"pitching a win-win-win “story”

Três ideias fundamentais retiradas do primeiro capítulo do livro SMASH: Using Market Shaping to Design New Strategies for Innovation, Value Creation, and Growth de Kaj Storbacka e Suvi Nenonen. 

Os mercados são mais do que para trocar valor, também servem para co-criar valor:

"The Function of a Market System Is Exchange, for the Purpose of Value Creation 

Specifically, markets are CASs of exchange, for the creation of value. And we do need to be very specific about that. Common definitions which include exchange but omit use-value and the value creation aspect sound curiously zero-sum, as though the same resource is simply being shuffled around the system in a grand version of the children’s birthday game pass-the-parcel.

...

Just as markets divide into supply and demand, so does value divide into exchange value to the supplier and use value to the customer/user. In a firm-focused, production-centric view such as the traditional business strategy approach, value too easily comes to mean what is really only exchange value - the value to the producer or seller - or, worse still, the price.

…

A user will willingly pay a higher price if she can get more use value out of the product. So use value should be integral to the firm’s market view, and any way to increase use value offers potential gains in exchange value right back. This is where co-creation comes in. The firm’s product is only one component in the customer’s use value."

Os mercados não são um dado, são uma variável:

"Markets Are Socially Constructed, so You Can Reconstruct Them, too

Markets are social systems.

…

The key point for us is that, being socially constructed, markets can be consciously reconstructed. Because humans can be persuaded, incentivized or, where laws or sheer market power are involved, coerced by other humans, the firm has a means of influencing the human agents and their creations. This is how you can turn social reconstruction to your advantage. Fundamentally, viewing markets as shapeable systems suggests that opportunities are not precursors of strategy; rather they are outcomes of deliberate efforts to shape markets. ... We should not make strategy for a company - we should make strategy for the system. [Moi ici: Isto é tão bom!!! Urdir um ecossistema. Daqui: "

Uma empresa que trabalha com o BSC começa por determinar quem são os clientes-alvo! Uma empresa que trabalha com o BSC e comigo, para além dos clientes-alvo tem também de determinar qual é o ecossistema da procura."] Furthermore, strategy ought not to be viewed as winning a zero-sum game; nor ought the focus to be on competing. On the contrary, it should clarify how the company can engage in collaborative activities with market actors (suppliers, customers, and partners) in order to improve the creation of the use value. Companies that can promise improved value creation for several actors simultaneously are the ones most likely to be successful in shaping their respective markets.

The job of the market leader is not to increase own market share at the expense of others, but rather about creating a positive sum game where many market actors grow the market together.[Moi ici: Maximizar o valor para todos os que estão no ecossistema]

…

The pay-off to all the theory above is that it enables you to become a market shaper.

...

“What is this market shaping that you are so worked up about?”

…

Changing the definition of markets from mere exchange mechanisms to a system fostering value creation is not just semantics or purely academic debate. Think about the implications. We’re claiming that, like any other human-made systems, market systems can be changed by companies, governments, and even singular individuals" 

 

Os mercados podem ser trabalhados e manuseados:

"Building on the theoretical insight that, unlike poets, markets are not only born but also made, this strategy takes a new product or service and aims to consciously attract or build the elements of a fully functioning market around it.

…

What are the main ingredients for shaping markets? This is a question that it takes the rest of the book to answer fully. There is no single formula and no linear progression of steps. It’s about a continuous cycle. And there’s a degree of art to it as well as science. Broadly though, market shaping begins with re-focusing your business definition, which also acts as your frame on the market, so that you can see the rich reality of your market system and training it on the slice of the universe of possible markets which you want to start with. You then need to envisage a new shape for that market system that would benefit your firm more, by capturing a share of extra use value you’ll help create (in other words, co-create) for customers. Whichever other players it requires to effect the change, you’ll need to appeal to them by offering a share in the value creation as well. This involves pitching a win-win-win “story” or narrative about your proposed new shape. [Moi ici: Há anos que prego isto. Por exemplo: "Ganhar-ganhar-ganhar porque passa por orquestrar uma relação que traga vantagens não só à clássica interacção diádica, cliente-fornecedor, mas também a outras combinações"] And you’ll need to time the whole intervention to strike when the market is “hot” and malleable.

…

Which firms could practice market shaping? … You don’t need market power in the traditional sense of monopolies and oligopolies. In fact, being big can hinder creative thinking of the kind a new strategy requires if the great idea gets tangled up in the red tape of internal processes. However, you need a good idea _ a vision about how to shape your market into a better re-incarnation of that market - because market shaping works only if you are truly able to improve the market. And remember, “improving” means improvement to others as well, not just to you."

"acelerador de cambios que ya estaban en marcha"

Não me canso de pensar e de chocar com esta frase:

"El coronavirus actúa como acelerador de cambios que ya estaban en marcha..."

Volto a ela na sequência de "Companies must strengthen their buffers against shocks":

"The Covid-19 outbreak has exposed the thin margins on which much of global business runs. Highly indebted companies, working from lean inventory, supported by just-in-time supply chains and staffed by short-term contractors, have borne the brunt of the sudden blow. They will now suffer the rolling, longer-term impact of its unpredictable consequences. Too late, many executives and owners have realised that by pursuing the holy grail of ever greater efficiency, they sacrificed robustness, resilience and effectiveness. In many cases, they will turn out to have sacrificed the business itself."

O que tem sido este blogue senão um constante alerta para a sabedoria nabateia e para a doença anglo-saxónica, para a paranóia da eficiência e do denominador em vez da eficácia. Tudo aqui neste postal recente, por exemplo.

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)

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 VII)

Parte I, parte II, parte III, parte IV, parte V e parte VI.

"RULE #7: KNOW WHAT BUSINESS YOU’RE IN, AND IT’S PROBABLY NOT WHAT YOU THINK.
...
The core thing you are selling is the real value you can bring to a customer who craves your offering.
...
The way you deliver it is secondary. Too often people focus on that secondary aspect. They’re in the bakery business, or they are a supermarket supplier. Don’t be locked into the secondary value-capture end of your business. Focus, instead, on the core value you create and be quite experimental and creative about how to capture that value.
...
Change your value capture constantly. Change your value creation slowly.
...
Value capture is just a tool, and you should use whichever tool is quickest and easiest. Value creation, though, is the core of your business. Treasure it, tend it, change it only quite slowly and deliberately."

"Customer Value Needs to Be Formally Managed" (parte I)

Gosto muito de ler Stephan Liozu. Este artigo, "Customer Value Is Not Just Created, It Is Formally Managed" de Stephan Liozu e publicado no Journal of Creating Value,  faz jus à tradição e representa um bom resumo do que procuro transmitir às empresas em que trabalho para subir na escala de valor.

"What value is depends on who it is created for and who is in charge of the value creation process. Three theoretical positions exist with three diverging scholarly views on what value means and who value is created for: resource-based view of the firm, value exchange and relationship value.
.
Value Creation or Value Capture?
There is also lots of confusion among scholars and practitioners between the concepts of value creation and value capture.
...
Value creation and value capture are, therefore, different concepts
...
the value that a seller creates needs to be quantified in financial terms to be exchanged, shared with and captured from customers.
...
Customer Value Needs to Be Formally Managed
...
We posit that, like any process, customer value needs to be formally and intentionally managed. Customer value management includes three steps that form a sequence that cannot be broken

All three steps require a formal process and the development of strong capabilities. The process begins with value creation activities designed for and with customers. Generally speaking, these activities or initiatives are managed by innovation and marketing teams with the support of business development and sales teams in the field. [Moi ici: Sorri ao ler isto. Estou sempre a pregar que para subir na escala de valor é preciso ter uma equipa unida em torno do marketing, comercial e inovação/desenvolvimento] During this first step, value for the customer is created but can also be co-created as partnerships and collaborative projects. In both instances, customer value is identified and potentially created. It is not yet extracted or captured. Following this first step, marketing and pricing teams need to zoom in on the second step of the value management process, which is value quantification.
Value quantification is an essential step in the process and is most often neglected or forgotten. The goal in this step is to assess and quantify the value potentially created for the customer. [Moi ici: Recordar Total Value Ownership] This external quantification process, in the form of value-in-use analysis, total-cost-of ownership calculations, life-cycle costing models or customer value models, is essential to calculating the value pool generated by a supplier and potentially shared with customers.
.
This, of course, requires testing and validation with the customer that value is indeed created and eventually delivered. Because one cannot capture something which is not measured, value  quantification has received increased attention in scholarly and practitioner publications in the past 24 months. After the customer value pool is clearly calculated, the last step of the value management process is value capture. At this stage, prices are set within the value pool in combination with cost and competition information. Pricing and marketing teams can, therefore, decide how much value can be captured through price premiums versus competition and how much value can be shared with customers. That process of sharing and exchanging happens during the value capture process through the hard work of value-based selling and negotiation for value.
.
In summary, value for customers is first created, then quantified using formal methods, then captured through price-setting and price-getting activities. This value management process is essential to a firm’s go-to-market strategy. It involves all the key players and functions of such a strategy, beginning with innovation teams and ending with sales teams,

Continua.

Value-based selling (parte II)

Parte I.

As vendas deviam ser transformadas, por quem vende, num investimento para quem compra.
No b2b se o cliente pagar x quanto vai ganhar, y, por escolher uma certa opção A em detrimento de uma certa opção B?
No b2c se o cliente pagar x que experiência vai poder viver se escolher por uma certa opção A em detrimento de uma certa opção B?

"In b2b market, both the supplier (when offering their products/solutions) and the buyer (when choosing among alternative offers) aim at increasing their own value (NPV). Both the supplier and the customer can increase their values by eight dimensions that are called financial value drivers.
1. Sales increase. Additional sales increase (ceteris paribus) value.
…
2. Operating profit margin. Bigger operating profit margin increases (ceteris paribus) value.
…
3. Tax rate. Reduction of tax paid increases (ceteris paribus) value.
.
4. Effectiveness of working capital investment. Working capital equals current assets (cash, accounts receivable and inventory) minus accounts payable. The effectiveness of working capital investment can be measured as a relation between operating profit, cash frozen in accounts receivable, and inventory (the bigger the relation, the better) or determined by the time of outflows and inflows of cash (the shorter time between cash payments for buying parts and materials, and cash inflows from sales, the better).
.
5. Effectiveness of fixed asset investment. The improvement of relation of operating profit to cash frozen in fixed assets increases (ceteris paribus) value.
.
6. Cost of capital. Smaller cash paid by company to debtors (interest rate) and the owners (return) for their capital increases (ceteris paribus) value.
.
7. Value creation period. The longer a business can generate cash on the expected level (ceteris paribus), the bigger value.
.
8. Launching an additional business unit (new product, additional source of value) increases (ceteris paribus) value.
…
VP is defined as translating the differentiating feature (design attribute) of an offering into monetary impact on customer's business value in value-based selling.
…
tell the story about the offer's impact on customer's business operating profit margin (by reducing one of operating costs), so about one of eight financial value drivers.
…
The "product differentiating feature/design attribute" is the real cause of the impact on the customer's both non-financial and financial value driver (s). VP translates the offer's feature (as a cause) into quantified non-financial and financial effects. Thirdly, the differential impact of the offer on the customer's business value justifies its higher price that is presented as an investment for the customer. The supplier avoids price competition this way."

Trechos de "Where is value in b2b value proposition? The concept of value in research on selling, innovation management and NPD" de Ryszard Kłeczek, publicado em Wroclaw University of Economics and Business em Abril de 2018:

Value-based selling (parte I)

Uma das minhas paixões é o value-based selling. Gostei particularmente deste artigo "Where is value in b2b value proposition? The concept of value in research on selling, innovation management and NPD" de Ryszard Kłeczek, publicado em Wroclaw University of Economics and Business em Abril de 2018:

"(1) the VP as the device for knowledge transfer in both sales (value-based selling) and new product development processes in the company, (2) reinterprets results of current research (the research revealed some scope of financial value drives used in real business cases: some value drivers were used in crafting VPs,
...
A value proposition (VP) is a statement that translates the features (design attributes) of supplier offering into monetary impact on customer business value, for instance: "feature X translates into energy saving of 1000 kWh and energy costs of 225 per year" or "feature Y translates into maintenance time reduction by 200 hours and, consequently, maintenance cost of 6000 per year".
...
VP is a device that: (1) enhances knowledge transfer between actors that collaborate in value creation, (2) overcomes the weaknesses of vague promises like "cost reductions" or "increased efficiency", and traditional concepts like „perceived customer benefits” and "product quality" in explaining b2b relations, (3) creates an alternative for developing and selling the components at prices allowable (by customer) and enables negotiation of differentiated (high) prices for differentiating impact on customer business value.
...
VP is crafted iteratively by actors collaborating in value creation processes on both supplier and customer side.
...
VP in b2b value-based selling. How to communicate the current offer's impact on customer business value and get the differentiated price?...
VP concept to explain the sales process in b2b settings. The managerial question here is how to change the selling process from selling the offer's functionalities into selling its impact on customer business value to get the appropriately high price (to show the price as investment for the customer's business). ... the VP, crafted and communicated by the salesperson, as the supplier's offer's impact on the customer's business value expressed in monetary terms (not in functional terms only), compared with the next-best alternative for the customer (the VP is understood as a managerial accounting device that enables knowledge transfer between salespeople and the customer). The salesperson crafts the VP based on identified value drivers for adding substantial value to the customer's business. Because customers are sometimes unaware of, or unable to explain their value increase potential, understanding customer needs (as they are articulated by customer) is not enough to craft the value proposition.
.
Understanding the customer's business model is required as well. Value-based (value proposition) selling converges upon finding and offering the best long-term solution for the customer's business, which shifts the focus of purchasing from looking for the lowest price to making business investment decisions."

Continua.

"Demonstrating and Documenting Superior Value"

Li "Value Merchants: Demonstrating and Documenting Superior Value in Business Markets" de James C. Anderson, Nirmalya Kumar e James A. Narus em 2008 e aqui no blogue meti-o na categoria:

"Livros que desapontaram (se calhar sou eu que ainda não passei pelas experiências de vida que me ensinarão a apreciá-los devidamente)"

Confirma-se. Nunca é tarde para aprender, às vezes é demasiado cedo. Recomecei a sua leitura e é um confirmar de coisas que entretanto aprendi a avlorizar ao longo dos anos:

"To combat price concessions and commoditization pressures, firms have to fundamentally reexamine their philosophy of doing business and how they put it into practice. Suppliers must adopt a philosophy of doing business based on demonstrated and documented superior value and implement that philosophy using an approach we call customer value management. Customer value management is a progressive, practical approach to business markets that, in its essence, has two basic goals:
.
1. Deliver superior value to targeted market segments and customer firms 2. Get an equitable return on the value delivered
...
Demonstrating and Documenting Superior Value
Increasingly, to get an equitable or fair return, suppliers must be able to persuasively demonstrate and document the superior value their offerings deliver to customers. By "demonstrate," we mean showing prospective customers convincingly beforehand what cost savings or added value they can expect from using the supplier's offering relative to the next-best alternative.
...
Value case histories are written accounts that document the cost savings or added value that reference customers have received from using a supplier's market offering.
...
Demonstrating superior value is necessary, but it is no longer enough to become a best-practice company in today's business markets. Suppliers also must document the cost savings and incremental profits that offerings have delivered to customers. Thus, suppliers work with their customers to define the measures on which they will track the cost savings or incremental profit produced and then, after a suitable period of time, work with customer managers to substantiate the results. Documenting the superior value delivered to customers provides four powerful benefits to suppliers. First, it enhances the credibility of the value demonstrations for their offerings because customer managers know that the supplier is willing to return later to document the value received. Second, documenting enables customer managers to get credit for the cost savings and incremental profit produced. Third, documenting enables suppliers to create value case histories and other materials for use in marketing communications to persuasively convey to prospective customers the value they, too, might obtain from the supplier's offering. Finally, by comparing the value actually delivered with the value claimed in the demonstration and regressing these differences on customer descriptors, documenting enables suppliers to further refine their understanding of how their offerings deliver the greatest value."

Value - where, how, who, when

"The fact that customers and firms have different value-creating processes implies value is created in different domains and is no longer entirely in the firm’s control. Managers are increasingly aware of the need to understand customers’ roles in firms’ activities, such as those evident in service process blueprinting or customer journeys. The increasing roles of customer participation amplifies the need tounderstanding how customers orchestrate value.
...
Rather than the components of a service being absolute, they are treated as relative to alternative services and evaluated against an individual reference point. In other words, aspects beyond the exchange, product, service or interaction may constitute value as experienced by the customer. Sometimes value elements are invisible to the firm and independent of the firm. Moreover, value is not only inherent in the offering itself but also in elements only indirectly related to a specific service provider. In other words, customer value can be conceptualized as including both customer-defined and relativistic aspects with value-adding or value-decreasing characteristics.
.
Where is value created? Researchers suggest that value is formed in three domains: in the company’s world through value-in-exchange; through co-creation through customer-company interactions, that is, joint value creation; and in the customers’ world through value-in-use, otherwise known as independent value creation. Value arises in customers’ internal and external contexts based on both individual and collective elements. Hence, value is not only based on customers’ experiences with provider-created elements but can emerge outside the domain of the service provider in the customer’s world. We will now turn to a discussion of how value is created, who creates value, and when value created.
.
How is value created? As mentioned, value is seen as inherent in the interaction between the customer and provider, but value also emerges through interactions with other customers. Recognizing the impact of other customers on value formation, we acknowledge that value is created based on individual and communal experiences.
.
Who creates value? Value co-creation research highlights the important contributions of the customer to the value creation process. Recently there has been a shift away from dyadic value creation to a focus on networks and systems, to the interaction among multiple actors, and more recently to ecosystems. Despite this, practitioner and researcher attention to communal and networked value is low. The lack of attention to the communal influence of customers on value is problematic, as different forms of communities increasingly network and link customers and customer-to-customer interactions are increasingly relevant sources of value.
.
When is value created? Classic service research focuses on service encounters which implies that value is created solely within the service interaction. In contrast, a relationship marketing perspective emphasizes a longer timeframe that includes both before and after purchase. Irrespective of these differences in length, the underlying backdrop is the customers’ experience of the time of the service process. More recently, a broader notion of time has been called for that includes consideration of the past, present, and the future of the customer, not just the service process. Accepting that value is created not only in the interaction between the customer and the provider (and service system) extends the time-frame of value to the cumulated reality as experienced by the customer."

Trechos retirados de "Strategies for creating value through individual and collective customer experiences" de Kristina Heinonen, Colin Campbell e Sarah Lord Ferguson, publicado por Business Horizons 2018.

"Offering as input"

A continuar a minha leitura de "Prime movers" de Rafel Martinez e Johan Wallin apanhei esta figura:

Como não sorrir ao encontrar naquele eixo das ordenadas:

• Offering as output
• Offering as input

Recordar:

• Foco do output para o input

Acerca da co-criação de valor

"In co-productive terms, value is manifested thanks to the 'enabling' which the supplier brings to the customer's own value creating activity. By 'enabling' we mean 'supporting', or 'making possible'.[Moi ici: Tudo a ver com o uso da oferta como um input a ser processado pelo cliente na sua vida. A mesma oferta é processada por diferentes tipos de clientes de diferentes maneiras e, por isso, terá valores diferentes para cada tipo de clientes. Se a mesma oferta está disponível no mesmo local para todos os tipos de clientes, alguns vão considerar a oferta como demasiado cara, ou como suspeitosamente barata. Admitindo que possa fazer sentido trabalhar para mais do que um tipo de cliente, talvez faça sentido usar marcas diferentes, ainda que o 'hardware' seja o mesmo, para enviar diferentes mensagens e sinais para diferentes tipos de clientes]
...
Rather than being objective or subjective, interactive value is in fact, `actual'. It is 'actual' in the sense that it requires action on the part of both the customer, and his or her customers, and the supplier for the value to become (actually) possible. Once the actions take place, they become facts. Actual value is thus dependent on 'action' and interaction, which upon taking place 'actually', becomes 'factual'. With this understanding of customer valuation, the notion of 'end customer' — a customer at the end of a value chain that passively receives the value produced by the supplier — has lost its significance. [Moi ici: Isto não invalida que certos tipos de clientes não saibam, ou não precisem, ou não queiram criar mais valor com uma oferta. Porque a noção de valor não é a do produtor, mas a daquele que vai operar a oferta com um fim em vista. Como comprar azeite virgem extra de marca de nicho, para depois só o usar para fazer refogados] Somebody buys an offering, seeking to co-create value with others, for themself, for the other, and/or for third parties. We buy in order to create value, with others or in relationship to them. And we seek value-creating opportunities, which guide much of our buying. Understanding these value-creating opportunities for one's customers becomes the true challenge for any seller. [Moi ici: O vendedor pode fazer o papel de consultor, de formador do cliente, ajudando-o a perceber como uma determinada oferta pode fazer mais sentido e ser mais útil para a criação de valor percebido realmente como tal] The interface between one's customers and their own different customers, establishes the value that one's customers are seeking to produce. It is the supplier's role of actually helping customers to create value (with their counterparts) that convinces a customer to buy from that supplier. [Moi ici: A importância de ir para além da relação diádica e perceber o ecossistema do negócio]
...
The connotations that a given interaction holds for us, how we value it, are subjected to the particulars of the situation in which the interaction takes place. ... Offerings are thus valued 'contingently', that is, depending on which they are connected.
...
The offering consequently is not something that exists, independently, in itself. It both resulted from and contributes to a bundle of activities that enable the buyer to perform his or her activities in a different way than if the offering had not been bought. It is the outcome of these intended activities that creates some form of satisfaction for the buyer.
...
Facilitating customer value creation is, within the co-productive point of view, the raison d'être for a firm. This perspective shifts the focus of strategic attention from actor or 'activity' to interaction."
...
What competes is the offering, not the actor. Offerings are the output produced by one (or several) actor(s) creating value — the `producer' or 'supplier' — that becomes an input to another actor (or actors) creating value — the 'customer'....Offerings are thus both outputs and inputs. Acknowledging and incorporating the specific individual requirements of each customer implies that customers cannot be simply treated en masse as anonymous, 'average', de-personalized 'product markets'. Customer requirements can be better understood by knowing how each customer is producing value for themself and in turn, for their customers. A company's offering have value to the degree that customers can use them as inputs to leverage their own value creation with their own counterparts."

TRechos retirados de "Prime Movers" de Rafael Ramirez e Johan Wallin. 

Foco do output para o input

Recordar esta imagem, acerca do ciclo de vida de um rolamento desde que é vendido, daqui:

Resolvi encomendar um daqueles livros em 2ª mão que custam 0,01€ com mais 5€ de portes. Desta feita foi  "Prime Movers" de Rafael Ramirez e Johan Wallin. Um livro de 1998.

Um livro que ás vezes me faz lembrar uma leitura dos tempos do ensino secundário em que me pus a ler S. Tomás Aquino. Achei que ia ser uma seca, mas fiquei admirado por encontrar uma linguagem simples para expor alguns problemas filosóficos.

Ramirez e Wallin usam um vocabulário que hoje já está ultrapassado, mas conseguem ser perceptíveis e têm o mesmo efeito surpresa de ler um trabalho seminal. Os autores estão com algo verdadeiramente novo, não precisam de complicar para parecerem mais importantes.

Um livro começa com o exemplo da Xerox. Uma empresa que tinham um modelo de negócio baseado numa patente. O modelo era tão bem sucedido que a certa altura a justiça americana resolveu obrigar a empresa a partilhar a tecnologia. Isso deu cabo do modelo e obrigou a empresa a renascer com base num outro modelo baseado na qualidade. No entanto, esse modelo revelou-se muito fugaz e a empresa teve de repensar-se novamente. Foi a partir dessa nova reflexão que surgiu a "Document Company":

"The most important aspect of Kearns' decision was the focus on the document [Moi ici: Não mais o foco na tecnologia, não mais o foco naquilo que se produzia]. He and his team reasoned that paper was not going to go away, but that its use, its value logics, would change. Paper would be used less for creating, storing and transmitting documents, and more as a transient display medium for reading them and commenting on them.
And important risk was that with more convenient printers, documents would be printed out, thrown away, and then printed out again.
...
the real point [of the strategy] was that our customers are not interested in paper per se, but in the content on it: the document. If we focused on that [i.e. the document] and how to help them deal with it in paper or electronic form, our business would prosper no matter how technology evolved.
...
A graphic representation of this strategy, centered on customer value creation called 'the (customers') Document cycle', is shown ...

... Note that the 'copy' function is now one out of 16 items in customers' documenting. [Moi ici: Recordar a SKF na figura acima]
...
The Document Company concept shifted attention from the production of the offering to its role in customers' value creation.
...
We positioned ourselves as solution providers because we did not want to become a commodity hardware producer: i.e. people producing pieces of hardware ... this would have obliged us to compete on a low-cost basis. If we want to be a leading company, we have to deliver solutions. (Roger Leien)"

Alguns postais da série input em vez de output:

• Ecossistemas e serviço (Novembro de 2019)
• Privilegiar os inputs sobre os outputs (parte XII) (Fevereiro de 2019)

Total Value Ownership

Recentemente num projecto dei o exemplo do pricing baseado no valor que a fabricante de rolamentos, SKF, faz. O dono da empresa sorriu, e referiu que nos pontos críticos da sua fábrica, só se usam rolamentos da SKF. São mais caros, mas duram mais.

Então, na sessão seguinte, decidi usar o exemplo da SKF para levar a água ao meu moinho. Trata-se de uma empresa que fabrica um produto standard para um mercado de preço e, procura cada vez mais diferenciar-se produzindo um produto customizado, com uma margem superior para clientes profissionais. Claro que não é fácil a uma empresa formatada na competição pelo preço, abordar clientes para lhes vender valor e não preço.

Comecei pela imagem do Priceberg:

Numa relação B2B clássica os vendedores estão habituados a negociar com base no preço. O preço é o que está à vista. A SKF usa a noção de Total Cost Ownership. Desde que o cliente compra o rolamento até que se desfaz dele no final do ciclo de vida, quais são os custos que o cliente vai ter?

A SFK até faz um diagrama para a judar a visualizar a situação:

A ideia é mostrar que o cliente depois da compra e durante o ciclo de vida do rolamento vai ter outros custos e, ser capaz de demonstrar que aquilo que é um custo mais elevado na compra, pode ser na verdade a opção mais sensata porque depois, somando os custos escondidos, o custo total (Total Cost Ownership) é mais baixo.

A estes custos escondidos ainda somei vantagens em termos de poupança, que se não estiverem à mesa das negociações e contabilizadas, não são utilizadas como trunfo pelo vendedor:

Também apresentei este estudo que desmistifica que os clientes só pensem no preço:

Por fim, evoluímos para uma área que a SKF não costuma trabalhar.

Recordam-se da empresa G?

As empresas olham para os seus produtos como outputs que expedem (peço desculpa, mas não consigo deixar de me lembrar de um responsável de armazém de produto acabado, numa empresa de commodities, que dizia que a sua área era o "cú da fábrica". As empresas devem olhar para os seus produtos como inputs que os clientes vão utilizar, processar e incorporar na sua própria máquina de criação de valor. Assim, podemos ultrapassar o Total Cost Ownership e avançar para o Total Value Ownership, acrescentando novamente uma outra abordagem ao fluxograma na vida do cliente:

Para lá da poupança, como é que o nosso produto/serviço pode ajudar o cliente a criar mais valor em potência?

Será que podemos customizar o nosso produto/serviço de modo a tornar o seu produto/serviço mais eficaz? Mais produtivo? Mais rápido? 

Ponto de partida para uma abordagem completamente diferente.

"we need to get better at selling the intangible"

Em de "The Value Shift" retrata-se a tragédia de muitas PME portuguesas:

"Over time, Sally’s realised the thing she loves best about her work is everything she does before she picks up the camera.
.
Her gift is getting her clients to open up about why they do what they do, not what they do. The reason Sally’s films are so good is because of the unbilled hours she spends with the client before filming begins. It’s hard to explain that to most people and it’s just as hard to charge for it.
.
What most clients pay Sally for—the deliverable, is that five minutes of video footage. But what Sally dreams of doing and being paid for is finding stories worth telling.
.
It’s easier for Sally to sell the outcome—the video, than it is to market her process and the impact of her work. So, she defaults to doing what’s easy and ends up selling videos in one-minute increments to clients who don’t understand or pay for her genius.
.
People happily pay for the tangible. But if the tangible—the logo, the report or the cup of coffee, is a fraction of the value we create, then we need to get better at selling the intangible.
.
It’s not unusual to wake up one day and find that the work people pay us for isn’t the work we intended to do. It’s our job to fix that, by telling the right story to the right people.
.
Is the work people pay you for the work you want to do?"

É tão isto!
Vendem o que produzem e não o valor percepcionado e experienciado pelo cliente ao processar e integrar na sua vida o que comprou.

Acerca do valor

Excelente artigo sobre princípios associados ao conceito de valor, "What Does It Means to Create Value Now":

"First Principles.
Value is in the eyes of the beholder—or the recipient, for our purposes here. You have the right to develop a theory as to what should be valuable for another person, but they possess the right to determine their worth. Because perceptions about value vary, you may have to explain why your dream client should perceive the value in the way you view it.
.
The person receiving the value needs to be better off in some way having received it. If the person is no better off having received the attempted value creation, it is not value.
.
Value exists on a continuum. Some things are more valuable than others. My view of this continuum of value in sales is 1: Product Value, 2: Experience Value, 3: Tangible results, and 4: Strategic Value.
.
Value has a contextual component, meaning something that might have been valuable in the past may not be helpful in the future. Something that would be valuable in one circumstance might be less useful when the conditions are different.
.
Value creation tends to degrade over time; it has a half-life. The value you created in the past is not likely to be as valuable to your clients as the value you create now.
.
Value creation may also build on prior value. It is possible to create an upward spiral of higher value over time. [Moi ici: A base para a subida na escala de valor, a base para os macacos que não voam, mas trepam às árvores]
.
The greater the value you create, the more relevant you will be to your clients and your dream clients. An inability to create value will make you irrelevant. [Moi ici: O paradoxo do foco num nicho]
.
Value creation is found in your understanding. It is as much in your learning as it is your teaching. While it is important you help your clients discover something about themselves, it’s equally (or more) important that you allow them to educate you if you want to create a preference."

Uma ressalva: as empresas não criam valor, as empresas criam ou co-criam valor potencial. Só quando o cliente experiencia valor na sua vida é que ele se materializa.

Relacionar com "Richard von Strigl on Subjective Value":

"The economic value of a good can only be understood as a "subjective value", that is to say, it is always related to and depends upon the effective ends of a determinate economic agent (even though the agent may, of course, take into account the interests of several individuals when setting his ends, as is, for example, the case of a family father)."

"context and framing matter”

“we should remember that if you design something in a certain way, people can perceive something which doesn’t exist in reality.
.
What really is and what we perceive can be very different.
This is where physical laws diverges from psychological ones. And it is this very divergence which makes Alchemy possible.
...
In the same way, you cannot describe someone’s behaviour based on what you see, or what you think they see, because what determines their behaviour is what they think they are seeing. This distinction applies to almost anything: what determines the behaviour of physical objects is the thing itself, but what determines the behaviour of living creatures is their perception of the thing itself.
...
If you are a scientist, your job is to reach beyond the quirks of human perception and create universally applicable laws that describe objective reality. Science has developed sensors and units of measurement, which measure distance, time, temperature, colour, gravity and so on. In the physical sciences we quite rightly prefer these to warped perceptual mechanisms: it does not matter whether a bridge looks strong – we need to know that it really is strong.
.
A problem arises when human sciences – politics, economics or medicine, say – believe this universalism to be the hallmark of a science and “pursue the same approach; in the human sciences, just as in TV design, what people perceive is sometimes more important than what is objectively true.
...
In physics and engineering, objective models usually make problems easier to solve, while in economics and politics objectivity might make things harder. Some pressing economic and political issues could be solved easily and cheaply if we abandoned dogmatic universal models; just as TV designers don’t wrestle with the problem of producing the entire spectrum of visible light, policy-makers, designers and businessmen would be wise to spend less time trying to improve objective reality and more time studying human perception and moral instinct.
...
Economic logic is an attempt to create a psychology-free model of human behaviour based on presumptions of rationality, but it can be a very costly mistake. Not only can a rational approach to pricing be very destructive of perceived savings, but it also assumes that everyone reacts to savings the same way. They don’t, and context and framing matter.”

Trecho retirado de "Alchemy: Or, the Art and Science of Conceiving Effective Ideas That Logical People Will Hate" de Rory Sutherland.

"move beyond a focus on efficiency"

"For many companies, the traditional path to value creation is simply too narrow, centered on driving efficiencies rather than growth and innovation. Creating new value often requires employers to think differently about work in three ways:
.
The objective of work becomes expanding value, not delivering scalable efficiency.
The work itself entails addressing unseen problems and opportunities, not executing routine tasks.
The work draws on human capabilities such as imagination, intuition, curiosity, creativity, and empathy—not on skills tied to a particular task or technology.[Moi ici: Recordem os profetas do Armagedão provocado pela automatização]
With this broader view, companies can move beyond a focus on efficiency—and beyond growth driven by M&A and market share—and aim to create new forms of customer value. Organizations can do this by looking for ways to create additional meaning for the customer. This typically starts by deeply understanding customers’ needs and aspirations, now and in the future—and deep understanding requires more than just soliciting customer feedback or monitoring net promoter scores. Because these needs and aspirations are limitless and rapidly evolving, there is always more value that companies can create for customers."

Parece um texto retirado deste blogue ...

A aposta no numerador versus o eficientismo da aposta no denominador.

A aposta na originação do valor.

A treta da tríade, apesar de tudo, vai precisar ainda de alguns anos, talvez 10 a 20 para ser varrida para o caixote do lixo da história. Economia não é física newtoniana ou galilaica, em economia o que é verdade hoje, amanhã é mentira.

Trechos retirados de "Redefine Work to Bring New Value to Customers"

O papel das redes e as organizações de Mongo

Em Mongo, terra de tribos e de artesãos, as organizações vão ser diferentes das criadas para o Normalistão.

"network forms of organization - typified by reciprocal patterns of communication and exchange - represent a viable pattern of economic organization.
…
Pre-existing networks of relationships enable small firms to gain an established foothold almost overnight. These networks serve as conduits to provide small firms with the capacity to meet resource and functional needs.
…
I have a good deal of sympathy regarding the view the economic exchange is embedded in a particular social structural context. Yet it is also the case that certain forms of exchange are more social - this is, more dependent on relationships, mutual interest enter, and reputation - as well as less guided by a formal structure of authority. My aim is to identify a coherent set of factors the make it meaningful to talk about networks as a distinctive form of coordinating economic activity.
…
When the items exchanged between buyers and sellers processed qualities that are not easily measured, and the relations are so long-term and recurrent that it is difficult to speak of the parties as separate entities, can we still regard is as a market exchange? When the entangling of obligation  and reputation reaches a point that he actions of the parties are interdependent, but there is no common ownership or legal framework, do we not need a new conceptual toolkit to describe and analyze this relationship?
…
Network forms of exchange, however, entail indefinite, sequential transactions within the context of a general pattern of interaction. Sanctions are typically normative rather than legal.
…
In networks, the preferred option is often one of creating indebtedness and reliance over the long haul. Each approach does devalues the other: prosperous market traders would be viewed as petty and untrustworthy shysters in networks, while successful participants in networks who carried those practices into competitive markets would be viewed as naïve and foolish. Within hierarchies, communication and exchange is shaped by concerns with career mobility - in this sense, exchange is bound up with considerations of personal advancement.
…
Networks are “lighter on their feet” than hierarchies. In network modes of resource allocation, transactions occur neither through discrete exchanges nor by administrative fiat, but through networks of individuals engaged in reciprocal, preferential, mutually supportive actions. Networks can be complex: they involve neither the explicit criteria on the market, nor the familiar paternalism of the hierarchy, basic assumption of network relationships is that one party is dependent on the resources controlled by another, and that there are gains to be had by the pooling of resources. In essence, the parties to a network agreed to forego the right to pursue their own interests at the expense of others.
.
In networks forms of resource allocation, individual units exist not by themselves, but in relation to other units. These relationships to establish and sustain, thus they constrain both parters ability to adapt to changing circumstances. As networks evolve, it becomes more economically sensible to exercise voice rather than exit. Benefits and burdens come to be shared. Expectations are not frozen, but change as circumstances dictate. A mutual orientation - knowledge which the parties assume each has about the other and upon which day draw in communication and problem solving - is established. In short, complementarity and accommodation are the cornerstones of successful production networks. … the “entangling strings” of reputation, friendship, interdependence, and altruism become integral parts of the relationship.
.
Networks are particularly apt for circumstances in which there is a need for efficient, reliable information. The most useful information is rarely that which flows down the formal chain of command in an organization, or that which can be inferred from shifting price signals. Rather, it is that which is obtained from someone whom you have dealt with in the past found to be a reliable. You trust best information that comes from someone you know well. … information passed through networks is “thicker” [Moi ici: Como não associar este "thicker" ao densificar das relações em Normann] than information obtained in the market, and “freer” than communicated in a hierarchy. Networks, then, are especially useful for the exchange of commodities whose value is not easily measured. Such qualitative matters as know how, technological capability, a particular approach or style of production, a spirit of innovation or experimentation, or a philosophy of zero defects are very hard to place a price tag on. They are not easily traded in markets nor communicated through a corporate hierarchy. The open-ended, relational features of networks, with their relative absence of explicit quid pro quo behavior, greatly enhance the ability to transmit and learn new knowledge and skills."

"Neither Market Nor Hierarchy: Network Forms of Organization" de Walter Powell, publicado por Research in Organizational Behavior, Janeiro de 1990.

"Most people tend to describe what they do rather than the value they bring"

"“Why should this client meet with me?” is the first of theThree Magic Pre-call Questions.
.
The question gets right to the core of your value proposition. Something you offer brings measurable value to your clients.  What is that? The measurable value you bring to your clients is the reason they should meet with you. That is your Value Proposition.
.
I will be candid and say that it is embarrassingly common for salespeople, professionals and even large companies to not have a clear understanding of their value proposition and the value they bring to their clients.
...
Most people tend to describe what they do rather than the value they bring. This is a big mistake, [Moi ici: Um erro demasiado comum que temos combatido ao longo dos anos. O que os clientes compram não é o produto, o que os clientes compram é o que conseguem ganhar com a integração do que compram na sua vida. O nosso velho "think input e não output"] It is critical to know how to articulate the real value you deliver.
.
Your value proposition communicates (among other things) both the measurable value you deliver, as well as how you differ from competitors or alternatives in your same space.  Without a measurable value proposition it will be hard for you to command any kind of price for your solution because prospective clients have no discernible value to compare against your price. Without a value proposition your product or service simply looks like an additional cost.
.
Lack of a value proposition also tends to make all vendors look the same to buyers.  Without a value proposition clients will assume that all solutions in the same space solve with roughly the same degree of effectiveness."

O nosso "think input em vez de output" - quando se pensa no produto que se vende pensa-se em output. Quando se pensa no que se vende como o input que o cliente vai integrar, vai usar na sua vida para gerar um resultado valorizado na sua vida:

• Privilegiar os inputs sobre os outputs (parte VIII)
• "it took a holistic approach towards how to play"

Trechos retirados de "Why Should Your Client Spend Even One Minute With You?"