Article Summary: In the previous newsletter’s feature article, we focused our attention on the “front-end” of the implementation project. This included how to establish meaningful ownership of the project, how critical real, effective leadership is, and the pivotal issue of setting up clear, unambiguous top management support, involvement and communication. When these are consistent with Best Practices, the implementation team is operating in a zero or low-risk field – they can stick out there necks, own their work, be fact based (not “politically” oriented), with little or no CYA activity. The focus is instead on getting everything in place solidly, getting it “right” and effectively identifying and resolving all potential problem areas.
In this issue, we’ll focus on the formation of the implementation team, who should be on the team, who not, what areas they’ll come from, and how to organize the team so the company isn’t driven off the proverbial cliff with no one at the wheel. Topics include:
- How NOT to create an implementation team
- Project leadership – selection and administration
- Selecting team members
- Success example story
How NOT to create an implementation team
To continue a recurring theme in this topic we touch once again on the CYA factor, and the importance of confronting it head-on. This same thought process should be carried over into selecting the team leadership and members. This kind of activity is overhead, extra baggage and waste of the first magnitude, and can in itself cause a project to fall short.
Remember – once the project is done, no one will care in the least who said what at a meeting, or what the basis for a minor decision as – only that it was successful, and if/where it is not, what is underway now to correct it. When serious CYA activity is going on, it is prima facie evidence that there is a lack of trust. When you find this going on, drag it and whatever “sacred cows” are involved out into the open, shine light on it with candid, honest discussion, then provide leadership and support to re-establish trust.
We mention this in the context of team formation because of far too many examples we’ve seen where teams were selected with the desire to absolve one’s self of blame of any sort for possible failure, not only of the implementation project, but of possible operational short-falls that could result from the implementation.
By identifying implementation team mistakes, we will concurrently illuminate their logical opposites, Best Practice team formation methods. Here are some of the bigger, yet surprisingly common mistakes companies make when assembling an implementation team.
- Have an external project manager – assign project management to a person who is an outsider, not in any way a part of the company’s success, failures, or culture. He/she will be an “expert” in a mysterious, dangerous process, but if/when it crashes, will be long gone.
- Depend heavily on external skills and resources - hire temps, consultants, people hired only for the project. This will make the internal people feel completely incapable of performing on their own, and thus remove ownership from it. Almost all huge implementation failures have this element in common.
- Reassign key internal people full time to the team – remove them from their daily jobs and responsibilities. This way, they cannot fully own the resulting success or evaluate risks. They will now be in “their own little world.” Meanwhile, life moves on in their former departments, new political alliances are formed, new in/out groups, and new “secret handshakes” created. They must “sell” everything they do to those still in their old departments and work groups. Challenges, high potential for difficulties and failure are virtually assured.
- Assign expendable people to the team – when department managers are asked to select people for implementation teams, it is VERY hard for them to select their best people – or even harder, to take the responsibility on themselves; they just feel way too overwhelmed. Further, they depend on their best people to keep things together, working well – vital for their own performance reviews, raises, etc. So, the “weakest link” is often selected. Once again, challenges, high probability for difficulties or failure are virtually assured.
- Create a large team - with many people on the team, they’ll have to spend a lot of time in meetings, communicating with each other, resolving disagreements, etc. This dramatically increases project overhead, adds confusion, decreases individual ownership. Once again... You can see where this leads – once again.
- Make a long schedule – allowing a long time for the team to prepare, convert and Go-Live greatly adds to the number of meetings, CYA projects, and changes in team members, none of which actually moves the implementation forward. When new people join the team, they have to “get up to speed” – all extra work, with no added value on the actual project itself. With a long project, the percentage of time devoted to status reporting, meetings, communications, reporting to top management, collaborative sessions with work groups, changes in business processes and strategy – all dramatically increase, thus once again – increasing the probability of difficulties or failure. A short, tight schedule may appear counter-intuitive, but it is a fact. A multi-year implementation project is almost assured of never succeeding fully, simply because of leadership changes, both within the company, and on the team alone.
This depressing “checklist” is included here, in an otherwise positive-oriented set of guidelines specifically because we, and others, have so frequently seen them in actual practice. Although it is widely known that implementation projects are risky, what is NOT so widely discussed are the causes of the risks. We’ve just covered some of the major ones – where problems or failure were almost built-in from the start.
To take an example – sky-diving – the act of jumping out of a perfectly good airplane couple of miles above the earth’s surface, would appear to be highly risky, and it is, if you aren’t prepared. Just “going for it,” in this situation can and has resulted in a greatly shortened life span. Similarly, in a complex business change, i.e., software implementation, rigorous planning, preparation, education and training virtually eliminate risks, just as it does in sky-diving. And high blood levels of testosterone won’t bridge the gap.
This depressing “checklist” is included here, in an otherwise positive-oriented set of guidelines specifically because we, and others, have so frequently seen them in actual practice. Although it is widely known that implementation projects are risky, what is NOT so widely discussed are the causes of the risks. We’ve just covered some of the major ones – where problems or failure were almost built-in from the start.
To take an example – sky-diving – the act of jumping out of a perfectly good airplane couple of miles above the earth’s surface, would appear to be highly risky, and it is, if you aren’t prepared. Just “going for it,” in this situation can and has resulted in a greatly shortened life span. Similarly, in a complex business change, i.e., software implementation, rigorous planning, preparation, education and training virtually eliminate risks, just as it does in sky-diving. And high blood levels of testosterone won’t bridge the gap.
Project Leadership – selection and administration
Strong, internal project leader – Select a key leader, not “manager”. A key hands-on executive or relatively senior manager (not the IT manager) should take this role – he/she will be a powerful force for ownership. Here’s how to keep from overwhelming this person:
- Add project administration – provide a full-time project administrative assistant to the leader – most of the project management work can be handled by a capable assistant. The most time intensive part is gathering status information, preparing reports, presentations. o ·
- Add key role deputy – assign a capable deputy, a fully-capable “stand-in” who can, if/when needed for the functional manager serving in the project leader role. This can and will off-load the leader, so he can have enough time to effectively lead the implementation project, while remaining effective in his / her primary functional role – essential for full ownership.
We have found there is frequently a lot of confusion over the roles of project leadership, management and administration. Leadership is clearly the most powerful and critical, yet most of the time for getting a project to move forward is devoted to administrative work.
Keeping the project leadership securely in his/her power base of a key line management role insures that reality is an integral part of the change/implementation process and keeps ownership solidly in place as well. The Best Practice here is to select a real, effective leader, keep that person in their primary job, while providing supplementary support to back-fill the person in their primary leadership role, while off-loading as much of the project administrative work as possible.
This strategy allows the project leader to truly be physically and emotionally able to continue to provide leadership in the primary business role, yet also effectively lead the change process for the company, including his/her own work area as well at the same time.
Selecting team members
In the NOT to do it discussion, we eliminated many of the most common, yet failure-driving ways to create an implementation team. Similarly, the theme of hands-on, leadership based individuals who are capable of the degree of ownership of the results in their own work areas, plus the implementation team we can concisely summarize how the team should be assembled and who should be on the team:
- Strong, functional managers as team members – everywhere possible, assign a strong manager for team membership, one who exhibits real leadership characteristics, more than just someone who really knows the functional area. Follow the same guidelines described above for insuring that these people have enough time to effectively carry the dual responsibilities of their functional management role plus the implementation project role. Off-load and support them in their regular job role to allow quality, effective time for the implementation project.
- Keep the team small – a highly focused, tight, small team of intensely motivated people who really know what they want to accomplish, will move mountains, quickly to get it done. Communication lines will, on a small, tight team, be short, concise, and trust-filled.
- Continuity – ideally, the implementation is the same team that performed the “as-is” and “to-be” business process analysis, and which thoroughly understands the business strategy and its critical success factors.
Note the common thread of ownership – the before and after work, having people remain in their line roles, and keeping communication and responsibility lines within the team short and effective, with a minimum of overhead. And, of course always selecting people who exhibit real leadership qualities. This “follow-me,” lead by example method has proven very, very effective in countless situations of change within work groups. A solid leader helps people feel relatively safe and secure in the midst of change, potential confusion and what they feel will be the chance of mistakes.
Success Example
One company we are familiar with, a $ 50 million/year high tech manufacturing company, was unable to utilize much of its implementation consulting budget that it had planned. The company is highly customer focused, with many short-notice on-site visits by key customers. Consulting resources from the software company had to be scheduled in advance, and frequently were cancelled at the last minute, or went under-utilized while they were on-site.
This forced the management to “do it themselves” – using Webinar and conference calls to tap into outside expertise just for educational purposes, so they could learn what was needed. Since they were working nights and weekends, they really wanted to get it done soon, yet since the team was entirely composed of key line managers, making sure it went well was critical.
As a result, all of the planned functions in the new system went into live use only a few months after starting, with only a small portion of the external consulting support that had been planned being utilized.
This simple example illustrates the key points involved in Best Practice implementations – all centered around maintaining effective ownership of the before and To-Be processes, and all steps between the two. In this instance, the company’s leadership was able to simultaneously keep things moving well in their work groups while moving the implementation forward, without the off-loading and back-filling steps recommended above. However, in a larger company, this may not have been possible – the additional work would be more than could be handled by some evenings and weekend work.
In our next issues, we’ll continue the implementation discussion, moving onto the topics of education and training, and the all-important conference room pilot.
If you like this article and think it's helpful, please spread the word and digg it.
-
Question: “Our company does not have anyone in any of the leadership management positions with any prior experience in a major implementation project. What is the best way we can bridge this gap to insure a successful implementation?”
Answer: “There is nothing wrong, per se, with bringing in outside expertise to support your project. The issue is one of how is this person to be used – what role will he/she be assigned. In-house people on the team will be the experts on the company. The external person’s role is to help the team grow themselves to the point where they can meaningfully, effectively own the “to-be” business processes – after the implementation is successful. The best practice role of a person outside the organization is one of coaching, facilitation, and education – NOT being responsible for deliverables, milestones, go/no-go decisions that the like. There is no quick, easy way to escape the reality of experience the team has – the remedy is always education, coaching and extra trials to gain the needed experience.
Likewise, there is no escape from the fact that handing a project over to an external person WILL definitely shift responsibility and thus ownership away from internal leaders. Finally, remember that when any well motivated leader is leading a project where certain expertise may be lacking – that person WILL be paying attention during education sessions.”-
Article Summary: The preparation process – i.e., the “front-end” of a Best Practice enterprise software implementation project sets the basis for what follows. This article explains the common thread of ownership and effective leadership upon which a successful, low-risk implementation project is based. In a subsequent article, we will discuss the Best Practice way of organizing and preparing the implementation team, and then in a third article, the activities of the implementation team – conference room pilot, go-live preparations and support. Topics: - Background and context factors
- Ownership – the overriding principle
- Leadership – key best practice
- Top management interface
Background and context factors Few business areas seem to be so risk-filled as implementation of new Enterprise software systems. Research has shown consistently that more than 70% of all ERP system implementation result in one form of short-fall or another, ranging from acceptable performance with no real measurable benefit but at a higher operating cost, down through several gradations of difficulty to outright failure. Collapse or bankruptcy does occasionally result, although rare.
A sane business leader reads these research findings and thinks “Yikes! Do we have to do this? There must be a way to reduce or eliminate this terrible risk, isn’t there?”
Fortunately, there most definitely is. Understanding and following proven Best Practices can and will lead to an almost zero-risk implementation project. These are NOT a mystery, although if one doesn’t know about them, they are. Absent proper preparation, implementations become the business equivalent of just jumping out of a perfectly good airplane and hoping that your parachute will open OK. “Banzai!” is not a Best Practice.
In this first of three articles, we discuss the Best Practice way to prepare for an implementation project. This involves understanding the common thread of ownership and leadership that runs through all facets of successful implementation projects.
Ownership – The Overriding Principle
At every level in a Best Practice implementation project there is the principle of ownership. The project that comprises the implementation is, itself a process – one that results in a slew of other processes. This means that the project manager, the team members, and adjunct participants such as those in functional work groups whose role is to interface with the implementation team – all of these individuals must feel the ownership of their tasks, that it is their job to see it through to successful completion, and to work as a team to bring this about.
The principle of ownership and its importance can hardly be overemphasized. Here is why:
- Risk mitigation - The team will not just “jump off the cliff” blindly. They’ll move when they are ready – because it is their project, their success.
- Details – ownership helps insure that participants are truly paying attention to relevant details – and ignoring irrelevant ones.
- Education and training – when non-owners attend classes, one is lucky if they a) show up, b) stay awake, c) retain much. In contrast, if it is my project, my success at stake, I will pay attention and make sure I retain everything I need.
- Preparation for Go-Live – a goal driven team that owns the outcome, the success, will not agree to a go-live until they know they are truly ready. At this point, the risk of failure or serious problems is virtually zero.
- Painless transition – if the team owns its success, and is prepared, the Go-Live is almost just another work day. There is little or no additional re-training of everyone, because they are prepared, looking forward to working with a new, better system and work flows.
Leadership – Key Best Practice
When a team of change agents, which is what an implementation team is, is organized, it is vital that, at the very start, that top management display real leadership – backing the team’s efforts, making sure everyone in the company understands their role, its importance, and that management is “in the boat” with the team – and will succeed or fail with the team. The oldest project joke is that the most important task at the start is to “figure out who to blame when it fails.” Unfortunately, this is what happens all too often. Make sure there isn’t even a suggestion that this could happen and your project will go well.
Experience – remember that most people on a project team have, at most, participated in one, perhaps two implementation projects in their career. This is OK, normal, but needs to be factored in. They are learning both how to do this one, and how to do them in an overall sense.
The Machiavelli principle – implementation projects “establish a new order” which has long been identified as carrying high risk to its leader – one where there are few friends, and many enemies. In many of the unfortunate situations the project management ends up consistently in a defensive posture, working in a conflicted state where each step forward exposes the manager to more criticism, opposition, and various fears.
Bearing this principle in mind, senior management can, in effect, “shield” the project manager by providing solid, consistent backing. This must go beyond just budget to clear, explicit leadership via words and deeds that clearly show support and an intention to share all risks associated with the changes being made.
If there is even a hint by top management that, in the event of a short-fall in the project that “heads will roll,” everyone will take cover, and the project will soon make no steps forward without solid CYA material in place, greatly hampering its effectiveness.
Top Management Interface
Every major project in a mid to large sized company needs a process to connect it with the CEO, ideally the Board of Directors, key investors, and C-level executives. There are several ways to accomplish this, such as:
- Executive Management Team (EMT) – in mid-sized or smaller companies, the project leader can just interface directly with the executive top management team. This provides an immediacy and a reality to the endeavor, as the EMT is fairly closely involved, and must understand and concur with all major issues, resolutions and decisions.
- Steering Committee – these can be very effective, or not, depending on how they are constituted, their charter, and how they are led and operated. We define a Steering Committee as an appointed group of senior level executives, either a mix of “C” level and below, or managers who are most affected by the project. Typically these are not the EMT, but are appointed by the EMT to function in their behalf. Hazards with Steering Committees:
- Disconnected from top management – since the project SHOULD be tightly tied to the company’s business strategy, having an additional reporting layer (read: “insulation layer”) allows the EMT the costly luxury of imagining that they don’t need to be concerned with it, never a good idea.
- Second-guessing / excessive approvals – a poorly led steering committee will require the project manager and his / her team to review each detail with the committee at its (monthly) meetings, until they fully understand it, then approve it. This severely hobbles forward progress, needless to say. It occurs when there is weak or no trust of the judgment of the project manager and the team. The trust issue should be addressed head-on, here as in all other circumstances where it occurs and changes made so trust can function – this is the only way true, effective delegation can occur.
- “No-shows” – key managers may miss meetings delaying key decisions, or producing “I’m not involved” attitudes in the missing manager’s mind. It can also foster an attitude of “abdication” instead of delegation.
- Single Senior Executive Responsibility – if the single executive is the CEO or President, this can work, unless his/her availability and access is very limited, typically the case. More likely, if the CEO says “I’ll manage this myself” it is a case of inability to delegate, which of course severely hampers the project. Alternatively, if another senior executive assumes this role, it CAN be very effective. While there are some great exceptions, generally this should not be the CFO, unless the person in this role is unusually operationally oriented. Otherwise it’s like having the CFO have reporting responsibility for all of IT. The financial function, in too many of these cases, ends up with everything it needs, while the operational functions wait, or worse, are starved of budget and leadership. When in doubt, remember the objective of the project – to improve (operational) performance of the business.
Summary of Factors – in the area of project leadership interfacing with the top management of the company, as we’ve seen, the mechanism or process used is not the major factor – it is how it is run or used that determines success. Some guidelines for a Best Practice executive interface:
- Keep the goal in mind – The goal here is a fast-moving, low-cost process that transitions the company from operating with its current systems and processes, to a new one. Everything that aids this process adds value to it, and activities and actions that do not subtract or are just waste – expensive waste. A Best Practice, of course, is to constantly strive to improve this, as with other processes by eliminating waste and improving quality.
- Summary level reporting only – one big time/cost waster is elaborate PowerPoint presentations and reports, which don’t add value. One of our favorite report Best Practices is that of a major global corporation. You are limited to one 11 x 17 piece of paper, both sides, but can do anything you want with it. This is the paper equivalent of the “stand-up” meeting – key issues only.
- Frequent is better – more frequent, short, informal, summary level meetings which focus on unresolved issues that need top management involvement, budget, time-line, schedule, or resource issues. This allows the project to move fast, change plans and directions quickly, without having get bogged down in the “why did the plan change?” kind of discussion, a waste of time.
- Confront CYA head-on – inherent in this kind of reporting structure and project is the desire to look good, look like you knew what was going on from the start, etc. The evidence that CYA forces are operating is when one sees an expansion of presentation materials, reports, minutes of meetings, emails and memos to “document” discussions and decisions, multi-media presentations, and other time-consuming items that do not move the project ahead. Once the project is done, none of this will matter and the extra baggage can, itself, cause the project to not meet its objectives.
In the next installment we will discuss how to form and prepare a successful implementation project team – how to select the team members, and the education and training component both for the team members, and others in the organization.
If you like this article and think it's helpful, please spread the word and digg it.
-
Question: “Your recent article on marketing and sales management best practices could have been written specifically about our company. We don’t really have a true sales process, as you wrote, so there are good months and bad ones. What can we do to improve this?”
Answer: “First, start openly discussing the fact that there is NO actual, defined process. Make sure you are clear that this is not a reflection on any manager or sales person’s capabilities per se. The person leading the sales team may in deed believe that there IS a process, thinking of the steps, scripts, etc. that may be in use. So, a head-on confrontation will not work. Instead, we suggest starting with a collaborative effort to document the process, as it is now, in whatever form. With this result in hand, the next step is to collaborate to define measurements for these steps, NOT the overall process only (“win / lose” the sale only).
The point is to measure the effectiveness of each step in the process, so that new ways can be devised to improve the process. If the process really isn’t followed, or can’t be defined well, this will become clear through these steps. If it is, great! The main feature of a defined, measured process we are most interested in is that it can be improved upon in significant ways over time. With continuous, consistent improvements in your sales process, sustained success is just a matter of time.”
-
Article Summary: Does your company have “too much success” in the marketing and selling area? No? Really? We thought so. Well, you are not alone – this is one of the least understood, least worked on, most universal performance improvement opportunities, applicable to almost every firm. The message here is that Best Practice marketing and sales is a defined, understood, improve-able process, with its own performance metrics, business processes, systems, and continuous improvement program. Key topics in the article include:
- Symptoms identify great opportunities
- Widespread – lack of a defined process
- What to do, where to start.
Symptoms Identify Great Opportunities
In the marketing and sales area, it is rare to find a company with a well defined, well understood marketing and sales process, even though sales is the “life-blood” of any company. It is this lack, we believe, more than any other single factor, that kills off otherwise good companies, with great products or service offerings. Symptoms that one typically finds:
- Marketing, a separate world – often marketing is a separate organization from sales – it buys media time, advertising, creates art work, logos, ads, brochures, does direct mail campaigns, or other “bush-beating” activities. But often there is little or no coordination, even communication with the sales organization.
- Star-based sales – in many companies there is a small, often VERY small team of “hot-shot” sales people (“stars”) who bring the bulk of the business in the door. When one of these people leaves the company, often taking key customers with him/her, the company suffers a huge drop in sales. One company in our experience literally went bankrupt after its top sales rep left for a competitor and took the “A” customers with him. No joke.
- Coaching oriented – selling is seen as a motivational challenge, one wrapped up with personal egos, fears of rejection and the like. Sales improvement therefore involves personality attributes like confidence, charisma, speaking skills, and others. Coaching does have a role, of course, even in a well-defined sales process.
- No improvement over time – since marketing and sales are not structured, clearly defined processes, with inputs, steps and outputs that can be studied and improved, the company has good years, and not-so-good years. No one knows what else to do.
As a side note, we should comment here that the primary focus of these remarks is business to business marketing and sales. Consumer products, at least at the retail level, are typically more driven by effective (or ineffective) marketing – advertising especially. However, even with these products, the preceding steps from producer of the product to the retail shelf will frequently involve a considerable amount of “business-to-business” strategy, marketing and sales activity.
Widespread – lack of a defined process
What do we mean by a “defined process?” A process is a series of actions or functions between inputs and outputs that brings about a result. The elements of the process are therefore capable of being measured. If they can be measured, then they can in turn be controlled.
Anything that can be controlled, and therefore changed, and if it is changeable, it can be improved by comparing the effects of the changes on the results (outputs) with measurements.
In the absence of processes, there is, even under the best intentioned circumstances, a powerful element of randomness. If it is random, then the results cannot be reliably predicted over time.
In the sales and marketing arena, there are three distinct overall processes:
Each of these is in a sense, nested within the others – sales within marketing, marketing within strategy. There is, then, a strong interdependence relationship between these three processes. The interdependence is there whether we like it or not, that’s not the question.
The question is, is the interdependence being intelligently and effectively managed? Further, it is a simple fact that in addition to these interrelationships, there are others with the rest of the company. Are these being intelligently managed, as interrelated, interdependent processes, with appropriate measurements, communication streams, information management, and improvement efforts?
What about the effect on the 4 Essential Factors of the Best Practice Path of a non-process oriented approach to handling both overall business strategy and specifically marketing/sales strategy, marketing and the activity of selling? Let’s touch on these briefly:
- 1. Effective Systems & Processes – to the extent that these three critical-success-factor areas are not managed via defined, improvable processes, this vital factor will be seriously constrained, even if efforts elsewhere in the company are top-notch.
- 2. Continuous Improvement Process – by definition, if it isn’t a defined process, with measurements, controls and changes over time, it is not amenable to organized improvements. There will therefore be a strong element of luck in how things go with a company in this situation. Or “star” performers.
- 3. Education and training – there may be education and training, but where will it go, absent a structured process to apply it to? If it’s personal growth-style, with confidence development workshops and the like, there may be some improvement, but only as long as the individuals who took the workshop retain the material and stay with the company in that position. The best use of education and training is to apply it to the process improvement effort itself, so that improvements are permanent.
- 4. Effective Leadership and Culture – absent a structured process, leadership may have a very positive effect, but it is only temporary, as its effect is almost exclusively on the individuals themselves, not on the process or system that produces the results. It is important here to distinguish between the vitally important individual motivation, or better still inspiration that results from effective leadership and organization culture, and much longer-term results of having that effective leadership and culture applied to continuously improved, integrated marketing and sales processes.
Leading best practice companies have been working on their strategy, marketing and sales processes for decades; this is why, in part, they are consistently successful over such long time periods. Naturally, excellence in other areas is vital, but these, such as engineering and production are dependent on successful marketing and sales processes.
Some few companies with average-level products or services, but superior, high-performing marketing and sales processes experience sustained success for many years, with the only distinguishing characteristic being their highly effective marketing and sales process.
What to do, where to start
The good news in most companies is that their mere survival indicates that they are doing enough “good” things to at least stay afloat. Those of us who have been focused on business performance improvements are often the most enthused when we find un-worked improvement opportunities, as it is far easier to improve something that is already working, however poorly, than it is to start something from scratch.
And, if intelligently worked out changes are made, there is a very good chance that performance will improve substantially, simply because you have brought order into a previously random or even chaotic area.
By contrast, if you tinker in a major way with an already well-defined, very successful process, the odds of scoring a “home-run” are not as high – you may even do some damage. So, improvements opportunities are great news in most cases.
To provide a guide for you to place your company in perspective, we provide a series of questions that you can ask yourself, a checklist, to determine where your company is, and where the best place to start might be. This list, by the way, is by no means exhaustive or all-inclusive to all types of companies or industries.
- Strategy – McKinsey, in a recent global survey, concluded that most companies are not satisfied with their strategy planning process. If the overall strategy process is weak, then the market/sales strategy process will, of necessity, be weaker still in most cases. What is the strategy process your company uses – both overall, but specifically, the marketing and sales area? Is there a start-middle-end set of steps that are used repeatedly, the result of which is a set of actions? And, over time are these actions measured, then “re-processed” in the next strategy cycle in a systematic way so improvements in the strategy process can be made?
- Marketing – is it an “island?” Are managers in marketing measured by criteria such as how many ads are placed, direct mail pieces sent out, or other non-sales oriented factors?
- Does the marketing function work closely, via defined steps on a regular, consistent basis with sales and other functions? Are promotions made for which products are not yet available? Are selling activities and resources adjusted and coordinated with promotion campaigns and with production schedules? Are marketing performance measurements tied to sales volume successes and targets or better still, profitability and market share penetration? Or are these kinds of measurements absent?
- Sales – can you (or someone working in sales, at least) articulate the specific steps, the sequence in a structured, systematic sales process? Does the process start with tracking some type of initial contact or expression of interest and work step-by-step through the whole process to actual sales? Is there a sales “system” that is used? Are there measurements at each step in the process to enable sales managers to understand how to improve the process? Is it improved over time?
- Sales Forecasting – it is an axiom among sales managers that more managers are fired for poor sales forecasting than for inability to generate actual sales. What is the sales forecasting process at your company? Is its accuracy measured? Publicized? Has the forecast accuracy improved over time? Is it accurate overall, but terrible at the detail level? If so, what could be done to improve this? Do people make jokes in bad taste about the forecast?
- Is there an effective sales and operation planning process in use? How is the sale forecasting process adjusted to accommodate new product or service offerings, promotions, close-outs, soon-to-be-obsolete products and other non-linear factors? Is there an effective product-life-cycle management process in use?
- Mixed product and service business – increasingly companies have realized that integrating the two activities brings sizeable benefits – to customers, and especially the marketing and sales activity. Is there a service component to your company’s products?
- Is service even marketed at all? Or, is it treated as an after-thought, with the “real money” being in the product sale? Companies that have worked long and hard to develop well-integrated combined product and service offerings have frequently come to dominate their market, as customers come to depend on them, and are willing to pay consistently for the service that follows the product.
Is there a defined process by which services are linked to products or other integration opportunities. Is the “service or field support” manager a low-ranking person at the company? Or is he/she a real executive, with P&L accountability?
In conclusion, we have just scratched the surface here, as you may surmise. The thread through all of these questions is, once again, not whether you have “something going on” in the area. Rather, is it systematic, carried out by means of a clearly defined, consistently followed set of steps – a process that is itself independent of specific people and personalities.
And better still, is it consistently improved in its performance over time, so the results of that these processes themselves improve over time? If your company is like many, the good news is that there is a LOT of opportunity to improve performance, stability of the company, security of everyone’s jobs, happier investors (higher profitability), larger market share, and a host of other benefits that all result from integrated marketing and sales process management.
If you like this article and think it's helpful, please spread the word and digg it.
-
Question: “In your and other discussions of outsourcing to China and other foreign countries I keep reading and hearing about a variety of other, somewhat hidden costs. What are these, besides the more obvious ones of freight and customs? Why do we need to pay so much attention to them?”
Answer: “Mostly they are indirect costs, what we call the cost of coordination and communication. Since they are indirect, they are often more hidden, poorly measured, and with consequences that are not necessarily immediate and obvious. One company we know of, doing over $100 million in outsourced products to China has over 100 US-based people traveling to/from China, to meet with vendors, resolve problems with quality, deliveries, materials, processes and other issues. The travel expenses alone are huge, of course. And these are relatively simple products, yet substantial in-person communication is required.
Our favorite story of this kind of communication / coordination problem is old and involves a company with an “internal outsource” arrangement, where engineering design was in California, with production in Arizona, about a $ billion/yr operation. The complexity of communication between engineering and production was so difficult that a company study showed that about 5% of the entire manpower of the whole company was involved in this single communication activity, with scheduled company flights several times a day to/from the two locations. It’s seldom as easy as it looks, and when one adds differences in language, technical understanding, culture and other variables, it can easily escalate into a huge problem, a costly one – yet the unit cost and logistics costs can be as originally planned.”-
