Friday, March 29, 2013

Operational Excellence, Meet Customer Intimacy

Most organizations continuously strive to achieve operational excellence, but they spend less effort understanding customer needs — and few marry these two sources of customer value effectively. While a focus on lowering costs, improving quality, and providing consistent, reliable service will continue to be important, I see a shift in the coming decade to combining operational excellence with customer intimacy: tailored solutions for individual customers based on a deep understanding of their needs.


Consider Tesco, one of the world's largest retailers with over 500,000 employees, which has spent the last three decades improving its supply chain processes, and the last two decades collecting and analyzing customer data. In the 80s and 90s,Tesco modernized its supply chain, introducing point-of-sale scanners, centralizing and/or automating ordering, distribution and warehouse control, and establishing electronic data exchange with its main suppliers. As a result, lead times to stores came down from as much as two weeks to two days, and lead times from suppliers fell from 2-3 weeks to three days. In 1996 Tesco adopted Toyota Production System approaches to take its supply chain operations to an even higher level. Working with suppliers, it mapped the flow of several product families and uncovered opportunities to streamline logistics. The company redesigned its processes so products flowed quickly from suppliers to store shelves, rather than be processed in batches in production, packaging, transportation, and stores. For example, Tesco introduced wheeled dollies for fast-moving products such as soft drinks, which dramatically streamlined handling between suppliers, warehouses, and the stores, improving cycle times and reducing costs.


But to get the full value of its improved supply chain capabilities, Tesco needed to marry its upgraded operations with a deeper knowledge of its customers than it could get from aggregated scanner data. So in 1993, the company launched its "Clubcard" with which customers could earn points for purchases, redeemable for discounts or gifts. While it was building loyalty with Clubcard points, Tesco quietly built up profiles of its card-holders, including which areas of the store they visited and their product preferences. Working with consultancy dunnhumby, they eventually defined 16 lifestyle "clusters" by combining in-store shopping data (which told them what customers bought and where) and home shopping data (which also told them what customers wanted to buy but which wasn't available).


You may be saying, OK, so they built a customer database. What's the big deal? The big deal, and what's really powerful, is what Tesco did with the insights it gathered. It used the customer profiles to uncover unmet needs, and to design and launch a series of services to meet those needs, including smaller local convenience stores and online shopping. Tesco tracked where customers bought — online, or in convenience, High Street, supermarket or hypermarket formats. Then it customized the product ranges at smaller stores for the local customer base. With only 1,500 items, a convenience store has to get its product mix just right. As told to me by Dan Jones, the chairman of the Lean Academy who worked with Tesco, CEO Terry Leahy was convinced that the company should develop these new formats, and actively supported their development, despite the concerns of store managers that their sales would be cannibalized. (For more on the Tesco story, see Terry Leahy's book Management in 10 Words and Dan Jones' book Lean Solutions ).


Linking supply chain capabilities and customer insights, Tesco worked out the operational details of how to deliver exactly what customers wanted to each type of store. Their agile supply chain allowed them to replenish small stores at the same cost as big stores — so they could charge the same prices in every format. They continued to use insights from Clubcard to regularly adjust offers, tweaking the supply chain accordingly. Interestingly, as soon as they rolled out home shopping, store managers saw increased sales rather than cannibalization and so were quickly won over.


If you listen to the hype about "Big Data" and "analytics," it sounds as if it's getting easier and easier to derive customer insights. But the truth is, translating data into insights is hard, and translating insights into new customer experiences is much harder still. That companies like Amazon and Netflix can help you purchase by recommending products is a step forward. But it is a bigger challenge to change order fulfillment and other concrete steps in the customer lifecycle as Tesco has done.


Few organizations have Tesco's foundational discipline of continuous operational improvement, which allows them to take full advantage of the insights they can glean from analyzing customer data. Even fewer companies have the cross-functional teamwork that enables them to turn those insights into new customer experiences delivered by operations and customer service. But marrying these two competencies is quickly becoming a competitive necessity to deliver higher levels of value to customers than was previously possible.







via HBR.org http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2013/03/operational_excellence_meet_cu.html

"Just How Old Are You?"


How old are you?


I get asked that question all the time. In meetings, on conference calls, while pitching a new client. The answer really shouldn't matter. I find myself wondering whether male entrepreneurs get asked the same question, and why the person asking me doesn't consider it rude.


Age is messy these days, especially when it comes to jobs. While anecdotally, older workers (those 55+) claim that there is a bias against hiring them, their unemployment rate holds steady at 5.8 percent, according to the Department of Labor. While American culture often glorifies the young, this isn't translating into young people getting hired. In fact, the unemployment rate for those aged 18-29 rose to a staggering 12.1 percent last December, up nearly a percentage point from a year before. And yet we're not having a national conversation about age bias, even as we increasingly talk about other forms of bias.


Yes, employers want fresh, "hungry" college grads and workers (if you ask me, "hungry" is a euphemism for literal hunger, as jobs that often post for "hungry" individuals pay pennies) but it's still very hard to find employment. Law students from prestigious universities are taking unpaid internships. After graduating Magna Cum Laude from the University of Pennsylvania, I found it so difficult to find a job I moved to Buenos Aires, Argentina to work for Young & Rubicam. I found many of my classmates following suit — moving to other countries.


Hence my discomfort with the question: How old are you?


When I am asked that question, it's usually to gauge if, at recently 26, the fact that I've had my own company, FinePoint Digital PR, for nearly two years is admirable, suspect, or something else. When asked, I often respond with, "You should never ask a lady her age." Where did I get that? Somewhere in the recesses of my mind, apparently in the 19th century while my other business was churning butter.


And yet the world of digital media and tech entrepreneurship has turned a lot of our assumptions about age on its head.


It used to be that in any industry, years of experience meant knowledge, leadership, and wisdom. And this paradigm hasn't completely died away; many male friends of mine lament about grey hairs, to which I often respond that it will probably help them in business, especially if they're in more traditional sectors like insurance or finance. They will be taken more seriously because they'll be perceived as older and more experienced. (Grey hair is decidedly more complicated for women.)


But if you work in entrepreneurship, technology, or digital media, it can feel like a competition to see who's the youngest. This, too, is complicated. The Forbes 30 Under 30 is a goal for many entrepreneurs I know, myself included. And yet I wrote the satirical Highlights "5 Under 5" to underscore my ambivalence about how obsessed we are with youthfulness these days, from wunderkinds to genius college dropouts. At SXSW this year, I was struck by how young everyone was — and how it sets a bar that is almost impossible to meet. This year's TED Conference even highlighted some speakers as young as 12. The speaking series has an entire teen division.


As complex as these ages issues are for men, being female renders them even more problematic. Too young, too old — we seem to instantaneously switch from one to the other. For instance, a close friend was asked her age at SXSW Interactive this year, and at 31, shocked the lothario who asked because, and I quote, "Girls aren't usually pretty after 28." Sure, that is only one guy's obnoxious comment. But it does seem like there's an awfully short window between "too young" and "too old," whether you're talking about business or pleasure. And with female leaders judged more harshly on their appearance, the two may not be as far apart as we like to think.


An entrepreneur is often the face, literally, of her company. When that face doesn't match our expectations, it's easy to become nonplussed. A male client, with whom I had worked for months before meeting in person, began our first face-to-face meeting with the exclamation "You're so young!" I wasn't quite sure what to say, and mostly I felt belittled and furious. (Think how you'd feel if you sat down with a client who blurted out, "You're so old!" Exactly.)


Sure, I'm young compared to some of my clients. To my grandmother, I'm eleven. (And I hope she keeps sending care packages, forever.) But compared to app developers out of Stanford, I'm ancient.


Working hard, disruption, and the entrepreneurial spirit knows no age. To judge based upon it would be juvenile.







via HBR.org http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2013/03/just_how_old_are_you.html

Morning Advantage: Walmart Wants You to Deliver Packages


If you shop at Walmart, you may soon be able to add “courier” to your resume. In an effort to compete with Amazon, Walmart is considering a plan to have store customers deliver packages to online customers. While the company currently uses carriers such as FedEx for online deliveries, Joel Andersen, chief executive of Walmart.com, told Reuters that he sees “a path to where this is crowd-sourced.” How would it work? Walmart shoppers could sign up to drop off packages to online customers who live along their route back home, in exchange for “a discount on the customers' shopping bill, effectively covering the cost of their gas in return for the delivery of packages” (which Katie J.M. Baker over at Jezebel points out is “a lot cheaper than paying workers a livable wage (plus benefits) for the same job”).



Reuters reporters Alistair Barr and Jessica Wohl touch on several obstacles that Walmart would have to overcome to implement the plan, such as theft, fraud, and licensing and insurance hurdles, to name a few. Matt Nemer, a retail analyst at Wells Fargo Securities, told them that the likelihood of this plan being adopted across Walmart’s 4,000 U.S. stores is low. But, Jeff McAllister, senior vice president of Walmart U.S. innovations, says that “it's possible in a year or two.”


SHERYL SANDBERG'S CRUSADE AGAINST NOT-WORK


Feminism’s Tipping Point: Who Wins from Leaning in? (Dissent Magazine)


Yes, yes, we've all seen enough responses already to Sheryl Sandberg's Lean In. But this one from Dissent, by Facebook veteran Kate Losse, whose final job at the company was as Mark Zuckerberg's speechwriter, is different. Losse writes that the overriding theme of the book is that "work will save us." But from what? "By taking note of the forms of human activity that do not appear in Lean In, we see that what work will save us from is not-work: pleasure and other nonproductive pastimes." The debate the book should be unleashing is less about feminism, Losse argues, than whether work truly should be as all-consuming as Sandberg apparently thinks it should be. "The loser in the Lean In vision of work isn’t one version of feminism or another ... but uncapitalized, unmonetized life itself." Notably, when Losse published her critical review of Lean In, she received a nastygram from Sandberg spokeswoman and former Facebook executive Brandee Barker, who told her: "There's a special place in hell for you." — Justin Fox


BACK TO THE LAB AGAIN


Present at the Creation: Putting Creativity Tips to the Test (Boston Magazine)


Beth Altringer, a lecturer at Harvard, wrote this delightful feature for Boston Magazine in which she attempts to be creative by following the advice of a plethora of studies on how to be creative. She tries drinking beer in the shower and working in a blue room (she coins the term "bluetiful" in the process but doesn't actually get anything done), among other tactics. It's a fun romp through the creativity industry, and is actually more inspiring than it is disparaging. Enjoy. — Gretchen Gavett


BONUS BITS:


A Penny Saved...


Your 401K Is Out to Get You (The Atlantic)

Bitcoin May Be the Global Economy’s Last Safe Haven (Bloomberg Businessweek)

The (86,000) Budget-Cutting Ideas That Got Away (The Washington Post)








via HBR.org http://blogs.hbr.org/morning-advantage/2013/03/morning-advantage-walmart-want.html

Comic for March 29, 2013





via Dilbert Daily Strip http://feed.dilbert.com/~r/dilbert/daily_strip/~3/bawu1ehFs_E/

Can You "Manage" Your Family?

An interview with Bruce Feiler, New York Times columnist and author of The Secrets of Happy Families .











Download this podcast


A written transcript will be available by April 4.







via HBR.org http://blogs.hbr.org/ideacast/2013/03/can-you-manage-your-family.html

The iPad Is Really Awesome, Says Apple (AAPL)

apple launches why you'll love the ipad campaign


As a follow up to its "Why You'll Love The iPhone" campaign, Apple launched a new similar site today for the iPad and iPad Mini.


You can check out the page here. It points out a lot of iPad features like its selection of tablet-optimized apps and long battery life.


When the iPhone page launched a few weeks ago, many saw it as a defensive move because it started a few days after Samsung unveiled the Galaxy S4. Apple also sent the page to customers via email.


Several pro-Apple bloggers slammed SVP of marketing Phil Schiller for going on a media blitz defending the iPhone against Android phones like Samsung's Galaxy S4 that same week.


However, it's tough to call the new iPad page a defensive move. With the exception of Samsung's Galaxy Note 8.0, there haven't been any new hyped tablet launches recently. (And Samsung's new tablet didn't get nearly the amount of hype that the Galaxy S4 did.)


Please follow SAI on Twitter and Facebook.


Join the conversation about this story »












via SAI http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/typepad/alleyinsider/silicon_alley_insider/~3/NGDz46-s758/apple-launches-why-youll-love-the-ipad-page-2013-3

Want to Help People? Just Give Them Money

"We give money directly to the poor — no strings attached."


I was skeptical of the idea being pitched to my team. Two decades in philanthropy, including eight years at The Gates Foundation and six at Google Giving, had shown me the power of development done well. Living in India, I saw firsthand how an HIV prevention program could literally save millions of lives. Based on this experience, I believed — like many others — that doing for the poor is a better investment than giving money to them directly. Data from a startup nonprofit called GiveDirectly changed my opinion.


Last fall, my team huddled in a room to review our pipeline for the Global Impact Awards, Google's program to support entrepreneurial nonprofits using technology to change the world. Like other venture philanthropists in Silicon Valley, we hunt for projects that are tech-enabled, data-driven, and have an element of informed risk.


Prior to that meeting, we had already identified a few awardees. We had decided to support World Wildlife Fund's pilot use of unmanned aerial vehicles to stop wildlife poaching and Equal Opportunity Schools' use of data analytics to identify and move high-performing yet underrepresented students into advanced math and science classes.


But our team was divided on GiveDirectly. We were looking for scalable, disruptive ideas but weren't convinced this particular leap would be successful. We invited founders Paul Niehaus and Michael Faye to bring their best data and pitch us live.


Paul and Michael started GiveDirectly in 2008 while pursuing advanced degrees in economics at Harvard. Their graduate research had uncovered multiple reports demonstrating the effectiveness of cash transfers as a model to alleviate poverty. They wanted to donate, but couldn't find a single nonprofit using this approach, so they created their own.


Today, GiveDirectly remains the first and only nonprofit devoted to unconditional cash transfers directly to the impoverished. Their lean model uses mobile-based banking technology from M-Pesa to transfer 90% of the money raised into the hands of the poor. Just 10% is spent on transfer fees and the cost of locating and enrolling recipients.


Since launching in Kenya, GiveDirectly continues to evaluate its approach with randomized control trials. They use a lottery system similar to medical trials and compare developmental outcomes of households who have received funding against those who haven't. Their rigorous data shows that no-strings-attached cash transfers improve health and downstream financial gains. They also use this data to refine their model, and make it available on their website.


Recipients, who are often living on less than 65 cents a day, invest in everything from food for starving children to long-term assets, including land, livestock and housing. The data fights conventional wisdom: Money spent on alcohol and cigarettes either decreases, stays constant or increases in the same proportion as total other expenses (approximately 2% to 3%).


Paul and Michael shared all of this data with us last fall and left us convinced. In December 2012, we provided GiveDirectly with $2.4 million to scale to multiple countries and test the model's effectiveness across geographies.


Investments in common goods such as roads, schools and wells are critical in helping people out of poverty. But GiveDirectly has a new concept: What if cash transfers are used as a standard benchmark against which to measure all development aid? What if every nonprofit that focused on poverty alleviation had to prove they could do more for the poor with a dollar than the poor could do for themselves?


In this world, cash transfers could play a role like index funds play for private investors: They could be a sizeable share of your philanthropic portfolio and a benchmark used to evaluate more expensive, "actively managed" investments. We'd learn more about which programs need additional funding and which are falling below the "direct to the poor" mark.


GiveDirectly is one of many nonprofits using data and technology to set new standards. Charity: water (another Global Impact Awardee) is working to install remote sensors on water wells that monitor whether they are still pumping days, months or even years after being built. Data from sensors will help improve maintenance efforts on the ground and provide a transparent report to partners, peer organizations, and donors. This information will give us a better understanding of the most effective ways to make clean water continuously available to the 800 million who currently lack access.


As funders, we need to support nonprofits like these that use data-driven approaches, especially randomized control trials where possible, and we must challenge conventional wisdom on what works.




Please join the conversation and check back for regular updates. Follow the Scaling Social Impact insight center on Twitter @ScalingSocial and give us feedback.








via HBR.org http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2013/03/want_to_help_people_just_give.html