Morettini on Management

General Management and Marketing Advice for Software and Tech Companies

Tag: management

Effective Management During an Economic Crisis

This month we’re doing something a bit different–we have a guest post from Holly McCarthy. Please be aware that Ms. McCarthy is not affiliated with PJM Consulting, and the views expressed in this post are her own.

In the current economic climate, there is much that can still be done to turn business around. Certainly, technology has come a long way in helping businesses to maximize productivity with a minimum amount of manpower. While this is a great advantage over the economic crises of years past, the fact remains that effective management and leadership is still a key factor in maintaining the integrity of any business that wants to stick around after the dust has settled.

Leading by Example

Management will need to take the reins of companies and lead by example for the best results as the economy continues to waver in the coming months. Being able to roll up one’s sleeves and get down to business will show employees just what it takes to get the job done right. Unemployment is at its highest in nearly sixteen years, so many people may be in fear of losing their jobs. Showing that you are ready and willing to help out in the trenches will help boost morale and bring your team together in the process.

Ask for Input

Crowdsourcing is becoming increasingly more popular among businesses. While you may not wish to go outside the scope of your company for ideas, asking those who work for you for suggestions and ideas helps bring employees together and builds a stronger office culture in the process. Getting ideas from those within the company and giving credit where credit is due is a very effective way to turn things around and get your business back on track.

Trim the Fat

Unfortunately, there comes a time when a company must make the decision to let go of some employees. Take time to carefully evaluate your staff and find out where the weak links are. Some duties may need to be consolidated into other positions and this should be done within reason. The employees who are left will more than likely be happy to take on a few extra duties to secure their jobs. Although this is not the best possible solution, it may be the only way to help keep a business afloat.

Be Proactive

It is very important in these times to refrain from being reactionary. While things may continue to change from day to day, create a plan of action for keeping your doors open beyond the crisis. What changes can be made? Where can money be saved? Look at all of your options and leave no stone unturned; figuring out a way to stay afloat and ahead of the curve should be your number one objective until things turn back around.

This post was contributed by Holly McCarthy, who writes on the subject of the job search. She invites your feedback at hollymccarthy12 at gmail dot com

1 Comment by admin on January 21, 2009
filed in Corporate Strategy, General Management, Operations
tagged , ,

What Happens to Apple after Steve Jobs?

I’ve written several times on Steve Jobs and Apple, one of the most fascinating companies and executives that we’ve seen in the history of high technology.

I don’t mean to make this a morbid article; the current (and now long-running) speculation on Steve Job’s health has been well-documented. I hope that Mr. Jobs is fine, and that he has many more years of good health, with a continued long reign at Apple.

But it does raise a slightly different question that is interesting to ponder. There has always be a “cult of personality” surrounding Apple and Steve Jobs. In fact, Apple stock often swings wildly on days when news about Jobs health comes out.  The company has done well during short periods when he has been away, but Mr. Jobs is joined at the hip with Apple in the investment community and public’s eyes. Jobs will leave Apple at some point, hopefully to go into a happy retirement, as I stated above. Regardless of the circumstances of his leaving, what will become of the company once he is gone?

I can think of no tech company more closely associated with a founder/CEO than Apple and Jobs. Gates and Microsoft certainly are in that league, and I’m sure that you can think of others. But I doubt if you can think of any combination that is clearly more high profile and closely-linked.

Jobs has obviously been a major driver of Apple’s current success, and has enriched its many shareholders and other stakeholders. While it may be blasphemy to the Apple faithful, especially in recent times, in my opinion he has also been responsible for some of the company’s periodic downturns. Whether viewed strictly as the company’s savoir, or also an unstable dictator that has wrought big swings in the company’s performance over a long period of time–it’s undeniable that an unusual amount of responsibility has laid in Job’s hands–especially for a company of Apple’s enormous size. He is known to be detailed-oriented and involved (from a positive perspective), and a micro-manager and poor delegater assuming a more negative viewpoint. The basic premise of this article is that once he leaves Apple, there will be a leadership vacuum. This isn’t necessarily a prescription for catastrophe–but it is rarely a good thing for a company, at least in the short term. So what are the broader lessons we can glean from this fascinating situation with respect to managing high tech businesses? Apple really isn’t a rare case–tech companies cultures are built around their founder/CEO quite often, as I see often in my practice at PJM Consulting. This is a case study that can be instructive for many managers. Let’s take a look at a few potential lessons:

Difficult or Odd Corporate Culture
There is obviously much to be admired about Apple’s corporate culture, since it is a very successful company. Yet by many it is considered to be somewhat dysfunctional from a management standpoint. Much of this can be attributed to having a leader with a very strong and quirky style. Cultures tend to develop haphazardly as companies grow, even if its leaders have given some thought to the issue. In a corporation, everyone has a boss and other constraints put on them by the company’s social structure. This tends to dampen the effects of dysfunctional behavior by people up and down the organizational chart. The exception to this is the Founder/CEO who is the head of the organization. Much like the old story about the “Emperor who has no Clothes”, no one in an official capacity will call out the person at the top of the org chart on their bad behavior, decisions and eccentricities. This is dangerous and can lead to a culture and company policies becoming embedded with inappropriate ideas for no good reason, sometimes based on what lower level people BELIEVE the CEO would want. The takeaway is that leaders (especially strong ones) must take care not to have TOO GREAT an influence on the culture of the company simply because of their personal style.

Corporate Succession
Strong leader such as Jobs often tend to run companies in a dictatorial manner. They also have a tendency to have a “self-centric” view of the world, and don’t give sufficient thought to planning for the company’s future after their tenure. This may work well while they are in charge, but can lead to a company in disarray when they leave. It’s not clear that there is a clear successor, or strong group of potential successors, in place to follow Jobs at Apple. For a company of the size and stature of Apple, most people would think that this isn’t a good idea. Founding CEOs and Senior Executives with a similar organizational impact need to force themselves to step back from the present, and plan for a future without themselves. This isn’t a comfortable thing for many people, but is critically important for the full potential of their legacy to be fulfilled.

Dangerous Concentration of Responsibility in a Single Person
In a startup, the founders often wear many hats, and make all of the important decisions themselves. No doubt that Jobs and Wozniak personally handled nearly everything when Apple was formed. This is a very proper operating model for a startup. As a company grows, at some point it becomes a VERY INAPPROPRIATE model, and can put the company in great jeopardy. What if that leader has a heart attack or is in some other way unable to fulfill their critical role? Chaos can occur, and the company’s decision-making can be paralyzed, especially in the short term. In addition, I believe that the old saying of “two heads are better than one” usually holds true. I’m not one to endorse decisions-by-committee, but many corporate situations are complex and inherently risky, and the decision-making in these circumstances can benefit by having several strong viewpoints. CEOs should ensure that important decisions include at least some level of peer discussion and review, to avoid blind spots and major mistakes.

Micro-Management
Strong leaders, especially those who are able to create a company from the ground up like Steve Jobs, are often “type A” personalities and micro-managers. This may be highly efficient when a company is in startup mode. Later on, however, it can lead to a lack of development of people down in the organization, as well as paralyze the organization’s ability to make quick decisions. The most effective leaders are those who are able to “let go” much of the decision-making as the company grows, while keeping their fingers on the pulse of what’s truly important. This is a very fine line to walk, no doubt, but it imo being able to successfully pull this off is one of the more important attributes of the very best corporate leaders.

Bench Strength – Can Worthy Managers Survive Under A Strong Leader?
Along the same lines as the Succession discussion above, attracting and retaining talented managers lower in the organization is usually critical to a company’s current success. If the leadership of the company tends to be dictatorial, micro-managers who hold on to most of the responsibility, lower-level managers may become demoralized. The management team needs to be developed, and feel like they have real responsibility and some control of their own destiny. When the guy at the top is holding on to all the power, strong leaders further down in the organization have a tendency to move on to other companies, where they feel like they are making an impact and have an opportunity to progress. The best leaders ensure that the conditions are in place attract, nurture, develop and retain the management talent required for a company’s continued growth and success.

SUMMARY
Apple is a great tech company, and Steve Jobs is one of our industry’s legendary entrepreneurs and managers. Yet every company, even highly successful ones like Apple, has holes in its game. There are many strong leaders much like Jobs at the head of software a
nd tech companies. Too often their strength is manifested with a very short term view of the organization. Although difficult to do, the strongest leaders operate with a view on not just optimizing the immediate issues facing them, but also plan ahead so that the company can function well even without their personal involvement. Often this means suppressing some of their own natural tendencies so that the overall organization can more fully develop. The resulting decentralization of power reduces a number of risks that are inherent when too much depends on a single individual. That’s my own view–post a comment if you have additional views to add to this discussion.

Follow Phil Morettini and Morettini on Management via Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, RSS, or the PJM Consulting Quarterly Newsletter. Contact Phil directly at info@pjmconsult.com

1 Comment by admin on January 9, 2009
filed in Corporate Strategy, General Management, Operations
tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

Integrating Sales and Marketing at Software and Technology Companies

In some, but not all tech companies, the Sales and Marketing functions are managed separately. They are separate, but closely related functions that some people (especially technical folks) have a tendency to confuse. Normally, there is a VP or Director heading up the Marketing department, and another VP or Director leading the Sales staff. But it is also not unusual to see a VP or Director of Sales & Marketing who leads both functions at once.

This all seems benign enough, so what’s the issue? The issue comes when actual revenue fails to meet the forecast–that’s when the finger-pointing usually begins. Unfortunately, not meeting forecasts is a common event in technology businesses, where forecasting of new software and tech products can be particularly challenging. When that finger-pointing starts, it often breaks out first between the Marketing and Sales departments–here’s how the ensuing “discussion” might go:

SALES: “You haven’t planned products that our customers want to by. You’ve priced them too high. And those leads that you’ve spent SO MUCH money on that you are giving us aren’t qualified, and are essentially worthless to us.”

MARKETING: “You’re not selling the right products as we directed, or presenting the positioning of our product line properly. All you do is try to sell on price, constantly discounting and hurting our margins. If you’d follow up on all the leads we gave you, get off of the golf course and work more than 4 hours a day, you’d be well over quota and the company would be doing fine.”

Sales folks and Marketers are different types of people, and tend to view the world differently and from their own selfish perspectives. This often nasty “discussion” as simulated above is far from uncommon, and can get pretty ugly–which can really hurt a company in trying to reach its goals. So what’s the right way to get the Sales and Marketing departments to work together as a team, avoiding all of this counter-productive ugliness?

SOLUTIONS TO REDUCE POTENTIAL CONFLICT

The VP of Sales & Marketing
One way to greatly reduce this conflict is to have a common leadership for the Sales and Marketing functions. This usually means having a VP-Sales & Marketing in your organization. If you can find the right person to fill this role, this can actually be a very good solution. Having a single leader can go a long way toward eliminating or at least greatly reducing this conflict, assuming he has a balanced background and perspective, and is fair, not favoring one department over the other. Good people to fill this role are out there–but are very rare, in my opinion. There are far more managers who have been put in the position of VP-Sales & Marketing than there are those who were suited for the role. Most of the time you end up with a manager that understands one function well, and gives short shrift to or completely screws up the other function. . You will often find this combined VP position in companies that are not “marketing-intensive”, where the sales function is the dominant aspect of the job. If the Marketing function is truly less important, a company can get by with this structure, although it usually isn’t ideal. You can read more about the issues with a VP-Sales & Marketing role in a previous article that I’ve written entitled “Big S, little m“.

CEO Demands Communication and Cooperation
If care isn’t taken, the very different personality types in sales and marketing can lead to some pretty intense conflicts. I’ve been a soldier, captain and general in this war–and let me tell you, it isn’t pretty. I’ve also (effectively) filled the role of VP-Sales & Marketing, which is a story for another day. Much like the battles between Marketing and Engineering that I’ve previously written about, I have seen this battle play out regularly in the companies that I have worked for as an employee, as well as at many of my clients in eight years as a consultant at PJM Consulting. Things can get out of hand very quickly, and paralyze a company. In many cases, the key is how the CEO handles the situation. He must go well out of his way to be a fair arbitrator in these discussions. Even the most benign comment can appear to show favor to one side, in the eyes of the other. Don’t ignore or deny the problem, or assume it will be handled at the VP level. It is the CEO’s responsibility to prevent, recognize and fix this problem. Be careful that you don’t inadvertently make decisions or set up policies that reward or tolerate company politics.

Departmental Social Integration
I recommend planning activities which allow sales and marketing counterparts to get to know each other as “people” outside of their project activities. In many ways a successful outcome is all about relationships, so closely monitor the personal relationship between VP-Marketing and VP-Sales. Also, make sure that the VPs are monitoring the relationships below them. Ensure both VPs are open and honest with about the relationship between departments. Also watch for arrogance (especially from “experienced veterans”) when screening potential new hires for either department that will interface with the other –arrogance often usually the trigger which starts the battle rolling

Integration of Departmental Functions
Encourage the sales department to get marketers in front of their customers. Hire marketing people that have had some sales or business development experience, who understand dealing directly with customers–and know what’s it like when your living depends upon making your quota. Insist that the marketing department include the sales folks in determining what a “qualified lead” looks like. If you can get agreement on this up front on this important issue, much of the finger pointing goes away when things don’t go as planned.

Joint Goals and Compensation Structure
It currently isn’t common to design department or individual goals which cross marketing and sales functions, but if you can find a way to do this, you are structurally setting up the desire and need for close cooperation. Design goals and MBOs to reward the two departments for working together. Also, don’t ever allow one department to “get ahead” by blaming the other–tie them together as much as possible in your goal setting.

SUMMARY

To limit issues between sales and marketing functions and ensure that they “sing from the same sheet’, make sure to pay close attention to the individual departmental activities, which can nevertheless greatly effect the perceived performance of the other department. Optimizing the cooperation between sales and marketing demands an up front look at things such as the corporate structure at the highest levels, the social fabric of the company, compensation structure and use of MBOs, and formal cross-departmental reviews so each department can influence the other department’s approaches. All too often in my practice at PJM Consulting, these things aren’t taken into consideration until after the fact–when things have already blown up and there is a mess to clean up.

That’s my view on this all too common conflict. What has been your experience in this area? Post a comment and begin a discussion.

Phil Morettini
PJM Consulting
www.pjmconsult.com

3 Comments by admin on December 11, 2008
filed in Corporate Strategy, General Management, Marcom, Product Marketing/Management, Promotion, enterprise software, sales
tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Strategies for a Technology Market Slowdown

Is the world economy slowing down? What are the implications for technology companies?

Recently, technology stocks (along with the stock market in general) have tanked. There is a credit crunch that shows no signs of abating, and inflation is rearing its ugly head in some markets, and political gridlock seems to be the order of the day.  Is the economy headed for a “double dip” recession–taking technology businesses down the drain with it?

I don’t think so, but I’m not in the business of forecasting such things. Tech stocks are often affected more severely than average in an economic downturn, which affects technology industry investment and ultimately tech growth rates.

So what should you do if you’re the CEO of a software or hardware tech business?

Be Prudent, But Don’t Panic
Now’s certainly not the time to stick you head in the sand, and hope the economy doesn’t get any worse. It almost certainly will; but more importantly, how will it affect your company? That’s what you need to ponder. Is your product a “must have” or a “very nice to have”? Obviously the “nice-to-haves” will have a tougher time in a declining economy, and should plan accordingly. So take the time to analyze you situation, and make a forecast for your own business, based up the unique circumstances of your market and company. Remember, hope is not a strategy.

Look For Opportunities to Outflank Weaker Competitors
For strong players, declining economies can be a great time to pick up market share from weaker competitors. If you have the resources and can do it safely, now might be the time to run a promotion, or selectively increase your marketing. It’s counter-intuitive to most managers’ instincts. But weakening the competition during a downturn can lead to stronger growth when things turn back upward.

Slow Near-Term Expense Growth, But Don’t Compromise Long-Term Initiatives
In most cases, companies will want to carefully monitor, and possibly cut back on their spending. You want to make sure that you don’t put your company in jeopardy, by have expenses out of sync with flat or declining revenues. But try your best to keep intact the initiatives that are critical to long-term growth. You must continue to think long-term as well as short term, assuming you don’t get in a situation where your survival is at stake. Cut back on advertising and office space if you’re seeing a slowdown–but make sure you don’t cut the product development project which will lead to growth 18 months hence. These can be tough decisions, but they really separate the long-term successful CEOs from the flash-in-the-pans. Almost anyone can manage when times are good.

Limit The Growth Of Your Staff
While prudent spending can be wise during a downturn, aggressively increasing the size of you staff usually isn’t. There are always exceptions, of course, but adding too much staff can really bloat your fixed cost structure, in a manner that limits your management flexibility. Unfortunately, many companies are often most aggressively adding staff at the end of a growth cycle–just in time for the downturn. If this leads to layoffs, it can have a devastating effect on your company’s morale.

Although layoffs are sometimes necessary, they are always painful and hurtful to the company culture–unless the company culture is already of the “Attila the Hun”, cutthroat variety. The founders of one of my former employers, Bill Hewlett and David Packard, ran HP for many years with a rule of thumb that limited staff increases to 25% of revenue growth. This helped them avoid the natural inclination to hire someone new every time a new task was identified. I believe was an important factor in many years of smooth growth–without layoffs. This particular metric might not be right for your company, but something similar could prove to be a useful damper on excessive hiring.

Make Sure That You Have Money For A Rainy Day
While it’s no time to panic, it IS time to make sure that you have the financial resources necessary to comfortably cruise through a downturn.  Availability of funds and terms will only get worse if the  stock market heads down further and the credit crunch continues. Also, make sure that you have available the largest line of credit possible with your bank. It may cost you an extra few thousand dollars a year, but its excellent insurance, if you are surprised on the downside. If you’re in startup mode and financing yourself on credit cards and home equity lines–maximize your future access to these as well! Whatever your sources of funds, make sure now that you’re financially well prepared for whatever the future holds.

Be Poised For The Next Upturn, Whenever It Happens
I mentioned earlier that you should try your best to keep long-term initiatives alive. In that same vein, your thought processes should CONSTANTLY be focused on the next upturn, in all of your decision-making. Again, this assumes that your survival isn’t in question. For example, while massive hiring isn’t usually wise during a downturn, you want to always be open to unique opportunities that may not come along often. Say there is a talented executive available, only because of the downturn. If you can safely afford him or her, snap them up now, before a competitor grabs them. Or retain a talented consultant to position yourself with a new technology direction or market segment when growth inevitably climbs. Downturns often present opportunities to improve your business when the next growth cycle occurs. But you need to be “looking ahead” and making good decisions now, to take full advantage of the upturn when it finally does.

Summary
Once again, now is not the time to panic. But it is an important time to plan. Anyone that can predict what will happen with an economy should go to the nearest casino–no need to waste your time with a software or technology company! So I suggest that it might be wise to do a “best-most likely–worst” 2 year forecast now, and try to plan as best you can for the two extreme cases. Post a comment and let me know your thoughts on how the economy and the tech industry will fare in the coming months.

Phil Morettini
PJM Consulting
www.pjmconsult.com

1 Comment by admin on January 14, 2008
filed in Business Development, Corporate Strategy, Financing, General Management, Mergers & Acquisitions, Software/Product Development, Startup/Early Stage
tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Flattening of the Growth Curve

In every company’s history there comes a time (or two or three or four times!) when your momentum slows, and the sales curve begins to flatten. This can be one of the most trying and frustrating times for software and technology companies. It’s certainly not as difficult as the startup phase, when “crib death” is an ever present fear. And a no growth, flat revenue scenario is much preferable to declining sales combined with negative profitability that follows, which leads to a “death spiral” if no effective action is taken.

I do find this situation is often more confusing to company management than either the start up or death spiral scenarios. This is because it often occurs just after a period of fast growth and prosperity, where it seems that the company can do no wrong. As a result, senior managers are often in denial about what is happening—whereas in the startup or death spiral situations, the situation is much more obvious, usually motivating folks to take fast, decisive action.

Search for the Culprits, Blame for the Innocent

With flattening growth, it’s easy to blame things that may not be the true cause. I often here excuses and tactics such as the following:

“The marketing department just needs to put out better promotions. Fire the VP Marketing and bring in someone who will get the job done”.

“The sales force isn’t selling hard enough, they just need to close more deals. Get the VP Sales off the golf course and tell him to kick some butt, or he’ll be the next to go”.

“The channel is useless; they’re taking 30% but they aren’t pushing the products—take more deals direct”.

“We just need to charge more for our products; we’re leaving money on the table”.

“Cut the price to stimulate demand.”

“The UK distributor is fat, dumb and happy—sign two more of his competitors to motivate him and maximize sales in that country.”

Now some of these reasons may even be accurate, and some of the proposed tactics could be possibly be useful. But I have found, quite often, that things of this nature aren’t the fundamental issue, and beating up the sales force, cutting or raising prices, or messing with your channel balance may exacerbate the situation and make things worse—not better.

The Real Problem

Sometimes the answer is as simple as “All good things must come to an end.”

Growth cycles don’t last for ever, as much as every software & technology company CEO, VP marketing and VP Sales wishes it would. There is almost a natural cycle that occurs with revenue that often coincides with the life cycle of your products. Also, the economy changes, competition heats up, novel marketing programs age and are copied—which reduces their effectiveness, market segments get saturated, and customer budgets are re-targeted to the “next new thing.” Stuff happens—always. The only real question is when.

So what’s a befuddled and perplexed tech company CEO to do?

Finding a Solution

Well, the first thing I recommend is to really spend some time getting to the bottom of things. Instead of shot-gunning blame that may be misplaced, or impetuously blowing up established pillars of the business—conduct a real, objective analysis of the nature of the slowdown. I don’t suggest paralysis by analysis by any means, but do take the time to gather some data, so that your actions will be based on more than knee-jerk reactions.

Past that, it’s hard to generalize on a course of action, because the proper action will depend upon what you find in your analysis. But for the sake of discussion, let’s say that while there are a few factors that you find which could be leading to slower growth, there isn’t a “silver bullet” reason that can be “fixed” to get the revenue curve again pointed up and to the right. Below are some general steps that I’ve found may enable you to “restart growth”. I might add that many of them are most effective if you begin them prior to actual revenue flattening:

Try marketing programs you haven’t used before
Usually when you get in a period of high growth, there is a workhorse program or two that has worked well for you, and there is a tendency to “keep doing what works”. Unfortunately, even the best conceived marketing programs eventually run out of steam. One of the keys to having consistently good outbound marketing, is too be constantly testing new ideas, placing small bets, and fine-tuning them if there is enough success to continue. As I’ve said before, product marketing is part art, and part science—with the art portion unfortunately upfront. You need to do a little trial and error to find a good program, and then the science kicks in, using data you’ve gathered to optimize it. But the key is to be constantly testing new ideas, in good times and bad. If you wait until your growth has already slowed, you may scramble for quite a while, trying to find a new answer.

Have an internal “growth” brainstorming session
Ideally you are doing this before you fall into a revenue rut. But regardless, do bring together people in your organization to bring out the ideas they may have to give the top line a kick start. Do hold these sessions in an open, non-threatening and non-political environment. It’s important that people are able to speak freely, and not be ridiculed, if they come up with an idea that’s “too far out of the box”. That is often where strategic breakthroughs are made. And don’t just limit these sessions to executive managers. Remember, the people at the bottom of the org chart are often the ones closest to the business, and are sometimes able to more easily spot a big opportunity that the company could capitalize on.

Hire some outside help
Consultants have a very bad name in some areas—unfortunately, sometimes with good reason. But bringing in someone with deep marketing or management expertise, with a different viewpoint than the internal management team, can sometimes be the quickest way to new approaches that will turn the ship quickly. I’d recommend staying away from folks that that have a cookbook formula, have only been consultants and not operating executives, or take too much of an academic approach. Every company, market and point in time is different and needs to be analyzed as such. But hiring the right outside consultant or firm who is creative, analytic and “been there and done that” can have a big impact. PJM Consulting has often worked as a change agent in these situations, and increasing or restarting traction is an area of specialty.

Look at entering an adjacent market
If it’s determined that your current market space is getting saturated, one of the first things to do is to look at adjacent spaces. Preferably, look somewhere that you can leverage your current marketing, distribution and brand, but also possibly where you can apply existing company technology to a different customer’s problem. The key here is don’t go to a complete green field that looks attractive because it’s large or growing fast, but where you have no real possibility of competing. Again, it’s best to be taking this step in anticipation of slowing growth in your current business—rather than waiting until it happens. Getting traction in new areas can take some time.

Consider M&A to fill out your product line or distribution system
If you’ve been caught by a surprise slowdown and you need to do something quickly, a strategic acquisition can sometimes be the answer. I warn you to proceed with caution here. M&A is fraught with danger—statistics show that most acquisitions don’t work out well. You need to think it through, proceed carefully, and don’t get overly excited by the thrill of the deal chase. If done well, however, a strategic acquisition can be a real shortcut to entering an adjacent space, filling out your product line for an existing strong distribution system, or adding sales channels to your strong product offerings. This is another area where PJM Consulting has strong experience, and can offer assistance.

Think it through before you start shooting

There are obviously endless other potential ways to explore when attempting to jump out of a revenue rut. I wanted to suggest a few to stimulate your thinking—and more importantly, steer you away from some “knee-jerk” reactions, that often make your situation even worse.

What have you done in the past when you need to restart growth? Post a comment below and fill us all in on your strategies.

Follow Phil Morettini and Morettini on Management via Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, RSS, or the PJM Consulting Quarterly Newsletter. Contact Phil directly at info@pjmconsult.com

4 Comments by admin on April 19, 2006
filed in Business Models, Corporate Strategy, Distribution Channels, General Management, Marcom, Mergers & Acquisitions, Product Marketing/Management, Promotion, Software/Product Development, market research
tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Strategic Advantage

How does a company compete in the long run? I’m not talking about day to day stuff—but what sets your company apart, and gives it a place in the marketplace that allows it to survive, and hopefully, thrive?

There are a lot of different terms used to describe the ability to compete: strategic advantage, differential advantage, competitive advantage, unique value proposition, etc. But all these terms mean essentially the same thing—what have you got that the market wants–that other don’t?

Drinking the Kool-Aid

At PJM Consulting I have the opportunity to talk to a great many software and hardware company CEOs, many which are of the early stage variety. I’m taken aback that some of them don’t even understand the concept of strategic advantage. To start a company, and not have thought about what is going to allow you to break into an existing market seems pretty strange to me. Ignorance is bliss, I guess.

A far greater number of CEOs understand the concept of strategic advantage, but have a tendency to fall in love with their company’s sales pitch—also referred to as “drinking the Kool-Aid”. This is natural, but really unfortunate. Lack of realism as to what your company brings to the table is not helpful in creating a company that will break through market noise and become successful. I would argue that realism, even skepticism, about a company’s advantage is an attribute that is important to every startup CEO. Don’t get me wrong; I don‘t mean to imply that a CEO should walk through the halls of his company, spouting “whoa is me, how will we ever make it”! But at least in internal thinking, he or she should be constantly questioning and testing whether his company’s advantage is real, and not fading. A bit of healthy paranoia can be very useful when it comes to strategic issues.

What is a Real Strategic Advantage?

So what does it take to have a real, sustainable competitive advantage? Let’s look at some of the things that are—and some that are not—what I’ll call “mirages”.

REAL ADVANTAGES

First Mover
The first mover advantage has led to some of the great success stories in high tech. Apple in PCs, Cisco in Routers, IBM in Mainframes, Adobe in Document Standards, Intuit in Personal Financial Software, SalesForce.com in Hosted CRM—just to name a few. What is important to mention here, is that while the first mover advantage is real—it isn’t necessarily sustainable for very long. First movers that don’t develop another, more sustainable advantage, often end up as road kill in the long term.

Critical Mass
Being big can be great—as long as the mass is muscle—not fat (see the large company discussion below). Being big can allow you the resources to build a great brand, spread your fixed costs over a large number of unit sales to provide a cost advantage, and enable you to attract and pay very smart people. Yes, size can be an enormous advantage, particularly in manufacturing market segments where scale is so important. As long as the company keeps its eye on the ball and uses its mass to its advantage, this can be one of the strongest, most sustainable strategic advantages.

Patents
I have mixed feeling about this one. Patents can of course become a major strategic advantage, over the very long period that the patent is enforceable. If you have a strong patent portfolio backing a product that has achieved market success—this is one of the most powerful, sustainable advantages available. But I believe that the pursuit of patents can often be “fool’s gold” for many young technology companies. First of all, they really aren’t that important, unless you have success in the market. If you aren’t successful in the market, sometimes you can become “patent troll”, suing others for infringing your patents—but that is truly a business plan of last resort. In software markets, in particular, I’m of the belief that almost anything can be “coded around”. Also, with the wide variety of stuff available for patent these days, coupled with great confusion about what is truly enforceable, it’s gotten harder to obtain a patent that you are certain you can count on. I’ve seen a lot of early stage companies dump too many scarce dollars into the patent process, which could have been very useful in that critical time window available to make a new product successful. I’m suggesting a balance here. Using the patent system can have huge payoffs, but this should be balanced with the need for capital in achieving market success.

Low Cost Producer
This is another major strategic advantage if you can achieve it. It can allow you to essentially control how much profit is made by an entire market segment. It is a lot more realistic to gain a significant cost advantage in hardware than in software. But with rapid globalization and the constant emergence of lower cost labor markets throughout the world, even current low cost producers cannot allow complacency to set in. Years ago, if you achieved the low cost producer position, you were probably set for a while. But not anymore.

Brand
This is the ultimate strategic advantage, and arguably, the only one that is sustainable in the very long term. If you establish your company as the leading brand in your market segment, it will allow you to charge higher prices, get away with somewhat higher costs, smooth over your slower decision-making, and much more. A great brand covers up many sins in the short run, and gives you additional time to recover from your mistakes, which competitors with lesser brands won’t get. In the long run, brand is practically everything.

MIRAGES

First Mover
Wait—“First Mover” already appeared in the “Real Advantage” column above! That’s right, it did. I think of being a First Mover as an advantage, but one that can quickly turn into a mirage, and often does. Think of VisiCalc in Spreadsheets, Ashton-Tate in databases, 3Com in networking hardware, Novell in network operating systems, Digital Research in microcomputer operating Systems, even Apple in PCs (they’re up now, but haven’t always been)—the list could go on and on. Many of you may not know the names of some of these companies, but they were all industry pioneers, and at one time dominant in their market segments. The message here is that being a first mover is a means to an end. It can assist you greatly in establishing a position in the market—but if that position isn’t quickly backed by some more sustainable advantage—ultimately the company may serve as a case study for some fast follower to “go to school”, and ultimately “eat their lunch”.

Technological Superiority
This is one I hear all the time from technically-oriented CEOs, talking about why their startup will win—vs. the 50 other startups and 5 established market leaders in their segment. First of all, they are usually kidding themselves—it s often not really true. They just have their head in the sand, or don’t know what’s in their competitor’s labs. And even if they do have unusually smart engineers, or a great technology platform, that in itself isn’t enough to guarantee initial success, let alone sustain it. The technology must be somehow be protected either via patents or trade secrets, and it must still be translated into an easy-to-use product that can demonstrate productivity benefits of some sort, to the target customer. Except for early adopters, no one buys products due to the wiz-bang technology inside.

Market Leadership
This is similar to the “First Mover” discussion above. Market leadership, by itself, is not a true competitive advantage. Your company may be in the lead at the moment, but
why, and for how long? Maybe there is a technological innovation in a competitor’s lab that will soon make your solution obsolete, from a performance or cost perspective. In High Tech markets, leadership can be very fleeting—unless there is some substantial, sustainable competitive advantage behind it.

Large Company
This one kills many good companies. Senior management gets complacent thinking they are one of the giants of the industry—who could possibly challenge them? This complacency is often accompanied by bloated cost structures, slow decision making, lack of “smart” risk-taking, and political/bureaucratic business processes. All of these things allow the nimble innovator in a high tech market to outflank the slow-moving large company. Having critical mass can be great—but not if you implode under your own fat.

So that’s my opinion on competitive advantage. I’m sure that you may be able to come up with many more “Real Advantages and “Mirages”. Or you may disagree with the points I’ve made. Either way—let’s talk! Post a comment on, or send me an email message.

Follow Phil Morettini and Morettini on Management via Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, RSS, or the PJM Consulting Quarterly Newsletter. Contact Phil directly at info@pjmconsult.com

1 Comment by admin on March 24, 2006
filed in Business Models, Corporate Strategy, General Management, Startup/Early Stage
tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Hiring and Retaining High Tech Employees

Among the many interesting things that I get to examine in my Consulting Practice, one of the most fascinating is the differing cultures that are created within Software and Technology companies. Much of a company’s culture flows from the attitudes of the founders of the company. But the culture really consists largely of the people who are employed by make up the company. A company’s culture is a living, changing concept that is controlled by these employees in aggregate—from the CEO all the way down to the “worker bees”. I believe that culture plays a huge role in the company’s success or failure in the long run. For this reason, as well as many other obvious ones, there is probably nothing more important to a high tech company’s long-term success, than hiring and retaining employees.

So what’s the best way to hire “the best” and motivate and retain them for the long haul? That’s the $64,000 question. There are many paths to success, and even many ways of accomplishing the same goal. I will present one path and lay out my “best practices” in hiring and retention.

Hire Slowly
This is a major part of my hiring philosophy, and one that I must credit my time at HP for teaching me. When I worked at HP our hiring process was very thorough and deliberate. Employees weren’t simply chosen by a manager filling out his or her staff. A major part of the interviewing process was “chemistry interviews” with potential peers and other managers. While a company thrives with a diversity of styles and opinions, it is also very important that a prospective employee be a “fit” in the culture. It’s good for the candidate as well; they should have a good idea of what they are getting into, should they join the organization.

Another aspect of “hire slowly” that I will credit to my HP experience is to limit your growth in headcount, to a fraction of your revenue growth. This isn’t a hard and fast rule. When you are a startup, there are no revenues—and there must be employees! But this practice, if used as a general rule, puts a governor on exuberant hiring, which often quickly needs to be undone—at great financial and emotional cost to the company. Many times hiring accelerates just at the peak of the revenue growth curve—right before a downturn. I’ve always been a proponent of expanding “program spending” first to support business expansion—hire permanently only when you are more certain that your financial resources and revenue levels will support it.

Fire Slowly
This is another basic tenet of mine. It’s by far the best to hire properly up front, so that you don’t have to fire. In all companies, however, there comes a time when this becomes necessary. It may be layoffs due to a business downturn, or someone who isn’t pulling her weight in their present role.

I believe strongly that if you’ve hired someone, you’ve received a commitment from them, and you owe them a commitment in return. Now that’s not guaranteed lifetime employment, mind you! But it is important to do your best to treat them fairly. If it’s a layoff, don’t pull the trigger until you’re sure it’s necessary, and then give them all of the outplacement assistance and severance benefits that you can afford. If it’s someone that is under-performing in their present position, first think how you can remedy the situation without firing. Will additional training or an inside mentor make a difference? Is there another role within the organization, where they may be better suited to contribute? It is imperative to consider all possibilities before using termination as a last resort.

There are exceptions to my “Fire Slowly” advice. Bad attitudes, disruptive personalities and general disloyalty have no place, and are poisonous to a culture. Address these cases quickly, and let them know where they stand—including the consequences without a quick change of behavior. If you don’t see sincere change in a short time period, do what must be done quickly, and move on.

Don’t treat employees like fixed assets—they’re not furniture
In my “Hire Slowly, Fire Slowly” advice above, some of you may have been thinking that I’m a bleeding heart. Trust me; my advice comes strictly from the perspective of optimizing a business. The things I recommend can be done entirely for self-serving reasons as a manager. If you feel good because you’ve done the right thing—that’s an added bonus.

In my experience, if you treat people with respect, consideration and loyalty, you are most often rewarded in kind. Organizations that treat their employees as their biggest asset, to be protected and nurtured, usually have a workforce that will run through the wall for them. What could be more important to the success of a business?

I’ve worked in organizations that treat all assets the same—like items on the balance sheet. Anything that is fully depreciated or is excess due to current business levels, was simply disposed of. It didn’t matter if that asset was branch office furniture, or Sally, the clerk in Accounting. It should be intuitively obvious—but what a great way NOT to build morale among your employees! If you treat people like furniture, you will get the initiative, loyalty and energy of a desk chair in return. Why would you expect anything different? Remember, there are survivors left behind, and they know what you did. They will have no reason to feel that their fate will ultimately be any different.

I find this to be the single-most stupid management practice, a relic from a bygone era, which unfortunately is still in widespread practice. It amazes me how often I see this in practice—I consider it an attribute of managers who have risen above their level of competence.

Match Temperament and Personality to the Job
In job advertising and position specifications, you will see much effort devoted to attracting people with experience and technical skills which match well with the requirements of a particular position. Much less thought is given to “softer” aspects, which often mean the difference between success and failure.

That sales rep you’ve just hired may have been great in a big, well-known organization, “farming” a major account. Does he have the drive and perseverance to be as successful, now that he will be “hunting” new accounts, for a company with little track record and an unknown brand?

The new technical support rep has five years of experience in software applications similar to yours—but does he have the temperament to deal with anxious and angry customers, 8 hours per day?

Look past the obvious and pay attention to the more mundane attributes which may differentiate between success and failure.

Treat everyone fairly—not necessarily the same
One of the areas I think managers often make a mistake, is to have a firm set of rules that apply to all equally, at all times. I believe that to optimize an organization’s performance, you must manage people as individuals. Different people respond in a dramatically different manner to the same stimuli. An employee with one type of personality may respond to an independent assignment with pride that you’ve showed such confidence in them. Their colleague, with a different personality, may treat the same assignment as a sign of neglect and lack of caring about them. Each of these people may be equally capable, but how you manage them will greatly affect their ultimate performance. This area is where managers really earn their money, in my opinion. Figure out how to get the most out of every single employee, while maintaining an overall environment that still appears equitable, and fair to everyone as a whole.

Tie compensation to the long term success of the company
I want all of my employees to think like owners. So give everyone stock options—that’s my strong advice. If that isn’t desirable or practical for some reason, figure out a reasonable proxy to try to get the same results. Utilize Profit sharing programs based not only on short term results, but long term as well. It’s important to get everyone to share your goal—which is building the long term value of the company. If your compensation looks like that of a King, and theirs looks like that of a serf—it won’t happen. Cut everyone in on a piece of the pie, and your slice will end up much bigger in the end.

Build teamwork with group goals & incentives
Just as it’s important to tie everyone to your long term goal for the company, it’s also important to tie people to each other. I’ve seen many cultures which are very collaborative, where everyone is pulling in the same direction. There are organizations which have the greatest chance of success—the whole ends up being bigger than the individual parts. But all too often, even in early stage tech companies, I see companies where the employees seem to be fighting each other in an attempt to get ahead. They are expending energy fighting over the biggest piece of a still small pie, rather than using that same energy to expand the pie for everyone. Cutting everyone in with stock options helps. But I also recommend that part of each employee’s incentive compensation be based upon their internal team reaching its objectives—not just the achievement of individual goals. I find this really helps create greater teamwork, and ultimately a higher value company.

Hold employees accountable—but with compassion
Finally, the sum of it all is that I don’t recommend a country club environment, where no one is responsible for their actions. On the contrary, I recommend that you do your best to attract high performers, give them the tools to do their jobs, and hold them accountable for their actions. But do it with respect, helping them in every way that you can. And above all, treat them with compassion.

That’s my take on hiring and retaining employees for high tech companies—what’s yours? Post a comment or drop me a note by email.

Follow Phil Morettini and Morettini on Management via Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, RSS, or the PJM Consulting Quarterly Newsletter. Contact Phil directly at info@pjmconsult.com

5 Comments by admin on February 17, 2006
filed in Corporate Strategy, General Management, Operations, Startup/Early Stage
tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Should You License Your Technology?

So when should you license your technology to other companies? This can be a complicated question, since I always say “no one sells your product like you do.”

Depending upon your tendencies, there is a bias toward holding everything you develop close to the vest, unwilling to give that hard-earned technical advantage to another company. Or you may be on the other side of the fence, and want to very quickly “cash in” on a technological development—thinking that there are very large companies out there that can do a much better job selling the product than you can.

So really, what’s the right approach? Just like most other decisions facing managers of technology companies, there is no one simple answer. It really does depend on your situation.

Have a Process

The best way to approach a decision of this nature is through a methodical, logical process. It shouldn’t be done emotionally, or without proper data. To come to the optimal answer, you need to be very honest about the position of your own company in the market, your priorities, company strengths and weaknesses, and the level of resources available to you. In addition, you need to have a solid understanding of the potential of the technology in the market, whom might be an attractive licensee, how interested they may be, and “can you license to someone else and still sell your own version”?

These, and many other questions, should be answered before you reach a conclusion. All too often, however, I see companies make a snap decision on whether to pursue a licensing strategy or not. This is very strategic question for a company, yet I have seen the decision made on a whim—with less thought than “where should we have lunch today?”

What have you got?

So let’s walk through an example process. First of all, what have you got–really? Is this IP something that is a fundamental step forward, or a “nice to have?” Things that are fundamentally unique, you will want to think very carefully about before sharing with others. It may be the best thing to do, but I would recommend thinking it through most carefully, if you have something truly unique and desirable. Lesser inventions carry lesser risks of lost opportunity costs, if they are licensed out.

Does it fit the Core Business?

Second, how does it fit with your current business? If it doesn’t fit with your core business, and you have no reason to “run away” from your core business, the decision becomes a lot easier. If your current business is thriving and you have quite of bit of runway left to pursue in that market, opening up a second business has a high likelihood of becoming a distraction—potentially harming the core business. Plus, it is very likely in this instance, that you will not be able to do the new opportunity justice, anyway. So to avoid sub-optimal outcomes in both business areas, it almost always makes more sense to license the technology to another player, whose business is a better fit—and one who will dedicate the resources required to gain success.

Can you “have your cake and eat it too”?

Third, if it does fit the core business, can you license it to other segments on a non-exclusive basis? This is an important question to consider. If the answer is yes, I call this “having you cake and eating it too.” The answer to this question is dependent upon a couple of things. Are there “fences” that can be set up between your market segment, and that of the potential licensee?

As an example, let’ say you have a new enterprise application that is different, but complementary, to your existing core product. This new product can be sold to the same type of large corporate customer that your existing product is sold to. But this new application also has strong potential in government markets, where you have no current presence. The government market is very different, and contacts are crucial to success. Instead of trying to build distribution into this new government market from scratch (which can be time-consuming), it is potentially a very wise move to license the new product to a company with existing, strong government business. They can sell it under their own label, put marketing money behind it, provide support, etc. In this way you have accessed that market, without entering into an area outside of your core competency, and without spreading around your scarce resources.

Non-exclusive licensing can be a great compromise

This is the type of “complementary” licensing deal that can be very effective in optimizing your total return on a technology. The key to this strategy is for there to be a good “fence”, so that you don’t create channel conflict between you and your licensee. In this example, you’re in the corporate market, and the licensee is in the government market. So it’s very clean and complementary, basically incremental revenue with little costs.

There are other examples of non-exclusive licensing where you end up competing with your own product under a licensee’s label. This can work as well, but it’s a lot trickier to manage. You will run into channel conflict issues, much like selling your own labeled product through reseller channels, with the added twist of another brand involved in the competition.

The final thing to consider is timing. How well protected is the technology, and how fast is the technological curve moving in this market space? If the market isn’t moving fast technologically, there may be no one overtaking you quickly. A sleepy, slow moving market tips the scales toward keeping the technology and developing the market for it in-house, rather than aggressively licensing it to others. Regardless of your resources, it becomes more likely that you will have time to exploit the IP, when there is little fear of someone leapfrogging your technology. If on the other hand, you’re positioned in a brutally competitive market with rapidly evolving technology, the arrow moves the other direction. In this case, IP is a fleeting advantage, and one that better be used ASAP, before it becomes obsolete. This scenario begs for a strategy of aggressively licensing the technology, to obtain the best return possible, in the short period of time that the IP will be relevant.

There is, of course, much more to consider when undertaking a decision to license/not license out your technology. This discussion provides an introduction to some of the major points that should absolutely be reviewed in any licensing discussion.

I’d love to hear some stories about your own licensing efforts, and hear points of view from a different angle. Post a comment or email me your thoughts.

Follow Phil Morettini and Morettini on Management via Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, RSS, or the PJM Consulting Quarterly Newsletter. Contact Phil directly at info@pjmconsult.com

No Comments by admin on October 21, 2005
filed in B2C, Business Development, Business Models, Corporate Strategy, Distribution Channels, Mergers & Acquisitions, Pricing, Startup/Early Stage
tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

High Tech Product Planning

There are many ways to skin a cat, so the saying goes. Planning high technology software and hardware products seems to fit in the same category.

While there are some models that you tend to see over and over again, there are a lot of ways that planning of products occurs in the technology industry.

Developer-driven Product Planning

One typical way is what I call “developer-driven”. That’s when an engineer, software programmer, or inventor comes up with a new way to apply an existing technology in a novel way to a different, unsolved problem. Or in some cases, the developer is a true visionary, and actually invents a new breakthrough technology, that blows away the existing way of doing things.

While this developer-driven model is very common, and when it works it can lead to blockbuster successes, this approach is rife with problems—I have repeatedly been brought in to clean up the results of this approach in my consulting practice. The reason for this is that companies using this approach usually have a technology or product-centric view of the world. And what’s missing in the view?

Customers!

Now I don’t want to insult all the technologists out there who have taken the lead in developing products. Of course, technology professional understand the need for customers, and the importance of getting their feedback in the product development process. Some have a natural knack for product planning, and are highly effective. Yet the reality is that product developers aren’t trained to, nor do they generally derive any pleasure from—trying to extract product preferences, unsolved problems, and workflow issues from potential customers. Often customers don’t really know what they want, or have some other agenda which can lead a product planner in the wrong direction—unless the planner is experienced and savvy in uncovering the desired information. Let’s face it, developers are trained to design hardware and write software code. Many do pick up product planning skills—but in my experience, it’s far from the majority.

The end result of a developer-driven product is often one that is launched, gets a few customers, but then stalls long before gaining traction and critical mass in the marketplace. Precious cash has been burned through, and the typical lament is “it’s a great product, if we could only find someone to sell it”. What is frequently believed to be a customer-facing sales and marketing issue, is quite often a product that doesn’t meet customer needs—as a result of flaws in the product planning process.

Customer-centric Product Planning

Another common way that I’ve seen products planned is what I call the customer-centric approach. This method is characterized by using a few “model customers”, with a fanatical devotion to using their input to develop the product. Often you will see this in a company that has previously failed using the developer-centric model discussed above. Sometimes, it’s the same technologists on their second try. Now, you may be thinking, this is the way you do it! But while this approach is definitely an improvement in some ways over a purely technological approach—it too has some limitations.

The customer centric model works well if you are developing for a very limited, niche market—or at least one that is quite homogenous. The problems occur in two areas. First, if your target market is of a heterogeneous nature, it is easy to miss that part of the market that isn’t represented among your select few model customers. Secondly, this approach can sometimes stifle innovation. In high technology, customer input is very important—but customers shouldn’t be doing your product planning for you. Each has their own quirky agendas, unique to their individual companies. In addition, customers often can’t see far enough past their current problems and needs—to imagine how to apply technology to make a radical improvement in their workflow, 2-3 years down the line. So if you only build what they tell you to build, you will often end up with a mostly mundane product, and also one that contains a few features that the greater market will scratch their head over why they were included. Worst of all, the product may be nearly obsolete by the time it hits the streets, because you haven’t looked far enough ahead of the market, and built-in what’s possible and desired for the future. These products get stuck in the present of when they were planned—which in the tech world, is the distant past by the time they are introduced.

Market-centric Product Planning

Finally, let’s talk about the way product OUGHT to be built. I call this approach a market-centric model, although it includes elements of both the customer and technology-driven approaches.

The most basic requirement for success in this approach is to have a skilled, balanced product planning team. The core of this team consists of an experienced Product Manager with a marketing background, and an experience Engineering Manager or Technical Project Leader. I call this the “2-headed monster”.

Having two leaders to a project sounds like a prescription for design-by-committee, which usually satisfies no one. And there are definitely dangers to this approach. The most problematic (and frequently encountered) issue is when the Product Manager and Engineering Lead clash, or just don’t like each other. Then you have a real problem—and one that must be dealt with quickly. But that’s a topic for another article. The important thing here is that to make a truly GREAT high tech product, both the Product Manager and Technical Lead possess key expertise that needs to be brought to the table.

The Product Manager is the market expert, and customer proxy when necessary. He is the one who is trained, experienced and skilled at uncovering the true needs and latent desires from potential customers. He also has a market perspective, so he will ensure that all important segments of the market will be canvassed to ensure that the resulting offering is MARKET-driven—not shaped by love of a cool technology or requests from a few key individual customers.

The Technical Lead brings a couple of critical skills to the table. He keeps the discussion centered on what’s POSSIBLE, ensuring that you don’t plan a product that can’t meet the required timing and budgetary constraints—or worse yet, can’t be built at all! In addition, he or she can “see ahead” and inject the use of new technology to solve a problem, in a way that those less technical might not be able to envision.

I won’t pretend that this approach to planning products is easy to implement. In truth, it’s hard to pull off. The key ingredients to success for this model are an honest, open process and culture, where everyone is motivated by the success of the product and ultimately, the company. In companies with a high degree of politics, or rivalries between departments, the process tends to fall apart quickly, to no ones benefit or satisfaction. Mutual respect is critical. Anyone should be allowed an opinion on any aspect of the product.

An engineer can express an opinion on the customer base, or marketing approach. A marketer can have an opinion on what technological approach is most appropriate. This cross-fertilization of ideas is very valuable, and can lead to innovative approaches that just aren’t derived from orthodoxy. But at the end of the day, after all the discussion has taken place, there must be mutual respect and trust in the competency of each functional area. Marketing people must be trusted on marketing matters; developers must be trusted on engineering matters. If that trust isn’t there or is lost during the process, a successful product is unlikely.

Best for Success

When done right, the Market-centric approach to product planning is optimal. It usually leads to solid singles and doubles, with the occasional home run. It reduces your risk of an outright flop, while increasing somewhat the normally long odds of creating a blockbuster, market-leading product. Once a company has evolved their product planning process in this manner, it’s poised to introduce a succession of market winners.

That’s my take on planning great high tech products. What’s yours? Post a comment or drop me an email message.

Follow Phil Morettini and Morettini on Management via Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, RSS, or the PJM Consulting Quarterly Newsletter. Contact Phil directly at info@pjmconsult.com

No Comments by admin on September 29, 2005
filed in Corporate Strategy, General Management, Product Marketing/Management, SaaS, Social media, Software/Product Development, Startup/Early Stage, enterprise software, market research
tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Partnering

Forming Partnerships, or Strategic Alliances, is one of the key elements that make up the business development function in technology companies. I believe that alliances are underutilized, in many ways. Conceived and executed properly, alliances can greatly extend the partner companies reach in the marketplace.

VARIOUS AND SUNDRY PARTNERSHIPS

There are many types of collaboration that fall under the umbrella of “Partnering”. Let’s examine a few of the most common:

Third Party Programs—Probably the best understood category of partnering. Partnering in this manner is generally low risk, but low reward for both parties. A program usually consists of many smaller partners gaining modest benefits from a larger company. The larger company gains (or at least the illusion) from having a large number of partners working with their product/technology.

Industry Consortiums—Represents another well-understood category. Mild benefits are usually obtained by the participating parties, including some publicity, a stamp of approval, and the opportunity to network with other consortium members. The unique aspect of this form of partnering is its one-to-many relationship, as opposed to “one-to-one” or “one-to-few” relationships found in most partnerships.

Sales Agents—Many people might not consider sales agent relationships partnerships, at least not strategic. But they certainly are. There is usually a minimum of entanglement here, simply a contract that provides a commission for sales generated or leveraged. The product doesn’t change hands between the partners, and there is often less training and support involved, relative to other partnership types used for product distribution.

Service Agreements—These agreements occur when a company doesn’t want to relinquish the sales function for its products, but for some reason it needs a third party for servicing. These agreements are common in high-end hardware markets, where 24/7 on-site support is critical. Storage Hardware or Mainframes are good examples. They are also seen in more commodity markets, where a company has decided that service/support isn’t their core competency, and that a third party can handle service/support at a lower cost. The use of Indian Call Centers by PC manufacturers such as Dell is a recent example of this concept.

Distribution Agreements—This is a common, but often poorly executed form of partnership. The errors usually occur when the Channel partner is treated like an end-user, rather than the true partner they should be viewed as. Distributors and Resellers need to be treated as an extension of a company’s sales force. Sadly, they often are not, leading to such misguided policies such as channel stuffing and over-distribution, which lead to problems that become extremely difficult to resolve.

Joint Marketing—Cooperation on marketing matters should be where most companies reap the greatest benefits. Partnering in this area is really low risk, can have great benefits, and is a great way to get started with a new partner. There are so many ways that companies can cooperate in joint marketing; the list is really only limited by your imagination. Some of the ways I’ve been able to utilize these types of partnerships include discounted product promotional bundles, trade show space cost-sharing, joint press releases (of course!), sharing of prospect and customer lists, referrals, and joint direct mailings. The great thing is that there are many areas to explore, to find overlap in the two companies interests.

Product Integration—Integrating the products of two companies is what often comes to mind when you think of partnerships. It can make great sense, and the potential rewards are great. However, there are some reasons for caution, prior to jumping straight into this, as I’ll discuss below.

POTENTIAL PITFALLS

As discussed above, a partnership or alliance can take many forms. As a result, there is a lot of confusion and disagreement as to what even constitutes a “good” partnership. Let’s take a closer look at two partnering categories, and some common missteps:

The PaRtnership

You see a great many press releases go out trumpeting the partnership between company A and company B. The release goes on to discuss the great benefits that will accrue to customers and the two companies making the announcement. The language tends to be vague and laced with terminology like “synergy” and “market leading value proposition”. More often than not, that initial press release is the high point of the partnership, and little is heard about it subsequently. You may have heard the term “slide-ware” to describe products that exist only in PowerPoint. This type of partnership is the alliance equivalent to slide-ware—I call it a “PaRtner-ship.”

Product Integration Fiasco

On the other end of the partnership spectrum, technical folks usually think of alliances in terms of product integration. Technical integration can be the basis for a great partnership. However, it’s a lot of work and a big commitment for both parties. The danger is that the partners too quickly dive head long into the product integration work, basing their decision on an impulsive belief that it “makes sense”.

In a typical scenario, the two products are complementary, and from an engineering (and often customer) perspective it looks like a marriage made in heaven. Several dangers are lying in the weeds, however. First of all, any product development effort runs a high risk of failure. When you put together two disparate engineering teams who have never worked together on a project, that risk rises exponentially. Usually both engineering departments have their own product releases to worry about concurrently, which are always higher priority. Lack of communication, low priority, cultural differences and ego can easily conspire to lead to a failed integration project, or at least one lacking the features to be of much leverage in the market. At this point, the partners have spent a lot of money and precious engineering resources with little in return, leaving finger pointing, and a search for scapegoats as the next step.

In addition, it takes much more than good product integration for commercial success by the partners. If there isn’t a solid plan for marketing cooperation and distribution (see above!), even technically elegant product integration partnerships will leave both parties disappointed. Alliances that are born from product integration, unless carefully thought out and efficiently executed, can lead to disappointment by one or both of the partners.

There are many “gotchas” involved with working together to push and pull the combined solution in the market. It helps to have some practice working together prior to making the big bet on technical integration. That’s why I often recommend to my clients that product integration be a step down the road in an embryonic partnership, not a beginning.

PARTNERSHIPS MAKE SENSE—BUT EXECUTION IS KEY

So are partnerships to be avoided? Not at all! They are one of the areas that can make be a huge differentiator for your company in a competitive market. But the take-away message here is that too many partnerships are conceived as great ideas—and peak right there. Like most business activities, the devil is in the details, and execution is the key to success. When I’m working with smaller clients with limited capital for marketing and sales, I often recommend an aggressive partnering program. If executed correctly, the company and its partners can gain cost-efficiencies and marketing economies of scale far exceeding their own siz
e. But I have two key pieces of advice before you embark on a new partnering program:

1) The very definition of a partnership is a “win-win” relationship for BOTH parties. Takers don’t build winning partnerships—givers do. Offer to take the first step, do the first piece of the project. A partner that believes you are acting in his best interests will be very impressed, and willing to provide support that you never dreamed of. Build that relationship by being the first to “give”; the trust you build will came back to you multiple times and set the stage for a profitable, long term partnership.

2) Do start, but start small. I’ve discussed above the many pitfalls of moving too fast. It’s best to pick something easy, with obvious benefits to both parties. Working successfully on a small project creates momentum, and helps build the trust and familiarity that is crucial to success on more ambitious future projects. I will often suggest a simple list swap of prospects as an initial step. If either party views even that with suspicion, a blind mailing can be done to each other’s list, where the actual lists don’t change hands. Building a prospect or customer list is very capital-intensive; by partnering with just one other company, you can both double your lists overnight. It’s almost a certain Win-Win, creating excellent leverage, and no financial investment by either party. It’s easy to succeed, and sets the stage for discussions on additional collaboration.

I’m sure you get the picture—does this make sense to you? Post me a comment below so we can get this discussion going.

Follow Phil Morettini and Morettini on Management via Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, RSS, or the PJM Consulting Quarterly Newsletter. Contact Phil directly at info@pjmconsult.com

4 Comments by admin on July 19, 2005
filed in Business Development, Business Models, Corporate Strategy, Distribution Channels, Mergers & Acquisitions, VARs
tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
« Older Posts
Newer Posts »