Archive
will Supplier Relationship Management be the big thing in 2011?
Revenue is one of the key components of profit, and therefore its perceived position as the lifeblood on business is reflected in the amount of money spent on trying to generate it; sales and marketing, and all of their associated costs make a reasonable dent in a company’s expenditure and so does the amount spent on training the people involved. Customer relationship management (CRM) is a big thing.
Now profit, as we all know, is what’s left over from the income when you’ve paid all your bills, but it is cash flow, or rather lack of it, which is the biggest killer of business. So you need profit underpinned by a healthy cash flow to survive, and cash flow is kept healthy by making sure that you’ve got your income in the bank in time to pay your bills.
And yet so many businesses just miss the whole point. They focus fairly lavish attention on bringing money in with little thought as to what is going out beyond the occasional budget cut or belt tightening exercise.
One of the key problems is silo mentality. When I am working with a group of buyers I’ll always ask how they see the sales teams that they have to deal with. The response is usually fairly hostile and rarely complimentary, but when you point out that they also have a sales team it comes over as though you’ve just told them that they have an uncle in gaol for murder.
It isn’t quite as bad talking to sales people about buyers, but both sides miss two important points. Firstly that the business that they work for will have both buyers and sellers that should be joined up and secondly that whilst the one group is trying to apply CRM to the buyers that they deal with, the other group is having CRM applied to them, but usually with little being done to equip them to get the best out of it. (In the reverse direction we call it Supplier Relationship Management or SRM).
You will also find frequent examples of buyers and sellers working against each other. Not deliberately of course, but because there isn’t sufficient recognition of the business drivers nor recognition of each other’s roles. In the service sector I’ve often seen companies that have sold solutions against a set of service levels that their supply contracts can’t sustain. Both sides are getting a pat on the back for the respective deals and nobody sees the conflict until sometime downstream when the end client is getting dissatisfied.
It should come as no surprise that the best examples of companies that balance efforts on what they spend and what they earn are often in the retail sector. Just think Tesco or Wal*Mart for example. They both manage their supply chains very well, and there is a constant and positive dialogue between all the various functions. Everyone is focused on taking revenue and squeezing as much value as they can from the transactions.
So here’s something that you can do this coming year. Buyers and sellers, seek each other out in your business and start having some meaningful dialogue. You will better understand how you can help each other succeed on behalf of your employer, but you can also help each other understand how the other works.
SRM is a very worthwhile area to be investing in. I’ve written here about collaboration being a way to move forward from recessionary times and working together in the supply chain is common sense anyway. I think that SRM could be a big thing in 2011.
could you manage a little consideration and tolerance in the season of goodwill?
People seem to see things in such black and white terms these days. You love it or you hate it, or something is right or wrong with nothing in between. But is that really true? No of course it isn’t, but why can’t people be bothered to come to a considered decision.
What started me off on this topic was the Vince Cable affair of last week where yet another scam interview had elicited some ill judged remarks and Mr Cable was being pilloried. Now I don’t know the guy, and haven’t really paid too much attention to what he’s been up to since being thrust into office, but I do appreciate what the Government is trying to do in terms of getting us out of the hole the other mob had dug us into and my impressions of Mr C were that he wasn’t doing too badly in playing his part. But does what he said suddenly turn him into such a villain? I don’t think so, especially when compared with some of the conduct we have seen from public figures over the last 15 years or so.
As people we are not necessarily all good or all bad. Doing one good thing or making one mistake doesn’t necessarily move us far in one direction or the other either. There are degrees in all of these things that we ought to allow for.
Love and hate are very powerful emotions and are polar extremities with a wide spectrum in between, so why do people want to only be at one or other end of that range? I doubt that they really are, it’s just another example of poor use of language, exaggerating for effect rather than anything else. Personally I made a conscious effort to avoid hate a long time ago. It seemed like such a waste to me to hate something; to be generating the necessary degree of rage that would go with hate consumes so much energy that can be put to more positive things. I try not to even use the word in every day speech.
It is perfectly possible to neither like nor dislike something, or to just like or dislike something a little. You can like something some of the time, but not all of the time. There is no reason to even be consistent, let alone extreme, about these things. In the same way, right and wrong are not always absolutes. Context plays a big part in understanding these things and that is where consideration and judgement come in.
Perhaps this is all just semantics and maybe the words don’t really matter, but I think that they do. If folks were to apply consideration and judgement a little more (are you listening Vince?) they could be a little more rational perhaps? One of my great sadness’s about modern Britain is in how selfish and inconsiderate people have become, so any move to improve that would have my support.
I wrote recently about the pendulum effect whereby allowing things to go to one extreme causes the inevitable backswing to the opposite end of the arc, and suggested that a bit more time in the tolerant middle ground would be beneficial in maintaining a more balanced and stable society.
Things aren’t always black or white, and things can, sometimes, be partly right or partly wrong. In the season of peace and goodwill my message is let’s all try to weigh things a little, be a bit more tolerant of others and to see things in a few shades of grey, or even a little colour.
avoiding the swings and the roundabouts and getting things done
I was discussing here the other week how business goes round in circles; the pendulum swings from one way of working to another and back again, and I argued that we needed to be less reactive. It’s a question of balance.
Conversations arising from that blog suggested that I was against radical change, but I’m not when it is necessary. If you have to swerve to avoid someone then it makes sense to do so rather that endure a painful collision. However, I would ask the question, why did you not see them coming earlier?
This is getting to the heart of running any operation, and those of us in #facilitiesmanagement know the issue only too well. We are often having to fire fight, and most of us in the business will have seen times when we were so busy quelling the flames that we didn’t have time to stop them starting.
One of the things that I’m passionate about in any job I take on is giving myself time to be able to do things properly. Anticipation is really 90% experience allowing you to expect the unexpected. You also develop your own toolkit of things that allow you handle things quickly when the need arises to stop matters getting out of hand.
Being able to anticipate is also a product of reading the situation and spotting the possibility of a problem and preparing for it, taking remedial action. “Perfect planning prevents p**s poor performance” as one of my team used to put it, and that really summed it up for our team. Yes we had our fair share of panics in the early days, but we worked on them, thought about them, talked about them and would listen to any idea, no matter how daft it might have sounded at the time.
Over the first year we had got most of the seasonal issues better planned and, no matter how well our solutions worked we would always review them because sometimes they were too good and we could get the right results with less effort and/or cost. Sure there were times when we got it wrong as well (I used to tell them that if we were perfect we’d be running FM beyond the pearly gates), but getting it wrong teaches you far more that getting it right.
Having the drains up in a non threatening way I also covered recently. Building a team where people can speak frankly requires a tremendous trust in each other. It isn’t the easiest thing to achieve, and you can lose it in an instant if you’re not strong enough as a leader, but when you have it the team can, and will, fly. Team spirit is another major factor in being able to anticipate problems and head them off at the pass. The team will be watching each other’s backs and playing for the good of the team rather than for themselves.
I’ve used the FM environment here to illustrate the point, but it applies just as much across the whole business spectrum. A fired up and motivated team will have the bases covered and negate the violent swerves because they will see things coming. A business in this shape is not going to get caught up in the pendulum swings because they don’t need to. They can make and cope with the fine adjustments to strategy by deployment of the right tactics to achieve objectives.
The only circles you will find a team like this going round are of the Plan, Do and Review kind as they constantly improve their performance.
Use your environment to help the environment – the ultimate in recycling?
In Facilities Management (FM) we pride ourselves on our buildings and how we run them, and I think that we have been early adopters and champions of sustainable and environmental issues. But are we doing enough? In terms of what we can do in our own right we probably are close to it, but how much are we influencing the people that we look after?
Whether we are an in house or outsourced FM service provider we are unlikely to be able to bring about significant sustainable changes on our own, but there are ways that we can collaborate with others to influence and be influenced by them. The key to this is, to use the word in its original meaning, our environment.
Consider the environment in which the building(s) we manage and the people who use it live and work in: The local geographic environment. Do we talk to our commercial and residential neighbours on issues of common interest? How about the local authorities; do we have any dialogue with them? What about how people get to work? Some of these issues will fall into the Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) remit, so are you talking to them about what FM can offer and finding out what they have on their agenda? There are a lot of opportunities.
Consider the business environment that the people in the building work in. What business are they in? What do they want to showcase? What is the image that they are trying to portray to the outside world? Do you talk to the PR and Marketing people (other than when they want a desk moved)? FM has a lot to offer; we manage a lot of the things that interface with the outside world that can affect image and people’s perception of the company.
Your building’s occupants have an outside life, and that is another of the environment that FM impacts on. We manage the place where these people work for about a third of their day. We recognise that impact in terms of job satisfaction and people retention, but do we acknowledge that it also has a powerful impact on people’s moods and they way that they will interact with family and friends when they are away from work?
The ripple effect of the things that we do in the building(s) we manage goes out into the world around us, but often we are too involved in managing the splash to see where the ripples go and their impact. If we take that analogy literally, we know that ripples on a pond will cause erosion in the banks, so what impact are our ripples having in our local and business environments?
There is the “I’ve got enough on my plate” argument, but I would counter that by suggesting that getting to grips with some of these issues can take away existing pressure points and give you more time to manage. If your occupants are more content then you’ll have less complaints and the same applies to neighbours. If you’re building good relations with various internal and external groups you’re raising the FM stock and gaining a fan club; neutrals are better than enemies and fans are better than neutrals.
Over the years I’ve run all sorts of schemes, some of which seemed very off the wall to begin with but all paid dividends. There’s not room to list them here, but feel free to ask. Talk to others and collaborate on mutually beneficial projects. Using your environment to help the sustainable and environmental agenda is something to consider: The ultimate in recycling?
The art of diplomacy
On my recent US trip I got to chatting on the plane with my neighbour on the subject of tact. Exploring some of the differences between the way Americans and Brits do business, he felt that we place too much emphasis on what he termed diplomacy, hence tact. Straight talking is the way to go, he said.
It’s an interesting point, but I’ve always worked on the basis that people are, thankfully, all different, so you work at a relationship and modify your style accordingly. This has worked for me over the years whether that relationship is private or business, and for the latter, whether it’s been with my boss, my team, my peers, supplier:customer or customer:supplier. I don’t claim to have always got it right first time, but I usually made it work.
Where there have been failures it has tended to be through a lack of clarity. This was one of the reasons why my new friend felt being diplomatic was wrong, that we just danced around the point whereas his approach went straight to it.
In theory that is all well and good, but in practice I’m not so sure. One of the arts of leadership, and something that is very effective in negotiation, is in getting someone to do what you want them to do, but because they think that they want to do it. Being direct will rarely get you your desired result in those circumstances, but a more tactful approach usually will.
The direct approach is also something that does not cross cultural boundaries too well either, and so is often wasted if used in international dealings. Where did diplomacy come from in the first place? It came through cross border dealings where reaching a compromise was often the way to peace and survival.
Compromise is also often a dirty word with those who like the direct approach. I’ve been on many teams where, when we’ve been discussing our approach to an upcoming negotiation, there have been people who have wanted to take a “no compromise” position. Well, there are two key problems with that way of working. The first is that you are leaving yourself with a limited position and, to a degree, painting yourself into a corner which you should never do. The second is that, if you succeed, all of the compromise falls onto the other party. Maybe that isn’t a problem in a one off deal, but it is not the way to be building long term relationships.
Using tact, taking a diplomatic approach and being prepared to reach compromise are not signs of weakness. They are the trademarks of someone who will make successful deals over a long period of time and who will also probably be an extremely good leader.
People who act like this get things done, build happy teams and they make deals that people are happy with. They establish that reputation and people want to work for and with them. They will not be regarded as a soft touch either, because no-one that generates that level of success over a period of time can ever be a soft touch. They just become respected players, and that is another good thing because they don’t let ego get in the way.
You may sometimes have to be direct, but don’t forget that it’s people that you have to work with to make things happen. Knowing how to work with people is therefore crucial to success. Tact and diplomacy will serve you well as tools, so learn how and when to use them.
Lead well and prosper.
TCB
Nobby Styles, Wayne Rooney – Teamwork & Leadership
The differing fortunes of two men inextricably linked by the fame of the football club for which they have both played highlight one of the teamwork and leadership issues that I was taught and which I continue to try and pass on.
Teams are made up of individuals, but the synergy that a team can generate to become far greater than the sum of its parts is what makes great teams. In the case of football, not the eleven best, but the best eleven will be the team to beat.
Not everyone reading this will remember England winning the world cup, but most will remember us failing miserably in the recent competition in South Africa. In the recent series, we took a squad of decent players and yet, on the pitch, the performances were largely pathetic. In 1966 we had a squad with a few genuine world class players; Bobby Moore, Bobby Charlton, Gordon Banks and Jimmy Greaves were genuine top class internationals who would have graced any country’s side. Wilson and Cohen at full back likewise maybe, and these were backed up with experienced club pros like Jack Charlton, Roger Hunt and Geoff Hurst plus younger coming men such as Ball and Peters.
We lost Jimmy Greaves part way through due to injury and Alf Ramsey chose to leave him out thereafter. One of the finest goal scorers in the world and he had to sit on the sidelines. And yet we won. We won because the best eleven were on the pitch. Ramsey had chosen a team that worked and would not drop one of them even to allow one of the most lethal goal scorers of his time back in.
By contrast, the recent England squad also included one of the most lethal goal scorers of the current generation, but despite him being on the pitch we failed embarrassingly. That player was Wayne Rooney, in the news in the last few days for a spat with his club that saw him agree to stay after all for a massive pay rise.
At the same time another man who had worn the same club and international colours was having to sell his treasured mementos of 1966 to help him in his old age. That man, and what a man, is Nobby Styles. With all due respect Nobby was not a world class player, but he was a team player and, like the others, he played his heart out during the ’66 campaign. He played for his team mates, he played for his country, for the fans and for pride. They all did and they won; we won.
It was all about the team. Even Greavsie, grounded in the dug out in his team blazer, exploded with joy when the final whistle blew.
I think that Manchester United were absolutely stupid to bow to Rooney’s demands. No-one is bigger than the team and they should have set the example by sorting the lad out. There is no sign of leadership in the outcome of that sordid affair and it was brought into sharp contrast by the gratitude of the little man with the big heart for the sum he got for selling his treasures.
I don’t begrudge Rooney his wages. He’ll pay his tax and spend his cash so the economy will get it back in various ways, but he’ll never have what Nobby Styles has: Nobby is a World Cup Winner. No-one can ever take that away and the memory of his jigging around with the Jules Rimet trophy will live on long after Rooney’s greed is forgotten.
Is the office dead? Or even dying?
Is the office dead? No, not that TV show, the real place that many of us have worked in over the years.
What got me started on this was reading on line a posting from a public sector facilities management colleague talking about some of the alternative ways of working and plans to do things that I’d done, also in the public sector 15 years or so ago. There’s nothing new under the sun, but in the same week I also read something on the mayor’s plans for transport in London whereby, if my memory serves me correctly, they were talking about catering for a significant growth in the numbers of people coming to work in central London in the coming years.
Now, as I mentioned above, I can recall being involved with a working party with HR and IT colleagues many years ago through which we did all sorts of things including drop in centres, hot desks, shared desks, hotelling and much more. We changed the working hours of buildings and even worked with business neighbours, bus companies and local councils to change public transport routes and timetables, almost eliminating the rush hour at one location, green commuting being high in the agenda before I remember hearing that as a term.
Charting my own work style and pattern, I find it a little ironic looking back that, having got far enough up the greasy pole to have landed the corner office and a share in a secretary, I gave up that office for something smaller, but in the middle of the action, then shifted myself into the open plan, then to a shared desk before, in about 1999, becoming truly location independent, i.e.; I worked out of the back of the car, hotel lobbies, supermarket coffee bars or anywhere that I could find, but this would often be, say it quietly, an office.
I can remember 30 odd years ago a lot of trumpeting about the paperless office and yet that is still nowhere near a reality. Yes, we have embraced email, but it has done nothing to eliminate paper; we’ve seen more success in that goal from electronic invoicing and payment systems. Photocopiers and printers still proliferate with all of their other environmental impacts besides paper consumption.
Our offices have certainly changed over the 40+ years that I’ve been at work, but I would argue that this change has come from social factors as much as from technological and operational ones. We don’t have the same hierarchical structures that we used to. Work is much less formal and I believe that it will be the social factor that does as much to shape the future of the office as anything else.
Humans are sociable animals, and there are synergies that come from having us in one place. Yes you can do that virtually, but the dynamics of having us in one place at the same time can’t be beaten, especially when you add the ingredient of the infrastructure that an office provides.
Technology will play its part, but that will be shaped by the demand of the people. All of the gadgets that we enjoy and the way that we use them is coming from us folks. They aren’t being forced on us; the way we use the current generation of phones, computers and other gizmos shapes the next wave, and that will be with us soon enough.
My belief is that the same factors apply to the way we use offices. I don’t know what tomorrow’s office will look like, but there will be one, I’m sure.
Home thoughts from abroad; a postcard from America
Oh to be in England, now September’s here? Not really, no.
I’m taking a few minutes of quiet time in between business and the essential hospitality that goes with it, at least it does more so here in the USA that maybe back home. Shortly I will be back on show when my host’s guests start to arrive and we get down to some serious socializing and, it has to be said, networking.
So, home thoughts from abroad? For me this is more home than home in the sense of where I live. Yes I know that I am British, and I am proud of that, but I am more at home here in the US than I am back in Wiltshire and, if I had the chance, I’d set up home here for good.
For me there is a lot about America that we have seen wiped out in the UK. People do care about each other here and there is a much greater sense of community spirit. In many ways it is like the England that I grew up in in the 1950s and 1960s. Nostalgia may not be what it used to be, but I am nostalgic for a time when people were far less self centred; my Monday Musing last week talked of the Musketeer’s motto of “One for all and all for one”. So much of what I see back home is more like one for all and every one for themselves.
Here there is a much simpler attitude in most people, and it shows up in the way that I am being looked after. The whole concept of me being over here and staying alone in a hotel is an anathema to the people that I’m meeting, so a range of hospitality gets lined up for me to meet families and friends. This isn’t expense account stuff either; it is a genuine desire to welcome a stranger and look after them.
Back home people often mock the “have a nice day” culture, but here it is, in most cases, genuine. This morning I went for a walk down a couple of blocks to buy a newspaper. I’d not got far before I fell into step with someone heading the same way. By the time we got to the news stand I knew his name, what he did, the names of his wife and his children and how they were doing at school and he’d had broadly equivalent information from me. When I used to commute into London by train there would be the same herd of us heading off to the station each morning for the run into Liverpool Street, but in three years of doing that I got to talk to two other people. Everyone else just kept their heads down and ignored those around them.
The Americans bring this warmth into much of business, whether that be BtoB or BtoC. In most cases there is a real need to give the customer service that goes a bit further and that’s great. It makes doing business a pleasure. Sure they are hard negotiators, and yes there are sharks, but doing a deal here is a very different experience to doing one back home.
Maybe some of this is just because it is a change for me. It’s nearly a year since I was last over and it could just be the grass being greener on this side of the hill. Maybe I would find it less attractive if I was here full time. Maybe not, and I have to come home soon anyway.
[tweetmeme source=”bowenjohnj”]
I support this charity
British Blogs
the Monday Musings column from that consultant bloke 