Business Development Chronicles – The Story of Us (Doesn’t Have to End in Tragedy)

It’s a tale of Big Company and Small Company.

Big Company likes Small Company’s:

  • focus and style
  • entrepreneurial attitude and skills.

Small Company likes Big Company’s:

  • scale of resources
  • scope and number of customers.

Big Company hates thing like:

  • getting embarrassed by Small Company in front of customers
  • getting burned and stuck with Small Company’s software source code
  • worrying about loose cannons in Small Company’s organization
  • working with Small Company’s legal paper.

Small Company hates things like:

  • working with Big Company’s cumbersome processes
  • getting whipped round navigating Big Company’s large organization and jumping through hoops
  • waiting for the whale to speed up
  • failing to get real deals cut
  • getting RFIs from Big Company and worrying whether Big Company is playing around with others
  • answering the RFI question about financial stability of Small Company
  • getting paid six months late by Big Company.

The Story of Us doesn’t have to end in tragedy. “Us” requires hard work, like courtship. It requires an honest assessment of values and one another’s strengths and weaknesses. It requires regular communication. It requires bridge building skills on fluctuating ground, and should be viewed as an opportunity for those up to the challenge.

Endnotes:                                                                                                     

  • Business Development is about new initiatives and incubation
  • The percentage of alliance failures cited often exceeds 60 percent (example Entrepreneur article).
  • The title for this post was inspired by Taylor Swift’s song, The Story of Us from the Speak Now album
  • I wrote this post reflecting upon doing consulting & contract business development activities and representing mega, mid-market, and small companies over the past year.

What I’ve Learned From Buyers of Management Consulting Services

Many blog posts and articles address when to use management consultants versus not. Some argue that using consultants for strategy development intimate incompetence by management (example here). Others argue that consultants should be used in cases when expertise is higher than that of existing employees.

Companies should definitely examine the needs and tradeoffs for using management consultants. Tradeoffs include expertise, background in similar projects, knowledge retention, cash outlay, incentives, organizational dependency issues, etc.

But I’ve learned something entrepreneurial from a number of buyers that deeply understand how to use consultants and how to lead:

Many smart buyers of management consulting services focus on making forward progress. They focus on solving problems. Whether using consultants is the cheapest option or the best discount of future profits that a client has ever seen or anywhere in-between – the choice of whether to use consultants is less relevant than getting things done with a positive return.

As a long-time consultant, I am clearly somewhat biased. But I’ve been on the buyer side for consulting services too. My main point is to encourage folks to spend a balanced amount of time focusing on how to solve a problem as opposed to pointing fingers.

Facilitation Technique: “Painting the Ends of the Spectrum”

While I don’t often write about leadership, management, and consulting “techniques”, there’s one that I wanted to share as I’ve found it useful when facilitating a diverse group of folks. I call it “painting the ends of the spectrum”, although I’m sure there other varieties and names for this approach.

Here are a couple of examples of “painting the ends of the spectrum”:

  • Trying to hone in on a direction related to strategy – In discussions with a client, framing the discussion by saying something to the effect of, “On the one spectrum, we can focus on simply reviewing the documents to make sure all parties understand. This will require a fairly short period of time. On the other end of the spectrum, we can work towards developing a common solution. Such an approach will require more time and strategy planning on our end.” This can be followed up by either the question, “Where on the spectrum are thinking we should be aiming for?” Alternatively depending on the bias you feel acceptable for the situation, you may indicate, “I think the former end of the spectrum is preferable. That said, what do you think?”
  • Attempting to gauge direction on customer preference – The technique can often be used in primary market research or sales situations. Here you may ask, “On the one end of the spectrum you can have a solution that covers X, Y, and Z, and will meet your end needs (for a premium fee) of being able to sleep at night. On the other end of the spectrum, you can have a narrower solution that has smaller out-of-pocket fees and may require greater coordination and integration on your part. Which direction do you prefer and why?”

Painting the ends of the spectrum works in many situations, particularly if complexity is somewhat linear (i.e., moving from simple to complex). In some cases, you may find it useful to paint other colors in the middle of the spectrum too. I tend to find that this latter situation works more in written or visual presentations.

Q&A On Management Consulting and Leadership Topics (On Quora)

For those unfamiliar with Quora, it is one of the emerging “question and answer” sites on the Internet. Although its positioning is not quite clear to me yet, a point of difference relative to other sites (like Yahoo Answers) is that Quora integrates aspects of social networking technology. Throw in a carefully-honed, early-adopter market segment and some venture capital hype – the result for now seems to be a high-quality, professional dialogue hub.

In any case, I thought I’d share some answers I’ve provided to several management consulting and leadership questions posed on the site:

Let me know what you think. Thanks!

The Power of Project-Based Thinking

As a consultant, 2010 has been an interesting year for me to reflect upon. I am thankful for the clients I have, and they have challenged me to perform my best in a very diverse set of circumstances and industries over the past couple of years.

What was particularly interesting this year was the mixture of smaller, project-based clients versus clients that had more of a retainer-based model engagement structure with me. These bookend engagement structures have different tradeoffs, and one thing that I developed an even deeper appreciation for was the ability to take a “project-based” perspective to either engagement structure.

Although I’m going to leave out an explicit definition of project-based thinking to provoke thought, for me here are some of the benefits I have seen:

  • Since project life can end at any moment, fewer things are taken for granted
  • Agile performance necessitates optimizing the communication and analysis organizational structures
  • There is an increased focus on output and measureable results
  • A focus on output in turn requires decisions to be made more quickly
  • Excess capacity or process inefficiencies become more readily exposed
  • A need for quicker decisions increases the need for management to articulate strategic tradeoffs more crisply
  • There are often concrete efforts to balance benefits (e.g., revenue) against costs (e.g., expenses) and investment levels
  • The goal of driving through a project can help break through barriers and challenge inertia often systemitized by a “corporate structure”
  • A focus on project goals can help bring out the best leadership qualities of the project team.

What are your thoughts? To what extent can consultants, contractors, and employees be engaged with a project-based approach?

A Peek At The Difficulties of Incubating New Initiatives Within Large Companies

Entrepreneurial situations in large companies differ from that of startups, yet one thing that they seem to share is that they often represent “hope” in one way or another. In the case of large corporations, these new initiatives can not only turn out to be profitable “ventures” but also boost morale and reward key employees through growth opportunities. Yet many of these new initiatives have difficulty getting off the ground. Frustration is common. This post provides a peek at some of the situations, complexities, and steps to resolution that I have seen.

First, here’s a picture of a common situation in a large company faced with the prospect of starting a new initiative or business line:

  • Perceivably significant yet amorphous business opportunity
  • No money committed / no budget
  • No or limited organizational resources
  • Established products and sales & marketing channels
  • Mature and complex business and product approval processes.

What adds a level of complexity to the situation (and sometimes leads to insanity for those working directly within the environment) is that:

  • Venture requires substantial investment to ultimately succeed
  • Finance cycle of start-up opportunities (opportunity timing) does not align well with the long, finance planning cycles of large companies (sometimes can be 14+ month delays!)
  • Star players in the current organization have limited availability for the new organization
  • Articulating and aligning on a business opportunity requires collaboration by many functions, and these functions are separate and overloaded in the current organization
  • Sales and product development processes often need to be understood at more than the surface-level.

Here are some ideas for addressing many of the above issues:

  • Recognize that it’s not usually possible or desirable to speed up the process by cutting corners
  • Break the process into smaller pieces to get rolling
  • Search for the right sponsor and core team
  • Secure a portion of time for each of the star players
  • Give the employees a real chance to make things work 
  • Consider getting a commitment for small amount of money to get rolling
  • Start to articulate what the business opportunity looks like and document it
  • Consider using a facilitator that can pull the pieces together, help layout program plan, and frame strategic issues and options
  • Paint the vision for the org structure and build emotional attachment to the cause
  • Involve those from sales and product development that will be eager to provide input and testing grounds
  • Aim for pioneer sales and business development deals with lighthouse accounts (concrete wins)
  • Rinse, refine, increase committment, and repeat.

It may take a leap of faith to get things started. But the leap of faith can be smaller than the temptation of the opportunity as a whole. Sometimes the keys are to look for forward motion and to take some initial steps as opposed to wanting to knock it out of the park too soon.

Let me know your thoughts and experiences!

Perspectives on “The 24-Hour Customer” (Strategy, Marketing, and Innovation Book) in Context of Marketing Segmentation

Adrian C. Ott, CEO and founder of Exponential Edge Inc., included me on her distribution list for an advanced reading copy of her new book, The 24-Hour Customer. I cannot say enough good things about this book. In my mind, the book is excellent for executives, strategists, marketing, and innovators. From a strategy perspective, the approaches are well-structured and remind me of timeless, Michael Porter-esque classics. Yet the book goes beyond the classics and uses examples in the book that are cutting-edge, modern, timely, and technology-rich. Above all, Adrian Ott provides an innovative treatment of customer segmentation based on their propensity to pay attention and spend time. She additionally sheds light on various tools that can be exploited specifically with respect to dimensions of time and customer values. In this post, rather than addressing an overview of Adrian Ott’s total approach, I’ll simply point out one of the key frameworks and cover why it renews and gives marketing segmentation the respect it deserves.

One of the biggest laments I hear from marketing professors at various universities is with respect to how students and undergraduates look at marketing segmentation. Marketing segmentation is about subdividing markets into subsets of customers that behave similarly or have similar needs. But the craft of identifying segments is often under-appreciated or rushed. My wife, a professor of marketing at the UCLA Anderson School of Management, has often characterized a segmentation “pecking order” to students:

Segment based on “why” customers purchase first. Then look at what they purchase, how they purchase, and who purchases. (The Why/What/How/Who marketing segmentation pecking order)

The biggest segmentation error that people tend to make is that they start with the “who” because it is the most salient. Suppose one wanted to have a business that sold roses. If you started with the “who” dimension, you might start with a marketing segmentation strategy that is focused on middle-class families in a metro area. But a better strategy is to start by thinking about “why” people purchase. By engaging in this research, you might unearth important consumer behavior and situational aspects. For example, many males buy roses last-minute because they need to improve prospects with a key relationship. “Last-minute” is a key reason why people purchase – hence the presence of roses in places like grocery stores, 7-Elevens, and entrepreneurial, street-side vendors.

With that perspective on common customer segmentation errors as backdrop, Adrian Ott’s book offers up a series of methods and tools for understanding and applying how time (and the scarcity of time) affects a company’s potential approaches to engaging customers. One key tool (the “Time-ographics Framework”) that Adrian uses in her book is depicted below (image reproduced with permission of author and publisher):

24-Hour Customer

The Time-ographics Framework relates a customer’s propensity to spend time with the propensity to pay attention. (Yes! It is focused on teasing out the details of “why” people really purchase!) The significance of the stratification Adrian uses is that in order to play in one quadrant, one often needs to develop separate and specialized strategies. For example, to play in the “Habit” quadrant, one often has to tie into regular routines that cue the customer. Adrian Ott cites the example of P&G’s Febreeze, which was a great product that initially failed in the market because people forgot to use it. Once P&G helped to tie the image of Febreeze with the notion of the daily task of tidying up a room, Febreeze turned the situation around into one of the fastest growing brands. As another example in the “Motivation” quadrant, Adrian Ott introduced me to the concept of geocaching (which I have since purchased software and taken up with my kids). At risk of selling geocaching short, geocaching is basically a worldwide treasure hunt and trinket exchange system where users use global positioning systems (GPS) on their mobile phones to locate hidden boxes all around us (yes, sometimes hidden everyday in parking lots, by restaurants, etc.). Services by http://www.geocaching.com enable people to use slices of time to embark on quick, mysterious adventures. My kids are “motivated” by the mystery to check on the position of geocaches near us. Sometimes we’ll take a 1000-foot detour to find a hidden magnetic Altoids box that someone has tacked on the back of a fire hose box (where we drop off some items and pick up things like foreign coins, coupons, etc.). To bring Adrian Ott’s framework back full circle, she addresses the challenges of products in each Time-ographics quadrant and key tools that can be used for each.

The 24-Hour Customer is a book with rich thinking. It is sure to become a definitive source for professionals with respect to time-strategies, very current company examples and case studies, and timeless treatment of a marketing segmentation area that has not been comprehensively addressed before.

Adrian, excellent work on the book!

Update (6/30/2010): Catchy teaser video on Time-onomics just released. Link here.

Should You Seek Input or Help From a Third Party?

People should view this post as a “food for thought” post. The idea for this post was triggered by things I have been increasingly seeing in companies as the recession bottoms out. The managerial situations are similar pre-recession, but anecdotally the occurrence seems more numerous as managers raise their heads-up to reassess their vantage point.

What if your intent as a leader within a company is to (any of the following):

  • invest in a new effort (hard to run company while changing direction or building a new capability)
  • get a new perspective
  • get perspectives on other companies and/or industry trends
  • work with (versus against in the short-run) biases that indicate greater reception to consultants versus internal ideas (e.g., see “consultation paradox” on slide 12)
  • change the DNA and culture of an organization
  • leverage resources from within the company but from another area to plug a gap
  • mediate or facilitate a program or business initiative requiring new cross-functional activities
  • signal substantive actions and investment to outside world or other areas of company
  • get functional expertise not in-house or that was lost
  • audit current project or process (see a customer point of view here)
  • complement team
  • outsource ultimate responsibility for core area (warning flag)
  • welcome new input and ideas into the company
  • fill a management gap (e.g., interim management)
  • analyze common trends across multiple industries (see here for some consulting industry history)
  • address low, organizational morale (with recession I sense a larger percentage of situations with organizations exploring business improvisation & experiential learning solutions – disclosure: client of mine here)
  • recover and retry a failed effort (flip-side warning to consultants here with bullet #3)

Should you seek input from a third party? A third-party could be another person within the firm (organizationally close or distant), an advisor, outside management consultant, services or product vendor, etc.

Feel free to share your experiences and thoughts. If you have a specific situation you’d like to talk through, please feel free to contact me directly, and I’d be happy to share perspectives. Thanks!