participating in a forum was encouraged to vote on ideas. At theend of the 72 hours a work group was in place to go through all the sub-forums and identify actions thecompany could take to improve the way we worked, identify possible new opportunities, etc.

As mentioned before, educating colleagues is an important task for knowledge managers. This used toinvolve educating people about knowledge tool sets, how to contribute, where to find material, etc. In IBMwe have now linked learning and knowledge functions together. Some Knowledge Managers are nowinvolved in planning and implementing education for our consultants. This is a relatively newdevelopment. It makes sense, as the two areas are very closely linked. We take direction from thebusiness leaders as to what education is required. The KM programme is then developed to supportthis.

For the past two years, the IBM knowledge management function has been driven from a communityperspective. This meant a strong focus on putting together communities of practitioners with a commongoal. Less emphasis was put on managing the content and identifying knowledge gaps, as there havenot been enough people to do this. The emphasis has been on connecting people and utilizingcollaborative technology. With the acquisition of PWCC, IBM now has a much larger KM community.The KM approach in PWCC placed strong emphasis on content management – typically, harvestingknowledge, identifying gaps, packaging, and posting to databases. With the new combined team’scapability, the community initiatives will become far more powerful, with tools containing far deeper andricher content.

In addition, the scope and breadth of the KM community has widened considerably. Now KM has beengrouped with learning, secondary research methods and also benchmarking. This combined ‘Learning

Page 199



and Knowledge’ organization collaborates extensively and brings a full range of services to the business.So, rather than having numerous groups contacting key stakeholders in the business, we now have acloser relationship with leadership. Expertise is brought in to support resolution of the most criticalissues. All this allows a more focused approach to be developed and ensures more reliable delivery.

In summary, the role of the knowledge manager has changed much in the past 10 years. It has becomecloser to the business, and increasingly part of the business rather than a function that runs parallel toit. When KM, and so knowledge managers, are directly involved in the strategic direction a corporation istaking, then KM is genuinely at its most effective. Until then, it is really achieving only half its potential.

I believe KM still has a way to go yet to be fully integrated into the strategies of most companies.However, the fact that there are an ever-increasing number of knowledge managers in existence istestament to how far this discipline has come. If someone had told me 10 years ago that I would beinvolved in the learning and education aspects of a company such as IBM, I would not have thought thatit would have any relation to KM as I saw it then. I look forward to seeing what the next development ofmy career path will be! One thing is sure: the role of the Knowledge Manager will become even moreintegral to the success of a services-focused organization such as IBM.

Page 200




Chapter 15: Business Design Mark Cerasale

INTRODUCTION

A business design is a high-level blueprint for creating and delivering customer value. Business designschange: they are transformed, often over years, to best serve industries, markets and customers.Change takes place in political and legal environments, in the economy, in technology and in customerneeds, and new opportunities are discovered to innovate with evolving technology. New business designsemerge to satisfy the needs of society, suppliers and partners, employees, shareholders andcustomers. Both lower-cost and solution-based business designs develop. Solutions business designsare enabled by the network economy in which cross-functional and interorganizational teams andprojects predominate. Traditional product-led business models are less dynamic and must betransformed to enable solution creation and delivery.

Page 201




ECONOMIC CHANGE

Dramatic economic change happens through revolution, not evolution. Economic revolutions create thebridge between one type of economy and the next one (its replacement). Hunting and gathering wasreplaced by the agricultural economy during the Agricultural Revolution. The agricultural economy wasreplaced by market capitalism during the Industrial Revolution. Market capitalism was replaced bymanagerial capitalism during the Managerial Revolution. Today, the customer (not the product) is oftenthe scarce resource. We are in the midst of a Customer Revolution in which managerial capitalism isbeing replaced by the customer-focused network economy.

Managerial capitalism was the dominant economic model for much of the 20th century. It worked wellwhen customer demand for products was high. Managerial capitalism had access to collective capitaland consisted of large organizations employing many people. Large companies were able to producegoods, such as automobiles, in sufficiently high numbers and low cost to create customers andsubstantial markets for their products. Managerial capitalism achieved its strategic goals throughplanning, which allowed companies to take a long-term view. Planning was as important as marketforces in allocating resources. This worked well when change was evolutionary and could be planned.

In the 20th century, economic growth was driven, in large part, by big companies and their strategicplanning. Growth was achieved through massive investment, managerial control, mass production,standardization, and the creation of large markets through reduced costs and prices. Aggregationworked well when customer needs were relatively homogeneous. As companies grew, the number andpay of managers rose dramatically. Management dealt with the complexity and scale of theirorganizations by dividing them into chunks and assigning each to a different manager. Large companiescame to control brands and technology, access to markets, customers, capital and business talent. Thevertically integrated company, containing multiple strategic business units (SBUs), emerged as thedominant business design.

Powerful forces such as globalization, deregulation and greater access to capital transformed businessduring the final decades of the 20th century. Competition increased, and over-supply caused manymarkets to become saturated. Today, change is discontinuous and unpredictable. Workers are moremobile and knowledgeable. Many are ‘knowledge workers’ and take valuable knowledge with them whenthey leave. The assembly line has largely been automated. Technology and processes are quicklyimitated. The rate of product innovation is slowing, and rapid imitation is commoditizing many productsand services. Features, functions and performance often count for less, and many products areperceived as ‘good enough’.

In the past, management focused its resources on improving the product and the processes ofproduction. Widespread adoption of new management approaches and the use of informationtechnologies such as the Internet improved productivity. Quality programmes and the adoption ofbest-practice production processes raised the bar in product design and manufacturing. There is nowmuch less room for dramatic improvement, and there are fewer opportunities for achieving sustainablecompetitive advantage in those areas. Competition for customers is intense in many industries. As hasbeen pointed out already, the customer, not the product, is now the scarce resource. As a result, focusis now on the customer and the process of consumption. Customer relationships have come to the fore.Suppliers must simultaneously compete on the quality and ingenuity of their products and the quality oftheir customer relationships.

Many markets have separated and become smaller. Niches are increasingly the norm. According toCharles Handy,

Penetration, not concentration, is the aim now; penetration of the market-place, penetration of thetechnology, penetration of the future. To be lean and flexible rather than big and cheap is what mostorganizations want. But it is hard to be lean if you are concentrated and hard to be flexible if you are toonarrowly specialized. The old formula (concentration plus specialization equals efficiency) has had itsday in the new automated and fastchanging world. [1 ]

Suppliers relentlessly search for the best customers, products, technologies, suppliers, employees,partners and business designs. In the past, business designs were created to serve the needs of

Page 202



suppliers. Successful business designs in today’s hyper-competitive environment must createexceptional customer value – starting with the needs of the customer, working back towards thesupplier.

[1 ]Charles Handy, Understanding Organizations, Penguin Books, London, 1999 (pp 347–48)

Page 203




THE CUSTOMER REVOLUTION

Many customers want more value through solutions. They need to solve complex problems or exploitnew opportunities for value creation. They may not have the specialist knowledge or the resourcesrequired and often look to partners and suppliers for support.

Suppliers help them to understand their issues and opportunities. They can provide assistance inassessing the options and will often create and deliver unique solutions by customizing services andproducts. Solutions are services-led. Solutions business models are emerging. IBM, for example,satisfies the needs of its customers for information technology-enabled solutions. Similar solutionsbusiness designs are emerging in many industries.

Technology enables many products to be provided as services. Falling information and communicationtechnology costs mean that information technology, such as microchips, can be embedded in products.When technology-rich products are connected to the Internet they become devices for providing services.If well managed, services can be more profitable than products.

Organizational structures have become flatter as companies try to become more flexible and responsiveto customer demand. In the past, assets and managerial structure were added to organizations toenable growth. In the future, many will be taken away. Capabilities and enablers, from internal divisionsand external partners, will be combined in networks to create exceptional customer value. As theysearch for greater agility and focus, integrated companies are moving to network organizational forms.Networks can form between independent companies and between divisions within companies. Corecompetency thinking and the widespread use of outsourcing have given a boost to the virtual enterprise.

Page 204




CORE COMPETENCIES

In today’s competitive markets, success can be achieved only by focusing on the very few powerfulforces operating in any arena and harnessing them to create exceptional customer value. In 1990, C KPrahalad and Gary Hamel published an article entitled ‘The core competence of the corporation’ that hasbeen referred to in some previous chapters of this book. In it they advocated a focus on learning ratherthan physical assets and suggested that companies should exit activities that do not use their corecompetencies. [2 ]Core competencies are bundles of skills and technologies that enable a company toprovide a particular benefit to its customers. Core competencies are, therefore, unlike strategic businessunits (SBUs), which are often defined by specific product-markets. The aim of the core competencyapproach was to enable companies to grow by focusing resources on areas of strength. Manycompanies have chosen to outsource activities considered to be non-core.

According to Prahalad and Hamel, ‘The commitment a firm makes to building a new core competence isa commitment to creating or further perfecting a class of customer benefits, not commitment to aspecific product-market opportunity.’ [3 ]They go on to claim:

We have argued for growth and diversification around core competencies. Core competencies are theconnective tissue that holds together a portfolio of seemingly diverse businesses. Core competenciesare the lingua franca that allows managers to translate insights and experience from one businesssetting into another. Core competence-based diversification reduces risk and investment and increasesthe opportunities for transferring learning and best practice across business units. [4 ]

Many large corporations have become a collection of business units responding to market forces ratherthan a chain of command. They are more focused, flexible, and responsive to customer needs andmarket requirements. As the core competency approach has attained popularity among academics,management researchers and managers, market-based definitions of businesses have shifted towardsmore competence-based definitions – for example, from IT products to ITenabled solution creation anddelivery.

Many companies are becoming more ‘modular’. They look for opportunities to selectively link up withother companies to utilize the specific skills, capabilities and enablers they require. Networking allowscompanies to avoid the trade-offs between the needs of customers (for efficiency and a broad range ofresources and skills) and the needs of companies (to manage their resources effectively and achieveeconomies of scale). Companies no longer have to choose between market efficiency and corporateeffectiveness; the network economy can allow both.

[2 ]Gary Hamel and C K Prahalad, The core competence of the corporation, Harvard Business Review, May–June 1990 (pp 79–90) [3 ]Gary Hamel and C K Prahalad, Competing for the future, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, 1996 (p219) [4 ]Gary Hamel and C K Prahalad, Competing for the future (p 322)

Page 205



Page 206




THE HOLLYWOOD STUDIO OPERATING MODEL

The Hollywood studio operating model has been offered as a future model for companies in the networkeconomy. Jeremy Rifkin has noted that the Hollywood culture industries have a lot of experience withnetwork-based approaches to organization. The entertainment industry has had to deal with the risksthat accompany products with a truncated life cycle. Each film is a unique experience that has to find aquick audience if the production company is to recoup its investment, making a network approach todoing business a matter of necessity. [5 ]

Every film production brings together a team of specialized production companies and independentcontractors, each with its own expertise, along with the talent. Together the parties constitute ashort-lived network enterprise whose life span will be limited to the duration of the project. The majorstudios still exercise control over much of the process by their abilities to partially finance productionand to control distribution of the product. Aksoy and Robins claim that the key to maintaining effectivecontrol over the industry has always revolved around controlling access to the distribution channels: ‘Byholding on to their power as national and international distribution networks, the majors were able to usetheir financial muscle to dominate the film business and to squeeze or to use the independentproduction companies.’ [6 ] In an article entitled ‘Why every business will be like show business’ in Inc magazine, Joel Kotkinwrote, ‘Hollywood [has mutated] from an industry of classic huge vertically integrated corporations intothe world’s best example of a network economy?Eventually, every knowledge-intensive industry will endup in the same flattened atomized state. Hollywood just has gotten there first. [7 ]

[5 ]Jeremy Rifkin, The Age of Access, Penguin Books, London, 2000 (p 24) [6 ]Jeremy Rifkin, The Age of Access (p 27) [7 ]Jeremy Rifkin, The Age of Access (p 27)

Page 207




THE NETWORK ECONOMY

According to Rifkin,

Everywhere in the world, companies large and small are in a frenzied scramble to become part ofexpanding commercial networks. In the Age of Access, a company’s biggest concern is not beingincluded in the commercial webs and relationships that create economic opportunities. Having access tonetworks is becoming as important in cyberspace commerce as enjoying market advantage was in theindustrial era. Being left out of the loop can mean instant failure in this new world of ever changingalliances. [8 ]

Widespread adoption of the core competency approach has led to greater specialization and hasincreased the need for companies to form partnerships and enter into alliances. Yves Doz and GaryHamel comment:

Ironically, a decade of reengineering and refocusing has made many corporations more needful than everof strategic allies. Most management teams have addressed demands for greater shareholder valuecreation by a mix of refocusing around core competencies and core businesses – becoming moreselective about what they do – and reengineering, downsizing, and delayering – becoming leaner andmore productive in doing what they still do. The self-contained, vertically integrated companies ofyesteryear are largely extinct. [9 ]

Doz and Hamel claim that alliances are essential for three reasons. First, many of the greatopportunities of the information age call for the melding of skills and resources that few individualcompanies now possess in their entirety. Second, the revolution is not being built on vertically integratedstructures of single corporations. More and more, it is being built on ‘seamless’ networks that must bestandardized across vast expanses and complementary applications. Third, the uncertainty inherent tothe information economy, with its myriad of new markets to create and emerging technologies to define,calls for alliances to serve not only the usual purpose of bringing together complementary strengths butalso that of combining insight and understanding to reduce uncertainties and accelerate learning. [10 ]

Doz and Hamel argue that the benefits of alliances can be summarized as co-option, co-specialization,learning and internalization. Cooption turns potential competitors into allies and providers of thecomplementary goods and services that allow new businesses to develop. Co-specialization is thesynergistic value creation that results from the combining of previously separate resources, positions,skills and knowledge sources. Doz and Hamel claim that partnerships and alliances may also be anavenue for learning and internalizing new skills, in particular those that are tacit, collective andembedded (and thus hard to obtain and internalize by other means). When these skills can be learnedfrom a partner, internalized, and exploited beyond the boundaries of the alliance itself, they become allthe more valuable. [11 ]

In networks, the most dominant player can adopt a nodal position from which it can orchestrate theactivities of partners. Michael Hammer wrote:

Everyone knows that Cisco Systems makes routers, switchers, and all the other plumbing that underliesthe Internet. What is less well known is that this is not true. In fact, Cisco makes almost none of its ownequipment. A great majority of Cisco’s orders go out without ever being touched by a Cisco employee.Cisco’s own term for virtual integration is the Single Enterprise Program (SEP). Cisco initiated this effortbecause it realized that it was playing in a world that changes overnight. Between 40 and 60 per cent ofits revenues comes from products that are less than a year old. How can Cisco stay on the leading edgeof such a rapidly changing environment without losing ground to nimble start-up competitors? Theanswer is focus. The company’s managers have decided they will do two things and two things only.They will develop cutting-edge products, and they will maintain close relationships with their customers.Everything else will be left to partners. [12 ]

According to Aurik, Jonk and Willen,

There is huge value in becoming a Cisco-like orchestrator – if coordination happens to be both animportant capability in your output and a significant source of value in the industry. But be attentive to

Page 208



changes in the competitive environment and wary of getting too comfortable in the integrator role: Thevalue of a capability recombination can erode over time as products mature and new technology hits themarket. [13 ]

Ronald Coase, winner of a Nobel Prize for economics in 1991, has argued that companies tend toexpand their organizational boundaries until the costs of organizing an extra transaction inside thecompany equal the costs of carrying out the same transaction on the open market. Transaction costs,therefore, determine a company’s shape and size. The Internet is an enabler of the network economy. Ithas lowered transaction costs, allowing cheaper and better collaboration between partners, suppliersand customers. The Internet allows new services to be provided remotely. Internet-enabled processintegration and automation has enabled companies to outsource more activities considered to benon-core.

[8 ]Jeremy Rifkin, The Age of Access (p 28) [9 ]Yves L Doz and Gary Hamel, Alliance advantage, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, 1998 (p xiv) [10 ]Yves L Doz and Gary Hamel, Alliance advantage (p 2)

[11 ]Yves L Doz and Gary Hamel, Alliance advantage (p 4)

[12 ]Michael Hammer, The Agenda: What every business must do to dominate the decade, Random HouseBusiness Books, London, 2002 (p 212) [13 ]Johan C Aurik, Gillis J Jonk and Robert E Willen, Rebuilding the Corporate Genome, John Wiley, NewYork, 2003 (p 168)

Page 209




SOLUTIONS BUSINESS DESIGNS

Michael Hammer claims:

The advent of the virtual enterprise has vertiginous implications. As it reverses Henry Ford’s verticalintegration, it shatters many of our fundamental assumptions about doing business. It forces managersto make unprecedented critical decisions about what they really do: Which of our processes define usand our business? Where should we place our bets? What should we choose to do and not to do?Which processes should we dispose of, and which should we acquire? UPS is branching out fromdelivery and is adding new capabilities in inventory management and financial services. Manufacturers ofelectronics and automobiles are easing out of their role as assemblers while upgrading their skills asmarketers and brand managers. [14 ]

Companies that decide to make solution creation and delivery a core competency must decide whatactivities they will develop and retain in-house and what will be outsourced to suppliers or provided bypartners. Peter Drucker once wrote, ‘Only two key activities are always present in any organization:there is always the management of people and there is always the management of money. The rest hasto be determined by the people within looking at the enterprise and at their own jobs, values and goals.’ [

15 ]In a solutions company, money and people must be managed differently as compared with the waythey are managed in a product-led company.

The management of money

IBM began to grow its service business under Lou Gerstner, exchairman of IBM. He recalled aconversation with Dennie Welsh (an IBM manager) when arriving at IBM in the early 1990s:

[Dennie] pointed out that the economics of a services business were very different from those of aproduct-based business. A major services contract might last six to twelve years. An outsourcingcontract for, say, seven years might lose money in the first year. All of this was foreign to the traditionalworld of product sales and would create problems for our sales compensation systems and the financialmanagement system. [16 ]

Gerstner continued:

[S]ervices businesses are much more difficult to manage. The skills required in managing servicesprocesses are very different from those that drive successful product companies. We had no experiencebuilding a labor-based business inside an assetintensive company. We were expert at managingfactories and developing technologies. We understood cost of goods and inventory turns andmanufacturing. But a human-intensive services business is entirely different. In services you don’t makea product and then sell it. You sell a capability. You sell knowledge. You create it at the same time youdeliver it. The business model is different. The economics are entirely different?we had to learn how to bedisciplined – how to negotiate profitable contracts, price our skills, assess risk, and walk away from badcontracts and bad deals. [17 ]

The management of people

Solutions companies are services-led. However, they are more similar to professional services firms thanto traditional product- or service-led companies. David Maister claims that the key to ensuring anyprofessional firm’s future is wise management of its two key assets: its inventory of skills, talents,knowledge and ability; and the strength of its client relations and reputation. [18 ]According to Maister, ‘The defining characteristic of the professional service organization as an organizational type is theexpectation of all professionals that they will, with time and personal development, proceed through theranks to be considered for some form of ownership or partnership. Professionals want careers, not jobs.’[19 ]He goes on to claim, ‘In the next decade and beyond, the ability to attract, develop, retain, and deploystaff will be the single biggest determinant of a professional service firm’s competitive success.’ [20 ]

Access to skilled staff is a key determinant of the extent to which, and the speed at which, a companycan introduce solutions. A significant challenge for many product-led companies will be to attract andretain the right kind of employees as they move to solutions. Many skilled service professionals seekemployment in smaller firms such as management consultancies. Stock options have become more

Page 210



popular in many public companies as means of rewarding and retaining highvalue employees. In thefuture, other reward systems may emerge.

[14 ]Michael Hammer, The Agenda (p 218) [15 ]P Drucker, Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, 2001 (p 182) [16 ]Louis Gerstner, Who Says Elephants Can’t Dance?, HarperCollins, London, 2002 (p 129–30) [17 ]Louis Gerstner, Who Says Elephants Can’t Dance? (pp 133–34) [18 ]David H Maister, Managing the Professional Service Firm, Free Press Paperbacks, New York, 1993 (p359) [19 ]David H Maister, Managing the Professional Service Firm (p 185) [20 ]David H Maister, Managing the Professional Service Firm (p 189)

Page 211




SOLUTION CAPABILITIES AND ENABLERS

In theory, the network economy allows suppliers to become almost entirely virtual (except for a few keyfunctions). Why not rely on partners to provide most of the capabilities and enablers needed to createand deliver solutions? Enablers, such as technology, and capabilities, such as business consulting, canbe accessed through service agreements and partnerships. Most companies have a long history ofcontracting with external service providers and partners. Why not extend that collaboration further?

Few suppliers have all the capabilities and enablers they require. Most companies choose to partnerother firms to some extent. Partnering can allow co-option, co-specialization, learning andinternalization. It can also allow quick access to resources, enabling suppliers to be more agile andresponsive to changes in the market. By focusing on just a few activities, companies can improve theirskills and knowledge through specialization. There are, however, disadvantages to partnering. It can bedifficult to coordinate the resources of independent suppliers (although the challenge can be equallygreat between divisions of the same company). Independent suppliers can compete with each other,particularly if they have similar service portfolios or similar strategies, or lack experience in managingpartner relationships.

Companies choose to develop and retain solution capabilities and enablers in-house for many reasons.Some resources are scarce and provide exceptional value to the customer. As a result, they are asource of sustainable competitive advantage that one supplier would not want to make available to itscompetitors. Some capabilities allow one supplier, such as the Cisco example, to adopt and sustain adominant position in its network of partners (although the relationship should create value for all players).Many customers want end-to-end solutions and prefer the accountability of a ‘one-stop shop’. Ifappropriate management systems are in place and a shared vision established, coordinating theactivities of employees can be easier than managing external partners.


Providers of products need only offer good ones at competitive prices – perhaps with innovative featuresto secure the deal. Solution providers, however, must combine the product and service elements of theirofferings in more economical and efficient ways than their competitors do. That could mean bringing inthird parties to flesh out offers. Yet many of the best solutions providers size up the complexity andcoordination costs of that approach – not to mention the delays and quality problems it might introduce– and decide to go it alone. The bar is higher when a company sells solutions, because it is responsiblenot only for the performance of its products but also for business outcomes. When things go wrong,customers prefer to have one throat to choke. If a solutions provider does enlist partners, it must takeresponsibility for coordinating their efforts – and, should the need arise, offer up its throat. [21 ]

Solution enablers include skilled employees, company culture, methods, products, knowledge, brands,technology, incentives, factories and offices, customer relationships, and business partners. Some canbe sourced externally; others (such as culture) must be developed internally. While this is not anexhaustive list, most solution companies tend to develop and retain the following capabilities in-house:

solution creation; solution delivery; continuous innovation; thought leadership creation and knowledge management; partner relationship management.

Some new capabilities must be acquired, and existing capabilities must be transformed. MichaelHammer states, ‘[C]ore competencies are not straightjackets: just as old ones can be exploited, newones can be developed.’ He explains that companies that have started to introduce solutions havemanaged to develop the new capabilities they required:

They were not offering these capabilities in a stand-alone fashion but as extensions to businesses inwhich they were already very strong. Moreover, when they begin to focus on broad customer needs,many companies discover that they possess competencies of which they were previously unaware.Such secondary capabilities (like project management) that are not intrinsic to a company’s primaryofferings can be highlighted and exploited in the context of a solutions strategy. [22 ]

Page 212



Solution creation

Solution creation and delivery, which includes customer relationship development, solution marketing,solution selling and solution design, are very different from traditional sales, marketing and distribution.Solutions are created and delivered by teams of people who come together often for short periods oftime. Solution salespeople help customers understand their issues and opportunities, and assess theoptions for addressing them. They can then work with customers to create and deliver unique solutions.Solution salespeople focus primarily on customer value creation, the product often being of secondaryconcern. By contrast, product salespeople tend to push products and focus on communicating theirvalue. Lou Gerstner recognized the challenges (many caused by cultural differences) of introducingsolutions through the traditional sales force at IBM in the early 1990s. [23 ]According to McKinsey,however,

Successful solutions providers, including ABB, IBM, and Nokia, have ridden out the discomfort andrealigned their organizations. They have formed strong ‘front-end’ units responsible for developing anddelivering integrated solutions, refocused product business units as ‘back-end’ supporters of solutions,and developed ‘strong centers’ to mediate between the two. At IBM, for example, the product businessunits for PCs, servers, software, and technology still sell direct to some customers but have alsobecome internal suppliers to the company’s newer solutions units, which serve industry-based customersegments such as banking, insurance, and manufacturing. Another backend unit works to turn productsinto solutions. To manage relations between the two types of units, IBM has defined new centralfunctions, including finance centers to manage solutions and transfer pricing, as well as regionally basedleadership groups to allocate resources. [24 ]

The McKinsey authors go on to claim that product business units feel the pain first when they losecontrol over the accounts of customers targeted for solutions. New front-end units, givenprofit-and-loss-type responsibility, are formed to develop and deliver solutions for such customers. Theysuggest that these front-end units, with their focus firmly on solutions, are new creatures in productorganizations in several ways. They have no product responsibilities or even loyalties. They source theproducts and services for a solution from the backend product units and, quite likely, from outsideparties as well.

While few solution companies (or consulting firms) claim to be entirely product independent (unlessproduct independence is explicitly requested by the customer), most attempt to be transparent. Solutioncustomers are less concerned with the features and functions of products and more concerned with thevalue-creating activities in which they are used. Many customers do not expect solution providers toprovide competitive products from third parties if there is no substantial benefit from their doing so. Manycustomers prefer the increased accountability of buying an end-to-end solution from one supplier.

Many large sales organizations today are organized by integrated accounts, aligned customers andgeographic territories. There is often a great deal of formalized structure and control in traditional salescoverage models. ‘Hunter and farmer’ models are common too. When market demand outstrippedsupply, the ‘hunter and farmer’ approach worked. In a buyer’s market, where value must be created on acustomer-by-customer basis, the seller must spend more time with customers than hunting allows.Moreover, solution creation and delivery require greater flexibility. New coverage models are required thatallow better team working. According to Charles Handy, ‘Sales executives, developed in a job with afairly high degree of structure and control, and promoted to posts of marketing responsibility withnumbers of staff marketing experts reporting to them, often find the new and more lexible requirements of task and subordinates a big challenge to their habitual style.’ [25 ]

Some companies (particularly smaller ones) focus on niches. Many companies (particularly larger ones)face customers with different needs. Some customers want products (increasingly at the lowest possiblecost); others want solutions. Segmentation allows both to be served. Neil Rackham suggests, ‘If we trulybelieve that sales forces must create customer value, then it’s logical to ask why we continue tosegment the sales effort primarily by customer size?Account size, at best, tracks only approximatelywith the value creation needs and expectations of buyers. Why not also segment the selling effortaccording to the value requirements of customers?’ [26 ]

Rackham argues that some companies can afford to focus on just one type of customer – transactionalor consultative – but for others, especially large companies, this level of focus is not practical. Mostmajor organizations need to cover both types of customers to achieve their financial goals. He suggests

Page 213



that the answer is to structure the organization with separate and distinct approaches for each customertype, sharing elements where that makes sense, without compromising the ability to serve distinctlydifferent value creation needs. Starting with the sales organization itself, Rackham proposes twoseparate approaches: an efficiency-driven structure to serve transactional customers, using low-costelements (telesales, electronic commerce, and so on), and an effectiveness-oriented structure forconsultative customers, organized around key accounts, vertical markets or products. This allows a dualstructure that lets sales forces build capability to deal with each type of customer. [27 ]

As Michael Porter wrote,

Industries are not homogeneous?Industry segmentation is the division of an industry into subunits forpurposes of developing competitive strategy. Industry segmentation for competitive strategy must bebroader than the familiar notion of market segmentation, though encompassing it?Industry segmentationis necessary to address the central question of competitive scope within an industry, or what segmentsof an industry a firm should serve and how it should serve them. [28 ]

Companies can provide both products and solutions. To do both, they must become more modular andfederal. They must transform their vertically integrated business designs. A federal structure allows theautonomy of some parts of the organization with the economics of coordination. Management systemsmust be established to allow more than one type of value creation.

Solution delivery

In the past, business designs best served the needs of suppliers. Many service providers created anddelivered their services like products. The ‘productized’ service approach was often easier to manage.This approach worked well for customers too when change was continuous and more predictable.Change today is discontinuous, making planning difficult. Many companies want to turn their fixed costsinto variable costs. Fluctuating demand creates inefficiencies for suppliers and customers. Whendemand is low, companies have excess capacity. When demand is high, they often do not have enough.Many service delivery contracts today are agreed over a fixed period of time to a fixed service level at afixed price. Many customers want their suppliers to be more flexible and adaptive. They want them to actmore like partners – sensing and responding to their needs, and sharing more of the risk. There is moredemand for services such as ‘power by the hour’.

Service providers must transform their systems and structure to allow greater flexibility. According toMaister,

In a service in which the ‘technology’ is well established, which can be delivered with a reasonablyroutine set of actions, specialization and division of labour are possible (and demanded by themarketplace); organizations that deliver this type of service tend to be bureaucratic, hierarchical, and ‘managed’. Where a service is so customized or complex that its execution remains more of an art thana science, organizations tend to be more freeform, less hierarchical, and less bureaucratic. Sociologistsof business refer to these two extremes as ‘mechanistic organizations’ and ‘organic organizations’…professional service firms are becoming less ‘organic’ and more ‘mechanistic’. If they wish to avoid abureaucratic future, they must strive to get work that truly demands a high proportion of creative, artlikeapproaches. Routine work, though temptingly profitable because past experience can be leveraged tocut costs, inevitably results in a routinized work environment – anathema to those who chooseprofessional careers. [29 ]

Continuous innovation

Peter Drucker once wrote, ‘The customer is the foundation of a business and keeps it in existence. Healone gives employment. And it is to supply the customer that society entrusts wealth-producingresources to the business enterprise?Because it is its purpose to create a customer, any businessenterprise has two – and only these two – basic functions: marketing and innovation.’ [30 ]In a solutionscompany, innovation must be continuous and pervasive. Solutions are services-led, requiring abroadening of perspective from product innovation to business innovation.

The network economy allows research and development to extend beyond traditional boundaries.According to Henry Chesbrough, ‘[T]he role definition of esearch?has to change?I think research mustbe more broadly defined to include internal discovery, but also to admit external knowledge as an equal

Page 214



part of the task. A second change is that businesses need to think less about the iece parts?andmore about the integration of the parts into a system. Less depth and more breadth, you could say.’ Healso predicts changes in the development process: ‘In the new regime, business planners would sharetheir needs with the internal research people, but both groups would actively solicit inputs and proposalsfrom external research providers as well?Internal projects would be started to fill in the gaps, or to definethe architectures that could connect the disparate external threads into a coherent whole.’ [31 ]

Solution providers will focus more resources on services innovation. According to Dean Takahashi,

Where researchers once may have worked in ivory-tower isolation developing hardware and software,they are now tagging along with IBM services staff to visit customers and get hands-on experiencesolving their problems?IBM’s transition from traditional hardware and software toward services is givingits research operations a new focus. By 2005, about 200 of IBM’s researchers will be designated as ‘services researchconsultants’ who help customers do everything from targeted electronic marketing tomining data for retail operations to analyzing statistics on auto warranty claims. ‘This is the start of atrend where the large companies with research capability will take on more of the burden of innovation,especially in services,’ said Alie Young, an analyst at Gartner. [32 ]

According to Brent Schlender,

CEO Sam Palmisano is betting that by turning IBM Research itself into a service business of sorts andgetting his top thinkers out into the field, not only might they use their world-class smarts to help solvesome knotty real-world problems and drum up new business, but they might also get a better sense ofhow to tailor their blue-sky research efforts to coincide with the future needs of the IT marketplace. SaysPalmisano: ‘IBM Research has reinvented itself many times over the decades as technical challengesand customer problems have changed. A generation ago, most of our researchers grappled withchallenges in physics, materials science, and magnetics because so much of our business dependedon devices.’ But today, he notes, ‘many of the toughest, most fascinating problems are in services.’ [33 ]

Product innovation is important for solution companies, particularly those that continue to sell productsindependently as well. Products can be a source of competitive advantage, particularly if innovations canbe protected over time through the use of patents, etc. Product research and development can give asolution provider unique insight and early warning of future product development. Sometimes a productcan be used to differentiate a service or solution, particularly if it is not made immediately available tocompetitors. Solution salespeople and consultants can also be involved in product development,providing product developers with information on emerging customer needs that can then be built in tothe product.

Thought leadership creation and knowledge management

Solution customers seek expertise, experience and efficiency. They choose solution providers that haveexpert knowledge about their industry, their issues and their opportunities. Solution customers wantsuppliers to provide thought leadership, new insight and original ideas. Thought leadership may be apoint of view, specialist knowledge of an issue or an opportunity that is valued by the customer.Traditional marketing techniques work less well in engaging solution customers. Thought leadershipdifferentiates one solution provider from its competitors. Expert knowledge is highly valued and can allowa supplier to adopt a nodal position in a network of partners.

The ability to manage knowledge is critical in a solution company in which many employees areknowledge workers. Fewer workers today have career horizons of more than five years, and many haveseveral careers. Valuable information exists in employees’ heads in the form of knowledge – of acustomer, how a process works, a machine operates or a technology integrates. Knowledgeableemployees are in short supply and prone to move on. As they move between companies, theydisseminate valuable knowledge. Knowledge management systems can be used to capture and retainknowledge.

Partner relationship management

Most solution companies depend on partners to some degree. Some partnerships or alliances are ‘marriages of convenience’, opportunistic and operational in nature. Others are more strategic,established between a few selected partners who come together for joint planning activities to which they

Page 215



often commit considerable resource. Successful partner relationships are built over many years and arebased on mutual understanding and trust, often between senior business leaders. According to NeilRackham, ‘As a good basic rule for initiating enterprise relationships, start at a very senior level in eachorganization. With an increasing top management focus on growth, there are few better ways for a CEOto have impact than to initiate selective enterprise-wide value-creating relationships with customers,suppliers and collaborators.’ [34 ]

Customers must also make changes to their own systems and structure to get the most value fromservice-based relationships with suppliers.

[21 ]Juliet Johansson, Chandru Krishnamurthy and Henry Schlissberg, Solving the solutions problem, McKinseyQuarterly, no 6696, 2003 (p125) [22 ]Michael Hammer, The Agenda (p 48) [23 ]Louis Gerstner, Who Says Elephants Can’t Dance? (pp 129–30) [24 ]Nathaniel W Foote, Jay Galbraith, Quentin Hope and Danny Miller, Making solutions the answer, McKinseyQuarterly, no 3, 2001 (p 4) [25 ]Charles Handy, Understanding Organizations (p 111) [26 ]Neil Rackham, Rethinking the Sales Force, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1998 (p 17) [27 ]Neil Rackham, Rethinking the Sales Force (pp 264–65) [28 ]Michael Porter, Competitive Advantage, Macmillan, Basingstoke, 1985 (pp 231–32) [29 ]David H Maister, Managing the Professional Service Firm (p 292) [30 ]Peter Drucker, The Practice of Management, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, 2001 (p 35) [31 ]Henry Chesbrough, Open innovation: using research from everywhere for new product and servicedevelopment [Online] http://ibm.com [accessed May 2003] [32 ]Dean Takahashi, IBM shifting research attention, Mercury News [Online] http://bayarea.com [accessed 24March 2003] [33 ]Brent Schlender, Big Blue is turning geeks into gold [Online] http://fortune.com [accessed 27 May 2003] [34 ]Neil Rackham, Rethinking the Sales Force (p 178)

Page 216


http://ibm.com

http://bayarea.com

http://fortune.com


http://ibm.com

http://bayarea.com

http://fortune.com


SOLUTION CULTURE

Organizational culture is an important aspect of solutions business designs. Solution companies areservices-led. People are their greatest assets. Organizational culture (how people think, what they do,how they communicate, etc) in a solution company is different from that in a product-led business.Organizational cultures are built over the years by dominant groups in an organization. However, whatsuits them and the organization at one stage is not necessarily appropriate for ever. Product-led culturescontinue to dominate most companies, even after many years of transformation to solutions. To besuccessful with solutions, companies must develop and nurture an appropriate solution culture (acrossthe entire organization or in targeted areas).

Product-led organizational cultures are often described as mechanistic or role based. They havecentralized, formalized systems and procedures that are appropriate to stable environments. Jobs andcareer progression are clearly defined. Appraisals are formalized and centrally managed. Theassumption is often made that good performance at one level is the best predicator of performance at thenext. Individuals are not expected to perform over and above their predefined job descriptions. A certainamount of job security is assumed, and rules, regulations and bureaucracy are accepted as the norm.Role cultures can be found in traditional product and service organizations. According to Charles Handy,

The role organization will succeed as long as it can operate in a stable environment. When next year islike this year, so that this year’s tested rules will work next year, then the outcome will be good herole organization will be found where economies of scale are more important than flexibility or wheretechnical expertise and depth of specialization are more important than product innovation or productcost. Organizations used to operating in a sellers’ market until the mid 1950s, or with the state as theironly customer, were quite properly operating in a role culture since there was a high premium on productreliability and few penalties for cost or lack of product innovation. [35 ]

By contrast, solutions are unique and often highly customized, requiring a culture often described asorganic or task oriented. In solution companies, people work in teams to perform tasks. They may cometogether on projects for short periods. According to Charles Handy,

The task culture therefore is appropriate where flexibility and sensitivity to the market or environment areimportant. You will find the task culture where the market is competitive, where the product life is short,where speed of reaction is important?Essentially control is retained by the top management by means ofallocation of projects, people and resources. [36 ]

According to Maister,

The scheduling of work assignments is the single most important managerial activity in a professionalservices firm. Whoever makes the work assignment decisions is the person really managing thepractice?By allocating the right resources to different assignments, there is the opportunity to influencethe cost of the work, its quality, and the timeliness of its delivery. Scheduling has longer-termconsequences as well. Over time, the pattern of assignments given to professionals will profoundlyinfluence their professional development, their worth to the firm and to clients, their satisfaction with thefirm, and, as a result, their motivation and productivity. [37 ]

Companies can have more than one culture. In a federal organization, several cultures may exist.Charles Handy wrote:

In general, the availability of people with the right orientations will be a significant element in the freedomthat an organization has to move towards a particular culture. The individual orientations of the keypeople in an organization will have a large say in determining what the dominant culture is, irrespective ofwhat it should be. You decide, in large part, on your culture when you decide on your people. [38 ]

According to Handy, ‘[A]lthough beloved of many theorists and idealists, task cultures appear to beextremely difficult to manage well, particularly when surrounded by other cultures. Perhaps it is thatorganizations have more experience with the management of steady-state activities?perhaps?people aremore role-oriented, more fond of the steady state than they are prepared to admit. [39 ]

[35 ]Charles Handy, Understanding Organizations (p 186)

Page 217



[36 ]Charles Handy, Understanding Organizations (pp 188–89)[37 ]David H Maister, Managing the Professional Service Firm (p 175) [38 ]Charles Handy, Understanding Organizations (p 199) [39 ]Charles Handy, Understanding Organizations (p 269)

Page 218




CONCLUSION

Some companies try to transform themselves entirely into solution companies; others introducesolutions gradually over time. Many companies focus primarily on transforming the sales force with newprocesses, skills and systems. Some companies aim to transform through acquisition, acquiringbusiness consulting firms or key individuals. Acquisition can provide quick access to specialistresources and solution customer relationships, although managing mergers and acquisitions brings itsown challenges. Acquisition can help transform organizational culture (particularly when individuals aremoved to senior management positions in the acquiring company). How far a company transforms itselfto the solutions business design depends on many factors, including the size of opportunity,organizational propensity to change and the availability of resources.

Page 219




SUMMARY

In this chapter I argued that a Customer Revolution is taking place. Managerial capitalism is beingreplaced by the network economy. I explained how new business designs are emerging to satisfy theneeds of customers for exceptional value. I described the core competency approach and the ‘Hollywood’ studio operating model in the context of the emerging network economy.

I explored the differences between traditional product-led business designs and solution businessdesigns. I argued that solution creation and delivery is a core competency of a solution company. Isuggested that most solution companies tend to develop some key enablers and capabilities in-house(rather than seek partners that have them). Key capabilities include solution creation, solution delivery,continuous innovation, thought leadership creation, knowledge management and partner relationshipmanagement. I argued that organizational culture is an important aspect of solutions business designs. I suggestedthat an appropriate solution culture should be nurtured. Finally, I explained that the extent and speed oftransformation to solution business designs depend on many factors and differ between companies. In Chapter 16, Julie Adams, an Organizational Change Management Consultant at IBM, explores how tosuccessfully manage the transition to a solutions business design.

Page 220




NOTES 1. Charles Handy, Understanding Organizations, Penguin Books, London, 1999 (pp 347–48) 2. Gary Hamel and C K Prahalad, The core competence of the corporation, Harvard Business Review,May–June 1990 (pp 79–90) 3. Gary Hamel and C K Prahalad, Competing for the future, Harvard Business School Press, Boston,1996 (p 219)

4. Gary Hamel and C K Prahalad, Competing for the future (p 322) 5. Jeremy Rifkin, The Age of Access, Penguin Books, London, 2000 (p 24) 6. Jeremy Rifkin, The Age of Access (p 27) 7. Jeremy Rifkin, The Age of Access (p 27) 8. Jeremy Rifkin, The Age of Access (p 28) 9. Yves L Doz and Gary Hamel, Alliance advantage, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, 1998 (pxiv)

10. Yves L Doz and Gary Hamel, Alliance advantage (p 2)

11. Yves L Doz and Gary Hamel, Alliance advantage (p 4) 12. Michael Hammer, The Agenda: What every business must do to dominate the decade, RandomHouse Business Books, London, 2002 (p 212) 13. Johan C Aurik, Gillis J Jonk and Robert E Willen, Rebuilding the Corporate Genome, John Wiley,New York, 2003 (p 168) 14. Michael Hammer, The Agenda (p 218) 15. P Drucker, Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, 2001 (p 182) 16. Louis Gerstner, Who Says Elephants Can’t Dance?, HarperCollins, London, 2002 (p 129–30) 17. Louis Gerstner, Who Says Elephants Can’t Dance? (pp 133–34) 18. David H Maister, Managing the Professional Service Firm, Free Press Paperbacks, New York, 1993(p 359) 19. David H Maister, Managing the Professional Service Firm (p 185) 20. David H Maister, Managing the Professional Service Firm (p 189) 21. Juliet Johansson, Chandru Krishnamurthy and Henry Schlissberg, Solving the solutions problem, McKinsey Quarterly, no 6696, 2003 (p125) 22. Michael Hammer, The Agenda (p 48) 23. Louis Gerstner, Who Says Elephants Can’t Dance? (pp 129–30) 24. Nathaniel W Foote, Jay Galbraith, Quentin Hope and Danny Miller, Making solutions the answer, McKinsey Quarterly, no 3, 2001 (p 4) 25. Charles Handy, Understanding Organizations (p 111) 26. Neil Rackham, Rethinking the Sales Force, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1998 (p 17) 27. Neil Rackham, Rethinking the Sales Force (pp 264–65) 28. Michael Porter, Competitive Advantage, Macmillan, Basingstoke, 1985 (pp 231–32) 29. David H Maister, Managing the Professional Service Firm (p 292) 30. Peter Drucker, The Practice of Management, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, 2001 (p 35) 31. Henry Chesbrough, Open innovation: using research from everywhere for new product and servicedevelopment [Online] http://ibm.com [accessed May 2003] 32. Dean Takahashi, IBM shifting research attention, Mercury News [Online] http://bayarea.com[accessed 24 March 2003] 33. Brent Schlender, Big Blue is turning geeks into gold [Online] http://fortune.com [accessed 27 May2003] 34. Neil Rackham, Rethinking the Sales Force (p 178) 35. Charles Handy, Understanding Organizations (p 186)36. Charles Handy, Understanding Organizations (pp 188–89)37. David H Maister, Managing the Professional Service Firm (p 175) 38. Charles Handy, Understanding Organizations (p 199) 39. Charles Handy, Understanding Organizations (p 269)

Page 221


http://ibm.com

http://bayarea.com

http://fortune.com

http://ibm.com

http://bayarea.com

http://fortune.com


Page 222




Chapter 16: Change Management Julie Adams

INTRODUCTION

Introducing solutions, or changing a company to become a solutions enterprise, requires significantchange for the organization and for the people who work in it. A big challenge for both the organizationand its people is to manage this change while continuing with ‘business as usual’. There are many waysfor a company to transform itself. Some companies choose a ‘Big Bang’ approach; others preferevolutionary change over a longer period. The choice depends on many factors. Regardless of approach,change should be planned and managed, or there is risk of failure.

Leadership throughout the change is vital. It must be sustained throughout the transition.Communication is also vital: employees must be kept informed about what is happening even if they arenot directly involved. A business case is often created to assess the viability of introducing solutions.This business case may become the basis of a transformation story for employees, to explain why thechange is happening. The story should be communicated widely and repeatedly. Introducing solutionsrequires that changes take place outside the organization as well, with business partners andcustomers; they too need to hear and understand this story. The greatest change will be within thecompany itself. For example, employees will need to be trained to use new skills and to be motivated toperform their new roles in solution creation and delivery. These roles usually require employees to workin teams across different functions. Pay and other rewards may need to be changed to support andencourage the new way of working.

Companies that fail to make changes of this kind often blame cultural issues. Business leaders must besensitive to their company’s current culture and be clear about the culture they want for the future. Thejourney from one to the other can be long and difficult. One way to make the transition easier is toestablish a change ‘infrastructure’, to include various management frameworks and plans. A governanceframework led by an executive-level steering committee provides a structure for implementing atransformation programme. This should be supported by a comprehensive transition plan that maintainsmomentum and enables the transformation to be broken down into manageable pieces of work (‘workstreams’). These should be carefully monitored to ensure that objectives are met.

Page 223




CHANGE ON THIS SCALE IS ORGANIZATIONAL AND PERSONAL

Many companies claim to be used to change. Defining and executing new commercial strategies,introducing and manufacturing new products and decommissioning old lines are considered ‘business asusual’. However, introducing solutions or transforming entirely to a solutions enterprise is not businessas usual. It demands a fundamental organizational shift. In a world of discontinuous change, companiesmust learn to be flexible. This applies at two levels: to the organization and to its people. It is unlikely that the optimal organizational model will be achieved immediately. IBM’s evolution (untiljust before the acquisition of PricewaterhouseCoopers’ consultancy business) is shown in Figure 16.1.Since 2002 our business consulting capability has resided in a division called Business ConsultingServices (BCS), formed following IBM’s acquisition of PricewaterhouseCoopers Consulting and itsmerger with IBM Business Innovation Services.

Figure 16.1: IBM Global Services' organizational history

A company passes through several phases of change as various capability building blocks and customerofferings are put in place. Employees experience many changes as the company passes throughdifferent phases of solution maturity, but they must keep up the quality of their daily work. A bigchallenge for any company and its employees is to combine major change with business continuity.

The degree of change experienced depends partly on the approach taken to building the organizationneeded for the solutions enterprise. The revolutionary or ‘Big Bang’ approach means big changes:creating a new organization from scratch very quickly, with some completely new business processesand IT systems. New employees may need to be recruited as experienced hires, bringing experiencefrom other solutions companies. Companies may be acquired. New subsidiaries may be set up. Thealternative is an evolutionary approach that involves developing the organization over time, building onexisting structure and resources. Each approach has advantages and disadvantages. The revolutionaryapproach enables a company to move quickly and get the benefits of its strategy early. However, thisway of proceeding often involves more disruption. Mergers and acquisitions, for example, must bemanaged carefully. In contrast, the evolutionary approach is often easier to execute. It can allow fewerissues to be dealt with at a time. However, if the change process is too slow, fewer benefits may berealized. This may be a bigger problem in highly competitive markets, where first mover advantages canbe great.

Page 224



Page 225




THE VALUE OF CHANGE MANAGEMENT

Given the depth and breadth of change at both corporate and individual level, the change must bemanaged in a planned and controlled way if it is not to go out of control. An organization making bigchanges to its business model needs energy to sustain momentum. The inevitable effect onperformance – both personal and organizational – must be taken into account. Executives transformingtheir organizations into solutions enterprises should be aware that one of the most important areas ofuncertainty is how their employees will adapt to new ways of working. Change must be planned and managed, otherwise there is risk of failure. A recent study[1] of changeprogrammes in 40 organizations found that 58 per cent failed to meet their targets. The remaining 42 percent – companies that reached or exceeded their expected returns – had strong change managementcapabilities and a change management infrastructure in place. The US Department of Labor hasestimated that organizational productivity can drop by as much as 45 per cent while major change istaking place, as employees focus on changes (see Figure 16.2).

Figure 16.2: Management of organizational change helps to cut the drop in productivity

Put simply, managing the transition helps reduce the dip in performance and maximize the return on the(often large) investment required by an organization to become a solutions provider. Direct managementof the change will:

help allay any personal fears employees have about what is expected of them in asolutions business;

focus on creating the right organizational environment for people who need to change,helping them to thrive and the company to succeed;

help to explain and set expectations about the changes that are needed, aprerequisite for the development of new capabilities;

get commitment from parts of the organization which may not undergo deep changethemselves, but which must provide vital support, such as Finance.

The decision to act is the first step. Real value is achieved by using the right change management ‘infrastructure’, whose core components include:

strong leadership; a clear case for the change; continual two-way communication; active involvement of those affected; investment in the resources needed to support the company through the transition.

This should also allow employees to understand the challenges and opportunities involved in moving to asolutions enterprise. It should ensure that objectives are set and measures of success established, andthat there is a plan for delivery during the transition.

[1]Jennifer A LaClair and Ravi P Rao, Helping employees embrace change, McKinsey Quarterly, no 4, 2002

Page 226



Page 227




LEADERSHIP IS VITAL

Company leaders need to inject personal energy to secure the transformation. The idea of becoming asolutions enterprise often comes from one visionary leader or group with a strong view that radicalchange is needed and that old ways must be abandoned. This individual or group is likely to besupported by leaders and others who can help to lead the transition. Sometimes there is no singleindividual change leader, instead there are many people in different roles who support the change inbusiness direction.

Leadership must be sustained. The change agenda should be wider than the core project team. Leadersmay need support from other groups from inside and perhaps outside the organization. External peoplesuch as consultants can help bring people and ideas together. Managers with different agendas andperspectives often oppose a change if they fear loss of power or influence, and externals can help byintroducing an independent perspective. External help should be chosen with care, however. Teams thatalready exist within the company are essential to the creation of the new enterprise (although they mayrequire expert external support). When given opportunities to apply their specialist knowledge, teamsoften create practical and effective approaches that take into account the unique aspects of theorganization. Buy-in can be improved by involving many teams from across the business.

Page 228




DEVELOPING A BUSINESS CASE

Most companies create a business case for two main reasons. First, it gives management a quantitativeand qualitative assessment of whether the introduction of a solutions approach is sensible, and shouldbe prioritized ahead of other initiatives. Second, the business case can be used to supportcommunications throughout the transformation programme – reminding people why the change is takingplace and providing hard underpinning to the reasons why it should be made.

Aims often expressed in the business case for solutions-based transformation include: the higher percentage of revenue to be gained from services; the greater value of each service contract; better product and service profitability; wider adoption of common management processes; the greater skills and improvement in morale of the sales force likely to ensue; the new markets and opportunities that can be developed.

Page 229




BUILDING COMMITMENT AND COMMUNICATION

Different agendas and perspectives can emerge during the change programme. Opposition to the ‘solutions provider’ proposition can develop among the company’s employees unless the rationale of ‘whywe are doing this’ is clearly understood. Any change results in a disruption of people’s expectations andcreates uncertainty. Uncertainty may cause distress for employees with strong product orientation: theymay find the prospect of discussing solutions with customers daunting.

Employees may be uncomfortable with the change for two reasons. Some may have seen similarinitiatives come and go without achieving anything (a fact of life in some large organizations) and willwant to see good evidence that this change is for the better. Equally, they may lack the personal abilityto make the changes demanded of them, and may need reassurance that support will be provided.

The first step in building employee commitment is to develop a persuasive story of why adopting asolution strategy is the right thing (or perhaps an essential thing) to do. This story should be based on awell-researched and credible premise that people at all levels can understand. The business case willoften form the basis of the story. Messages will also typically centre on market and customer demand,coupled with competitive pressures. Customer-facing employees should be involved in creating the story,as they are often among the first to sense a shift in customer behaviour or attitude towards requiringsolutions and services.

Once a clear story is in place, it should be communicated widely and repeatedly. The ‘why, what andhow’ about the transition engages the rational side of employees’ minds. This formal communication ofinformation should be supported by relationship-based communication (eg one-to-one discussion), whichengages the emotional element. Business leaders should focus on the beliefs and assumptions peoplehave made about the change. Some assumptions (eg the possibility of job losses) may be negative andshould be addressed. Communication can take the form of developmental coaching, the development ofnew skills needed for the changed environment, or direct conversations about the employee’s own part inthe transition.

External communication and engagement with customers is also vital to avoid those leading the changebecoming too inwardly focused. The way a supplier does business with its customers will changesignificantly when it introduces solutions. A company making this transition will need its customers tobe active partners in creating and adopting the new ways of doing business. Early adopters andenthusiastic advocates should be targeted and prioritized.

Page 230




ABILITY DEVELOPMENT AND ADDRESSING CAPABILITY GAPS

Business leaders should question whether their organization’s employees have the ability to make thechanges demanded of them. Most people will probably require training or development. Employees arelikely to be concerned about their ability to perform, whether they have the skills needed and whethertheir income will be affected. Taking time at the outset to understand each individual’s capabilities (eg inidentifying opportunities or developing or delivering solutions) sends a clear signal to employees thattheir concerns are recognized and that training and support will be provided.

Once a company decides on its offerings – the areas on which it will focus – it can identify the skillsneeded to create and deliver solutions. Employees can then assess their capabilities against theseneeds. They may have some already. The company’s HR specialists should be able to lead or supportthis assessment. Any gaps should be filled through training and development. As the transformationmoves ahead, new skills may be required, so training needs should be monitored frequently.

Page 231




MOTIVATION AND PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT

During a transformation programme, business leaders often expect employees to change smoothlyalong with the organization. This does not always happen. There may be a change in the contractbetween the organization and the employee (reward and job satisfaction for performance andcommitment). Employees expect to be rewarded for creating and delivering solutions. The emphasis ofremuneration and reward might need to change. Employees might even need to be rewarded fordeveloping the skills they will need to perform their new roles.

Changing how employee performance is measured and rewarded signals to employees the importance ofthe change and encourages the right behaviour from employees, such as refocusing their efforts fromproduct sales to solution creation and delivery. Establishing the right set of employee performancemeasures at the start of the transformation programme is an important step in changing behaviour.Measures should be refined over time, as capabilities and employee performance improve. It can take anorganization many years to become a solutions provider, so rewards should change over time. Rewardscan take many different forms. In addition to basic salary, incentives include cash awards, stockoptions, recognition via promotion, increased authority, and more involvement in leadership activitiessuch as decision-making.

Page 232




CREATING THE RIGHT ORGANIZATIONAL FRAMEWORK

Having the right measures and rewards in place is only part of the organizational equation. Solutioncreation and delivery requires working ‘end to end’ across divisions. The company may have beenstructured in strategic business units by product, and its employees focused on working in those units.Solutions provision demands that people work cross-functionally. Usually, people from many functions(eg salespeople, consultants, project managers and service delivery managers) come together to createand deliver solutions. Thus the solutions offered by an IT services provider might combine technologyinfrastructure, computing hardware and software (products) and consultancy. Solutions are created anddelivered through teamwork and require leadership. They are not created by the salesperson as ‘lonehero’ selling products.

Changes to the organization’s structure may be needed to encourage cross-functional working. Barrierspreventing employees from working together need to be identified and removed. The structure isimportant: behaviour conditioned by the structure should not be overlooked. Irrespective of theorganizational structure, individual roles will have to be redefined. Solutions are more complex to sellthan pure products, and this complexity will require new skills and responsibilities for most people (thosein support roles as well as those in the front line). Opportunity spotters and owners, field sales teams,solutions designers, delivery resources and support staff must collaborate. One way to encouragecollaboration is to develop and deploy a system of shared targets and rewards for all those involved insolution creation and delivery. This helps create an employee ‘value chain’ in which all members of thewider team partly depend on the performance of others for their own financial success.

Page 233




CULTURE: DON’T BLAME AND DON’T IGNORE When companies fail to make significant changes, ‘culture’ is often the scapegoat. ‘We tried to make itwork but the culture was against us’ is very frequently heard. People recognize the important role cultureplays in any company. Cultural change should be explicitly factored into business transformationprogrammes. Figure 16.3 gives an example of a process for doing this. Success in changing anorganization’s culture demands four things:

business leaders’ acceptance of the need to address cultural issues; understanding of the attributes of the current culture; some knowledge of the attributes of the desired culture; assessment of the overlap between current and desired culture.

The desirable cultural attributes of a solutions-led business include the following: leadership – bringing in new blood where required; flexible delivery of services, using replicable assets; focus on customers’ needs and wants from services; being prepared to challenge what customers think they need and want; use of role models and coaches when making the transition; leverage of intellectual capital and past experience in delivering solutions; commercial – solutions and advice are not ‘given away’.

Figure 16.3: Changing the organization's culture The next stage is to build on the overlapping areas, to shape the culture change and create an actionplan aimed at helping to sustain it. Changing the culture is rarely a one-off. Organizational culture mustbe refined as the company develops as a more sophisticated solutions enterprise and its businessstrategy evolves to reflect changes in the competitive and customer environments. Figure 16.4 shows thevarious areas for focus in creating culture change.

Figure 16.4: Areas of focus for culture change

Changing to a customer-focused ‘solutions’ culture cannot be mandated by just telling senior executivesto ‘get on with the job’. The change is most successful when implemented through a broad range ofactivities taken by different groups of people in the organization.

Page 234



Page 235




MAKING IT HAPPEN: AN INTEGRATED IMPLEMENTATIONAPPROACH

Most large companies transforming themselves towards solutions provision are likely to have otherinitiatives under way. Every attempt should be made to align and coordinate the transformationprogramme with other programmes. Areas such as ‘culture’ are often considered ‘soft’ because theyfocus on the human side of the transition rather than the ‘hard’ elements such as business process andsystems changes, but both should be treated as integral elements of the transformation programme andmanaged as such. Most companies that have succeeded in business transformation have had a stronggovernance framework for their various initiatives (including the softer ones), together with a definedstructure for implementing the programme, supported by a rigorous transition plan. Business transformation is best managed when broken down into manageable initiatives or workstreams. This helps to reduce the impact of the programme on the daily running of the business.Commitment from executives can be achieved by having the right programme delivery structure in place,with initiatives owned by business leaders under the guidance of an executive-level steering committee.An example of a delivery structure is provided in Figure 16.5.

Figure 16.5: Goverance framework example

Page 236




LESSONS LEARNED

The following list contains some of the lessons learned by the authors of this book in assisting andguiding organizations in making the transformation to a solutions business model:

1. All business leaders need to agree on the end state and the strategies to getthere.

2. The company’s executives need to appreciate the extent to which making thechange may affect many constituencies in the organization.

3. Use scenario testing combining business processes, roles and responsibilities,and typical customer situations to find flaws in the new business model and todevelop new principles of operation.

4. Ensure that the organizational infrastructure (eg principles of operation, processes,meeting formats) conforms with the new business model, or the old model andbehaviour will be reinforced.

5. It is impossible to over-communicate in a large-scale change of this type.Messages must cascade through the organization over many months.

6. Fixing the processes that engage the workforce and enable them to fulfil their newroles takes time and must therefore begin early.

7. Ensure that capability gaps in the sales force and ‘front office’ staff are closed andthat these people are comfortable with the proposition before engaging withcustomers.

8. For critical path projects, use an executive-led project office, an executive-ledsteering committee and transition leaders from the business.

9. Process financial and administrative data at the same time, to detect flaws in thenew reporting systems. Do this as early as possible.

10. Have a high-performance internal/external consultant team to save your sanity!

Page 237




SUMMARY

The extent of the change experienced by a company, its employees and its business partners whenmaking the transition to solutions provider should not be underestimated. This change is best managedand turned to advantage by recognizing the new demands the change brings and managing thosedemands as a programme requiring a change management ‘infrastructure’. Companies must accept thatbecoming a solutions provider will take time. Milestones must be in place to guide the journey andmeasure achievements.

The development of this infrastructure must be supported by decisions taken at executive level, definingboth the approach to be taken (revolutionary or evolutionary change) and how the approach will beenabled through changes in corporate culture, rewards, performance measurement and organizationalstructure.

Finally, leaders must develop a credible story proving why the change is necessary and use it to engagethe support and commitment of employees and business partners.

Page 238




CONCLUSION FOR THE BOOK

It is right to end this book on transforming companies to selling true solutions with a chapter on changemanagement. In this book we have steered a careful course between the strategic and technical sides ofmanaging this transformation, and the people side. As this chapter stresses, transformation dependsmost of all on people: those who work in the business, those who as customers buy and use theservices, and those who as business partners help a company create and deliver solutions. Theirinvolvement in defining and implementing the change, and then in making the transformed companydeliver its promise and value, is critical. Without it, the transformation is likely to be a hollowachievement, promising much and delivering little.

Page 239




NOTES 1. Jennifer A LaClair and Ravi P Rao, Helping employees embrace change, McKinsey Quarterly, no 4,2002

Page 240




Index

Numbers 3M 113-17

Page 241




Index

A ABB 247 Aberdeen Group 77 Adams, J xiii, 255, 258–74 Advanced Tissue Science Inc 118, 122 aerospace 99–104 Airbus 100 Andersen 122 Apple Computers 117 Asda 96 Associated Newspapers 96 Association of Management Consulting Firms 158 Aurik, J 242 automotive industry 195–201

Page 242




Index

B Barrett, C 75 Bejam 27 benchmarking 7 Birds Eye 24–28 Boeing 209 Booz Allen Hamilton 2 Bosworth, M 151, 154 Botkin, J 205–06 BP 222 broadcast technology 97–99 Brown, J 222 Brown, J S 75–76 Brullo, B 115 Buffett, W 7 business partners 3–6 business process re-engineering 8, 41, 63, 125–26, 150

Page 243




Index

C Carr, N 42, 73–75, 90, 126 Cerasale, M xi, 1, 2, 22, 38, 55, 73, 93, 112, 141, 202, 235 Champy, J 63, 125, 150 Chesbrough, H 250 chilled meals 22–37, 94 Chrysler 215 Cisco 241–42, 245 Clark, A xiii, 141, 141–61 client executive 162–70 Coase, R 218, 242 consultants 158–59 Corning Cable Systems 144–45 corporate responsibility 2–3, 5 Courtney, D 67 Cox, H xiii, 22–37 Coy, P 46 Culture 253–54, 268–70 customer relationship management xiv, 17, 42, 77, 142, 162–70, 182–83, 191–92 Cuttle, L xiv, 193, 195–201 Cynefin Centre 135

Page 244




Index

D Daily Mail 96 Davenport, T 210 Davis, S 205–06 De Havilland 209 defence 99–104 DHL 105 Direct Line 108–09, 125 Douglas 209 Doz, Y 240–41 Drucker, P 11, 75, 77, 93, 111, 112–30, 153, 207, 209, 243, 250 Dunlop 67

Page 245




Index

E-F Economist, The 4, 6, 11 Edwards, C 42, 73, 78 Enron 122 enterprise resource planning 42, 76 Evans, B 74 Evans, P 212 Federal Express 105 financial services 58, 108–09, 127–28 Findus 25 Foote, N 89 Ford 4, 58 Foss, B xiv, xix, 93 freight 105 frozen food 22–37, 94

Page 246




Index

G-H Gartner Group 251 General Electric 45, 57, 59 General Motors 43–44, 58, 74–75 Gerstner, L 3, 9, 57, 63, 79, 80, 113, 243 Griffiths, J xiv, 202 Gross, N 46 Grover, R 218 Hamel, G 14, 56, 58, 114, 177, 184–85, 238–39, 240–41 Hamm, S 42, 73, 78 Hammer, M 63, 66, 76–78, 95, 125, 150, 241–42, 246 Handy, C 145, 158, 212, 218, 248, 253–54, 237 Hawken, P 3 Hayward, M 122 Heinz 28 Hollywood Studios 239, 255 Horn, P 132 Huston, L 121

Page 247




Index

I IBM xiii–xv, xix, 3, 13–17, 57, 59, 63, 64, 71, 72, 78–82, 84, 90–91, 108, 113, 128–29, 131–40, 149, 151, 160, 162–70, 172, 176, 178, 190, 195–201, 226–34, 243–44, 247, 259 IBM Business Consulting Services 166, 198, 227 IBM Business Innovation Services 166, 260 IBM Global Services 190, 230 IBM Institute for Business Value 136–37, 149 IBM Integrated Technology Services 166 Imaginatik 120–21 Independent Insurance 109 information technology 73–92 ING Bank 108 innovation 8–9, 112–30, 209, 230–51 Intel 45, 72 Interdigital Communications Corporation 119

Page 248




Index

J-K Jauhal, P 6 Jobs, S 117–18 Johansson, J 70 Johnson Control Industrial 149 Jonk, G 242 Kao, J 116 K-Mart 35–37 knowledge and knowledge management 4–5, 14–15, 58–59, 202–25, 226–34, 252 Koch, C 78 Kotkin, J 240 Kovacs, B 158 Krishnamurthy, C 70 Kuhn, T 119

Page 249




Index

L Lancaster University Management School 135–36 Lautenbach, N 150 leadership 117–18, 264 Levitt, T 65, 175 Lohr, S 77 Lotus 221 Lovens, A 3 Lovens, H 3 Lucas 195 Lucier, C 2 Lund, P 143 Lyons, J 25

Page 250




Index

M Madhavan, R 218 maintenance 59 Maister, D 153–54, 156, 183, 185–86, 189, 191–92, 204, 217, 244, 249–51 Marks & Spencer 27–33 MBNA 108 McKinsey 79, 144–45, 154–55, 159, 245, 247 Microsoft 45 Monsanto 56 Moody, F 5 Moore, J 36 Moore’s Law 45 Morita, A 14 Mowatt, S xiv, 22–37

Page 251




Index

N National Library Board of Singapore 118 Nattermann, P 7 Naughton, G 118, 122 Nestle 25, 28 Nobuyuki I 18 Nokia 159, 247 Nonaka, I 202 Noon Food Products 32

Page 252




Index

O-P on demand 80–91, 137–38 outsourcing 60–83, 69 Palmisano, S 78–80, 251 personal computers 50–52, 71, 179 Polanyi, M 204 Port, O 46 Porter, M 51, 148, 249 postal services 105 Prahalad, C 14, 56, 58, 177, 184–85, 238–39 Prevezer, M xiv, 22–37 Procter & Gamble 36, 121 project managers 159 Prusak, L 210 PWC 195 PWC Consulting 81, 137, 166, 198, 229, 233, 259

Page 253




Index

R-S Rackham, N 67, 157, 187–88, 214, 248 retailing 22–37, 94 Rifkin, J 46, 48, 148, 207–08, 239–40 Rolls-Royce 62 Rosenbush, S 42, 73, 78 Ross Group 25, 28 Royal Bank of Scotland 108 Sainsbury’s 25–33, 96 Sakaura, T 45 SAP 76 Say, J B 114 Schlissberg, H 70 Schumpeter, J 116 Scott, T 75 service delivery managers 150–60 Shapiro, R B 56 Siebel 221 Slywotzky, A 13, 154 Sony 14, 17–18, 97, 174–78 St Paul’s Insurance 109 Stone, M xi, 22, 73, 93, 202 Szygend, R 43, 74

Page 254




Index

T-U Takahashi, D 250–51 Takeuchi, H 202 Taylor, G xiv, 93, 160, 162–70 Tesco 33, 96 Tierney, A xv, 112, 129, 131–40 training and education 58–59 Unilever 22–37 UPS 105, 243 US Department of Labor 261

Page 255




Index

V-W Vodafone 40 Von Clausewitz, C 15 Wallace, R 75 Wal-Mart 35–37, 95, 96 Welch, J 45, 59 Welsh, D 243 Wheatly, K xv, 226–34 Whiting, R 75 Willen, R 242 Williamson, O 218 WorldCom 122 Wurster, T 212

Page 256




Index

X-Y Xerox 76 Young, A 251

Page 257




List of FiguresChapter 4: The Solutions Business Model

Figure 4.1: Companies providing business solutions: capabilities and enablersChapter 5: Transformation in the Information TechnologyIndustry

Figure 5.1: The IBM model of stages and states of e-businessFigure 5.2: Diffusion processes taking place within the diffusion of the Internet in branded consumergoods products

Chapter 11: Solution MarketingFigure 11.1: Relationship between offerings, solutions, capabilities and enablers

Chapter 16: Change ManagementFigure 16.1: IBM Global Services' organizational historyFigure 16.2: Management of organizational change helps to cut the drop in productivityFigure 16.3: Changing the organization's cultureFigure 16.4: Areas of focus for culture changeFigure 16.5: Goverance framework example

Page 258




List of TablesChapter 11: Solution Marketing

Table 11.1: Replicable solutions development process' simplified

Page 259




Documents

Business Solutions on Demand: Transform the Business to Deliver Real Customer Value