Eficiência vs inovação (parte II)

Recordando "Eficiência vs inovação", e bem na linha do que aqui escrevemos ao longo dos anos sobre a incompatibilidade da eficiência pura e dura com a inovação e a customização, este texto "How to learn when you’re playing at scale", aliás o tema será objecto de tratamento em peça futura da série "Acerca do caminho para Mongo":

"I believe we are seeing a shift away from traditional scalable efficiency as the predominant rationale for business. [Moi ici: É bom encontrar boa companhia quando a viagem é longa e tem muita gente que nos tenta demover] Technological advances have, in many cases, reduced the need for scale, and they are driving rapid and accelerating change; only organizations that are constantly learning will be able to keep up.  Yet, the scalable efficiency model as it has traditionally been pursued - granular demand forecasting, rigid processes, and standardization to ensure predictability and minimize variances - is not only increasingly difficult; it is fundamentally incompatible with learning. Learning requires experimentation, and organizations that learn how to experiment faster will have an advantage."

3 perguntas para desenhar uma estratégia

"What’s my differentiation? .
Strategy at one level is about differentiation – meaningful differentiation in the eyes of the target constituencies we’re trying to reach and serve.  To be successful, we have to be able to clearly identify who we’re trying to reach and put ourselves in the place of these people. We’ll need not just to understand their needs as they might express them, but their broader context, how it’s evolving and how it shapes needs that may not even be articulated today.
.
The ultimate goal of differentiation is to avoid direct confrontation with our competitors...
Too many people still view differentiation as a matter of features and functions in the product or service they are trying to deliver to the market.  Sure, that matters. But it’s the most superficial level of differentiation.  As many observers have recognized, differentiation is much more about the overall experience that the “customer” has with a vendor – both pre-transaction AND post-transaction.  In a world of more and more options competing for scarce attention, being able to increase the return on attention for people is a much more powerful form of differentiation. An extraordinary experience, filled with value that is meaningful to someone in a way that no one else could match, is a much more effective form of differentiation than narrowly defined features and functions.
...
In times of exponential change, what matters is dynamic differentiation – the ability to learn and evolve rapidly to continue to offer meaningful differentiation. Static differentiation, no matter how powerful it is today, becomes increasingly vulnerable to competitors. Narratives can provide a powerful context to shape that learning and evolution, both for you and the people you are trying to reach.
.
How can I maximize my leverage?...
in a world of exponential, rather than linear, change it becomes increasingly important to maximize flexibility. The same resources that were a source of strength in stable times become an anchor that limit the ability to move in more turbulent times.
...
The real power of leverage can only be realized in dynamic ecosystems where the focus is on how to build relationships that help all participants to learn faster by working together. (Moi ici: Além de determinar os clientes-alvo, determinar o ecossistema da procura e quem são os pivôs)
...
As we move from a linear to an exponential world, ecosystems become central to harnessing exponential value.
.
How will we measure success?...
Many people have moved beyond financial metrics to operating metrics like customer churn rate or lead-times to introduce new products and services to market.  These are better because they can be more helpful in anticipating performance and spotting potential problems (and opportunities) earlier.
.
But, of course, without a clear answer to that first question above, it’s hard to know which operating metrics really matter.
.
Here’s an example. Which customers really matter to us? Without a clear answer to that, it’s hard to evaluate customer churn rates. Are we losing the customers we’re really trying to reach and serve or are we losing customers who might not care about the differentiation we’re offering? If we try to serve all customers without differentiation, we’ll soon find ourselves serving no one effectively."

.
Trechos retirados de "Strategy Made Simple - The 3 Core Strategy Questions"

Lidar com o modelo de negócio da partilha/aluguer

Faz amanhã 2 anos que usei aqui no blogue pela primeira vez o marcador "aluguer" para caracterizar os modelos de negócio baseados não na posse mas no acesso através do aluguer. BTW, em Janeiro de 2012 comecei a usar outro marcador, "partilha", para caracterizar o mesmo tema.
.
Quando penso nos desenvolvimentos, nas consequências decorrentes de uma adopção generalizada desses tipo de modelos de negócio, vejo facilmente:

"Sharing has some stark implications for business. Overall demand for first-time purchases may shrink for products that consumers can use communally. The million people carmakers sold to last year can now rent to their neighbors, becoming a de facto million new competitors. Sharing platforms also allow for almost infinite product variation. Hotels, for example, now face hundreds of unique competitors at every price point, offering everything from couches to penthouse suites. The cumulative effect may be to shrink markets and narrow margins."

Menos empregos, menos impostos, analistas ludibriados pelas estatísticas, pois continuarão a ler os números da mesma maneira apesar da realidade ter mudado, menos pegada ambiental.
.
O que raramente equaciono é esta possibilidade para as empresas:

"The real opportunity for product companies will be to evolve an array of services to increase the value that consumers (and those they share with) gain from using their products, for example, building in the ability to disengage a car’s security system via smart phone to allow private car-sharing.  This can expand the scope of interaction with consumers, moving from a narrow buy/sell transaction to a long-term relationship over the entire user experience. In the process, companies can gain more data and insight about the usage of their products.
.
Astute companies will have an opportunity to evolve from product/service vendor to trusted advisors who show consumers how to maximize the value of the products and services they are using. Trusted advisors will benefit from powerful economies of scope: the more they know about users, the more helpful they can become."

E faz todo o sentido.
.
Trechos retirados de "What the Sharing Economy Means for Business"

Dá que pensar... a sério

É impressionante...

.

Li recentemente Linchpin de Seth Godin, ouvi recentemente Tribes do mesmo autor, ando a ler The Power of Pull de Hagel e outros.

.

Todos estes autores escrevem sobre pessoas e a economia do futuro, todos eles escrevem, ainda que indirectamente, sobre o fim das empresas como as concebemos ainda hoje, todos eles escrevem sobre novas relações entre criadores, produtores e compradores e, sobretudo, sobre as novas relações que existirão entre quem vai constituir as entidades futuras, as task-forces, de criadores e produtores.

.

Há momentos o cirandar pela net levou-me a esta citação:

.

"This, I believe, is what separates the new networked thinking from industrial era doctrine. Peter Drucker said "In the knowledge economy all staff are volunteers, but our managers are trained to manage conscripts". Dan Pink pointed out that 'management' is an invented technology from the 1850s, and that "management leads to compliance, but only self-direction leads to engagement". "

.

E páro... e recordo o que li ontem em "Complexity and Management":

.

"A complex adaptive system consists of a large number of agents, each of which behaves according to its own principles of local interaction. No individual agent, or group of agents, determines the patterns of behavior that the system as a whole displays, or how those patterns evolve, and neither does anything outside of the system. Here self-organization means agents interacting locally according to their own principles, or “intentions,” in the absence of an overall blueprint for the system.
...
Kauffman’s ... shows how the dynamics of a self-organizing network consisting of a number (N) of entities is determined by the number (K) and strength (P) of the connections between these entities.
...
Kauffman is developing a notion of formative causality in which numbers and strengths of connection between entities in a system cause the patterns of behavior of that system. The patterns of behavior are not, initially anyway, caused by chance and competitive selection, on the one hand, or by an agent’s choice, on the other. No agent within the system is choosing the pattern of behavior across the system and neither is Kauffman, the simulator. Instead, that pattern emerges in the interaction between the agents, neither by chance nor by choice, but through the capacity to produce coherence that is intrinsic to interaction itself.
If this notion of causality were to apply to human organizations, its implications would be profound because it would mean that organizational change, strategic direction, is caused neither by chance nor by the choices of managers, but by the nature of interaction, relationship or cooperation between people in that organization. If one thinks along these lines, it immediately leads one to ask what managers are doing when they think they are choosing and planning their organization’s future. The notion that managers can choose what happens to their organization as a whole is so deeply ingrained that it leads to a typical response. The response is to argue that if managers cannot choose a creative outcome because it is radically unpredictable, then at least they can choose those numbers and strengths of connections, those qualities of relationship that produce the dynamics at the edge of chaos where creative change is possible. However, this misses the whole point because no agent within the system is choosing the numbers and strengths of connections for other agents in the system, or for themselves either; even if they were, this is not enough to determine the dynamic"

.

As 6 proposições por detrás de "The Power of Pull"

Outra forma de começar pelo fim!!!

"Let’s start with operations. The business operations of large Western companies have been built during the past century around the concept of “pushing” resources into the areas of greatest anticipated need.

.
Whether it’s the shelves of a retail store, the activities of a manufacturing plant, or the processes comprising human resource management, push approaches try to forecast demand and then design operations to ensure they deploy the right resources to the right place at the right time.
.
Push programs have enabled scalable, cost-effective operations. But they’ve come at a steep price: the rigid standardization and specication of activities and tasks they require. The highly specied operations manuals created by traditional push programs are in many ways antithetical to talent development, which requires workers to improvise and experiment with their working practices in order to learn and grow.
.
But what if, rather than trying to forecast demand and standardize operations so as to avoid surprises, companies were to create more exible “pull” platforms to help participants access resources whenever and wherever they are needed? What if, rather than treating exceptions (such as quality exceptions on a manufacturing assembly line) as a nuisance to be eliminated, companies welcomed them as an opportunity for participants to tinker and experiment?"

.

Trecho retirado de "The Power of Pull" de John Hagel, John Brown e Land Davison