Acerca da comunicação

Nesta formação online que costumo animar a certa altura há um exercício em que no meio de um projecto tem de se lidar com um potencial conflito. O que costumo dizer aos participantes, antes de avançarem para a realização do exercício, é qualquer coisas como:

- Lembrem-se, querem executar o projecto, querem leva-lo até ao fim. Esse é o vosso objectivo, não o de ganhar uma discussão.

Interessante, na semana passada li "The Mindset of the Possibilist" (página 19) onde William Ury apresenta os seus 3 passos na resolução de conflitos. Ele apresentou o primeiro passo com uma metáfora que me cativou:

"The biggest obstacle we face when we're dealing with conflict isn't what we think it is. We usually think it's the 'other' sitting across from us at the table — a difficult individual, organization or nation. But I've found the biggest obstacle to getting what I want in any situation is even closer than that: It's me. It's us. It's on our side of the table.

The problem lies with our natural human tendency to react - to act and speak without thinking, in ways that are contrary to what we want to achieve. As the old saying goes, 'When you are angry, you will make the best speech you will ever regret. Either we attack or avoid, which doesn't solve the problem, or we accommodate and give in.

The secret is to do the opposite, which is where the metaphor of going to the balcony comes in. It means pausing and taking a step back from the situation. I counsel people to imagine themselves standing on a balcony overlooking a stage on which the conflict in question is taking place. The balcony is a place of calm, control and perspective. It's a place where you can see the bigger picture. Doing this work within ourselves is the key precondition for getting to yes for all involved."

Entretanto no WSJ li "How to Master the Art Of Respectful Disagreement":

"Prepare ahead 

Set a goal. Do you want to explain how you feel, understand the other person's point of view, or solve a problem? "It's important to understand why you want to have the conversation in the first place,"

...

Actively listen 

Stop waiting for someone to finish a sentence just so you can have your say. Don't interrupt. Really listen.

Summarize what the person said and ask if you heard it correctly. [Moi ici: Cuidado com a ilusão da comunicação]

...

Slow it down 

If things get heated, take some deep breaths. Speak slower. Excuse yourself to grab a glass of water.

If you need a longer break, explain that the conversation isn't going the way you'd hoped and ask to continue it later. 

...

Discuss next steps

Ask the other person how he or she wants to move forward. And remember, it's OK to agree to disagree.

If you learned something, say so. That's both validating and reassuring, 

...

"The goal is not to 'win' the conversation, but to communicate important, if difficult, information in a way the other person can process and be heard themselves,""

Ao mesmo tempo, como segundo livro de leitura na mesinha de cabeceira (😬) tenho "Supercommunicators". Na parte inicial o autor apresenta um caso em que 12 jurados estão numa sala para decidir se um arguido é culpado ou criminoso. E sai de lá uma decisão não esperada. Faz-me lembrar o filme "12 Angry Men" na versão dos anos 50 e dos anos 90. Na versão dos anos 90 recordo o actor Tony Danza a querer despachar o veredicto porque tem um bilhete para uma jogatana de basebol(?) e não a quer perder. E o ponto é: que tipo de conversa quero ter e que tipo de conversa o outro quer ter, pode ter. O que tenho na minha cabeça versus o que o outro tem na sua cabeça como prioridade.

Entretanto, na semana passada, usei a citação que se segue em três empresas diferentes:

George Bernard Shaw disse: "“The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place”."

A comunicação eficaz é a chave para a resolução de conflitos e para a execução bem-sucedida de qualquer projecto. Como mencionado por William Ury, é essencial reconhecer que o maior obstáculo muitas vezes somos nós mesmos e nossas reacções impulsivas. Devemos nos esforçar para "subir ao balcão", obter perspectiva e agir com calma e propósito. Técnicas como ouvir activamente, preparar-se antecipadamente e desacelerar a conversa podem transformar disputas em diálogos produtivos. 

Adenda.

Acerca da boa comunicação.

 Não esquecer a má, ainda do Capítulo 10 do livro “Cracked It! How to solve big problems and sell solutions like top strategy consultants:” 

"people can better understand and remember a set of ideas if they can mentally organize these ideas around a coherent pattern or logical structure.

...

To understand other people's thoughts and be convinced of what they are telling us, we must "see" how their ideas are connected in a recognizable structure. The tighter the connections and the simpler the structure-the stronger the coherence-the more convincing the story.

For business recommendations, [Barbara] Minto argues that the most efficient communication structure is a top -down pyramid that starts with communicating the core message-the "governing thought" —head-on, and then turns to a "key line" of arguments that support it, while also announcing the plan of the report. The core message must jump off the page immediately and pave the way for the later points that collectively justify or detail it. If you adopt this pyramidal communication strategy, the audience will see the big picture first and realize that all the ideas fit in a simple and visible pattern. This will free their minds and make them receptive to the core message and the overall content.

...

Pave the Way for a Dialogue 

Stating the governing thought and the main points of your presentation from the get-go is critical to selling your solution effectively. Having a relevant core message isn't enough. It must also be concise and set a clear direction. Because you begin with it, you can't prepare your audience for it, so you can be sure it will trigger questions. You might think it's safer and more logical to keep the core message for the end, as a conclusive punchline that closes your narrative. We strongly disagree. While you save a punchline for the end of a speech to wrap it up, you state a governing thought from the get-go to pave the way for a dialogue in which you will answer the audience's questions. A governing thought sets direction, like a keynote in music or a compass in navigation. Use your core message as a governing thought that drives a conversation with the problem owner, instead of using it as a punchline that puts an end to this conversation.

...

Using the pyramid principle to develop an elevator pitch means you must formulate your core message concisely and be able to answer in a few words the first questions that come to the mind of the problem owner. Broadly speaking, these questions typically belong to two categories: "why" and "how" questions. You'll be asked a "why" question if the problem owner remains unconvinced about your solution. You'll be asked a "how" question if she's convinced but wants to know more about how to implement the recommendation. The key line that supports the governing thought must contain the answers to these "why" and "how" questions."

Ainda esta semana tive a experiência de perder 55 minutos numa apresentação e só nos últimos 5 minutos aparecer a mensagem essencial.

Acerca da má comunicação.

"Don't Tell the Story of the Search, Tell the Story of the Solution

...

A major flaw in the memo is that this message is not readily apparent. It’s buried near the end. We had to wait until the second-to-last paragraph to know the punch line. Aspiring journalists are told: “don’t bury the lede.” The lede (or “lead”) is the most important part of the story being told, which should be concisely stated up front. 

...

The underlying flaw is typical: the writer is reporting his problem-solving process instead of explaining the recommendation and its rationale to the problem owner. The memo reads like an issue tree, not a recommendation for action. The writer starts by stating the problem, then covers the way he structured it, the analyses he performed and their results, without explaining how any of it supports the core message.

...

This mistake is pervasive. Because we've spent so much time engaged in the problem-solving process, it becomes the de facto structure we use to articulate our solution. We may also be keen to demonstrate to the problem owner the hard work we've done and explain the difficult steps we went through to arrive at the solution we are presenting. It's tempting to tell the story of the search instead of telling the story of the solution.

This is, however, an ineffective approach to selling a solution. Decision-makers aren't like readers of crime novels, who enjoy identifying with the detective and his erratic thought process, and revel in waiting to find out whodunit. They don't want you to bury your core message in adventurous twists and turns. They aren't interested in hearing about the clever and challenging analyses you performed if this doesn't help sell your solution. They just want to hear your recommendation and be able to determine whether they agree with it and the reasoning behind it. They need a clear and compelling story that persuades them to buy what you're pitching."

Trechos retirados do Capítulo 10 do livro “Cracked It! How to solve big problems and sell solutions like top strategy consultants.” 

Pessoas e empatia

Ontem, ao ouvir o final do capítulo 3 de "Making Numbers Count: The Art and Science of Communicating Numbers" fixei estes trechos:

"The string of statistics in the first example doesn’t cohere and doesn’t produce much insight.

But when the numbers take the shape of one human, we can start to feel and understand their implications. We don’t empathize with a marketing demographic; we empathize with a person. We have vast experience with stepping into a story, from our first picture books to the last Hollywood movie we watched. But we’ve never been trained to step into a distribution. A prototype can embody a ream of data, yet remind us that the data merely represents our real customer—one whose children pitch tantrums in grocery stores just like ours do.

You have to do the right analysis to get the right answer. But when you convey the right answer, you don’t have to use the numbers you used to get the right answer. In fact, the most perfect translations of the numbers may have no numbers at all."

E deu-me para recordar a "Mónica e a Maria"... Meu Deus, recuar a Novembro de 2006 em "Quando se acorda atolado num pântano de indefinição...". E depois, é a cascata que ter um blogue desde 2004 permite :

• Pessoas, não estatísticas (2013)
• Quem são os clientes-alvo da sua organização? (2007)

"Failure to Communicate the Choices the “Correct” Way”"

Parte I.

Estes trechos que se seguem são preciosos:

"Assuming the firm has made explicit choices on the who–what–how, these choices need to be communicated to the rest of the organization. Often, this communication does not happen at all, or is so ineffective that the strategy remains a mystery to the employees. However, even in the best-case scenario when the organization has made the choices required and top management has spent time and energy trying to communicate these choices in a clear and explicit way, the probability is still high that employees will fail to fully understand what is communicated to them. There are two main reasons for this.

The first reason has to do with the fact that strategies are often communicated at such a general level that employees find it impossible to understand what they mean or what they can do to help implement them.

...

What happens in an organization when the same statement can have (at least) seven possible meanings?

...

There is a second reason that undermines any communication campaign. Simply communicating the choices you have made is often insufficient. What you really need to do is to communicate the choice and the alternatives considered and rejected in favor of the choice. It is the positioning of the choice relative to the alternatives considered that makes the choice clear to people. This means that what you need to say is not: “We have decided to target customer X.” Instead, you should say: “We have decided to target customer X rather than customer Y or customer Z.” Furthermore, for people to appreciate that a difficult choice has indeed been made, the alternatives considered must not only be explicitly communicated to everybody, they must also be credible and viable alternatives.

...

This is why explicitly stating what alternatives you considered (and rejected) is so important for your audience—it helps them see that you are being honest when you say you have made some difficult choices, and makes them appreciate even more the choice made."

Trechos retirados de “Organizing for the New Normal” de Constantinos Markides. 

"how that strategy fit in their world"

"You might have the most compelling vision for your organization, but if you can’t get it out of your head and get others to see it and believe in it, it might as well not even exist.
.
Just because the strategy makes sense to you doesn’t mean it will take only an instant for others to see it like you do. [Moi ici: Recordar "Para assentar ideias"] We often think that others think as we do, that others see the world as we do, but it’s more likely that there’s a lot of ground to cover between their perspective and yours. Employees come to their jobs with their own context, and it’s the leader’s job to help them understand the collective context, including how you see the marketplace today, and how that led to your strategy. [Moi ici: Na última conversa oxigenadora o meu colega usou o termo: entrar no mundo do outro. Se alguém quer que um dado objectivo da empresa seja assumido por um trabalhador, tem de se fazer um trabalho que passe por uma ida ao mundo do trabalhador e traduzir esse objectivo em algo que responda à pergunta: o que é que eu ganho com isto? "O que eu ganho com isto" não é quase sempre dinheiro, mas uma razão para justificar qualquer mudança]
...
According to our research, a majority of employees globally don’t understand their company’s strategy and, as a consequence, how they fit in. [Moi ici: Pergunta sincera - será "how they fit in" ou não será antes "how that strategy fit in their world"?. O que apreciei neste filme de 2008 (obrigado Eduardo) foi a viagem para levar a motivação ao mundo de cada um]"

Trechos retirados de "6 Steps to Help Your Employees Understand Your Strategy"

Acerca da comunicação

Comunicação objectiva?

Não, isso não existe, ponto!

Imagem retirada daqui.

Fazer a mudança acontecer

“Drawing on his observations [Austrian psychologist Konrad Lorenz] about what is needed to make people change, we might modify them for an organization as the following:

1. What is said is not yet heard.
2. What is heard is not yet understood.
3. What is understood is not yet believed.
4. What is believed is not yet advocated.
5. What is advocated is not yet acted on.
6. What is acted on is not yet completed.

There is an understandable tendency for leaders of organizations to concentrate on the first step – demanding enough in itself – and assume that once that has been achieved, their work is done. In fact, it has just begun.”

Excerto de “The Art of Action: Leadership that Closes the Gaps between Plans, Actions and Results” de Stephen Bungay.

Comunicação

A ISO 9001:2015, assim como a ISO 14001:2015, chamam a atenção para a importância da comunicação interna e externa.

A figura, que adaptei de um original que encontrei na internet há algum tempo:

Sistematiza um conjunto de tópicos que devem ser tidos em consideração.

Vidinhas e confusão

Este tweet merece reflexão:

Shocking: Most leadership teams disagree on top priorities! https://t.co/eeSQeZLspt via @mitsmr pic.twitter.com/fwpnGcO3u5

— Alex Osterwalder🇨🇭 (@AlexOsterwalder) November 12, 2017

Antes de começarem a disparar metam na cabeça que isto é o resultado de um inquérito que não foi feito em Portugal, escusam, portanto, de começar a insultar os empresários e gestores portugueses:

"Align the top team. Unfortunately, lack of agreement on company objectives is fairly common among top teams. As part of our research on strategy execution, we surveyed more than 10,000 managers across more than 400 organizations. When asked how closely members of their company’s top executive team agreed on key priorities, nearly one-third said senior executives focused on their own agendas or that there were clear factions within the top team.
.
The reality is actually worse than the survey results suggest. In addition to asking senior executives if they agree on the company’s priorities, we asked them to list their company’s key priorities over the next few years. In the typical company, barely half of the executives voiced the same company-wide priorities. Indeed, in terms of shared strategic priorities, we found that two-thirds of the top executives were on the same page in just 27% of the companies we studied — hardly a recipe for successful execution."

 Numa primeira abordagem podemos pensar que em Portugal o problema é menos grave porque as empresas são em regra mais pequenas. No entanto, isto não é só gerado pela dimensão das empresas:

• poderes fácticos com as suas agendas particulares; e
• objectivos que não são comunicados, não são definidos, não são co-construídos.

Fico a pensar que isto são uma espécie de sintomas associados a doenças de gestão de países mais evoluídos. A verdade é que em muitas PME não são comunicados os objectivos porque, em primeiro lugar, eles não são definidos.

"get to the point quickly"

Gosto de ir directo ao assunto e evitar "testamentos" quando se trata da documentação de um sistema de gestão. Recordar a importância que dou aos verbos, por exemplo,:

• A abordagem por processos (parte I) (de Novembro de 2008); e
• 10. Designar um processo (de Maio de 2017)

Como digo tantas vezes, por exemplo em "the art of focusing on what’s important and ignoring the rest":

"Ao modelar o funcionamento de empresas, não sejam como os franceses, não tentem incluir, não tentem contemplar tudo;"

Como não sorrir em cumplicidade com:

"1. GET TO THE POINT
When you get to the point quickly, your messaging becomes instantly clearer. Clarity makes your writing easier to understand, easier to retain, and more enjoyable to read. ...the “lard factor”. These are the unnecessary words in a sentence that aren’t doing a job, have the tendency to confuse rather than explain, and generally get in the way of your message..
According to Lanham, “Business prose ought to be verb-dominated prose, lining up actor, action and object in a causal chain, and lining them up fast”. Or put even simpler, business communications should be action-oriented, clear about what action it wants to take place, and quickly explain what that is."

Trechos retirados de "Intercom on Customer Engagement"

Sorrio com ironia - go ahed morons (parte II)

Já depois de ter escrito a parte I dou de caras com este artigo, "The Tragic Crash of Flight AF447 Shows the Unlikely but Catastrophic Consequences of Automation":

"Our research, recently published in Organization Science, examines how automation can limit pilots’ abilities to respond to such incidents, as becoming more dependent on technology can erode basic cognitive skills.
...
Automation provides massive data-processing capacity and consistency of response. However, it can also interfere with pilots’ basic cycle of planning, doing, checking, and acting, which is fundamental to control and learning. If it results in less active monitoring and hands-on engagement, pilots’ situational awareness and capacity to improvise when faced with unexpected, unfamiliar events may decrease. This erosion may lie hidden until human intervention is required, for example when technology malfunctions or encounters conditions it doesn’t recognize and can’t process.
...
This idea – that the same technology that allows systems to be efficient and largely error-free also creates systemic vulnerabilities that result in occasional catastrophes – is termed “the paradox of almost totally safe systems.” This paradox has implications for technology deployment in many organizations, not only safety-critical ones.
...
As automation has increased in complexity and sophistication, so have the conditions under which such handovers are likely to occur. Is it reasonable to expect startled and possibly out-of-practice humans to be able to instantaneously diagnose and respond to problems that are complex enough to fool the technology? This issue will only become more pertinent as automation further pervades our lives, for example as autonomous vehicles are introduced to our roads.
...
Organizations must now consider the interplay of different types of risk. More automation reduces the risk of human errors, most of the time, as shown by aviation’s excellent and improving safety record. But automation also leads to the subtle erosion of cognitive abilities that may only manifest themselves in extreme and unusual situations."

E embora use essa metáfora muitas vezes, liderar uma empresa não é escolher um destino e um caminho. Durante a viagem o destino ou o caminho podem deixar de fazer sentido.

Sorrio com ironia - go ahed morons

Há dias numa empresa, a propósito da cláusula da comunicação da ISO 9001, conversava sobre o que é uma boa comunicação interna.

Por vezes encontro empresas que tratam os seus trabalhadores humanos como seres racionais e ponto.  Ou seja, não basta enviar um e-mail a avisar que foi aprovada uma metodologia de tratamento de reclamações e que os envolvidos devem revê-la para estarem preparados para o seu uso.

Os humanos não são como a personagem Spock que tem a lógica como critério único de actuação. Os humanos são muito mais complexos. Por isso, também, não há dois humanos iguais.

Recordo a cena de dois adultos, de boa-fé, perante os mesmos factos poderem agir de forma distinta.

Os humanos valorizam, dão crédito a quem os compreende naquilo que é irracional, ou meta-lógico.

A maioria dos humanos são satisficers, como os nabateus, e não maximizadores. Os maximizadores tramam-se quando os sistemas não são lineares e têm uma zona côncava, os maximizadores são fragilistas por excelência.

Quando era miúdo pedi aos meus pais que comprassem um livro gigante e colorido chamado "A História do Homem nos Últimos 2 Milhões de Anos". O género Homo pode andar por cá há cerca de 2 milhões de anos, mas trazemos connosco material genético que evolui há vários milhares de milhões de anos.  Ao longo desses milhares de milhões de anos a evolução dotou-nos de uma série de  enviesamentos com o fito não de conhecermos a realidade como ela é mas o de sobrevivermos para deixar descendência.

Por tudo isto, ao ler "AI May Soon Replace Even the Most Elite Consultants" fico com um sorriso de ironia. É certo que há muitos campos em que a Inteligência Artificial vai ajudar a tomar decisões, a perceber o que se encontra por trás de paletas e resmas de dados. No entanto, julgo que é algo simplista acreditar que uma boa decisão só se baseia em análise quantitativa. A minha velha recordação da luta entre MacGiver e Sandy e esta outra mais recente:

"Há meses CEO disse a propósito de um procedimento para validação de investimentos na sua empresa:
- Se perguntar ao meu pai porque optou há 8 anos por investir uma pipa de massa numa máquina fora da caixa, quando o mercado estava em crise, e que agora dá-nos o pão nosso de cada dia, ele diria que  "teve um feeling"."

Ainda ontem li em "Strategy for a Networked World":

"Qualitative analysis is at least as important as quantitative analysis in understanding a value creating system design and/or how its design emerged" 

Como se tudo se resumisse à incapacidade do processador da informação, como se não houvesse genuína incerteza na realidade:

‘invites us to abandon the utopia of a single-natured universe . . . and to be clairvoyant about the structural difficulties we encounter when we critically open the possibility of a game entailing different natures’ 

Trecho encontrado em "Value Co-production: Intelectual Origins and Implications for Practice and Research" de Rafael Ramirez, publicado por Strategic Management Journal, 20: 49–65 (1999)

Parece que voltamos a Einstein, Schrödinger e Heisenberg e à discussão sobre a natureza determinista ou não do universo.

Se acredito no que citei aqui sobre a natureza do valor só posso acreditar na importância crescente da arte, da interacção, da humanidade à medida que Mongo se impõe. Por isso, sorrio com ironia pelos que confiam demasiado em algo analítico ... recomendo a leitura do Livro do Eclesiastes.

Apetece dizer:

Go ahead punk moron fragilistas make my day!

Estratégia, essa neblina

"According to research recently cited in the Harvard Business Review, [Moi ici: Pena que não a identifiquem] only 29 percent of employees of high-performing companies with publicly stated strategies could correctly identify their company's strategy out of six choices. As such, a majority of employees are not in a position to link their personal work initiatives and decision-making to the desired direction of the firm.' Think of it like this: a racing scull with rowers each choosing their own pace or direction would not win many races.
...
Discouragingly, this problem exists between senior executives and their boards as well. Of the 772 directors surveyed by McKinsey in 2013, a mere 34 percent agreed that the boards on which they served fully comprehended their companies' strategies. Only 22 percent said their boards were completely aware of the ways their firms created value, and just 16 percent claimed that their boards had a strong understanding of the dynamics of their firms' industries."

Trechos retirados de "If You're in a Dogfight, Become a Cat!: Strategies for Long-Term Growth" 

Que investimento?

"SHAREHOLDER VALUE CREATION is the outcome—not the driver—of effective business strategy, which should be aimed at profitably creating and retaining satisfied customers. But how can a business best do this? In this chapter, I will show how the actions of a firm at all levels can create value for shareholders and other stakeholders.[Moi ici: A nossa ideia de que há objectivos que devem ser encarados como consequências, a obliquidade]
...
how can a firm improve its ROIC? [Moi ici: Return on invested capital] Figure 4.1 suggests that the drivers of ROIC include actions that either increase the numerator (by improving operating margins) or decrease the denominator (by reducing the amount of investment required for a given level of business output). [Moi ici: Outra ideia que acarinhamos no nosso trabalho, a diferença entre o numerador e denominador] These measures themselves can be further deconstructed into a set of management actions that drive higher-level business results.
...

...
every business function can and should contribute to shareholder value enhancement. Business functions can do this by improving revenue growth, which is the primary domain of marketing and innovation, or through operational and capital efficiency, which is a shared responsibility throughout the organization. As such, every employee within an organization should clearly understand how the creation and retention of satisfied customers drives overall profits, revenue growth, and shareholder value, and how their actions contribute to this. If employees do not understand the value of their daily activities, they are probably working ineffectively, working for a company with a poorly communicated management strategy, or both."

Quantas empresas se preocupam com isto? Quantas empresas investem realmente em fazer com que os trabalhadores percebam o que é realmente importante?

Trechos e figura retirados de "If You're in a Dogfight, Become a Cat!: Strategies for Long-Term Growth"

E na sua empresa?

"Customer value is always relative, and what your competitors do is the primary point of comparison for the relative judgments you make. Pick the wrong competitors, forget one, get them wrong, or make the judgment on a flimsy or outdated basis, and you won't have an opportunity to correct yourself later in the process. Success with VBP starts here.
.
What is your sandbox and your direct competition? Your sales teams may think you compete against the low-cost players, while your marketing teams may tell the world that your company is all about premium brands and premium products. This all-too-common situation creates confusion around alignment. It will manifest itself in further confusion when you negotiate with customers. You choose your competitors based on your strategy. If you are highly differentiated, you don't compete against low-cost players. You compete against the other differentiated ones. And vice versa. This is important to establish up front. And that is why you should create value maps and communicate them internally!"

E na sua empresa, é claro para todos quem privilegiam?

Trecho retirado de "Dollarizing Differentiation Value: A Practical Guide for the Quantification and the Capture of Customer Value" de Stephan M. Liozu.

Três sinais de aviso: para reflexão

Na sua empresa aplica-se o primeiro sinal?

Na maioria das empresas é o que acontece. Lembram-se?

Empurrar, empurrar e empurrar.

Imagem retirada de "Stop Letting Quarterly Numbers Dictate Your Strategy"

Comunicar benefícios em vez de atributos (parte IV)

Parte I, parte II e parte III.
"The Three Steps to Create Great Value Communications
.
Step 2: Make Your Benefit Segment-Specific
... homogeneity is one of the biggest wrong assumptions you can make in your new product design. Your customers are different. The same value messages are not likely to work for all of your customer segments. You should tailor your value messages to the needs of each segment.

Recordar daqui:

Trecho retirado de "Monetizing Innovation"

Comunicar benefícios em vez de atributos (parte II)

E voltando a "Monetizing Innovation" e ao conselho "Comunicar benefícios em vez de atributos":

"The Three Steps to Create Great Value Communications
Step 1: Develop Crystal-Clear Benefit Statements—Not Feature Descriptions
.
A company that excels at value communications articulates its products' benefits in meaningful terms to customers. This is not about describing product features. A feature belongs to the product; a benefit belongs to the customer. Value is a measure of the benefit to the customer. Communicate benefits, not features. Take each feature and ask yourself this: What does the customer achieve because of this feature? If you are still unsure about how to phrase your product's benefits, probe your customers about their pain points and how your product would solve them.
...
To be more specific, when you create a value message, you should determine the customer purchasing criteria and how your product or service might perform on those criteria compared to existing alternatives. Such information can be captured in a 2 x 2 matrix that we call the matrix of competitive advantages, or MOCA for short. (See Figure 10.4 for an example.) 

...
The benefits your product delivers that are most important to customers and that competitors can't match (top right quadrant) are the ones to emphasize in your sales and marketing messages." 

.
Qual o problema com este passo 1?

Comunicar benefícios em vez de atributos

"You've designed a great product. It answers a market need. You did extensive work to determine the right monetization model, and you developed a winning pricing strategy. Now it's time to let your customers know about your product. For a successful launch, your marketing and sales teams must be strong in communicating and selling the value of your product to customers. As management guru Peter Drucker once said: "Customers don't buy products. They buy the benefits that these products and their suppliers offer to them."
.
It sounds easy, but consider this: You have thought about your innovation for months or even years. You know the product inside and out. However, a salesperson may only have 10 minutes with the customer. Your customer might stay on your website only for five minutes. An advertisement may only run for 15 seconds. That marketing message. that sales pitch, and that ad must clearly articulate the value to customers in a very short period of time. If they don't, the would-be customer runes out. How can you maximize your acquisition success? You need to start by articulating benefits—not features—and focus on the most important ones. You need to speak the customer's language, not your language. Finally, you need to get your marketing and sales teams involved early in the product development process. 

Comunicar benefícios em vez de atributos não é fácil. Recordar:

• Old Miths Die Hard... (Outubro de 2010)
• É a experiência de uso na vida dos clientes, não as especificações (Novembro de 2011)
• Muito cuidado com a escolha dos clientes-alvo (Agosto de 2012)

Trecho retirado de "Monetizing Innovation"