I had a great conversation with my favorite coaching client a while back. In it, I suggested that some of the things she does are incredibly valuable, and that she should be prepared to charge what they are worth. In the ensuing conversation, it became clear that she didn't see value in them because these things were easy for her to do. In that moment, I realized I do the same thing - I discount my own value when I do things that are easy for me, even though some are incredibly difficult for others. One of the core ideas in strategy is that we should learn to do some things so well that what is easy for us is both valuable to customers and difficult for our competitors. What do you do that fits this concept? Do you charge enough for it?
Showing posts with label strategic competencies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label strategic competencies. Show all posts
Friday, January 23, 2015
Monday, April 14, 2008
Strategic Planning - IT, Google, and Strategic Competency
I just read an excellent article on Google as a disruptive technology over at TechRepublic.
One quote by Richard Hunter from Gartner Group caught my eye:
“Google has the potential to be the first-choice provider of many services that are now handled by internal IT organizations, starting with non-competitively-differentiating services such as email (which Google already provides to a number of enterprises), and ultimately including high-value-added functions and services such as business intelligence, mobile sales support, and others. Some IT organizations might consider it a boon to pass these functions on to Google so that the IT department can concentrate on very enterprise-specific competitively differentiating applications. IT organizations that measure their worth in terms of how much of the company’s IT needs they supply themselves will be less happy to see Google move in on their turf-and I do mean specifically that in many cases it will be an argument about turf, not enterprise value."
This comment shows a lot of strategic savvy. The interesting question is similar to the questions that plagued IT during the rise of personal computing in business in the 1980's - first, is this really a wave? Secondly, if it IS a wave, do we fight it, roll with it, or ride it? These questions should be coming up in your strategic planning.
In my thinking, the idea that IT can (and should) focus on company-specific differentiating technology is dead on - and very important for most IT departments. An IT department that isn't differentiating the company might not be worth what you are paying for it.
How about your IT department? Does it contribute to your company's strategic competency? Do you have them working on technologies that other people can already deliver?
One quote by Richard Hunter from Gartner Group caught my eye:
“Google has the potential to be the first-choice provider of many services that are now handled by internal IT organizations, starting with non-competitively-differentiating services such as email (which Google already provides to a number of enterprises), and ultimately including high-value-added functions and services such as business intelligence, mobile sales support, and others. Some IT organizations might consider it a boon to pass these functions on to Google so that the IT department can concentrate on very enterprise-specific competitively differentiating applications. IT organizations that measure their worth in terms of how much of the company’s IT needs they supply themselves will be less happy to see Google move in on their turf-and I do mean specifically that in many cases it will be an argument about turf, not enterprise value."
This comment shows a lot of strategic savvy. The interesting question is similar to the questions that plagued IT during the rise of personal computing in business in the 1980's - first, is this really a wave? Secondly, if it IS a wave, do we fight it, roll with it, or ride it? These questions should be coming up in your strategic planning.
In my thinking, the idea that IT can (and should) focus on company-specific differentiating technology is dead on - and very important for most IT departments. An IT department that isn't differentiating the company might not be worth what you are paying for it.
How about your IT department? Does it contribute to your company's strategic competency? Do you have them working on technologies that other people can already deliver?
Monday, February 11, 2008
Strategic Planning - strategic competency and obsession
Today I had a strategic planning meeting with a long-time client that started out in the business of selling tax forms - Greatland Corporation. I say they started out this way because today they offer numerous products and services, including software and online services, to support compliance with government regulations, mostly in the area of wage and income reporting. While their decision, years ago, to pursue other products made sense from a technological perspective, what really made it work was their obsession with compliance. Today we are looking at ways they can extend this obsession into other products and services, which makes me think this quite possibly a useful strategic competency.
In reflecting on this, it is clear to me that great strategic competencies almost always arise from obsession about something that is valuable to your customers. What are you obsessed about? Next time you do strategic planning, ask your team about what they think your company's obsession is - you might find the answers useful.
In reflecting on this, it is clear to me that great strategic competencies almost always arise from obsession about something that is valuable to your customers. What are you obsessed about? Next time you do strategic planning, ask your team about what they think your company's obsession is - you might find the answers useful.
Sunday, August 19, 2007
Strategic Planning: But We Don't Have a Strategic Competency!
Every year I hear this comment from dozens of companies, when I present my program on strategic competency. While the concept is quite possibly the single most powerful tool in strategic planning, the hard reality is that far too many of us do NOT have a real strategic competency.
Does this mean you should give up on the idea because it is irrelevant to you and your business?
Absolutely not.
Strategic competency is the one thing that separates the men from the boys in strategic planning. Wimpy strategic planners will back off from the idea and go after the low-hanging fruit of modest operating improvements and shrewd tactical moves in the marketplace. The muy macho approach is to take the bull by the horns - so we don't have a strategic competency? Let's get one!
The problem with this response - and the reason most companies don't respond this way - is that it's hard. No question about it, building a real strategic competency where one does not currently exist is probably the most difficult, expensive and time-consuming undertaking in strategic planning. And that is exactly why it is also the most valuable. So why do most of us shy away from committing to an obsession with our competency? I think we shy away because it's risky. Commit to the wrong competency and you will waste a ton of time and money, with poor results to show for it.
But...let's have some confidence in our strategic planning, ok? If we've done a good job on the planning process (and, if you use a real professional, you should have confidence in that), why wouldn't we commit? Sun Tzu pointed out that soldiers fought better if you made them smash their rice-pots - because commitment to winning the battle was the only way to assure they would eat. I suspect that many of us in management are unwilling to smash our own rice-pots...and we pay the price every day with less than stellar results.
Does this mean you should give up on the idea because it is irrelevant to you and your business?
Absolutely not.
Strategic competency is the one thing that separates the men from the boys in strategic planning. Wimpy strategic planners will back off from the idea and go after the low-hanging fruit of modest operating improvements and shrewd tactical moves in the marketplace. The muy macho approach is to take the bull by the horns - so we don't have a strategic competency? Let's get one!
The problem with this response - and the reason most companies don't respond this way - is that it's hard. No question about it, building a real strategic competency where one does not currently exist is probably the most difficult, expensive and time-consuming undertaking in strategic planning. And that is exactly why it is also the most valuable. So why do most of us shy away from committing to an obsession with our competency? I think we shy away because it's risky. Commit to the wrong competency and you will waste a ton of time and money, with poor results to show for it.
But...let's have some confidence in our strategic planning, ok? If we've done a good job on the planning process (and, if you use a real professional, you should have confidence in that), why wouldn't we commit? Sun Tzu pointed out that soldiers fought better if you made them smash their rice-pots - because commitment to winning the battle was the only way to assure they would eat. I suspect that many of us in management are unwilling to smash our own rice-pots...and we pay the price every day with less than stellar results.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
