| Oct. 10 2006 at 11:20 AM |
|
|
This is great stuff. Very relevant and timely, especially considering the virtual enterprise discussions going on right now.
StartupNation, keep up the great work! 
|
| Oct. 10 2006 at 7:34 PM |
|
|
|
Timely! I'm in the middle of my annual business plan review (among other things) and this was a fantastic shot in the arm! ____________________________
Tim Eiler
Principal Solutions Engineer
tim.eiler@bizineer.com
|
| Oct. 24 2006 at 10:53 AM |
|
|
I certainly agree that you guys are doing a great job! This is such a valuable
tool for people looking to control there own destiny by starting a business
Hats off to the founders. The articles are informative, insightful, and
inspirational.
|
| Nov. 04 2006 at 6:55 PM |
|
|
Quote:
| For a business to grow, it has to have a culture of actionable ideas.
Therefore, innovation, by definition, is turning those ideas into
action. It also means eliminating ideas that you know are going to
never work and inefficient processes, like unnecessary reports,
approvals and meetings. Innovation is both “create and destroy.” |
|
|
I can see the
link between idea and action. But rather than to say that innovation
also "destroys," I think it's more correct, and also implied
within the above definition that Innovation both creates and replaces.
Quote:
| Most people think innovation is about meeting a customer need. I believe innovation is about eliminating a customer sacrifice. |
|
|
If we assume
innovation "destroys," then indeed, it's about destroying customer
sacrifices. But who wants to hold that customer actions include
sacrifice? Isn't that related to compromise and settling for "less
than" something else?
On the other hand, if we propose that innovation both creates and
replaces, then instead of elminiating customer sacrifice, we replace
faulty (or bad) business processes.
To eliminate customer sacrifice implies that a customer has some say in
the matter of how business takes place. I disagree; customers are
passive, in the sense that they can only act within the confines and
constraints of the business. When that customer "sacrifices," it isn't
because of a choice to act in a sacraficial way.
A customer, by definition, is a reactive process. To choose to sacrifice is a proactive process.
Customers don't 'choose to sacrifice.' They're forced to deal with
unsatisfactory processes as created and implemented by the business.
Innovation should be about examining existing products, but also
existing processes, then replacing those that are causing the customer
sacrifice with something that creates customer satisfaction.
Quote:
| Then, to create that innovative culture, visualize it. Have pictures of
your vision – not just words on a plaque. Words only tie into left side
of brain. |
|
|
A culture isn't
a "thing." A culture is a mixture of tradition, social structure,
belief systems, and actions. Modern enterprise culture is most often
organized in a hierarchy, top-to-bottom, with authority and control
increasing the higher up in the management levels.
As such, nobody can visualize a culture. It's an all-pervasive
atmosphere that permeates the entire enterprise. The two things that
routinely stifle innovation are tradition and habits. The third, which
is a cultural attribute, is a widespread unwillingness to entertain
different (not necessarily new) ideas, no matter WHAT the source.
If customer "sacrifice" involves not having a gift purchase in time for
a birthday party, then the innovation most likely will come from
someone in the mailroom, not the Sr. VP of Operations. Visit any
enterprise and within hours you'll encounter production-level employees
with countless ideas for how to fix ridiculous processes, be more
efficient, save money, and eliminate redundancies. Yet none of those
ideas ever see the light of day.
Most enterprises have nothing at all in place to handle "best
practices." There's no database, organized and accessible to everyone,
by which new ideas and new ways to modify existing processes can become
visible--particularly to senior management.
Rather than removing those types of words that fit on a plaque and get
stuck in the left-side brain, instead, use those same words to capture
actual information, actually articulated ideas, and actual thoughts
about processes lost in tradition and habit. "The old ways are the best
ways, and by gosh, they've worked for years, we're not going to change
now!"
Edited by: CraigL - Nov. 04 2006 at 7:22 PMCraig Landes
---
Defining the undefinable. "There are 10 kinds of people in the world---those who understand binary numbers and those who don't." - Unknown
International Society of Curmudgeons
|
| Nov. 04 2006 at 10:04 PM |
|
|
Some things in business don't need to be replaced - they need to be destroyed.
Would it make more sense to you to say "customer pain point" instead of "customer sacrifice"?
Steve - Kirk Foods, LLC home of the Gluten Free Cookie Factory - To reach any significant goal, you must leave your comfort zone. - Hyrum W. Smith, Founder, Franklin Quest
|
| Nov. 05 2006 at 1:41 AM |
|
|
LOL!! Why are we attacking the customer? Why "destroy," "eliminate," or otherwise wreck their sacrifice or pain point? :-)
MANY things in business need to be destroyed! But not the customer's
responses. Rather, the businesses actions. I'm only saying that the
words we use fundamentally determine (and bias) the actions that
follow. If the advice is to "destroy" something I don't see how that
"creates" anything. Since innovation is about creating and modifying, I
take issue with the way the "motto" is phrased. I think more would be
accomplished with the term "replace."
Craig Landes
---
Defining the undefinable. "There are 10 kinds of people in the world---those who understand binary numbers and those who don't." - Unknown
International Society of Curmudgeons
|
| Nov. 05 2006 at 12:11 PM |
|
|
Craig, I feel like we're reading and commenting on two different essays. Who's attacking the customer?
As a business customer I have encountered many pain points that I would be thrilled to have a supplier destroy, eliminate,  ,
whatever. One example is a major supplier of ingredients where I get a
different answer to the same question depending on who I get on the
phone (person A "no, we can't do that", person B "sure, no problem").
By now I've figured out who I need to talk to to get satisfactory
results, but why should I have to? Trust me, if I could get the same
product at a comparable price, I'd even pay more, from a competitor
without going through all the grief I would in a heartbeat. As my
business grows, the volume of my purchases will increase to the point
where location is not such a critical factor. Believe me, when that day
comes I'll remember how I was treated when I was small. It will
influence my decision to go elsewhere.
If you destroy a counterproductive policy you can create
a pain free transaction and a happy customer. We can debate symantics
all day long. I happen to believe Mr. Thompson's advice is right on and
I plan to build my business by destroying as many of my customer's
sacrifices and pain points as I possibly can.
Steve - Kirk Foods, LLC home of the Gluten Free Cookie Factory - To reach any significant goal, you must leave your comfort zone. - Hyrum W. Smith, Founder, Franklin Quest
|
| Nov. 05 2006 at 2:37 PM |
|
|
|
Steve wrote: Craig, I feel like we're reading and commenting on two different essays. Who's attacking the customer?
As a business customer I have encountered many pain points that I would be thrilled to have a supplier destroy, eliminate,......
If you destroy a counterproductive policy you can create
a pain free transaction and a happy customer. We can debate symantics
all day long.
First, you can't
debate "semantics" all day long: there's either a definition of a word
or there isn't. That definition is either objective or made up by
people as to how they feel about reason. Words are fundamental, and
without them we wouldn't have a forum (text-based or otherwise). Behind
every words is logic, and without logic there's nothing at all
excepting chaos. So semantics aren't some afterthought with no real
connection to anything.
Additionally, you yourself are agreeing that it isn't a customer
sacrifice that needs to be removed, it's a stupid business policy.
What I'm saying is that as long as people point to a customer,
regardless of how directly or indirectly, and say we need to do
something about THEIR problem, then those same people will fail to see
what's really the problem. It IS those bad policies that are causing a
so-called customer sacrifice (a jargon term, if I ever heard one!).
I have no quarrel with people who want to use whatever words to say
whatever they feel makes sense. If it works for them, terrific. But
having wandered around the enterprise environment for awhile, I see
that the growing reliance on meaningless secondhand phrases serves only
one purpose: to absolve the named decision-makers from ever having to
think, to make decisions, and to look at what's actually taking place.
Basically, I could care less if a business goes bankrupt, unless it
sells the fishing lures I like. There are countless examples of
companies that have been run the same way, using the same terms, who
are now fading memories in old people's minds. They too believed that
"customer sacrifice" is a meaningful term, as well as "internal
customers," and "customer service." Anyone with common sense could have
(and usually did) predict those business failures.
What I take issue with is the promotion of slick terms, catchphrases,
and overly-simplistic "rules" that sound good on the surface, but have
problematic results when put into action. You tell me: How exactly do
you intend to "have a vision of a culture you want?"
Craig Landes
---
Defining the undefinable. "There are 10 kinds of people in the world---those who understand binary numbers and those who don't." - Unknown
International Society of Curmudgeons
|
|
|