Tags

  • Published on

    ICMLG Conference: Reflection #6

    Conferences Management Performance Research Strategy
    Gender diversity: a new competitive advantage?

    Manasi Shukla (Bangkok University) and Aurilla Aurelie Arntzen (Buskerud University, Norway) presented a conceptual paper which explored gender diversity in management and systems design as an important element for competitive advantage.

    They outlined the challenges many women face, whereby many systems and products are designed by men, without any significant consideration for female cognitive or physical elements. They suggested that a woman's response to "design shortfalls" is to dismiss or avoid using a particular product.

    Shukla and Arntzen tentatively proposed a leadership practices inventory, to assist organisations design for, and accommodate, the needs of women. They asserted that organisations that take such steps have the opportunity to secure a competitive advantage in the marketplace. This is an interesting assertion—one that merits further research via the analysis of empirical data to determine if/how the practices they suggest are indeed significant. I look forward to reading more about this in the future.
  • Published on

    ICMLG Conference: Reflection #5

    Conferences Performance Research
    Are solutions the solution to adding customer value?

    Philip Dover (Babson College, Mass) started his talk by sharing data that clearly shows that businesses perceive that "solutions" are crucial to business success. But what is a solution? There are as many definitions as claimants. Dover offered a definition developed by ITSMA, and then described a solutions hierarchy which ranges from general capability through to customer-specific solutions (which is where considerable added value occurs). He went on to acknowledge that it is very difficult for a company to make the transformation from a product-oriented company to a solutions-oriented company.

    Dover and ITMSA have identified several key elements that must be addressed when companies wish to become solutions-oriented:
    • The organisation must redesigned, to allocate P&L responsibility at the business unit level, appoint a "solutions Tsar", and align effort with business partners
    • Marketing must be redefined—to events and sales literature, to a deep understanding of customer needs and the creation of value propositions
    • Move from a [standalone] product development cycle to an integrated portfolio approach (founded on an intentional solutions development process)
    • Change the measurement metrics from revenue and profit, to lifetime value of the customer
    • Change the sole of the salesperson from a single operative, to that of a coordinator ("acts like a quarterback").

    Given the commercial upside of embracing a solutions-oriented approach, should all businesses strive to adopt such an orientation? Dover's is "no". He suggested three elements must be present as pre-requisites before attempting to adopt a solutions orientation—being a large (high $$) customer and a complex requirement and relatively new technology.
  • Published on

    ICMLG Conference: Reflections #4

    Conferences Performance Research
    BI-based organisations: new possibilities

    Celina Olszak (University of Economics, Katowice, Poland) spoke about the use of business intelligence (BI) in organisations. Using Gartner's maturity model, she analysed the responses from detailed interviews conducted with executives of 20 family-owned firms (all of whom were making use of BI tools), to assess the impact of business intelligence tools on business success. Interestingly, Olszak found that the mature use of BI-tools seems to be associated with increased business success. However, her research was limited to a specific segment of the business population. Further work is required to determine whether the reported use–success correlations can be generalised to wider populations, particularly larger organisations where the pervasive adoption of tools and processes to institutionalise knowledge and realise tangible value is perhaps more difficult to achieve.
  • Published on

    Mixed mid-year reporting signals (UPDATED)

    Governance Management Performance

    UPDATE: more filings + latest business confidence results published since original post.

    The annual and half-year reports emerging in the New Zealand market this week appear to be generally soft—perhaps indicating that the economy remains relatively fragile, and that strong economic growth may still be some way off.

    • Ecoya's revenue is up 16%, while EBITDA remains in the red
    • Rangitira reported that operating earnings of $3.3M for the six months to 30 Sept 2012, down from $4.4M for the corresponding period in 2011.
    • Sanford's profit fell and sales growth stalled.
    • PharmacyBrands appears to be growing, but the bulk of the growth has come from acquisitions.
    • In contrast Air New Zealand has provided guidance that it is on track to double its pretax earnings.
    • Argosy boosted its first-helf result by 29% (albeit on the back of an in-house merger)
    • TOWER (the insurer) reported a 67% increase in net profit after tax.

    While business confidence is reportedly improving, more strength is needed in the economy. What do you think the trigger to tip the economy from "fragile" to "strong" will be? 

  • Published on

    Governance in sport: the same or different?

    Boardcraft Effectiveness Governance Leadership Performance Research Strategy

    What role should governance (especially Boards) play in sport? Should sporting codes be governed any differently than commercial businesses or not-for-profit agencies? 

    These questions are raised from time-to-time—often by the media and commentators, and especially when a team or code is not doing so well. Yet another case was reported today, this time concerning New Zealand Cricket. Dion Nash is reported as saying "the board is failing in its duty to lead the game in the right direction." Such criticisms are not new. The challenge is in finding and implementing the remedy.

    The moving parts that make up a sporting code are familiar—a board, administration, management, players (called workers, employees, volunteers in other contexts), spectators (customers, consumers). In my view, sporting codes are just another form of organisation, albeit with goals specific to their context. Therefore, they should embrace [sound] organisational constructs and practices, including governance.

    Dion Nash's call for the NZC Board to take control of the sport's destiny (and ultimately the Black Caps' performance) via sound top-level planning (strategy) has much merit. The development of strategy is now widely accepted in academic circles to be a major task of the Board. To do this effectively, Boards need to be comprised of people who understand the market and emerging trends, and understand and participate in the development of strategy. In NZC's case, that means appointing suitably knowledgeable and competent people to the Board, and soliciting well-structured contributions from various specialists.

    The time to act is now. But will the NZC Board be so bold as to make the necessary governance adjustments—for the good of the game?

  • Published on

    Why should we establish a board anyway?

    Boardcraft Complexity Governance Management Performance Strategy

    I get asked this question two or three times most months. Like any social institution, companies are complex and their success is subject to many variables. As far as I am aware, there are no cookie-cutter models that reliably deliver "point and shoot" type results. However, there are things company owners can do to increase the chance that their company will be successful. One of these is to establish a governance board. I'd like to suggest that a first board (or any board for that matter) can offer considerable value in three areas:

    • First: strategy. Strategy is now widely (but not universally) accepted as a major role of the board. Owners are typically very busy, and they often can't see the wood for the trees. Also, many are not that good at generating or considering strategic options. A couple of carefully selected board members with well-developed strategy and critical thinking expertise can be really helpful to help understand the environment and set an appropriate course to navigate.
    • Second: monitoring. Again, owners/shareholders are very busy! A board will help determine whether the company is performing to plan or not, and help sort out any remedial actions that may be required.
    • Third: connections. Gaining access to resources (capital, skills, customers) can be a real challenge for smaller business owners. Directors can help in this regard, because most have a wide network of contacts and are happy to make introductions to secure access to much-needed resources.

    These comments are offered in the context of owners of smaller companies becoming comfortable to "let go"—to open the financial records, to reveal the inner workings of the company, and to invite others to contribute to the generation of ideas and strategic options. These are all big hurdles for many owners. Yet they are hurdles which, if vaulted, can have big payoffs, through increased performance and a more sustainable future.

    How does one get started down this path? Talking to people with experience is the best option in my opinion.  I am a strong advocate of professional bodies and organised networking groups. They are a good source of information, real-life stories, and, importantly, potential directors. Many of these groups schedule events where more experienced directors, researchers, business owners and CEOs to share case studies (good and bad), to help inform owners that might be considering an external board.

    One final point. As an owner or shareholder you hold the control! You decide whether to establish a board or not, and you appoint the directors. And if things don't work as expected, you can (and should!) make changes.