[ad_1]
An updated version of this article previously appeared on the Boston Consulting Group’s Strategy Thinking website.
I spent last week watching a global Fortune 50 company struggle with off-site issues. This 100+-year-old company has seven major product divisions, each with hundreds of products. Today, you are looking at a market leader, a new and relentless competitor with lots of money, lots of people and advanced technology seemingly out of nowhere, trying to capture customers and gain market share.
This company was so concerned about dealing with this threat (they described it as existential) that it mobilized the entire corporation to come up with new solutions. This was no small task, as the threats were coming from multiple areas in multiple dimensions; How do you embrace new technologies? How do you transform your existing manufacturing plants (and workforce) into an entirely new set of technologies? How do you create new supply chains? How do you stay on top of new social media and communication channels? How do you connect with new customers who don’t have brand loyalty? How will competitors use the new distribution channels they have adopted? How do they make these transitions without alienating or losing customers, distribution channels and partners? And how do they motivate their most important asset – their people – to work with speed, urgency and passion?
The company believed that they had a few years to solve these problems before their failure became irreversible. This meeting is where all the leaders involved in the corporate-wide initiative come together every two years to externalize the new challenges. They call it a “tsunami initiative” to emphasize that they are fighting the wave of creative destruction that is flooding their industry.
Realize that to be successful, it’s not simply about coming up with a new product. It means turning around a company and its culture. The amount of solutions a startup needs dwarfs anything it does.
The company hired a major management consulting firm to help select 15 critical areas of change for the Tsunami Initiative. My hosts, John and Avika, were the co-leaders of the 15 off-site topics. The consulting firm proposed to organize these 15 topics as a matrix organization, and the ballroom was filled with several hundred people from their organization – functional groups and people from within the company: engineering, manufacturing, market analysis and collection. Distribution channels and sales. Some of the groups also include some of their close associates. They were working on more than a thousand other projects in offices scattered around the world.
John and Avika invited me to observe their creative process and offer some suggestions.
Are these real problems?
This was one of the best organized creative projects I’ve ever seen. All 15 topics had group leaders presenting poster sessions, presenters and partners from field sales emphasizing the urgency and diversity of the issues, and breakout sessions where topic area groups discussed each other. Later in the day, people gather around the fire for informal conversations. It was a testament to John and Avika’s leadership that even outsiders were passionately debating how to solve these problems. It was an impressive display of organizational esprit de corps.
While each of the 15 topics was suggested by the consulting firm, it was in conjunction with the company’s corporate strategy team, and the people who generated these topic area criteria were off-site. Not only did people get the requirements, but there was also a transition team to take the products from these title teams to production and sales.
However, I’ve noticed that many requirements from corporate strategy seem to take precedence over other priorities (for example, here are the problems that the CFO or CEO or the board thinks we should work on), or perhaps here are the topics that the consulting firm has thought about. should focus on) and/or were subject matter experts (e.g. I’m an expert in this field. No need to talk to anyone; here’s what we need). The corporate strategy team is seen presenting problems as fixed requirements, such as these specific features and functions that the solution should provide.
A great effort involving many people but missing the opportunity to find the root cause of the problems.
I told John and Avika that I understood that some requirements were known and immutable. However, when all of them The requirements are given to the task teams in this way, the assumption is that the problems are identified, and the teams do not need to further explore the problem space themselves.
The strict limitations on requirements limit the ability of Topic Area Action Groups to:
- Understand that deeply Problems – Who are the customers, internal stakeholders (sales, other departments) and users (shareholders, etc.)? How to judge between them, solution priority, solution time, minimum feature set, dependencies, etc.
- Know that the problem is a sign of something more important
- Understand whether the problem is immediately solvable, requires multiple viable products to test multiple solutions, or requires additional R&D.
I noticed that because all the requirements were pre-fixed, instead of having the freedom to be creative, the topic area action teams were extensions of the existing product development teams. They were caught up in existing ideas and their output was probably less than they could have been. This is a common mistake that corporate innovation teams tend to make.
I reminded team members that getting out of their buildings and comfort zones and directly talking, observing and communicating with their customers, stakeholders and users allows them to be more efficient and that the solutions they provide are needed at the time. , relevant and take a little time and resources to develop. It’s the difference between appreciating a problem and solving it.
As I mentioned this, I realized that having all the requirements fixed is a sign of something more interesting – how the topic is managed and how the team members are organized. From where I sit, there seems to be a lack of common framework and process.
Provide a common framework for topic areas
I asked John and Avika if they thought of providing the topic action group leaders and their group members with a simple conceptual framework (a picture) and a common language. This allows teams to know when and how to “decide” and incorporate new ideas that accelerate better results. The framework uses the initial corporate strategy requirements as a starting point rather than a destination. Look at the picture.
I showed them a simple chart and explained that most problems start at the bottom right.
These are “unproven” problems. Teams use the customer discovery process to verify them. (Sometimes some problems may require additional R&D before they can be solved.) Once the problems are identified, teams move to the bottom left box and explore multiple solutions. Both of the boxes below are where ideation and creativity—problem/solution development—are critical.. Sometimes this can be accelerated by bringing in the Horizon 3, out-of-the-box thinking that each company has and giving a critical eye to the problem/solution.
If a solution is found and solves the problem, the group moves to the box on the left.
But I explained that many times the solution is unknown. In this case, consider having the groups do a “technical terrain hike.” This is the process of defining the problem by clarifying the sum obtained from several sources (suppliers, internal developers, other internal programs). Landscaping often sees the problem as a symptom of another problem, or the sources see it as another version of the problem. Or an existing solution already exists or can be adapted to suit.
But often, there is no existing solution. In this case, teams can go to the top-right box and build minimal viable products — the smallest feature ready to test with customers and partners. This MVP testing often brings new learnings from customers, users, and stakeholders—for example, the first 20% deliverables are “good,” or they can tell the title developer that the problem has changed or the timeline has changed. , or should be compatible with something else, etc. Finally, when the solution is required by customers / users / stakeholders and is technically feasible, then the teams move to the box on the left.
As a result, teams will iterate quickly to deliver the solutions needed and desired by customers for the rest of the company’s life.
Creative destruction
Companies do this through the combined efforts of inspired and visionary leadership, motivated people, innovative products, and relentless execution and passion.
It was humbling to watch and listen to hundreds of people battle the tsunami in prestigious company.
I hope they do.
Lessons learned
- Creative destruction and disruption happen to every company. How do you respond?
- Title action teams need to understand the problems as deeply as the customer understands them, not just those dictated by corporate strategy requirements.
- This cannot be done without direct communication with customers, internal stakeholders and partners
- Consider that the corporate strategy team should be more facilitators than gatekeepers
- A lightweight way to align topic groups with corporate strategy is to provide a common creative language and problem and solution framework.
Filed under: Corporate/Government Innovation, Customer Development |
[ad_2]
Source link
