We’ve all heard about the uptick in usage; this provides good data that supports the marketing efforts to engage clients/customers online!
Social media has truly become a daily part of most people’s lives, with usage patterns changing dramatically over the past few years.
See on www.business2community.com
Intrapreneurship is needed in large companies. Commonly, these companies tend to have plenty of data that has been collected to document market dynamics. Whether it is corporate strategy or corporate development, larger businesses have departments that constantly evaluate opportunities for growth–be they organic or inorganic. Encouraging innovation and breakthroughs can be hard. The main reason big business becomes stagnant is that the mindset required for disruptive advances is very different than the risk management and mitigation approach of many market leaders.
Kevin McFarthing, who leads the Innovation Fixer consulting firm, suggests in a recent blog that “These companies also have a very rational approach to the assessment of investment opportunities. Of course, they find that the expenditure line has a much higher level of confidence than either the timeline or the scale of revenue. For that reason large companies want to increase the level of confidence in the income stream. Various techniques are used; for example, many consumer goods companies will undertake a fairly standard sequential program of qualitative and quantitative market research. This will relate to a database of similar products launched in the past. So, as long as you do the market research correctly, you can reduce your uncertainty and proceed.”
As is pointed out above, the traditional analytical tools used to evaluate comparable opportunities are somewhat like the comparables sought out when buying a new residence: intended to estimate what already exists instead of what has never been built. Relying on historical information rather than anticipating future demand is like driving down the road only looking in the rear view mirror!
On the opposite end of the spectrum, small businesses being run by visionary entrepreneurs tend to rely far less on the projection techniques of their larger counterparts. These start-ups rely on gut instinct, passion, and drive rather than systems. Instead of evaluating a market based on dozens of data points, the executive teams of thriving young businesses gather market information, develop a proof of concept, test it on a limited basis, revise the offering, and are nimble in their adjustments to feedback so that they can quickly bring something new to the marketplace.
Large companies find what is done in the entrepreneurial space to be akin to a leap of faith. It’s very hard for a corporate type to operate from a place of judgment rather than logic. The willingness to produce something that is not perfect is much less in an organization with extensive quality initiatives. The whole concept of try…try…try again that is the mantra of an entrepreneur is eschewed in favor of taking calculated risks. While it sounds stereotypical, it is not at all uncommon for the large company approach to be one that avoids undertaking projects without tons of documentation and extensive project and/or product planning down to minute details. This predictable approach has severe shortcomings in an environment where responsiveness can make the difference between producing an offering that resonates versus one that is a “me too” alternative.
Instead of performing market and buyer research that resembles a canned, rote methodology, what is needed is flexibility, customization, and the ability to constantly iterate. Instead of sequence and a step-wise stage gate process, truly innovative organizations are far more willing to engage in trial and error.
McFarthing says that many large organizations lack the right mindset to explore potential. Changes he advocates that they make to become more innovative include:
– Rely much more on judgment to move projects ahead rapidly;
– Don’t apply the same criteria to incremental and radical innovation;
– Use a fast and iterative sequence of prototyping and market testing to learn and reduce uncertainty;
– Go to market as soon as you can, don’t wait for all the facts.
Follow these suggestions and you will change your culture to become more intrapreneurial!
In reading about the issues facing small businesses in the United States since the recession began in late 2007, I have heard about many sectors that have fallen behind historical performance levels. One that I hadn’t considered very much until this week is what is called the “business-for-sale” sector, which has seen a huge drop-off in comparison to all metrics known prior to the recession. While many have spoken about the large amount of private equity not in circulation, many of the reasons it is being withheld translate to other types of business buyers.
Whether you are representing an equity firm or your own personal business interests, it is likely that you have been trying to figure out when the economy may turn around. In classic business theory, it would be ideal to buy at a deflated price right before the economy picked up so that your investment could piggyback onto the general trend of successful recovery. Such market timing could make your investment produce very high–perhaps unprecedented–returns.
Since the economy appears to have stabilized, though not surged forward in a demonstrable way, what are these people who would otherwise be buying small businesses thinking? Observers of the business-for-sale sector wonder when they will see a positive change. They are anxious to see more acquisition activity.
Whether you listen to political pundits, talk show hosts, or economists, all would concur (at least publicly) that small business is key to the overall recovery. Yet, if small businesses are not churning ownership, it is hard for them to obtain the necessary working capital to fund growth and operations. BizBuySell.com conducted a survey of 260 business brokers from around the country to attempt to determine whether market conditions were improving. A whopping 70 percent indicated that financing for business acquisitions has not improved since 2011. These findings and percentages are consistent with survey results from last year, showing a trend of stagnation.
With commercial loans harder to come by (according to the survey), many buyers can’t get the financing they need to do deals. Business brokers say that banks have made the loan process even more difficult in 2012, decreasing the chances thereby that buyers will begin investing in businesses for sale. Mike Handelsman, group general manager for BizBuySell.com and BizQuest.com, reports that borrowing is particularly difficult for new or young entrepreneurs. Since banks and similar entities have taken the position that a track record of success is one of the top determinants of future success, newcomers to the small business arena–either startups or acquirers–are handcuffed.
Handelsman cited other factors of concern to business brokers from the survey. Concerns about the U.S. national debt, political deadlock (re: the fiscal cliff), long-term unemployment and small business/personal tax rates (14%) also appear to diminish buyer confidence. However, he did offer some tips for sellers:
Seller financing is not necessarily the right strategy for all business succession scenarios. But under the right circumstances, a seller’s willingness to finance a portion of the sale can dramatically increase the number of potential buyers and create more advantageous sales terms (e.g. a higher sale price). Sellers also need to plan for the sale, and make their businesses as attractive as possible to buyers.
Here are a few ways to plan for the sale and make your business attractive–
Chin up! If you follow these best practices, you will be one of the first ones to sell your business, regardless of whether many others sell theirs at the same time.
Every company, whether privately owned or with public stockholders, is concerned about its valuation. The value of an enterprise is enhanced when its future growth opportunities are well understood, documented, and pursued. Why is it, then, that so many small to medium size enterprises fail to articulate a compelling innovation strategy that will fuel the needed growth? Kevin McFarthing, who operates the Innovation Fixer consulting firm, argues that it can be a lack of perspective. He has seen too many companies obsessed with current period performance of the exclusion of the long term “big rocks” that must be put in place to build a foundation for sustainable success.
McFarthing evokes the Three Horizons model of the late 20th century in many consulting projects as a means to draw corporate executives’ focus into more far-reaching and significant perspective. Baghai, Coley and White first outlined the model in “The Alchemy of Growth” in 1999. Markets and technology are seen as drivers in the model and are depicted in the diagram below (from Tim Kastelle’s blog).
McFarthing’s interpretation of the Three Horizons model is as follows:
The Three Horizons process forces an assessment of technology strengths and market dynamics. It then forces a view of how much resource is allocated to each of the Three Horizons. The example above shows Google’s allocation of 70/20/10, which will differ for different companies in each category. It also forces a portfolio approach to innovation.
It also helps to retain the concept of emergent strategy in your approach to the innovation portfolio, as the days of fixed long term planning are diminishing…You can’t just write a five-year plan, lock it down and expect it to deliver. Large companies must continually revise their perspective of the role radical innovation will play in their growth.
The balance of the projects and resource applied to each element of the portfolio should be decided by the top team in the company, and be dictated by corporate strategy. Incidentally, it’s not just the resource that should follow a strategic allocation; the use of management time should also follow the Horizon split. Too often resource is applied to the opportunities on the edge, but thinking time is taken up by the short term. It should be followed through, and the temptation to reallocate Horizon Three resources to fight Horizon One fires should be resisted.
Where the application of these principles falls apart in many organizations is in the allocation of strategic (often scarce and/or over-committed) resources to pursue what has been stated as a priority. You know the saying, “You gotta walk the talk.” Breakthrough innovation, then, must move from strategy and communications (though it needs to be thoughtfully developed therein) to execution via competent actions. The right combination of talent, unique skills, and initiative, when coupled with appropriate resources, produces an environment ripe for innovation to occur. While some organizations are able to spur internal innovation, most rely on open innovation (external sources) to re-energize their enterprises. Even large companies like Kraft Foods estimated that 98% of IP in the food industry existed outside Kraft. Knowing that an industry leader like Kraft saw value in eliciting the help of others should embolden your team to admit the need for outside help.
Three Horizons, while instructional, is not the only model used to enhance one’s perspective on the opportunity for innovation. What these models have in common, according to McFarthing, are the following principles:
Sounds like good risk management, creative strategy, and a plan for sustainability rolled into one approach!
In trying to understand business issues, case studies can serve as a useful tool to show us what we may not see at first glance in our own businesses. When I was doing the research that led to the founding of the Turnaround Management Association a number of years ago, I had the “opportunity” to compile, read, and review over 900 case studies on attempted turnarounds. As I read about companies from a variety of industries, geographies, and backgrounds, I was able to decipher certain trends and best practices. While I obviously don’t have the space (or your attention span) to delve into that level of detail in a blog post, I wanted to recount a case study and point out some lessons to be learned.
A $100+ million company lost 25% of its revenue during the period 2005 – 2010. Simultaneously, EBIT declined by 91%, dropping to 0.9% of 2010 sales numbers. A turnaround firm was retained to restore revenues and achieve at least 10% EBIT by the end of 2012. The results of the project were that 2011 revenue improved by 20.20% over 2010 and 2011 EBIT was 5.5% of 2011 revenue, an increase of 470% over that of 2010.
By analyzing the markets served, rates of growth, and trends, the turnaround firm was able to highlight the very best opportunities for high growth. Historical analysis yielded insights into top customers and products, with breakout information by plant location. As insights were gleaned from the data, brainstorming sessions were held with the executive team to modify strategic and tactical plans.
As with many companies who suffered a decline in fortunes, this company had begun to compete on price rather than more strategic competitive advantages. As their products and services became commoditized, considerable price variability had snuck into the company based on local market conditions. With considerable (40%+) market share in its primary markets, the company in crisis had very few price comparables available from competitive intelligence by which new pricing could be developed. The consultants helped the company do the following:
Margins were terrible, so the company implemented the following procedures recommended by the turnaround firm:
The old product costing model was jettisoned in favor of a more accurate, easier to maintain one. Product Standardization was accomplished by analyzing SKUs across key product groupings. A small list of products were designated as standard offerings. Everything else was labeled “custom,” with appropriate cost and pricing decisions.
Process improvements were instituted after plant visits. Highlighted items included:
The culmination of 2011 efforts was that higher contribution margin at the plant level. Production scheduling and materials requirement procedures were highlighted as areas for additional improvement.
When an outside team is brought in to focus on profitability and the executive team cooperates fully, great things can happen in a turnaround. Clear communications, improved decision-making, unified focus all lead to enhanced morale and the profitability becomes an outgrowth of good management.
hippotential 