"When I show up in your life..."

"A little while ago, my car broke down and needed to be towed, and I was told to await a call from the tow truck driver. So I sat and waited, and got on with the process of rearranging a day that had been pitched into disarray. Shortly, my phone rang, and I answered.

"Hello," said a voice. "This is Alexander the Great. Where are you parked?"

Now, when you answer the phone and a stranger describes themselves to you using the name of someone who's been dead for two and half millennia, it gets your attention.

...

Why, I asked, was he Alexander the Great?

"It's simple," he said. "My name is Alex, and I'm the best tow truck driver around here. So I'm Alexander the Great." He said this cheerfully but not boastfully. It was a happy fact, nothing more.

I asked why he was so good at what he did, and he explained in some detail the mechanics of what he had just done with my car, and what had been tricky and had demanded an adjustment to his approach, and what he did in other similar situations, and what he did in similar but slightly different situations, and what he did in a vast array of very different situations, and along the way added a few editorializations about how the office always sent him to the most difficult jobs, and how there were days when he wished they would stop haranguing him by radio and let him get on with what he did best.

But what was distinctive about his approach, I asked. Why was he so sure that he was the best? He smiled.

"Here's why," he said. "Here's the thing that I can do, and that no one else I know can do. When I show up in your life, you're having either a bad day or a really bad day. And whatever I can do to put your car on the truck, of course I do that. But that's not what you really need. What you really need is to stop worrying, for just a few minutes, about what's going to happen next, or how much the repair is going to cost, or how you'll get home, or what the insurance company will say, or how to rearrange your schedule for the week. That's what I do for you for the few minutes we're together. I help you forget. That's why I'm Alexander the Great."[Moi ici: Recordar Think "outcome before output"]

When Alex explained all this to me, the words arrived as if from another planet. Not because I didn't understand what he was saying, but because I was aware in an instant of the vast gulf between his experience of work and mine."

 Trecho retirado de "The Problem with Change" de Ashley Goodall.

Luxo nos serviços e criação de valor

Um artigo que muitos deveriam ler, sobretudo os que se queixam do baixo valor acrescentado dos serviços que prestam, "Understanding the Value Process: Value creation in a luxury service context". Colhemos o que semeamos.

O artigo foca-se em três ideias principais:

• A função dos prestadores de serviço vai além da co-criação. As empresas que prestam serviços de luxo fazem mais do que apenas trabalhar com os clientes para criar valor com a interacção. Elas também preparam o terreno para que os clientes tenham uma experiência única e agradável.
• Os clientes também criam o seu próprio valor. O artigo refere que os clientes também ciam valor por conta própria, independentemente do que a empresa faz. Por exemplo, podem gostar da sensação de fazer parte de algo exclusivo ou luxuoso.
• O escapismo como valor para o cliente em serviços de luxo. Os clientes que utilizam o serviço de luxo para escapar momentaneamente da vida quotidiana. É uma parte fundamental do que torna estes serviços valiosos.

Ideias fundamentais para ajudar as empresas a compreender como tornar os seus serviços de luxo mais apelativos e memoráveis para os clientes. Não se trata apenas do produto, mas de toda a experiência e do sentimento que os clientes obtêm dele.

Excelente figura:

"The value process before the interaction

Customer sphere: Value anticipation. Building on previous research showing that anticipation influences satisfaction (Oliver & Burke 1999), we find that many customers eagerly look forward to the experience of the interaction. Their value process already begins as they start planning and thinking about their visit to ...

the company's fame drives customer anticipation for those who have never visited ... They develop optimistic fantasies about the future visit, in line with psychological research on future expectations.

Customers who have already visited ... also anticipate their interactions, using their familiarity as a heuristics for predictions. Familiarity not only grounds expectations of continuity (i.e., repetition of past positive experienced value) but also escapist discontinuity (i.e., fantasies of unexpected additional value)

...

Provider sphere: Value facilitation. In keeping with its heritage, ... locates the customer at the center of the service to facilitate value creation by conveying an iconic authentic service. As customers enter ..., they are plunged into a visual servicescape that brings together symbols of the ..., granting fictional access to ... the servicescape guides customers as to how to behave in the boutique

...

also facilitates value creation through service disembodiment, with service employees almost becoming actors. Employees wear identical uniforms, behave similarly (e.g., same gestures and phrases), and limit improvisation. They follow a strict code of conduct for respectful interactions with customers and each other. Overall, this grants bold service ritualization wherein service employees become almost interchangeable.

...

Disembodiment is beneficial to the value process for three reasons: (1) it helps reduce value fluctuations due to employees' personal touch; (2) through de-humanization, service employees are liberated from human imperfection; and, (3) customers' humanity becomes more salient, making them the sole protagonists (the personnel never befriends customers).

This is noteworthy as disembodiment is usually an unplanned and undesired consequence of service commodification or digitization.

...

The value process during the interaction

Joint sphere: Value co-creation. All actions in the provider sphere to facilitate customers' value creation come alive in the service encounter. ... We further identify the role of escapism for customers' value in-use in the luxury service context, as escapism is jointly enacted to support value co-creation.

When we asked customers about why they visit..., many mentioned how the service interaction makes them feel, both with service personnel and being in the store, and many unprompted customers talked about a brief escape to another time.

...

By allowing an element of escapism, consumers may even see the time they spend waiting as something adding to their value process.

Next, we identify another important source of value cocreation in time suspension. In our observations and interviews, we find that both the service provider and customer consider the time spent in the boutique to be of utmost importance. 

...

The value process after the interaction

Customer sphere: Value creation. For many customers, the value process does not end when leaving the store; a key part of the process is only beginning. We identify two main types of value that customers attach to the service experience ... First, social value means that consuming the products is not always the main source of value for customers after visiting ...; customers create value from their service in social contexts. Social value is an important aspect of customer value in luxury service settings, ... For example, several customers see value in displaying their trip to a ... boutique and their trophy-like shopping bag.

Our observations document customers taking selfies, standing in front of ... and holding up their purchases with ... logo clearly visible. Many customers immediately upload their picture on social media. Our analysis of some 5,000 pictures hashtagged ... confirms that customers display their visit to ... to others. 

...

Provider sphere: Value learning. In contrast to Grönroos and Voima's (2013) conceptualization of the provider's role ending after the interaction, we find that the provider's value process continues. Our findings indicate that an important part of the provider's process consists of finding ways to learn about what customers do after their interactions in the store and how they consume the product or talk about the service experience." 

Outcomes, not deliverables

"As a leader, you want to keep your team focused on critical outcomes and problems. To do this, you first need to identify where scope creep usually happens and cut it off quickly. In practice, this means shifting your entire team's mindset from "what" you're building to "why" you're building it, ensuring a project's outcomes are clearly defined. This will keep the team's narrative focused on the problem being solved.

...

Driving projects by outcomes means defining success based on problem resolution, and measuring progress by how effectively you solve the problem. Therefore, an outcome is a problem that an audience has that isn't addressed or is insufficiently addressed — not the individual project deliverables or features. Defining outcomes means setting aside assumptions on audience wants and desires, and shifting attention to what pain points exist and what is required to eliminate them.

...

Emphasizing outcomes also helps you to align your team around a common purpose and shared goals. By providing clarity on what needs to be achieved, you're motivating your team and empowering them to work together to apply creative approaches to problem solving. Without knowing the outcomes, it is presumptive to say whether any specific tactic or deliverable is needed or necessary. In short, only when problem-based outcomes are determined can a useful scope of features and deliverables be defined."

Recordar:

•  " If we want to talk about success, we need to talk about outcomes, not just outputs"
• Think “outcome before output”

Trechos retirados de "Project Managers, Focus on Outcomes - Not Deliverables" 

Mudar o cliente

"Upgrade your user, not your product. Don’t build better cameras - build better photographers." — Kathy Sierra

— Tor Grønsund (@tor) February 8, 2023

Esta frase fixou a minha atenção.

O valor não é gerado pelo produtor, ponto.

O valor é criado pelo cliente ao usar o produto na sua vida e ao experimentar um conjunto de consequências. 

Isto está relacionado com a frase "We might know what we are seling, but do we know what the cstomer is buying?"

O produtor pode escolher outro tipo de clientes, ou pode co-criar valor com os clientes actuais ajudando-os a perceber, a apreciar, a aspirar a algo mais. Que clientes têm potencial para fazer esta transição? Que parceiros podem ajudar a desenvolver esta jornada? Que mudanças organizacionais têm de ser feitas para trabalhar este aspecto?

Para reflexão

Acerca de "Don't know, don't care":

"Clients and customers can be frustrating.

Perhaps they don’t know what you know.

Perhaps they don’t care.

It’s possible to educate and inspire.

It might be more productive to find the few that want to go where you do."

Julgo que falta acrescentar algo como "Perhaps you don't care. Perhaps you are too focused in your output, and less focused in the outcome"

Sempre o foco nos clientes-alvo. Ou, como li recentemente, "We might know what we are selling, but do we know what the customer is buying?": 

"Another related issue is the manner in which the offering is supposed to create value for the customer. The traditional perspective is simply to consider the offering so as to contain the value that it brings to the customer. The service literature has however suggested that sellers need to consider that the customer's actual use of the offering is a deciding factor in what comes out of the offering [Moi ici: O outcome]. This perspective suggests that the offering should be seen as co-created by the seller and the customer, implying that value cannot be predetermined by the seller but also depends on the customer. This makes it much more difficult for the seller to design and control value creation. One way of doing this is to involve the customer in the seller's processes of designing and providing the offering, whether it is a component or a solution."

 

The brain and the heart

 

"When firms (or persons) assert a purpose, they have to choose between aspiring to help others, and seeking their own self-interest.

...

The largest and most successful firms in the world today... are explicitly obsessed with delivering value to customers, 

...

It’s easy to become cynical about business, when we hear outrageous claims made for their products, and the stretching of the truth of how socially responsive their regular business is.

...

Many firms try to strike a balance between exploitation and exploration. The firm is “built to minimize risk and keep people in their boxes and silos,” as business school professor John Kotter writes. People “are working with a system that is designed to get today’s job done—a system that asks most people, usually benignly, to be quiet, take orders, and do their jobs in a repetitive way.” Such a workplace can never be life-inspiring. The answer though is not to add an extraneous purpose on top. The firm has to make co-creation of customer value the central thrust of everything the company does.

...

Managing a big firm today is driven by figures and statistics, for which high-powered brainpower is the sine qua non. Yet such dry analyses are missing the dimension that is necessary to excite customers. Firm must activate their own hearts if they wish to reach the hearts of their staff and their customers and create life-inspiring firms. The brain alone won’t get the job done."

Trechos retirados de "Six Steps To Creating A Life-Inspiring Corporation"

" the primacy of operant resources over operand resources in value co-creation"

Parte I.

"Axiom 3 - All social and economic actors are resource integrators.
As explained, S-D logic argues that all actors provide service (apply resources for other’s benefit) to receive similar service from others (other actors applying their resources) in the process of co-creating value. This means that all actors are both providers and beneficiaries of service and that the activities and characteristics of actors are not fundamentally dichotomous, as implied by the conceptual division of economic actors into producers and consumers.
...
Resources, in S-D logic, are viewed “as anything, tangible or intangible, internal or external, operand or operant, an actor can draw on for increased viability”. The literature regarding resources in S-D logic recognizes that two broad types of resources are being integrated. Operand resources are resources, such as natural resources, that require action taken upon them to be valuable. Operant resources are resources, such as knowledge and skills, are capable of acting on other resources to contribute to value creation. Aligned with many of the resource-based views, S-D logic emphasizes the primacy of operant resources over operand resources in value co-creation. In other words, although operand resources often contribute to the cocreation of value, without the application of operant resources, such as knowledge, skills and competencies, value co-creation does not occur.
...
It is important understand that, in S-D logic, potential resources are realized in the context and through the application of other resources. In other words, resources are not, they become.
...
This means that resources such as knowledge and skills, and the availability of other resources determine the resourceness of potential resources"

Trechos retirados de "Service-Dominant Logic: Foundations and Applications"

"the application of specialized resources for the benefit of other actors" (I)

"Furthermore, understanding exchange as a process also brings forth additional insight about the purpose of exchange. It becomes clear that aim of exchange is not to move around products or other exchange objects, but to share applied knowledge and skills with other actors to support what they are trying to accomplish. In other words, the purpose of exchange is to enable reciprocal value creation. As this is possible only through collaboration and exchange with a large number of actors, S-D logic calls this process value co-creation and the collectives, among which value cocreation occurs, service ecosystems.
...
in S-D logic the purpose of exchange is value co-creation, which is facilitated through the exchange of service, that is, the application of specialized resources for the benefit of other actors (and themselves), rather than goods, which are only occasionally used in the transmission of this service. This shift in how exchange is understood also implies a radical change in the meaning of value. G-D logic views value as something determined and produced by the producer that can be embedded in goods and defined in terms of its “exchange value”. Alternatively, Vargo and Lusch (2004) proposed that value is actually determined by the beneficiary on the basis of the “value in use” that results from the beneficial application of the resources (e.g. knowledge and skills) exchanged...
S-D logic also implies that the beneficiary is always an active participant in its own value creation process – that is, a co-creator of value. In other words, for value to be perceived by the beneficiary and, thus, value creation to occur, the beneficiary’s (e.g. customer) operant resources must also be integrated."

Trechos retirados de "Service-Dominant Logic: Foundations and Applications"

Think “outcome before output”

The first time I used the expression on my blog:

Think “input before output”

It was in October 2017 in "it took a holistic approach towards how to play". Since then I have used it here dozens and dozens of times, for example in:

• Privileging inputs over outputs (partt XII) (a serie of 12 blogposts in Portuguese)
• Focus from output to input (in Portuguese)

This week I started to think that the expression is not the best for what I intend to convey. In this blogpost, "Beyond product versus service", I put these two definitions of ISO 9000: 2015:

• Product - output of an organization that can be produced without any transaction taking place between the organization and the customer
• Service - output of an organization with at least one activity necessarily performed between the organization and the customer

When an organization focuses on its output, it thinks about product. You do not need interactions:

At the limit, the organization vomits as much as possible, wants to increase the pace at which produces in order to lower unit costs and be more competitive.

What do I mean by focusing on input?

Assume that what is the output of the organization is actually the customer's input. Something that the client will use to process in his life, in his own way.

However, now I realize that there is another word and another position for what I want to communicate ...

Think “outcome before output”

When thinking about the client's outcome there must be interaction with the client. Customers are all different and look for and value different things. Only by interacting with them is it possible to understand what each one values. Outcome is not a physical result, it is not a noun. Outcome is not the bottle and the wine that you drank, the outcome is the party is the good mood between friends.

Of course, if we are in a B2B relationship, our client, in addition to his outcome, will also have his output:

And if it is a B2B relationship, the organization should also consider their client's client and their outcomes:

And here we start to get into another classic theme of my blog: ecosystems. In an ecosystem, the objective is no longer to maximize value for the customer, but to maximize value for the ecosystem. Therefore, we can reach an ecosystem in which the customer is a prisoner of the relationship that the organization has developed with the customer's customer:

And I return to a blogpost from March 2007 (in Portuguese)

As relações como a plataforma mais importante

"By the early 1990s, IBM was losing billions every year, running out of cash and close to bankruptcy.
...
Why was IBM able to survive while so many other IT companies didn’t make it?  I’ve thought a lot about this question.  In my opinion, IBM’s survival was made possible by three major factors: talent and R&D investments; trustful relationships; and wise leadership.
...
Trustful relationships.  Another critical survival factor are the trustful collaborations with clients, business partners, research communities, and other stakeholders that take years to build.[Moi ici: O papel de um ecossistema]
...
“From the beginning, as a maker of complex machines IBM had no choice but to explain its products to its customers and thus to develop a strong understanding of their business requirements.  From that followed close relationships between customers and supplier.  Over time these relationships became IBM’s most important platform - and the main reason for its longevity.”
...
Wise leadership.  In April of 1993 Lou Gerstner became IBM Chairman and CEO, the first outsider appointed to the position.  This was, in my opinion, the third major factor in IBM’s survival.
...
He imbued the IBM workforce with a strong sense of urgency, prodding it to address the serious problems the company faced.  He surrounded himself with executives who knew the company well and understood what needed to be done.
...
Early in his tenure he was faced with a few critical decisions.  IBM’s previous leadership had been working on a plan to break up the company into a loose federation of thirteen so-called baby blues.  But, after talking to a number of IBM’s key customer, Gerstner reversed the decision. Customers told him that IBM was much more valuable as an integrated company that could help them solve complex problems and build industry solutions than as a provider of piece parts or components."

Trechos retirados de "Getting Through Highly Uncertain Times - Some Lessons Learned"

Think “outcome before output”

A primeira vez que usei aqui no blog a expressão:

Think “input before output”

Foi em Outubro de 2017 em "it took a holistic approach towards how to play". Desde então usei-a aqui dezenas e dezenas de vezes como, por exemplo em:

• Privilegiar os inputs sobre os outputs (parte XII) (uma série de 12 postais)
• Foco do output para o input

Esta semana comecei a pensar que a expressão não é a melhor para o que pretendo transmitir. Há tempos, neste postal, "Beyond product versus service", coloquei estas duas definições da ISO 9000:2015:

• Product - output of an organization that can be produced without any transaction taking place between the organization and the customer
• Service - output of an organization with at least one activity necessarily performed between the organization and the customer

Quando uma organização se concentra no seu output, pensa em produto. Não precisa de interacções:

No limite podemos dizer que vomita o mais possível, quer aumentar o ritmo a que produz por forma a baixar custos unitários e ser mais competitiva.

O que querodizer com focar no input?

Partir do princípio que aquilo que é o output da organização é na verdade o input do cliente. Algo que o cliente vai usar para processar na sua vida, à sua maneira.

No entanto, agora percebo que há outra palavra e outra posição para o que quero comunicar...

Think “outcome before output”

Ao pensar em outcome do cliente tem de haver interacção com o cliente. Os clientes são todos diferentes e procuram e valorizam coisas diferentes. Só interagindo com eles é que é possível perceber o que é que cada um valoriza. Outcome não é um resultado físico, não é um substantivo. Outcome não é a garrafa e ovino que se bebeu, outcome é a festa é a boa disposição entre amigos.

Claro que se estivermos numa relação B2B o nosso cliente além do seu outcome também terá o seu output:

E se é uma relação B2B a nossa organização também deverá considerar o cliente do nosso cliente e os seus outcomes:

E aqui começamos a entrar num outra tema clássico deste blogue: os ecossistemas.

Num ecossistema o objectivo não é mais maximizar o valor para o cliente, mas maximizar o valor para o ecossistema. Por isso, podemos chegar a um ecossistema em que o cliente é prisioneiro da relação que a organização desenvolveu com o cliente do cliente:

E volto a Março de 2007.

The Rules of the Passion Economy (parte II)

Parte I.

Ainda do capítulo 2 “The Rules of the Passion Economy", retirado de "The Passion Economy: The New Rules for Thriving in the Twenty-First Century".

A segunda regra parece tirada de tantos postais escritos neste blogue desde 2006: 

"RULE #2: ONLY CREATE VALUE THAT CAN’T BE EASILY COPIED.
...
you should be careful not to produce value — create a thing that people want—at scale. [Moi ici: Recordar os "sábios" da Junqueira. BTW, da próxima vez que ouvirem Vítor Bento na TV lembrem-se do que ele disse e da suckiness dos gigantes] Creating value at a large volume is something only huge companies can do profitably. ... Your value should be created slowly and carefully. Absorbing the significance of this point can be hard. Only focusing your attention on those things that reach a relatively small and strongly opinionated customer base, things that are hard to do, will be worth your while. [Moi ici: Recordar as tribos assimétricas de Taleb]
...
in the current economy, you want to do the opposite of what in the past has usually been considered good business sense. The moment one of your products or services takes off and becomes widely copied, you should begin abandoning it and looking for the next thing.
The more stuff you make or the more clients you take on, the harder it is to maintain excellence and to adapt your products and services in a way that both you and your customers want. Leave scale for the mass market. The Passion Economy is about quality and the conversation you have with your clients." [Moi ici: Recordar a co-criação] 

Acerca da co-criação (valor, actores, plataforma)

"A joint process during which value is reciprocally created for each actor (individuals, organizations, or networks). These actors engage in the process by interacting and exchanging their resources with one another. The interactions occur on an engagement interface where each actor share its own resources, integrates the resources provided by others, and potentially develops new resources through a learning process.[Moi ici: Por exemplo, um workshop de costura numa loja de lãs. A animadora fornece know-how, os participantes testam os novos conhecimentos sob a supervisão da animadora, os participantes adquirem a capacidade de desenvolver novas peças, de utilizar novos materiais e de evitar erros no seu trabalho, melhorando o seu desempenho no seu universo pessoal/profissional]
This definition conceptualizes value cocreation as a process in which actors exchange resources and jointly create value. The resource exchange requires them to perform two roles: provider and beneficiary. Providers offer their resources to others; beneficiaries integrate these external resources and create value through their consumption. During the value cocreation process, each actor performs both roles in turn, so value is reciprocally created. To enable and facilitate resource exchanges, actors interact. These interactions are located centrally on an engagement interface, [Moi ici: A loja de lãs fornece uma plataforma para interacção. Também ela tem a ganhar com a interacção com a animadora e os participantes. Não só pela promoção e compra dos produtos da loja, como pela promoção nas redes sociais do papel da loja perante outros potenciais clientes e interessados, que de outra forma não descobririam a loja ou não perceberiam o seu contributo para esta tribo] which can be offline (e.g. phone call) or online (e.g. website). Through this process of creating value by sharing and integrating resources, actors potentially develop new skills and engage in learning loops that enrich their engagement in future cocreation activities. Previous literature emphasizes the key roles of actors’ motivations as drivers of the value cocreation process and the consequences that the value cocreation process can generate for each actor (contributors, passive consumers, and companies). It also highlights moderators at three levels, namely, motivations, the process, and consequences."

Com base na minha experiência profissional, no tempo em que havia dinossauros na Terra, (sim, foi há muito tempo) um problema que a empresa onde eu trabalhava sentiu nesta abordagem tinha a ver com os free-riders. Potenciais clientes que solicitavam apoio, mas depois compravam noutro sítio. Algo que a Xiameter me ensinou a evitar.

Trecho retirado de "Ten years of value cocreation: An integrative review" de Thomas Leclercq, Wafa Hammedi e Ingrid Poncin.

"explore the future by doing"

“Co-creating: Crystallizing and Prototyping the New.
.
The aim of co-creating is to build landing strips for the future through prototypes that allow us to explore the future by doing.
.
The prototypes evolve based on the feedback they generate. The “observe, observe, observe” of the co-sensing phase becomes “iterate, iterate, iterate.” This movement is inspired by design thinking and blended with presencing principles to make it relevant to profound shifts in social fields.
...
Outcomes of Co-creating
2. A set of connections with stakeholders and partners that are relevant for taking the prototype to pilot and scale
3. Enhanced leadership and innovation capacities for dealing with disruptive innovation
4. A team spirit that could help change the leadership culture in the company
5. Creative confidence among the team members to take on big and complex projects"
A prototype is a microcosm of the future that you want to create. Prototyping means to present your idea (or work in progress) before it is fully developed. The purpose of prototyping is to generate feedback from all stakeholders about how it looks, how it feels, how it matches (or does not match) people’s needs and aspirations, and then to refine the assumptions about the guiding project. The focus is on exploring the future by doing rather than by analyzing. As the folks at IDEO have put it, the rationale for prototyping is “to fail often to succeed sooner” or to “fail early to learn quickly.”
A prototype is not a plan. It is something you do that generates feedback. But a prototype is also not a pilot. A pilot has to be a success; by contrast, a prototype may fail, but it focuses on maximizing learning.”

1. A set of refined prototypes—living microcosms of the future—that have generated meaningful feedback regarding the guiding questions and objectives of the lab

Trechos retirados de "The Essentials of Theory U: Core Principles and Applications" de Otto Scharmer.

Uma transformação

"Two decades ago, we sought knowledge by laboriously searching in bulky paper-based encyclopedias or dusty journals in libraries; today we have knowledge on-line at our fingertips at the tap of an app.
.
Two decades ago, a car was a metal machine with a couple of electric controls: today, a car is a multifunctional entertainment center on wheels, with which we can even hold conversations.
.
Two decades ago, a telephone was a mechanical contraption attached by wire to a physical system: now, a telephone is a handheld multifunction device that connects us to the world and serves an infinite array of complex purposes.
.
Two decades ago, an office was a physical building that contained people and machines: now, an office is a software network with people scattered around the planet interacting with it."

E em que medida é que as ofertas da sua empresa se transformaram? Em que medida deixaram de vender substantivos e passaram a vender resultados na vida dos clientes?


Trecho retirado de "How Software Developers Sparked Management Transformation"

Nichos, co-criação e intimidade à escala

"Dalton, Ohio is an unlikely place to find fresh insight into how to thrive in a chaotic 21st-century economy.[Moi ici: Pensem no século XXI, na internet, em toda a parfernália tecnológica e, depois, pensem numa empresa de gente Amish que cumpre os preceitos Amish, que não pode ter electricidade da rede ligada ao negócio, que não pode usar a internet, ... como prosperam?]
...
A company like Pioneer could not have been nearly as successful in a previous era. It is, in its own way, thoroughly modern and embodies what I call the “passion economy”
...
The tools of modern commerce—easy access to sophisticated shipping and logistics, the ability to reach and connect with customers all over the globe—are now available even to the most technologically unsophisticated businessperson. This allows something new: intimacy at scale, in which companies can create highly specialized products that reach customers thinly spread around the world.[Moi ici: Quando leio estas coisas lembro-me sempre da lição alemã que aprendi em 2010 - ""pursue niche strategies that combine product specialization with geographic diversification", "they concentrate their often limited resources on niche market segments that they can dominate worldwide.", e de Conrado Adolfo e o fim da geografia, apesar de Ghemawat]
.
The Pioneer business model would be hard to pitch to a group of investors. The core addressable market is fewer than 25,000 farmers, with decidedly below-average purchasing power. That market cannot be reached through digital ads, TV or radio. The products themselves are big and bulky and need to be shipped from rural Ohio to remote customers across North America. [Moi ici: Sabe quem são os seus clientes? Sabe o que procuram e valorizam? Sabe quais são as suas ansiedades e sonhos? Sabe quais são os seus medos e dores? Sabe o que é sucesso para eles?]
...
Amish farmers are increasingly shifting from bulk commodity grains to higher-value produce, which means they need entirely different kinds of gear. [Moi ici: Interessante esta nota acerca da fuga à comoditização por parte de uma comunidade que não pode usar tecnologia moderna e tudo o que apoia o eficientismo da quantidade] Many Amish are moving north, leaving their historic districts in Pennsylvania, Ohio and Indiana for relatively cheap farmland in the deindustrializing Rust Belt and the prairie out west. This means they are farming colder, rockier ground and need plows that are stronger and more pliable.
...
In today’s economy, the narrowness and complexity of Pioneer’s market is actually a strength. While 25,000 farmers aren’t enough to attract the full attention of the big players like John Deere, Kubota and Caterpillar, they are more than enough to support Pioneer and several other Amish farm equipment makers, all of which are growing healthily.
...
Companies like Pioneer will not replace large firms, which are getting bigger and more dominant in the American economy.
...
But companies like Pioneer offer an alternative path. By focusing obsessively and passionately on an audience that they know uniquely well, and by embracing the tools that will help them serve that audience while rejecting those that won’t, such small businesses are able to thrive in the 21st-century economy."

Quando em "Acerca da rapidez (parte II)" rematamos no final "Talvez os nichos sejam o futuro, talvez a co-criação seja o futuro." estamos a sugerir o mesmo caminho referido no último trecho sublinhado. Focar um nicho e servir esse nicho como ninguém"

Trechos retirados de "An Amish Lesson for Small Business Success"

"a resource not as a substance or thing, but rather as an abstraction"

"although operand resources often contribute to the cocreation of value, without the application of operant resources, such as knowledge, skills, and competences, value cocreation does not occur.
.
An important part of the service-centered view is to understand that the nature of resources is contextual. In other words, resources are not, they become. This means that actors’ knowledge and skills—that is, other resources—determine the resourceness of resources.
.
Consider, for example, fire: The resourceness of fire only became available for humans once the knowledge and skills needed to control and apply fire for specific purposes were developed. Hence, potential resources become resources when appraised and acted on through integration with other potential resources.
...
“Value is cocreated by multiple actors, always including the beneficiary”) and the nature of value outcomes and their determination (Axiom 4, “Value is always uniquely and phenomenologically determined by the beneficiary”)."

Li isto e fiz logo a ponte para a importância da formação dos comerciais sobre como comunicar, ou sobre como fazer emergir a "resourceness" na vida dos clientes.

"a resource not as a substance or thing, but rather as an abstraction that describes the function that a substance or idea contributes to achieve a desired end. Hence, to integrate resources, resource-integrating actors must first be able to recognize the resourceness of the potential resources available to him/her. Therefore, the process of affording potential resources their resourceness becomes a prerequisite for resource integration and value cocreation. For this reason, a deeper understanding of  resources is critical for the further development of SD logic and its service ecosystems perspective.
...
resourceness is not an intrinsic characteristic of a resource, but is a socially constructed and institutionalized phenomenon"

Trechos retirados da tese de doutoramento "The evolution of markets – A service ecosystems perspective" de Kaisa Koskela-Huotari.

"Your brand is not what you say you are"

"One of the most persistent myths of marketing and sales is that we can tell our customers our stories and, through this telling, we can change their minds. Yeah, right.
.
If you’re telling your story to a customer, it is likely that the customer isn’t actually listening. They’re probably doing something else, or thinking about something else. Of course, storytelling is a wonderful thing. We all love to hear a good story, told well. However, most of the most powerful stories in our lives weren’t told to us. We co-created them with other people.
...
We can’t tell a customer a story about why they should love us. But we can co-create a shared story with our customers. We can have conversations with customers that help them form beliefs about why they value us, and why they want to commit to our relationship.
...
Your brand is not what you say you are, it’s what your customers believe you are. A conversation is the perfect setting for your customers to form clear, compelling and motivating beliefs about you. Stop telling your brand story to your customers and start co-creating stories through conversation."

Trechos retirados de "The Brand Story Conversation – Yastrow & Company"

Relações, sofisticação e co-criação

Encontrei uma pequena pérola, mais uma, ao ler  "Prime movers" de Rafel Martinez e Johan Wallin.

"Customer contacts are thus the R&D of the co-productive economy. Finding out which are one's most sophisticated customers - the ones one can learn most with - is thus a crucial piece of information."

Essencial para subir na escala de valor, essencial para crescer nos eixos dos conteúdos de serviço e humano.

Quem são os clientes mais sofisticados que a sua empresa tem? Esse grupo é o que se sente underserved:

Como não recordar e confrontar com:

 Que rebati com:

Quem não aposta no "cheaper" e no "cost", aposta na interacção, aposta na co-criação, aposta noutro mindset... eu diria, "Every visit customers have to make are an opportunity for interaction and co-creation"

Ou usando a terminologia da fricção:

"It is a mistake to try to reduce friction when it is positive, just as it is a mistake not to remove it when it is negative." 

Cuidado com a eficiência.

O estilhaçar do século XX

Continua a minha leitura de "Prime movers" de Rafel Martinez e Johan Wallin.

Segundo os autores, quando pensamos na abordagem da criação de valor devemos olhar para a oferta como o resultado de de três conteúdos:

O potencial de criação de valor ao longo de cada uma das dimensões da oferta dependerá do sistema de criação de calor de cada cliente.

Assumir isto e querer fazer parte do processo de criação de valor do cliente, apostando na co-criação de valor, requer o aumento da granularidade ou resolução, para permitir a diferenciação requerida por cada cliente.

Reparem só nesta linguagem usada:

"Enhanced 'granularity' or 'resolution' was not present in the traditional, 'industrial' logic. There, supply and demand factors were considered at a fairly aggregated level, (generic) products and (mass) markets. For example, car manufacturers didn't think of their customers as individuals, but viewed them as a mass of buyers (markets or market segments) who bought the same product.
.
As the potential for interactivity between the firm and its environment increases, being able to specify the contribution of each individual party participating in value co-production is of great help. Instead of throwing products at undifferentiated market 'sinks', in co-productive situations, companies must decide which of their firm-specific capabilities to deploy for each specific customer."

Leio isto e recordo a suckiness dos gigantes.
Leio e isto e recordo o plankton tão querido às Heinz e às Procter & Gamble deste mundo.
Leio isto e recordo Seth Godin:

"The defining idea of the twentieth century, more than any other, was mass.
.
Mass gave us efficiency and productivity, making us (some people) rich. Mass gave us huge nations, giving us (some people) power. Mass allowed powerful people to influence millions, giving us (some people) control.
.
And now mass is dying."

Voltando a Ramirez e Wallin:

"Customers have different priorities in their value creation, and offerings targeted at them reflect these. The characteristics of the offerings can include low-risk solutions; low-cost solutions; broad relationship-based offerings, co-produced with a distributor or not; co-learning initiatives; facility of integration into customer systems; and so on. As customers' value creation conditions evolve, the offerings — and thus the capabilities brought in to make them possible, must be altered.
...
The more the types of 'fit', the more granularity or resolution is required, also with respect to capabilities. From a customer's point of view, a value constellation has an architecture designed around each individual customer, with manysuppliers targeting this customer with different offerings. The logic is the same: offering architecture will be judged in terms of 'fit' with customer value creation."

Aquele, "The more the types of 'fit', the more granularity or resolution is required, also with respect to capabilities", é poderoso. A explosão de tribos e a progressiva incapacidade dos gigantes para se adaptarem ao estilhaçar do mundo da massa. Mongo! Terra de artesãos.

Já cheguei a pensar que Mongo seria de artesãos e suas cooperativas. Talvez um dia, para já ainda é cedo. Antes dessa fase teremos empresas mais pequenas, pelos padrões do século XX,  focalizadas em nichos. Só que com o fim mitigado da geografia, esses nichos têm alguma dimensão.