"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.

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" 

"Tudo depende do valor (relativo) por que se vendem"

"Não querendo ser redutor, a produtividade - especialmente ao nível empresarial - não está no quanto se produz, mas antes no valor do que se produz. Servir cafés à mesa não tem necessariamente menor produtividade que fabricar BMW. Tudo depende do valor (relativo) por que se vendem [Moi ici: Tão raro encontrar este apelo à aposta no numerador da equação da produtividade] cafés à mesa. Simplisticamente, é uma questão de modelo de negócio! Talvez seja porque em Portugal se dá pouca atenção ao modelo de negócio - i.e. o valor do que se produz - que a mão de obra mais qualificada procura oportunidades na emigração. A nossa sina parece ser a falta de um tecido empresarial que valorize as competências da nova geração, tida como a mais bem formada. [Moi ici: Não sei se será a melhor maneira de colocar o tema. As empresas não existem para dar trabalho, as empresas dão trabalho como instrumento para ganhar dinheiro. O ponto é mais a dificuldade, ou a não necessidade de subir na escala de valor (satisficing) para sobreviver. Só a aposta na subida na escala de valor traz como consequência o recurso a gente com mais competência. Não para fazer caridade, mas por puro interesse próprio] Se a maior realização é encontrada no estrangeiro, o sistema educativo fez um bom serviço. Não há como o negar A questão central talvez seja outra, relacionada com avarias noutros "elevadores sociais" de origem nacional."

Trecho retirado do artigo "Elevadores nacionais" de Álvaro Nascimento e publicado ontem no JdN.

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."

 

Mais do que a redução do custo.

"A Purchase Is Always Based on Value and Never on Price! 

...

What I mean is that if a consumer perceives that they must give more than they get from a transaction, they will stop buying. Ergo, if the price is higher than the utility of the product, there will not be any exchange. In other words, the utility describes whether the value is positive. To obtain sales, one must therefore either increase the value or reduce the cost to sell the product.

...

Perceived value is the consumer’s overall assessment of the utility of a product based on the perception of what is received (benefits) and what is given (costs). This means that value is individual and personal. It is a compromise based on what you get versus what you give.

...

Price is defined as what one sacrifices (money, time, risk) to acquire a product. Price in this context is more than the money you pay for a product."

Aumentar o valor decorre de trabalhar o numerador e/ou de trabalhar o denominador. 

Há anos que escrevo aqui sobre a importância e impacte de aumentar o valor (produtividade) através do numerador, embora a acção mais comum das empresas se foque no denominador com a redução dos custos, para poder reduzir o preço. Aproveito para salientar que ao nível do denominador também se pode trabalhar o tempo e o risco.

Trechos retirados de "Pricing" de Ragnhild Silkoset.

Por que é importante ter uma estratégia.

"Willingness to pay (WTP): The maximum amount a customer is willing to pay for a company's goods or services

Price: The actual price of the goods or services

Cost: The cost of the raw materials required to produce the goods or services

Willingness to sell (WTS): The lowest amount suppliers are willing to receive for raw materials, or the minimum employees are willing to earn for their work

The difference between each component represents the value created for each stakeholder. A business strategy seeks to widen these gaps, increasing the value created by the firm’s endeavors."

Relacionar com Larreché:

WTP versus Originação de valor.

Price versus Captura de valor.

Cost versus Extracção de valor.

Trecho retirado de "What Is Business Strategy & Why Is It Important?" 

O retrato (parte III)

O retrato (parte II)

Resultados financeiros decorrem da capacidade de criar, capturar e extrair valor. Recuo a 2008 a Larreché em A originação de valor (parte I)

Imaginem o salário mínimo subir para 2000 euros por mês. 

O que é que isso significaria? Para muitas empresas significaria o fim, ponto. Por mais eficientes que sejam, ou passem a ser, nunca conseguiriam extrair e capturar valor suficiente para serem rentáveis. Por isso é que Taleb fala da incapacidade das empresas subiram na escala de valor quando chegamos a este patamar de exigência:

"Systems don’t learn because people learn individually – that’s the myth of modernity. Systems learn at the collective level by the mechanism of selection: by eliminating those elements that reduce the fitness of the whole, provided these have skin in the game"

Por isso, é que a resposta é a The "flying geese" model, ou deixem as empresas morrer!!!

Não se pode capturar nem extrair mais valor do que aquele que se pode criar. Let this phrase sink in. ⚓

Assim, a primeira preocupação deve ser a criação de valor. Para termos uma empresa sustentável, uma empresa capaz de pagar os seus custos, investir no futuro e remunerar os accionistas quanto precisamos facturar. Quantas unidades temos de produzir a que preço médio? Que cenários são razoáveis?

Que tipos de clientes querem os nossos produtos que podem ser vendidos na gama dos preços que precisamos? Que tipos de construção, que quantidades, como podemos chegar até eles, ou eles a nós? 

Aqui talvez faça sentido uma regra simples para, logo num primeiro contacto contacto, evitar o investimento de tempo em projectos que nunca darão retorno positivo: quantidade vs preço vs construção vs prazo de entrega e eventualmente altura do ano (altura com menos trabalho pode levar a praticar preços mais baixo?)

A seguir: 

• Como capturar mais valor?
• Como extrair mais valor?

Assim se perpetuam modelos de negócio ultrapassados

Neste artigo "Alfaiates dos barcos algarvios produzem à medida com apoio de fundos europeus", no Dinheiro Vivo, sublinhei: 

"a Nautiber anda há 30 anos a construir e restaurar embarcações à medida da vontade do cliente. Os Alfaiates dos barcos, como são conhecidos, sedeados em Vila Real de Santo António, são especialistas na construção de pequenos navios (entre os 9 e os 30m fora a fora, ou de comprimento, para os leigos) em fibra de vidro e praticamente não fabricam dois espécimes iguais a não ser encomendas em série para o mesmo cliente. Nos últimos anos, 90% dos que saem dos seus estaleiros para o mercado da atividade marítimo-turística têm sido construídos com o apoio de fundos europeus, como os subjacentes ao Programa Operacional CRESC ALGARVE 2020.

"Cerca de 90% das embarcações que construímos para o mercado nacional têm por trás produtos financeiros de subvenções nos diferentes quadros comunitários", revelou Rui Roque, engenheiro naval e CEO da Nautiber, em entrevista

...

"Para nós isso é fundamental", continuou Rui Roque, referindo-se a esse financiamento precioso. "Sem essa alavancagem seria muito dificil nós mantermo-nos no mercado e mantermos a nossa atividade ou, pelo menos, crescermos da maneira como crescemos.""

Demasiadas vezes sinto que os apoios europeus são usados para compensar custos ... como não recordar o trabalho de Spender nos anos 80 do século passado.

O negócio desta empresa não é o preço mais baixo, é a customização. Por isso, são conhecidos como os "Alfaiates dos barcos". Desconfio que a empresa não consegue passar um preço que traduza o valor criado para os clientes. Ou o valor criado para os clientes não é relevante (baixa originação de valor), ou é, mas a empresa não consegue capturar esse valor (captura de valor) - recordar a pirâmide de Larreche:

Os apoios neste caso, especulo, não deviam ir para as encomendas de produtos concretos, mas para o desenvolvimento da função comercial. A empresa devia transferir o seu mercado para clientes que realmente valorizam o valor da customização, e devia aprender a vender esse valor com outros argumentos para lá do preço.

Imagino que um apoio comunitário devia ser como as pinhas que usamos para começar um churrasco nas brasas, mas depois ganha vida própria e não são mais precisas. No entanto, o que acontece muitas vezes é a tal situação de assar sardinhas com fósforos:

Tão triste esta resignação:

"Sem essa alavancagem seria muito dificil nós mantermo-nos no mercado e mantermos a nossa atividade"

"the only choice in the hearts and minds of your market segment"

Neste postal escrevi:

"As regras do jogo económico estão a ser revistas e algo diferente vai emergir da confusão. Entretanto, julgo que esta previsão que se segue não andará longe do que veremos:

"In a digitally transformed economy, CP enterprises are normally better off spending money to save time than to spend time to save money. The shorter the offering’s life cycle, the more this is the case.

...

but as time displaces money as the scarcest ingredient in the economic equation, agile must come to the fore. ... so taking time out of our processes as opposed to taking money out needs to be our first (although not our only) priority."

Quantos empresários vão conseguir mudar de mindset? Deixar de lado algoritmos familiares, mas desactualizados, e abraçar outros que têm de ser construídos durante o decorrer do jogo, não é tarefa para qualquer um."

Mais empresários precisam de perceber que o importante não é o output que sai das suas empresas, mas o resultado, o valor, que os clientes conseguem gerar na sua vida ao processar esses outputs como inputs nos seus processos. Assim, que fazem a ponte para o valor, têm uma base para deixar de ver o preço como o factor mais importante para a escolha do cliente. Em vez de se concentrarem na eficiência interna, podem olhar para argumentos de venda na vida do cliente (rapidez, conveniência, custo do ciclo de vida, desempenho superior, design, ...) e abandonar o medo da competição pelo preço mais baixo. Contudo, isto implica deliberar quem são os clientes-alvo e conhecê-los:

"The price people are willing to pay for a product or service is equal to the perceived use value they anticipate receiving from their purchase or investment. Because not everyone has the same perception of what constitutes use value, not everyone is a prospective buyer of your brand or your kind of product or service—hence the recognition of market segmentation and the identification of different target audiences.

...

The profit margin is thus equal to the utility that a product or service delivers to its intended target audience. Therefore, the challenge of any business, with the exception of monopolies and oligopolies, is to add more utility to its value proposition targeting a specific audience than its immediate competitors. In other words, pursuing this strategy to become that target audience’s “obvious choice” supplier—and thus standing out as the only choice in the hearts and minds of your market segment."[Moi ici: Daí além da concorrência imperfeita, os monopólios informais ou seja "the only choice in the hearts and minds"]

Trechos retirados de "The Root Cause: Rethink Your Approach to Solving Stubborn Enterprise-Wide Problems" de Hans Norden.

"become that target audience’s “obvious choice” supplier"

Mais um desfile de temas habituais neste blogue: eficientismo, objectivos versus consequências, obliquidade, originação de valor, clientes-alvo, monopólios informais.

"There seems to be consensus that the purpose of a business is to make money. In other words, success is equated with money. Therefore, everything is given a price tag including people, humanity, health, safety, organizational culture, work climate, values, morality, ethics, pride of workmanship, and the environment.

Consequently, based on theories of operational efficiency, decisions are reduced to an analytic process of determining which solution is economic and which is uneconomic. The one that costs less wins.

...

No one denies the necessity for a commercial enterprise to pursue revenue and a healthy profit margin. The criticism against “making money” is that it should not be professed as the purpose of a business system.

Rather, earning a profit margin is not the purpose of a business but a “prerequisite” for operating a sustainable business. Please do not disregard this distinction between purpose and prerequisite as a matter of semantics, for it is nothing of the sort. Profits are the applause for a job well done, and receiving a standing ovation is the cry for an encore. It is a show of being in demand; it is the proof of a success!

...

The price people are willing to pay for a product or service is equal to the perceived use value they anticipate receiving from their purchase or investment. Because not everyone has the same perception of what constitutes use value, not everyone is a prospective buyer of your brand or your kind of product or service—hence the recognition of market segmentation and the identification of different target audiences.

Rather than creating use value similar to one’s competitors, different expressions of use value can be created by changing the business’s transformation process.

...

The profit margin is thus equal to the utility that a product or service delivers to its intended target audience. Therefore, the challenge of any business, with the exception of monopolies and oligopolies, is to add more utility to its value proposition targeting a specific audience than its immediate competitors. In other words, pursuing this strategy to become that target audience’s “obvious choice” supplier—and thus standing out as the only choice in the hearts and minds of your market segment."

Trecho retirado de "The Root Cause: Rethink Your Approach to Solving Stubborn Enterprise-Wide Problems" de Hans Norden

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"

O tema do pricing

O tema do pricing está sempre em cima da minha mesa. Por isso, alguns sublinhados de "How To Identify And Adopt Your Ideal Pricing Strategy":

"1. Avoid Commoditizing Your Product Or Service

The key to a smart pricing strategy is to avoid commoditizing your product or service.

...

2. Define Your Target Customers' Needs [Moi ici: Um clássico!]

Entrepreneurs are notorious for leaving money on the table. Pricing always follows the Pareto Principle, with an ever-smaller percentage of customers willing to spend an ever-increasing amount of money with your company. Start with finding the 20% of your existing customers that will spend more money with you. Then, define their needs and offer a premium option.

...

4. Don't Lower Your Value

Know your own worth and don't be afraid to charge accordingly. Do not lower your value just because a lead says you should.

...

5. Go After Quality Versus Quantity

Know your customer and don’t be scared to go after quality versus quantity.

...

12. Make Their Investments Worthwhile

Whatever your ultimate pricing structure is, make sure you position your products, services and company overall to not be in a race to the bottom. No matter how commoditized your offering might seem or actually be, you can wrap a value-added set of features, services and approaches around them to make paying a premium worthwhile."

"what gets measured is everything"

"Why don't organizations immediately leap at opportunities to play the Ends Game? [Moi ici: Aqui Ends Game significa trabalhar com os outcomes do cliente e não com os outputs da empresa] Why doesn't an organization, knowing that eliminating waste unlocks market potential, act proactively to shake up the prevailing revenue model in its industry, trying to reach a better alignment with the value customers actually derive in an exchange?

All too often, the remarkable explanation is that such a company is "blinded" by the quality of the products and services it proudly brings to market. This is what we refer to as the quality paradox. At some point, the relentless pursuit of quality makes it almost unimaginable to generate revenue from anything other than the sale of one's offerings. Said differently, when a company obsessively directs its efforts toward continuously innovating its products and services, it risks becoming accountable to its offering rather than to its customers.

...

One probable cause of the quality paradox is surrogation, a concept made popular by Willie Choi, Gary Hecht, and William Tayler in a research article published in 2012. Put in its simplest terms, surrogation occurs when an individual or institution becomes so keenly focused on improving the measure of an underlying construct of interest that it reaches a point where the measure replaces the construct entirely. Surrogation warps the intent behind the old management cliché about "what gets measured, gets done" into something like "what gets measured is everything." 

Trechos retirados de "The ends game : how smart companies stop selling products and start delivering value" de Marco Bertini e Oded Koenigsberg. 

Definir os resultados (outcomes)

A série inicial aqui:

De "Think “input before output”" até "Think “outcome before output”". 

Depois, " But they matter only as means to the ends that people seek".

Concentremos a atenção nos outcomes:

"The starting point, clearly, is defining "outcome" in the organization. From our perspective, there are four conditions that jointly determine whether a given outcome is suitable as the basis for a revenue model. First, the outcome must be meaningful-and therefore valuable-to customers. This point is obvious, yet many businesses still fall into the tempting trap of focusing on product or service attributes that they have an inherent interest or competitive advantage in, yet these attributes matter little to those who buy. Claims about meaningful outcomes which are the cornerstones of a firm's value proposition-could be objective or highly subjective, such as "enjoyment" in the case of Teatreneu. 

Second, the outcome must be measurable using one or more parameters that are understood and accepted by the organization and its customers. The organization must be able to quantify and express its performance claims in a manner that can form the basis of the exchange with customers. Customers must be able to verify the performance claims. Without these inputs, customers are exposed to possible access, consumption, and performance waste. In business markets, for example, perhaps the most basic outcome is that a particular product or service improves the profitability of customers, either by lowering their costs, increasing their revenue, or a combination of the two. But if profitability cannot be measured directly, then organizations must search for a parameter that can be observed. 

...

Third, the measurement of the outcome must be robust, in the sense that the parameter is a faithful representation of the underlying outcome that interests the organization.

...

Finally, the measurement must be reliable, in the sense that neither customers nor a third party can tamper with it. That is, customers should not have the means to "fake" performance level that is not accurate in order to derive a benefit."

Esta abordagem dos "outcomes" fará confusão a muita gente.

Continua.

Customers, value and revenue

"What is the problem? Why is commerce still so wasteful? In our mind, the issue is not that customer focus is somehow flawed or broken. To the contrary, the issue is that most organizations fail to take the promise of customer focus to its logical conclusion. That is, the typical company today may well obsess over customers when it comes to designing offerings and positioning them in the market. In fact, we struggle to find a business that doesn't praise its customers, and boast of the attention paid to them, on its corporate website. But then the same company pays hardly any attention to customers when it decides how to earn revenue from them. This lapse shrinks the opportunity in the market.

...

John Wanamaker invented the price tag in 1861.

...

Price tags quickly became the norm because they greatly facilitated the ongoing push for customer focus in production, distribution, and communication.

...

Accordingly, organizations gradually shifted their pricing decisions away from customers and what they value, which was the focus of haggling, to the one piece of information they could trust and readily collect: information on the cost of making an offering and bringing it to market.

In essence, prices became a mere bystander in a company's efforts to build closer ties with customers. Rather than considering how the process of generating revenue could assist in this endeavor, the company concerned itself with how to cover its costs and minimize any interference. The price tag went along for the ride, treated as a tactical afterthought, but this in turn cemented the idea that a company's only logical move is to earn revenue from selling the "stuff" it makes."

Trechos retirados de "The ends game : how smart companies stop selling products and start delivering value" de Marco Bertini e Oded Koenigsberg.   

"aligns the way it earns revenue with the way customers derive value"

"There are three critical checkpoints, if you will. First, customers have to access the solutions that firms bring to market. Clearly, customers cannot derive value if they are blocked, financially or physically, from reaching the products and services that are intended to address their needs and wants. Second, conditional on access, customers have to consume these products and services. Again, customers cannot derive value unless they actually experience or make use of the solution offered by a firm. Third, conditional on access and consumption, the product or service has to perform as customers expect-that is, it has to solve the need or want satisfactorily.

We claim that an exchange is inefficient [Moi ici: Julgo que a palavra ineficácia aqui ficava bem melhor] when customers experience friction at any one or more of these checkpoints."

"Clearly, the more an organization aligns the way it earns revenue with the way customers derive value - that is, the more responsibility for the three checkpoints of access, consumption, and performance it takes on-the "leaner" (as in more efficient, less wasteful) the exchange between the two becomes. ... market potential converts into actual market value as the organization brings its revenue model increasingly into line with the "ends" sought by customers."

Na sequência de Outcomes em vez do que se produz

Trechos retirados de "The ends game : how smart companies stop selling products and start delivering value" de Marco Bertini e Oded Koenigsberg.  

"esta obsessão dos cêntimos"

No livro, "Strategy Pathfinder" encontrei esta imagem:

Ainda acrescentaria algumas entidades a este ecossistema. Por exemplo, os influenciadores, ou os prescritores.

Voltei a recordar-me desta imagem ao ler, "Fábricas cortam intermediários para chegar ao consumidor", um tema já tratado recentemente em "É preciso trabalhar na originação de valor.". Uma evolução positiva, mas que me deixa com algumas reticências. Sorrio porque esta gente está a seguir um conselho antigo deste blogue, "Outra forma de David bater Golias". 

No entanto, o tema que queria sublinhar neste postal é outro:

"“Como conseguimos mais do que vender produtos, vender conceitos, estatuto. Qualquer coisa mais que nos preencha, além do produto. E não tenhamos medo de falar do preço. Em Portugal há sempre um bicho papão quando chegamos a esse momento. Se andamos com esta obsessão dos cêntimos, não vamos sair do mesmo lugar. Portugal vive aprisionado no preço”, desabafa."

Sim, a concentração no denominador, na eficiência, no custo, em vez da concentração no numerador, no valor:

Enquanto esta revolução mental não for feita por uma massa crítica ...

BTW, não esquecer o conselho dos velhos estóicos, nunca apostar mais do que se pode perder sem arruinar o empreendimento, "Tail risks can screw you up".

Produtividade é muito mais do que organização

“Comparando agora Portugal com a EU-14, o deficit de produtividade aumenta à medida que os produtos ou serviços são menos básicos e é mais possível fugir ao trabalho manual através da organização. [Moi ici: Come on, é muito mais do que organização. O erro é comparar produtividades e pensar que estamos a comparar numeradores iguais e, portanto, que as diferenças decorrem de denominadores diferentes. Um erro crasso!!!] 

Por exemplo nos metais básicos a produtividade portuguesa é 74% da dinamarquesa. Mas já nos produtos fabricados de metais é 40%. [Moi ici: Quando comparamos produtos básicos, comparamos produtos suficientemente parecidos. Aqui a questão da organização, da diferença no denominador, explicará parte da diferença. Contudo, nos produtos fabricados isso já não é suficiente porque sendo os produtos diferentes, o numerador é bem diferente] 

Face à Áustria, nos metais básicos a nossa produtividade é 50% e de apenas 33% nos produtos metálicos fabricados. As percentagens repetem-se face a outros países: EUA, 42% e 31%; ou Suécia, 54% e 37%, respectivamente.

Como se repetem em outras indústrias. Por exemplo na indústria farmacêutica (onde além dos genéricos e subcontratação de fabricação de químicos, há os medicamentos de marca) a produtividade de Israel é 2,6 vezes a nossa e a da Irlanda 7,5 vezes (já corrigida para retirar o efeito das multinacionais que usam a Irlanda apenas por razes fiscais).

Ou seja, à medida que os sectores são menos intensivos em trabalho (onde os ganhos de produtividade são mais difíceis) e mais intensivos em know-how, a produtividade portuguesa "derrapa" crescentemente face à Europeia.”

Primeiro, dois exemplos da metalomecânica, a Vipp dinamarquesa e a Marlin Steel americana. Exemplos que ilustram o que está em causa com casos concretos. Como escrevi em 2006:

"Na semana passada, ao procurar explicar o conceito de produtividade a um grupo de operários, um deles saiu-se com este exemplo: "O que está a dizer é que se pegarmos num metro quadrado de chapa e o utilizarmos para fazer um guarda-lamas de uma motorizada, teremos mais rendimento do que se o utilizarmos para fazer pás, ou enxadas." Eloquente!!!"

Segundo, alguns postais que ajudam a explicar estas diferenças de produtividade:

• Quando o sol se levanta será bom que corras (Junho de 2006)

Podemos vender trigo, ou vender farinha, ou vender bolos, ou organizar festas de aniversário com palhaços e tudo. Subindo na escala de valor, aumentamos a produtividade.

• Pregarás o Evangelho do Valor (Março de 2006)

 Aumenta-se muito mais a margem com o aumento de 1% no preço do que a reduzir 1% o custo fixo ou o custo variável.

Como é que se aumentam os preços sem perder clientes? Subindo na escala de valor, trabalhando na willingness to pay (WTP) dos clientes. O erro é trabalharmos para o output da nossa organização em vez de trabalhar para o outcome do cliente.(Abril de 2020)

• A originação de valor (parte I) (Outubro de 2008)

A típica empresa portuguesa está no estágio da extracção de valor. O mais básico de todos.

• Produtividade é muito mais do que organização, recordar aos engenheiros "Actualizem o documento por favor." (Março de 2009)

Trecho retirado de "Qual o antónimo de Luxemburgo?" publicado no semanário Vida Económica de 16 de Julho de 2021.

"Lost in translation"

"A strategic initiative is worthwhile only if it does one or more of the following: creates value for customers by raising their willingness to pay, creates value for employees by making work more attractive, or creates value for suppliers by reducing their operating cost.

...

I believe that strategic management faces an attractive, back-to-basics opportunity. By simplifying strategy—by selecting fewer initiatives with greater impact—we can make it more powerful. In this article, I describe an easy-to-use framework called value-based strategy, which gives executives a common language for evaluating strategic initiatives and developing a holistic view of the many activities taking place within their organizations."

Estratégia ...

Valor (clientes-alvo)

Iniciativas (projectos de transformação) ...

Tudo coisas que escasseiam nas PMEs... e são tão preciosas e necessárias. 

Sexta-feira passada dei uma formação via internet (um estónio, uma alemã, um irlandês, e um senegalês). Por duas ou três vezes ... usávamos as mesmas palavras, mas queríamos dizer coisas diferentes. 

Como falar em estratégia, valor e iniciativas com PMEs e elas perceberem: cancro, preço e concorrentes, e lista de tarefas.

Trechos retirados de "Eliminate Strategic Overload". Um artigo com muito que se lhe diga, mas para já apenas esta preocupação.