Curiosidade do dia

No jornal Público do passado dia 29 de Março encontrei o artigo “Precisamos mesmo de um novo ‘relatório Porter’?” da autoria de Manuel Mira Godinho.

O artigo reflecte sobre a declaração de Pedro Nuno Santos de que Portugal precisa de um novo "relatório Porter", à semelhança do produzido em 1993-94 sob coordenação de Michael Porter, para identificar sectores prioritários para o desenvolvimento económico do país. Mira Godinho argumenta que, embora tal iniciativa tenha tido méritos no passado, os desafios actuais requerem outro tipo de abordagem. Critica a persistência do modelo de especialização baseado em vantagens comparativas e salienta que Portugal precisa de apostar na valorização do conhecimento, inovação e inteligência, nomeadamente aproveitando o potencial das universidades. Defende também que o Estado deve voltar a atrair talento e deixar de ser apenas "um aparelho de salários", promovendo uma função pública tecnicamente competente. Termina frisando a necessidade urgente de reindustrialização com base na produtividade e conhecimento, e não na simples repetição de soluções do passado.

“O resultado de seguirmos essas ‘vantagens comparativas’ icónicas é o de por nós mais conhecido: Portugal especializa-se na produção de vinho… [Moi ici: Portugal continua a viver de especializações tradicionais, muitas vezes baseadas em vantagens comparativas ultrapassadas]

...

Em vez de exportarmos pessoas e importarmos estudos, devemos apostar na nossa inteligência e na exportação de conhecimento, inclusive a partir das universidades.”

...

O funcionalismo público deixou de atrair talento... o Estado deixou de ser um lugar para os melhores. Teve-se de reconhecer que Portugal conseguiu muito mais nesta área do que os 50 anos de democracia.”

...

“Há uma necessidade urgente de reindustrialização com base em conhecimento... Não bastam os bons resultados de exportações. Precisamos de mais produtividade, mais inovação, mais inteligência.”

Quem pode negar esta frase "Há uma necessidade urgente de reindustrialização com base em conhecimento... Não bastam os bons resultados de exportações. Precisamos de mais produtividade, mais inovação, mais inteligência." No entanto, não creio que seja claro como é que isto acontecerá. Colaboração entre universidades e empresas existentes dificilmente entregará o que é preciso. 

São precisos outros protagonistas.

O futuro passa por aqui

"Bloom grew out of work pursued by three scientists at Switzerland's École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, where they developed a process to extract lignin and cellulose from plant material - substances commonly discarded as waste, but which can be used to create high-value chemicals.

...

Bloom has now started working with partners, including the European flavourings and chemicals giant DSM Firmenich, to develop plant-based products for use in cosmetics, perfumes, food additives and packaging.

Bloom co-founder Florent Héroguel told me that its future products would be safer for users and less damaging to the environment, in terms of both carbon emissions and toxic waste.

While the technology could also be used to produce liquid fuels, he said,

Bloom will focus for the foreseeable future on low-volume, high-value speciality products. "That's the way to get margins in the development phase," Héroguel said.

...

Flamini argues that his sector has opportunities to benefit as European regulators tighten standards around "forever chemicals" and other potentially toxic products.

...

in order to gain serious scale, they will need to focus on eliminating the cost premium of their product over the existing fossil-based options."

Trechos retirados do FT de hoje em "Switzerland's Bloom hopes to lead a resurgence in biomaterials sector" 

Curiosidade do dia

 

STOP, START, LESS, MORE

"Here's a simple tool for separating areas that "need more" from areas that "need less." I learned it from a friend, who used this exercise at an offsite and reported that it sparked really useful discussion. Basically, you draw quadrants on a whiteboard with the following labels:

You can fill in the quadrants with any kind of "thing":

→ STOP: The policy that it's okay to bring pets to work. It's getting smelly and weird.

→ START: Using an outside law firm to handle contracts. It's a constraint internally.

→ MORE: Inside sales efforts in the Southeast. It's working.

→ LESS: Ginning up employee social events. Not many people seem to care.

My friend said the hardest quadrants to address were LESS and, especially, STOP. Which is predictable. Usually, when we think about making changes, we're thinking about adding something. New ideas, new initiatives, new investments. But we've got to remember the mantra: Change is not AND, it's INSTEAD OF. Less of this, more of that."

Trechos retirados de "Reset: How to Change What's Not Working" de Dan Heath   

Curiosidade do dia

 "The Porsche SE holding has recently suffered significant losses. This absolutely cannot continue. Therefore, the decision-makers, led by CEO Hans Dieter Pötsch (pictured), are planning, among other things, to explore ways into the defense industry..."

Trecho retirado de "Porsche SE is now also considering the defense industry!" 

"It's your job to define the "offer" for your customers. It's their job to accept or decline."

 

"In one case, Philippi and his team were working with a manufacturer of optical instruments. The company had about 3,500 customers, mostly military, aerospace, and health care organizations. Some number crunching revealed that 10% of those customers yielded 80% of the revenue.

When it came to profit, though, the numbers were even more stark. The company's top set of customers were generating more than all of the company's profit.! In other words, the great majority of the company's customers were unprofitable.

"The fallacy that most people believe is that 20% of customers or products are 80% of the profits," said Philippi. "And that's not true. What we find is that those 20% of customers— that are 80% of the revenue-are generally 150% of the profit. So what we tell our clients from the get-go is: Your problem isn't that you're not making enough. It's that you're not keeping it." Philippi has found that his clients make twin mistakes: They undercoddle their best customers and overcoddle their worst. Often those mistakes derive from a noble desire: These companies aspire to treat customers the same. And treating people equally is a great goal for, say, craps dealers. Or democracy. But to treat a $1 million customer the same as a $100 customer? It's like treating your hamster the same as your daughter because they're both mammals.

Philippi finds that, paradoxically, the biggest customers are often treated worse than the smallest. "One of the questions we ask clients is: What's your on-time delivery rate for those critical few customers—the 20% that are 80% of the revenue?" he said. "And it was shocking to me, but what we generally find is that the on-time delivery rates are far better with the smaller customers than they are with their largest customers."

The reason? Their orders are simpler. It's easier to get 1 piece shipped out than a complicated assembly involving 100 pieces. But if the shipping team is measured on the percentage of on-time deliveries, then that provides a perverse incentive to neglect the hard cases. They can ace the 97 easy deliveries, deprioritize the 3 hard ones, and look like geniuses (97% on-time rate!). Once you catch on to this pattern, you can easily fix it. You make sure that all shipments are not treated equally. For your top customers, the on-time rate should be perfect: 100%. Always and forever. That's how you keep them loyal and encourage them to do more business with you.

Meanwhile, what should you do about the mass of overcoddled customers? Philippi says that clients are often fearful about changing those relationships. Aren't we going to ruin our business if we tell some customers "no",!!

He reassures them that it's not about telling some customers to buzz oft. The point is to ensure that customers are paying for the resources they're consuming. There are many ways to approach this: Raise prices. Create a minimum order size. Set lower expectations for things like delivery time. Offer self-service tools.

It's your job to define the "offer" for your customers. It's their job to accept or decline. If there are customers who huff and puff about your new offer and take their business elsewhere, take heart: You've won a double victory. You've taken some unprofitable customers off your ledger and added them to your competitor's."

Recordar a curva de Stobachoff. 

Trechos retirados de "Reset: How to Change What's Not Working" de Dan Heath