The speed principle

Do you know the benefit that your organization can achieve by doing things faster? How can these results be measured?

Speeding up positive business results is something that not enough organizations try to do. We talk about productivity and efficiency, waste elimination, value chain mapping, cost cutting, etc.-but what is the value of speed? Before answering that question, we need to put this in context. Increasing speed is not always what is best for the business. The key to effectively using speed to improve results is knowing when to speed up and when to slow down, as well as having the capabilities to do both. Sometimes that is within your control, and sometimes it is not. Many companies follow arbitrarily developed speed limits without asking how much faster they can go or at what times should they go faster. The key to increasing speed is ensuring that similar, or improved, outcomes are achieved. Speed is no good if it produces an inferior product or service.

What would be the benefit be if you could hire better people faster? What if you could resolve customer service issues more effectively and faster? What if you could identify prospective customers faster without losing the quality of the lead?

These are questions that organizations should be asking themselves on a regular basis and taking steps to answer them. In order to maximize the speed principle, organizations need to prepare for the conditions ahead, remain calm when moving forward and have the discipline to govern themselves to speed up and slow down when appropriate.

The G20 comes to Toronto

As a Torontonian, I was very happy to hear that the G20 will be embarking upon our fair city in June 2010. Many may think this will cause disruption to  the city-traffic, road closures, protests-I say, bring it on!

How often does a city get the opportunity to host something like this? 20 of the world’s most important politicians coming to see our fair city and enjoy its wares. It will be a nice boost for summer tourism, for restaurants, for cab and limo companies, for retail outlets. Sure it will be chaos for the few days leading up to the Summit, but that should be more than offset by the exposure that the city gets.

People around the world will be able to see what a beautiful, multi-cultural city Toronto is. Couple that with the fact that the Winter Olympics are in Vancouver, and 2010 is looking to be a stellar year for Canada. Our country and two of its most beautiful cities will be on parade for all to see. We should embrace this opportunity because it can have effects that will last for years. So let’s not screw it up!

To be honest or not to be honest, that is the question…

Whether ’tis nobler in the mind…..you get the idea.

The recent Tiger Woods situation brings up an interesting discussion – how much information is too much and how much is not enough? We clamour for celebrity information like it is the food that fuels us. But aside from that, what information should be disclosed? When is providing too much information more damaging than good?

Every situation is different and it is hard to point the finger at someone without knowing all of the facts. The problem is, the less we know, the more we speculate. Many celebrity athlete blunders have blown over quickly when the truth was told early (see Kobe Bryant’s affair and Alex Rodriguez’s steroid use). However, we have also seen telling the truth backfire on others (see Pete Rose).

So what should Tiger do? Who knows, but there are tens (if not hundreds) of millions of people waiting to find out…that is a lot of pressure.

Strategy vs. execution

As some of you may know, the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) recently announced fare hikes to ride the public transit system in Toronto. These fare hikes will come into effect at the end of January. What do you think the first thing people will do when they hear that there is a fare hike? That’s right, they will buy as many tokens or tickets as they can at the existing price. It is called hoarding by some. I call it being smart.

Do you think that this is something reasonable that the TTC should have expected? Of course it is. How could someone overlook this as a possibility? But they did. So as a temporary solution, the TTC has now enforced a rule that people can only buy 5 tokens at once to prevent hoarding. They also came out with new temporary tickets that can only be used until the end of January when the fare hike takes effect. So what is the problem? Retailers and collectors have a shortage of the temporary tickets, so people riding public transit on a regular basis cannot buy them. See this article.

The TTC developed the ticket strategy to avoid hoarding, which they estimate would have cost them $5m over two months. They call this what would have been lost revenue, but why couldn’t they have anticipated this? Why was the execution so poor? How could they not have discussed some of the scenarios that might take place when fares are raised? I have to imagine that the first thing that would come to most people’s minds is that people will try and buy a lot now at the current price to save in the future. That is not a stretch, so why is the TTC having to be so reactive?

Many organizations spend so much time reacting to what is going on around them, and focusing on head-down operational decisions, that they forget about execution. Think about how many great ideas and initiatives have failed because of poor execution. Organizations need to focus just as much on the execution as the development of the initial strategy. Execution is what gets you results. Execution is what provides a competitive advantage. Execution is what differentiates a good idea from delivered results. We need to spend more time on execution and less time reacting to every new situation that comes up.

Charitable giving on the rise?

Not necessarily, but many people are more than willing to donate their time. A recent survey of moms in the US shows that when it comes to charity, 42% more respondents said they will be volunteering time to charities this year. Donations of clothing and food should also be up this year by 15% and 11% respectively over last year’s numbers. But the proportion who said they will be giving money to charity this year fell 9% from last year’s level.

So what does this all mean? Less money being given, but more people being active in fund-raising. Will that ultimately lead to more money being raised? Maybe. It certainly raises an interesting point because people are more willing to give their time but not their money. What is more valuable, time or money? I draw two conclusions from these findings:

1. People are hesitant to donate money until the economy is more stable, but still want to contribute something;

2. Those that are at home raising families or working part-time still have time to give back to causes they believe in.

These are both positive signs because sometimes the biggest contributions are not financial ones.

Some truths aboot Canadian healthcare

Yes, I spelled aboot that way on purpose as a play on a common joke around the way that Canadians pronounce the word ‘about’. There has been a lot of talk lately about the US healthcare system as compared to the Canadian system. There are PSAs being played all over the US slamming the Canadian health care system trying to convince Americans that universal health care is not the way to go because it is failing miserably and people are dying in the streets in Canada. First of all, this argument is ridiculous, and second of all, I did not think that our neighbours to the south would sink so low. I thought it my duty to provide some truths about the Canadian health care system and clear up a few things:

1. People are not dying in the streets – to the contrary actually. If a homeless person is found on the street and they are unconscious or sick, they are brought the to nearest hospital and treated for free (yes, free);

2. Wait times are longer – this may be true for certain elective surgeries but is certainly not true for emergency rooms. Severe cases are treated almost immediately. If there are longer wait times for some procedures, we view this as the price we pay for giving access to the same level of care for everyone;

3. People are flowing across the border to the US for treatment – while there are some cases where Canadians go across the border for treatment, most Canadians cannot afford to do so, therefore they wait patiently for the free (yes, free) treatment they can receive at home;

4. We pay higher taxes – yes, that is true, but we also see a benefit for our tax dollars. Running a public health care system is not cheap, but there is no price you can put on the scenario where you have a child who is very sick and you can get a doctor’s appointment the same day, receive treatment and have piece of mind….and all of this done for free (yes, free). This means you can focus on helping your child get better, not worrying about paying medical bills, and the doctor can focus on treating patients, not worrying about collecting money.

The Canadian system is based on the premise that everyone deserves access to healthcare and that the strong should help support the weak. Doctors and nurses should be able to focus on what they do best, treat patients. Of course our system is not perfect, we have many things we can learn from Europe and Scandanavia, but it certainly does not warrant the attacks being led by organizations in  the US looking to paint a negative picture to advance their own agenda. So much for friendship amongst neighbours, eh?

I welcome your thoughts.

Differentiating yourself

In this world of cloning and the internet and job losses and electronic media, how can one differentiate themselves? Differentiation comes with ideas and results, not catchy ads and flashy business cards. If you want to stand above the crowd….

Focus on what your customer wants, not what you want.

Focus on the results that your customers will achieve, not the money that you will be paid.

Focus on your customers desired outcome, not yours.

Focus on innovation and vision, not history and recycling of old ideas.

Focus on making the life of your client better, and the quality of your life will follow.

Sounds simple, but ask yourself, are you doing all of these things?

How to sell to the public sector

With all of the stimulus money that has been injected into the economy, many of the organizations that are spending the most money are those in the public sector. Since public sector organizations are spendng tax payers’ money, there also happens to be a lot of scrutiny in the purchases that these organizations make. If you want to participate in the competitive process and win, there are three things that you need to do:

1. Know the guidelines that are being followed – most public sector organizations must follow documented procurement policies which guide the process that must be used to make purchasing decisions. These documents are usually posted on organization websites, so review them and get familiar with them;
2. Know the evaluation criteria and process – most public sector RFPs will lay out the process for evaluating bids and the weight of the different evaluation criteria. You also need to understand how the process works when the evaluation team is reviewing bids. Everyone has an equal say, so decisions are made by consensus, not by force;
3. Follow the rules – RFPs will contain proposal rules and guidelines to be followed. Ensure that you understand what are the grounds for rejection of your proposal and follow the rules as stated. As a result of  the public scrutiny for every purchasing decision, organizations will reject bids if they are not compliant with the rules laid out in the RFP document.

I would also advise you to use the debriefing process if you participated in a public RFP and were not awarded the business. Organizations are obliged to give you an opportunity to discuss your bid and their process if you request a debrief session.

Following the advice above will significantly increase your chances of winning contracts with public sector organizations. The game is different, so you just need to know the rules.

Obama and Fox News

The topic du jour is that Obama’s White House is going after Fox News and essentially saying that what they provide is not news and clearly biased. Of course it is biased. Are there any networks that are not biased? But that is not the point. The point is, why is Obama going after them in the first place? If you are trying to discredit someone, isn’t the best way to do it by ignoring them and not giving them a platform? By going after Fox, Obama has not only boosted their ratings, but he has also given them credibility. The average person will think “if these guys are able to get under the skin of the President, there must be something to what they have to say.”

You cannot defend yourself against every critic, so pick your battles, and when you do pick your battles, do it on a higher level. Instead of saying that what Fox reports is not news, and trying to remove their White House credentials, why not address Fox’s criticisms of the Obama White House by sending their smartest people onto Fox’s shows and rebut their arguments? Engage in a debate at a mature level, not use schoolyard bullying to prove a point, it only makes things worse.

The little engine that could

I realized tonight that there is more to the story “The little engine that could” than meets the eye. When the train breaks down, the dolls and toys encounter many different engines and plead with them to help them over the mountain to deliver their goods to the little boys and girls (their customers). This book is a good analogy for business.

The shiny new engine represents companies that are too arrogant to help others or improve. They feel that they are above the competition. But what happens when they are no longer shiny and new?

The big steam engine represents large companies blessed with virtual monopolies, who refuse to change or see the value in collaboration. They go through life believing that they only serve one purpose, to service large companies like themselves. What happens when the virtual monopoly is taken away?

The rusty old engine represents those companies that have been around forever and refuse to try new ideas or innovate. These companies die in the roundhouse (or get government bailouts).

Then you have the little blue engine. An engine that, despite her size, is willing to take a risk because she sees a need. The dolls and toys need to get over the mountain, and even though it is a seemingly impossible feat for the little blue engine, she tries and tries and eventually succeeds.

I never thought that I would read so much into a children’s book, but it provides some good insight into business today. Which engine does your company represent?