"the message should explain the why behind the choices"

"An effective strategy message communicates the essential, core elements of the strategy. Someone who hears it or reads it should be able to walk away with a clear mental image of how the organization works, and how it intends to succeed. That is, the message should explain the why behind the choices the organization made. How much detail is provided, as well as which details are shared, depends on the audience in question, of course. The message for the general public may be articulated at quite a high level, while internal audiences and important external stakeholders might receive more detail and insight.

That may sound simple, and in many ways it is—but the potential impact is powerful.

...

a clear basic strategy message communicates the organization’s primary goals to its employees. It conveys the basic value proposition to customers, so that they understand why the organization should be preferred. Finally, it tells potential suppliers, regulators, and other stakeholders what kind of organization they are dealing with and what to expect from it during interactions. A good strategy message sets goals and expectations for the organization, and it provides guidance to others about how to behave.

Unfortunately, organizations typically do a poor—often terrible—job of communicating their strategies, even when they may have a well-defined one that they rely on regularly for guidance. Strategy is, instead, one of the most misused and misunderstood words in the business world. CEOs will routinely say something like, “Our strategy is to win” or “Our strategy is to be No. 1” or “Our strategy is to outdo our rivals” or “Our strategy is to always work harder.”

Strategy messages of this sort typically confuse goals and determination with a plan for how they will win, and how the hard work will pay off. It is like saying that your strategy for winning a football game is to score more points than your opponent or for winning a race is to run the fastest time."

Trechos retirados de “Arguing for Organizational Advantage” de Sorensen, Jesper B.; Carroll, Glenn R.

A "Request For Improvement"

How many improvement actions are developed each year in your quality management system?

One of these days, I was part of a team presenting a procedure to top management, describing how a process works. One of the top management’s members said something like:

 

“The secret is here! This process is extremely important, and we continue to have a lot of problems with it! We need to improve this process!!!”

As a consultant I jumped into the occasion and recommended following this improvement journey included in a form called "Request For Improvement":

These were my guidelines for the process manager to start the improvement project:

1. Background

Here describe examples, or performance measurement results that illustrate how much the current process is not the most suitable and why it needs to be improved.

We must not start an improvement project based on the abstract desire to improve. We should start with an account based on numbers or stories that tell us what is wrong, what needs to be changed.

At this stage, we do not indicate causes, solutions, or guilty. Just facts!

2. Current situation

Draw a flowchart describing the process.

Is there any type of product, or customer, where process failure occurs more often? What products? Which customers? What are the failure situations?

So far we only work with facts.

Does what was collected allow us to focus attention on specific stages of the process?

3. Set targets

Remember the typical weight loss photos about the before and after? Based on the "Current situation" and the "Background" information we have the before stage. The after stage is the challenge we took on here in 3, and which will be rated at 7. The goal(s) and success criteria(s) must be in the same units as in 1.

4. Root cause analysis

Now start using theory and your knowledge of the process. Why is it we fail more in these products? Why is it we fail more with these customers? Why is it we fail more with these failure motives? List as many theories as possible.

Select the most likely theories and assess the possibility of making a test to validate them. Validated theories, theories that can be manipulated by us and have an impact on the frequency of failures, are root causes.

Considering the determined root causes, if we eliminate or reduce them, what level of performance can we aspire to? Is it in line with the challenge set in stage 3?

Deixem as empresas morrer!

🇵🇹 3 razões para a estagnação:
-impostos excessivos
-má alocação de capital
-empresas zombie

Fantástica entrevista a @R2Rsquared, um colosso do nosso país. pic.twitter.com/wEndDQe3Ny

— Embaixador da Noção (@EmbaixadorN) July 17, 2021

Recordar Deixem as empresas morrer! 

 

Em Mongo, cuidado com o "plástico"

 “Las marcas o son activistas o no serán”

Leio isto e penso em tanta coisa escrita aqui no blogue ao longo dos anos:

• Tribos apaixonadas;
• Suckiness of giants;
• Irmãos de sangue;

E penso nos gigantes que querem ser tudo para todos e serão vistos, sentidos como fake pelos apaixonados:

A marca pró-Trump será banido pelos anti-Trump e vice versa. A marca pró-Brexit será banida pelos anti-Brexit e vice versa. E isto a um nível cada vez mais granular.

Frase inicial retirada de "Enric Jové (McCann): “Las marcas o son activistas o no serán”":

"Las marcas o son activistas o no serán. No hay posición para que una marca no tenga un punto de vista como tendría una persona sobre la sociedad, sobre el planeta e incluso, si quiere, sobre la política de un país. Aquí hay tres grandes ejemplos de marcas de moda. Una es Nike, con Black Lives Matter y, antes, con Colin Kaepernick. Las dos otras son Patagonia y Levi’s. Ambas se posicionaron a favor del voto en las elecciones donde Trump optaba a la reelección. Clarísimamente las marcas tienen que tener una posición clara sobre todo aquello que afecta a la sociedad, a los países donde intervienen y, sobre todo, al planeta. Y en moda, la sostenibilidad y la trazabilidad serán primordiales en el futuro próximo, si no lo son ya actualmente."

Curiosidade do dia

Entre empresa unipessoal, empresário em nome individual ou recibos verdes desde 1993. Para mim de longe o pior nem é IRS/IRC ou a burocracia, o pior é a TSU trinta e tal por cento por algo que é uma ilusão, que alimenta uma fantochada

— Carlos P da Cruz (@ccz1) January 15, 2021

"O fator mais relevante nas novas medidas em Espanha, admite, nem é a redução de impostos sobre as receitas para 15% (Portugal já dá às PME redução para 17% nos primeiros três anos até 25 mil euros de receitas taxáveis). "É mais relevante uma medida há muito pedida por quem cria emprego em Portugal que pode ajudar já a curto prazo". Qual? "A redução do custo da criação do emprego, em específico, os impostos e contribuições para a Segurança Social". Henriques dá um exemplo: a maioria das empresas tecnológicas que a Bridge In ajuda a entrar no país tenta contratar engenheiros informáticos que recebem salários cinco a dez vezes superiores ao salário mínimo nacional, ou seja, "pagam taxas de IRS perto dos 35%, mais 34,75% da TSU". Resultado? "Cerca de 70% do custo da criação de emprego são impostos" e admite que "as simulações já estão a desincentivar algumas empresas a investir em Portugal".

O gestor admite que o país, com uma população envelhecida, precisa da receita dos impostos para "o importante Estado Social", mas lembra que "o governo deve entender o momento em que o mundo se encontra e as potencialidades que o país tem para acolher empresários e empreendedores globais"."

Trecho retirado de "Espanha atrai startups e nómadas digitais. E Portugal? “Custo do emprego é entrave” 

Como é que é na sua empresa?

"you want constructive arguments to be the default in your organization. In addition, after a productive argument, you want the organization to turn to action, so the people in the organization need to be able to move on, even if the decision made was not the one they would have preferred. Once people walk out of the room, will the plan be put into action, or will the discussion drag on? These goals require attention to broader issues of organizational design, in particular the organization’s dominant values and norms’i.e., its culture.

...

Intel executives believe that any major decision should be able to withstand the most searing criticism that could be leveled against it’and they want to hear those criticisms before the decision is made rather than after the fact. Accordingly, employees are encouraged to disagree and to make sure that their voices are heard before the decision is made. Intel’s strong engineering-oriented culture, with its commitment to facts and reason, helps ensure that these are constructive arguments that do not devolve (too often) into arguing blue.

That’s the Disagree part. The second part, “Commit,” signifies that while you could and should argue vociferously up to the point the decision is made, the arguing should stop once the decision is made. After the decision is made, Intel employees are expected to get on board with the decision, to commit themselves to making it work’no matter what their earlier positions had been in the argument leading up to the decision. So, in essence, Disagree and Commit is a set of ground rules about the process of arguing around major decisions, including expectations about appropriate behavior before and after the decision, and the timing of those behaviors.

...

The leader’s job is to design and maintain a culture where debate and argument occurs regularly and constructively. To that end, the norms listed here provide a good start, but they need to be adapted to any specific organization. Norms about arguing also need to be examined in conjunction with other organizational norms, to ensure that they do not stand in contradiction to each other."

Como é que é na sua empresa? Que liberdade de opinião? Que clima para discussão? Que confronto de ideias?

Trechos retirados de “Arguing for Organizational Advantage” de Sorensen, Jesper B.; Carroll, Glenn R.

Custo de oportunidade, again!

Há dias, talvez sexta-feira, via Twitter encontrei este texto, "What do economic scholars consider powerful economic knowledge of importance for people in their private and public lives? Implications for teaching and learning economics in social studies" de Niclas Modig.

"Based on Young’s notion of powerful knowledge, acquiring disciplinary knowledge emerging from an economic epistemic community is expected to make an important difference for people when dealing with economic issues in their daily lives. In this regard, this article’s author asked Swedish scholars of economics at higher education institutions what they considered to be the most important economic concepts that people would need to acquire and understand. 

...

People need economic knowledge to make well-informed decisions when facing economic questions in their private and public lives. However, research from different parts of the world has shown that adults, students and youngsters alike often lack economic knowledge 

...

According to research, the lack of economic knowledge is even pervasive amongst social studies teachers, who are responsible for providing basic economic education [Moi ici: Eheheheh!]

...

The results are drawn from an online questionnaire (see Appendix 1) sent to all identified (419) economists in all 48 higher education institutions in Sweden, except nine economists at the author’s own university. 

...

Two items (questions 10 and 11) in the questionnaire are of particular importance, focussing on what the economists consider to be the most important concepts in economics for people to acquire and understand. Both questions were open ended, making it possible to list an unlimited number of concepts for each question. The concepts were summarised based on frequency and then sorted into broader categories;

...

As shown in Figure 3, opportunity cost is the largest category when the individual (74) and the citizen perspectives (60) are merged, with a total of 134 occurrences, followed by interest, with 51 occurrences (33 from the individual perspective and 18 from the citizen perspective), and marginal concepts, with 49 occurrences (33 from the individual perspective and 16 from the citizen perspective)."

Posto isto, como não recordar João Duque em "Produtividade e tretas académicas" (Junho de 2020):

“Para começar, acho que podemos ir à lista de importações e começar a fazer o que importamos. Se conseguimos passar a fazer ventiladores, porque não outras coisas?”[Moi ici: Até sinto vergonha alheia ao reler isto!]

Ou a estória de reduzir a importação das conservas, "Como se pode ser tão burro e cometer sempre os mesmos erros???"

Recordo a frase de Napoleão:

E recuo a 1986/87 quando tinha cerca de 22 anos, um mundo pré-China, um mundo em que nós eramos uma china, ""um atestado de desconhecimento da realidade" (parte IV)"[Fevereiro de 2016).

Por fim, recordo Abril de 2014 com "Acerca do custo de oportunidade".

BTW:

"Martha Stewart, let us agree, can iron shirts better and in less time than anyone else in the world. So, does it make sense for Martha Stewart to iron her own shirts? No!" 

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.

Acerca da formulação da estratégia

 "when formulating a strategy argument, it is often best to start by stating the conclusion that one is trying to support with the argument."

Relaciono isto com o meu velho concreto versus abstracto. Como conseguimos fazer do que temos uma estratégia vencedora?

"Notice that in stating our conclusion, we did so in the present tense. This may seem somewhat odd at first, because (when we were formulating this argument) we were trying to develop an argument about a future outcome. As a result, some may think that the argument should be stated in the future tense or future perfect tense—this would be more accurate grammatically, and would more appropriately acknowledge the provisional nature of our argument. Nonetheless, we strongly advise formulating strategy arguments in the present tense, for two reasons. First, using the future tense makes the logic itself much more difficult to develop and harder to deal with, and we think little is gained. Second, when using the present tense, our conclusion becomes a concise statement of the future we want to see. In fact, one trick for formulating a strategy is to imagine that one has reached that future state, and then think of the process of formulating the argument in the same way as we approached the strategy identification for Southwest and Walmart. In other words, imagine that you will achieve the same level of success as those companies and have been asked to explain why."[Moi ici: Como não recuar a 2007 e pensar em ""imagine o futuro. Tire a foto do futuro. Não vai para lá... JÁ LÁ ESTÁ! Agora, pinte o quadro.""]

"Strategy formulation should be primarily about forging a logical argument for how the firm will accomplish a desired goal. Clear strategy arguments allow leaders to confidently chart a path through an uncertain future. Developing such arguments forces executives to surface and state their assumptions about the future and helps them to identify what needs to happen for a proposed course of action to succeed.

■ When formulating a strategy, concentrate on the logical validity of the argument: Do the premises necessarily imply the conclusions? Validity is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for great strategies. Avoid debates about soundness—whether or not the assumptions about the future are accurate predictions. Novel strategies demand more speculation than analyzing an existing strategy and less reliance on established facts.

■ Focusing on validity pays off by surfacing the requirements for success, by being able to identify what needs to happen for the strategy to work. Knowing necessary future conditions allows executives to undertake appropriate actions or investments and monitor important environmental conditions. Identifying the things that have to be true for the strategy to succeed also gives executives insight into how to measure and track progress toward the goal and assess the strategic health of an initiative" 

Recordar "Fazer uma excursão até ao Futuro Imaginado" 

Trechos retirados de “Arguing for Organizational Advantage” de Sorensen, Jesper B.; Carroll, Glenn R.

Curiosidade do dia

Há dias desabafei no Twitter:

A degradação epistemológica nesta choldra continua. Agrupamento de escolas, mais câmara municipal e um clube de pesca lançam "peixinhos vermelhos" para uma charca.

As pessoas não param para pensar? Que professores de biologia e ciências da natureza leccionam nestas escolas? pic.twitter.com/hvnGRR51K7

— Carlos P da Cruz (@ccz1) July 11, 2021

Hoje ao ouvir o noticiário das 18h numa rádio ouvi esta estória, "Peixes-dourados gigantes encontrados no Estado norte-americano do Minnesota": 

"validity today, soundness tomorrow"

"When setting a strategy for an organization, what we want—ultimately—is one that is based on a sound argument: the logic of success must in the end turn out to be internally and externally consistent. But when assessing a strategy for the future, we have difficulty determining whether or not all of our assumptions are true. We cannot know whether the strategy argument is sound until the future has happened.

...

If we insist on trying to establish the soundness of our argument at the outset, then we run two risks. First, we may waste countless hours debating things that ultimately can only be known in the future, until either someone gives up or collective delusion sets in.

...

A second risk is that—faced with this uncertainty—we may seek comfort in the known. But in doing so, we may end up so conservative in our assumptions that we miss out on the ability to formulate bold and creative strategies. Firms facing disruption certainly cannot afford to restrict themselves to assumptions that they are highly certain will hold in the future. Nor can entrepreneurs. 

...

We recommend a simple, useful mantra in formulating and assessing strategies for the future: validity today, soundness tomorrow. In other words, when formulating a strategy, concentrate on the internal coherence or validity of the argument: do the conclusions follow from the premises as stated? Avoid fights about whether or not the premises are accurate predictions, and instead concentrate on whether the premises necessarily imply the conclusion. The soundness of any given strategy argument can only be discovered as you enact the strategy and monitor its progress. Because validity is a precondition for soundness and therefore success, the work put into formulating valid strategy arguments pays off in the execution stage, both by eliminating strategies that have no chance of success (because they are invalid) and by making clear what the critical assumptions are and what the consequences might be if they turn out not to be true.

If, by articulating a valid strategy, we can specify in exact terms the premises or conditions that need to be true for the strategy to succeed, then we have laid out a set of things (patterns, trends, beliefs, breakthroughs) that can be watched, monitored, and evaluated as the strategy is put in place. This monitoring involves continuously assessing the soundness of the strategy argument. If some of the assumptions begin to look as though they will turn out to be false, then we know that our strategy may be in trouble. Eventually, the strategy argument needs to be both valid and sound to yield sustained strategic success."

Trechos retirados de “Arguing for Organizational Advantage” de Sorensen, Jesper B.; Carroll, Glenn R.

"Every firm is unique"

"Every firm is unique; it has its own unique history. So we cannot predict the impact or effect of a particular strategy or initiative on your firm, because we know nothing about the specific situation, and no one knows exactly what will be the ultimate impact of any change on the wider system. Your firm has evolved over time to look like it does today. Its value system can be viewed as a set of interconnecting routines. Routines are patterns of action and interaction that are involved in the three value activities of sourcing, operations and selling."

Trechos retirados de: Paul Raspin. “What's Your Competitive Advantage?”

"The essence of great strategy formulation ..." (parte III)

Parte I e Parte II

"By respectfully engaging with one another’s ideas and arguments, participants begin to see alternatives to their own way of thinking’or indeed recognize that apparent differences are only superficial’and arrive at a common way of thinking.

If people at the start of a decision-making process have different opinions and points of view, then arriving at a common understanding requires at least some of them to change their minds. Arguing constructively, and in particular focusing on elaborating causal arguments, is more likely to cause such changes than a simple exchange of viewpoints. In fact, simply providing reasons for one’s viewpoint is likely to harden people’s points of view and lead to a stalemate.

...

When managers arrive, through disinterested dialogue, at a common understanding of the situation and an agreed-upon argument to justify their decision, they are more likely to act coherently 

...

If strategic management does not change the way organizational members think, and so act, strategy can only have any real impact through coercion. Without changing ways of thinking, organizational members continue to see the same problems as they always did, and they continue to solve these problems using the same beliefs as before"

Trechos retirados de “Arguing for Organizational Advantage” de Sorensen, Jesper B.; Carroll, Glenn R. 

"The essence of great strategy formulation ..." (parte II)

Parte I.

Por que é importante discutir, argumentar sobre estratégia:

"Better Arguments

The most important reason to argue about strategy in groups lies in the quality of the decision itself. One reason is that the quality of information that is used to inform the decision-making process affects the outcomes, and groups with a diverse range of members can have access to more information than any one individual. Arguing in groups produces better-quality decisions when the process brings in people with varied information and beliefs and these contrasting views are pitted against each other. People working in different parts of the organization will, due to their differing responsibilities, hold different insights. Each possesses a partial view of the firm’s situation, its challenges and opportunities. A process that surfaces and respects these differing perspectives is less likely to make avoidable mistakes, as each argument’s assumptions’the argument’s external consistency’is challenged from a variety of different viewpoints.

...

Buy-In

Strategic decisions involve allocating resources toward some activities and not others; in many cases, they involve reallocating effort from old initiatives to new ones that seem more promising or urgent. 

...

If managers walk away from a strategic decision feeling like losers, their commitment to the initiative will suffer. This is particularly true if they feel they lost unfairly. And a “technically correct” decision that has limited buy-in is unlikely to succeed.

...

Changing How People Think

Perhaps the most powerful benefit of arguing constructively comes from changing how people think. As we have noted, managers from different parts of the organization approach any given strategic decision from their own vantage point, rooted in their roles and their prior experiences."

Trechos retirados de “Arguing for Organizational Advantage” de Sorensen, Jesper B.; Carroll, Glenn R.

Diferente do mainstream publicado

Let that calmly sink in:

"Overall, the available evidence does not support the idea that there are serious skill gaps or skill shortages in the US labor force. The prevailing situation in the US labor market, as in most developed economies, continues to be skill mismatches where the average worker and job candidate has more education than their current job requires."

Para quem ao longos dos anos escreveu sobre a caridadezinha [Moi ici: Recordar "The Predator State" e a caridadezinha ]:

"It is not clear what the apparent rise in employer complaints about skill problems represents in part because of the poor quality of information presented as part of the complaints. No doubt some component of the complaints is simply an effort to secure policy changes that lower labor costs. It may well be that some component of the complaints represents real problems associated with changes in employer behavior, such as greater outside hiring and associated increases in employee turnover and reduced training and internal development. Some of these changes might be driven by the behavior of other employers. For example, increases in turnover may be driven by the hiring practices of other employers, and smaller employers who in the past had been able to meet their skill needs by hiring skilled apprentices away from larger employers may find that there is no one to hire when those apprenticeship programs are gone. Efforts to hire skills rather than build them from within would create much more specific and variable job requirements across employers that would vastly increase not only the difficulty in hiring but also the experience of having to raise wages above current levels in order to find appropriate candidates.

The implications that follow from the above conclusions are important to consider."

Espero que Mongo implique antes o regresso ao século XIX, "Por que é que os jornalistas não colocam perguntas impertinentes?"

"The view that emerges from these arguments is one where responsibility for developing the skills that employers want is transferred from the employer onto job seekers and schools. Such a transfer of responsibility would be profound in its implications. Schools, at least as traditionally envisioned, are not suited to organize work experience, the key attribute that employers want. Nor are they necessarily good at teaching work-based skills. Those skills are easiest and cheapest to learn in the workplace through apprentice-like arrangements that one finds not only in skilled trades but also in fields like accounting and medicine. Unlike in the classroom, problems to practice on do not have to be created in the workplace. They exist already, and solving them creates value for others. Observation and practice is also easiest to do where the productive work is being done, and employment creates incentives and motivation that typical classrooms cannot duplicate." 

Tantos temas tratados de forma diferente do mainstream publicado. 

Trechos retirados de "SKILL GAPS, SKILL SHORTAGES AND SKILL MISMATCHES: EVIDENCE FOR THE US" de Peter Cappelli.

"The essence of great strategy formulation ..."

A sua empresa tem uma estratégia? Quantas pessoas foram envolvidas na sua formulação? Houve discussão?

"we think that reasoning about strategy is best done by arguing, and specifically by arguing in groups. 

...

The essence of great strategy formulation and strategic management involves arguing constructively’when the strategy is being developed and as it is being implemented. Good strategists and executives who achieve long-term success encourage constructive arguments in decision-making groups, whether they do so consciously or not. Without constructive arguments among multiple stakeholders, strategy is often vacuous, and in the worst case may involve gambling the future of a company without even realizing it. As Gary Pisano warns: “For any proposed program of reasonable complexity, lack of debate is actually a worrisome sign.”

...

Vigorous argument should be encouraged and celebrated, provided that people are arguing constructively, not arguing blue."

Trechos retirados de “Arguing for Organizational Advantage” de Sorensen, Jesper B.; Carroll, Glenn R.

" olha para a mesma realidade e vê oportunidades"

Ao longo dos anos tenho escrito aqui no blogue sobre o advento de Mongo (aka Estranhistão) e sobre a democratização da produção, sobre os makers e makerspaces (ver marcadores abaixo).

Assim, como não sorrir ao ler "The Autonomous Factory: Innovation through Personalized Production at Scale" (a única coisa que me deixa algum desconforto é a interpretação que se possa dar aquele "at scale" porque penso naquele "tu não és do meu sangue", porque penso na paixão assimétrica das tribos).

Mongo não é só capacidade de produção customizada a custo aceitável, Mongo é também paixão, interacção entre produtor e utilizador, Mongo é pertença à mesma tribo. Julgo que muita gente ainda não percebeu isto, não basta ter capacidade produtiva, tem de se ser capaz de sonhar com e desafiar o outro, fazedor ou utilizador. Por isso, estas experiências feitas pelas Siemens deste mundo são bem vindas, aprecio-as pragmaticamente pelo trabalho de pavimentação que fazem para os pequenos que virão depois. Os pequenos nunca teriam poder para alterar leis feitas no "século XX" para proteger um mundo que se vai desvanecendo, tal como a Uber.

Vamos a alguns trechos do texto:

"Nowadays, consumers expect the ideal product in terms of size, material, shape, color, quality and other individual needs and specific requirements. Advances in technology and digitalization have created a significant market for individualized offerings. Personalization at scale has the potential to create $1.7 trillion to $3 trillion in overall new value. Capturing this value requires companies mastering the underlying technologies and enabling consumers to be their own product designers [Moi ici: Essa é a primeira fase "to be their own product designers", mas para isso não precisamos de empresas, precisamos de espaços ao estilo "Grab-and-Go" com máquinas 3D e pouco mais. A segunda fase é quando entram os designers, os desafiadores, os curadores, os que ajudam a afinar o gosto. Espaço para cooperativas de fazedores].

...

Producing companies are therefore facing pressing questions: How can a production process evolve to meet these personalization demands? How to decide on the best automation strategy? And how will the future of production ultimately look like? It essentially comes down to the question: What to automate and to which degree? It can be all too easy to get carried away with automation for its own sake, but the result of this approach is almost always projects that cost too much, take too long to implement and fail to deliver against a company’s business objectives and operations strategy. [Moi ici: Este trecho faz logo lembrar as experiências da Mercedes e da Toyota que já entraram na fase da desautomatização por causa da flexibilidade que precisam. Li este trecho umas três vezes nas últimas 24 horas e sempre emergiu na minha mente a foto que serve de papel de parede numa sala de reuniões de uma empresa. No texto que escrevi em 2017 cometi um erro, assumi que a fábrica era anterior à electricidade. No entanto, depois percebi que no tecto estavam as lâmpadas ... eléctricas. O que ainda reforça mais a pergunta que faço no tal postal de 2017, "Quanto tempo?". Já temos as peças todas, mas ainda não aprendemos, ainda não dominamos como as vamos organizar. Julgo que o maior obstáculo está na mente, a formatação a que fomos sujeitos coloca-nos palas que escondem o que para quem virá mais tarde, será um duhhh!]

...

The extent of twenty-first-century customization and personalization also requires production businesses accommodating a large variety of versions of any given product, which must be produced in smaller batches with very short lead times. This Low Volume – High Mix production typically means lot sizes of less than 20 pieces (occasionally, down to 1 piece only) per ordered lot, involving increased complexity and administration cost. The fundamental challenge for producing companies can therefore be formulated as: Maximizing overall productivity under

• higher personalization (i.e. increasing variety of product versions)
• smaller and variable lot sizes
• shorter product life cycles (i.e. shorter time spans available to production)"

Lembram-se da VW e a Deutsche Post? A maior barreira é a formatação da nossa mente, sempre em busca da big bet idealizada no século XX. Incumbente, linha vermelha, vê a evolução acima "This Low Volume – High Mix production" como uma fuga do Paraíso, uma pedra no sapato. A organização do futuro, linha a preto, olha para a mesma realidade e vê oportunidades.

Trabalhar para aumentar os preços médios unitários

Ontem no Jornal de Negócios tive a oportunidade de ler "Da falta de ambição de crescer" de Paulo Morgado.

Acrescentaria um factor em que tenho focado a minha actividade profissional nos últimos 20 anos, trabalhar para subir na escala de valor. Trabalhar para aumentar os preços médios unitários.

"The truth is that innovation is never really about ideas, it’s about solving problems"

 

"The truth is that innovation is never really about ideas, it’s about solving problems. So when a technology is still nascent, doesn’t gain traction in a large, established market, which by definition is already fairly well served, but in a hair-on-fire use case — a problem that somebody needs solved so badly that they almost literally have their hair on fire.

...

So in the early stages of a technology, don’t try to imagine how a perfected version fit in, find a problem that somebody needs solved so badly right now that they are willing to put up with some inconvenience.

...

Things that change the world always start out arrive out of context, for the simple reason that the world hasn’t changed yet. So when a new technology first appears, we don’t really know how to use it. It takes time to learn how to leverage its advantages to create an impact.

...

The truth is that it’s better to prepare than it is to adapt. [Moi ici: Ainda ontem, ao estudar uma série de regulamentos comunitários experimentei um sentimento que ajudei a aplicar em 2004/5. Os regulamentos estabelecem regras para a colocação de certos produtos no mercado. OK, que produtos podem ser criados e que estão à frente do estabelecido? Como se pode ir à frente da onda?] When you are adapting you are, by definition, already behind. That’s why it’s important to build a learning curve early, before a technology has begun to impact your business.

...

for most of us, the opportunities in the post-digital era won’t be creating new technologies themselves, but in the ecosystems they create. That’s where we’ll see new markets emerge, new jobs created and new fortunes to be made."

Trechos retirados de "How To Compete In A New Era Of Innovation" 

"a highly centralized country will not create a Mittelstand"

Em Maio de 2008, pela primeira vez, escrevi aqui no blogue sobre os Hidden Champions:

"Estes campeões esquecidos e muitas vezes mal vistos:

"Unfortunately, across Europe there remains a post-Socialist reflex to quash entrepreneurial spirit rather than to praise the contribution that energetic businesspeople make to a nation's growth and employment. This attitude is changing, but slowly. Hidden champions show how important it is for Europe, which too often perpetuates mediocrity, to instead celebrate and support excellence."
.
Isto é o que precisamos "Hidden Champions The little-known European companies that are conquering the world " mais do que gigantes sanguessugas, nacionais ou multinacionais, que à custa do negócio do preço e das relações privilegiadas com o poder vão perpetuando um modelo de desenvolvimento que vai fazendo o país definhar."

Ontem ao ler “A Remarkable Journey from Farmhouse to the Global Stage” de Hermann Simon encontrei esta passagem sobre os Hidden Champions:

"France is a special case with respect to Hidden Champions. The French took a very close look at the German model in the wake of the Great Recession of 2008–2009. Wanting to understand the reasons behind Germany’s success and learn from them, they homed in on the Mittelstand. That led to my being invited to give numerous talks on Hidden Champions, including one to the French Senate. I introduced the Hidden Champions concept and posited two provocative theses. First, a highly centralized country will not create a Mittelstand. Second, if a country places extremely high value on elite education, it can hinder the development of a Mittelstand.

...

In my opinion, both of these hypotheses apply to France. The country’s high level of centralization means that Paris attracts all the talent. The recipe for the dream career in France is a degree from an elite school, followed by a job in a large company or a ministry. Hardly anyone is interested in working in a rural area or for a small- or medium-sized business, which by definition has little name recognition and status in a centralized society."

A propósito de Paris ... e que tal Lesboa?