May 11th, 2008
Looking over my blog statistics, which reveal which countries are viewing my blog, I’ve noticed China inching up the pack. China has already had, and will have, a tremendous impact on the projects that are managed worldwide.
I would like to put out a special request to those readers from China to participate in my blog. Your views are important and vital to our approach to projects. I’m particularly interested in how fast the country is changing and moving. How does the Olympics affect your business and the future of your country? Only YOU know what is really going on.
Please share. We’d like to hear from you.
Don’t miss a post! Subscribe via RSS or EMAIL.
(Image Source: stockxchng.com)
Share This
By Bob Turek -- 0 comments
May 10th, 2008
I’ve read a lot lately about the degree that a software system, whether it be ERP or PLM, makes more sense if it is designed for the industry served. This is especially relevant in manufacturing where process manufacturers (food, beverage, chemicals) deal with formulas and recipes and others (assemblers, fabricators) deal with bills of material.
I think it is more relevant to talk about what customer base originally drove the success of the package and then how it morphed to attempt to serve other industries. This software package history can also reveal extremely important considerations like the quality and experience of the consulting personnel.
Again, this is very true in the process industries where only a handful of packages are really designed for such companies from the ground up. That never stopped others from selling their software into this area but many companies found it very difficult to twist a bill of material into a formula.
Have you experienced trying to fit a round peg into a square hole? Do you have an experience to share implementing software? Certainly there are other important aspects to an implementation other than software? Share them!
Don’t miss a post! Subscribe via RSS or EMAIL.
(Image Source: stockxchng.com)
Share This
By Bob Turek -- 2 comments
May 9th, 2008
Ford caved in to environmental concerns; but they did it in a way that should allow them to avoid the committment. CFO, in their article on “green”, said:
“Activist shareholders scored a victory last month when Ford Motor Co. announced that it would reduce the greenhouse-gas emissions of its new vehicle fleet by at least 30 percent by 2020 in response to pressure from a number of groups focused on climate change.”
2020?! I think that Ford is counting on the environmental furvor to end by then. The hybrid and electric car revolution will easily allow them to hit the mark anyway. Watch out for batteries being targeted by the environmentalists!
How do feel about making a committment by 2020? Is it a real committment or just fluff?
Don’t miss a post! Subscribe via RSS or EMAIL.
(Image Source: stockxchng.com)
Share This
By Bob Turek -- 0 comments
May 8th, 2008
Corporate reputation and brand image is the most important reason for going green. This tells me that companies are reacting to the hype around global warming by simply changing their marketing messages.
It’s interesting, in this graph taken from CFO’s article on “green” issues, that developing new products and services is fourth on the list. Certainly consulting services related to how to become green are booming.
Also note that trading carbon offsets and regulatory strategy are last on the list. Does this say something about how serious companies think global warming is? I think it does. Tell me your view- I’m really interested in hearing how companies are reacting in the areas covered in the graph.
Don’t miss a post! Subscribe via RSS and EMAIL.
Share This
By Bob Turek -- 0 comments
May 7th, 2008
CFO continues to cover “green” issues and how companies react to them. The confusion on becomning “green” is borne out of the fact that much of the environmental crisis is trumped up. Companies are beginning to compare the coming regulatory environment to SOX - which was a ridiculous response to some corporate shenanigans:
Companies may have an easier time, however, selling green products and services to customers than becoming green themselves. Martin says that managing Jones Lang LaSalle’s carbon footprint has been “a nightmare…worse than the horrors of Sarbanes-Oxley.” That’s largely because the company’s activities depend heavily on travel and on managing buildings that other people own. With so many facets of its operations outside of its direct control, obtaining basic measurements of its environmental impact has been a challenge.
We live in a world that is susceptible to fear mongering and overblown charges. I believe the problem stems from people that are unable to think for themselves and simply go along with the herd.
Do you think that determining carbon footprints is valid? Is this simply SOX all over again? Are we living in an age where overregulation will continue to hurt companies and the economy?
Don’t miss a post! Subscribe via RSS and EMAIL.
(Image source: stockxchng.com)
Share This
By Bob Turek -- 0 comments
May 6th, 2008
CFO is doing a webcast covering how environmental requirements are changing companies. Their approach is to scare you into watching. The scare tactics are what have overblown global warming and the need for carbon emissions trading in the first place:
“Recent accounting changes mean that even future environmental liabilities can wreak havoc on your company’s financial statements now.”
“Wreak havoc”?- a bit overstated. Yes there will be requirements- they cite FAS 141R and Fin 47 as requiring recording of contingent liabilities today.
I still don’t believe that companies will be forced into trading carbon emissions as many predict. There is an element of “scam” in this that we have to identify and expose. There is no doubt that the train has left the station on this stuff and we will all pay the price; a price way beyond the effects of global warming.
What do you think? Are you simply falling in line on the global warming/carbon trading issue? Or are you demanding evidence and a rationale for changes that you are being asked to make in the name of the environment?
Let me know!
Don’t miss a post! Subscribe via EMAIL or RSS.
(Image Source: stockxchng.com)
Share This
By Bob Turek -- 0 comments
May 5th, 2008
A recent Google search turned up a newsreleasewire.com entry from a “business relationship expert“. I’ve personally gone back and forth on the value of social networks to business but a major change has occurred. I recently attended a customer conference for users of our software and found tremendous interest in the use of social networking capabilities that my company is making available to clients.
This “interest” is from every age group and goes beyond “that would be nice” to comments from those who use the networks about how well they work and suggestions on how to interact with each other. The bottom line is that most people have experienced social networking sites like LinkedIn and MySpace and understand the value of having specific groups of people with similar interests, in this case how others may be using the software, communicate with each other.
The business relationship expert, David Nour, hits the nail on the head:
If these social networking concepts are not in your radar, you are ignoring a dynamic trend that could have a profound impact on key areas of your business such as profitable revenue growth, talent acquisition and development, and operational efficiency and effectiveness.
It’s funny that most companies are dealing with “green” strategies and ignoring a potentially more valuable “social networking” strategy.
What do you think? Is social networking really a powerful, valuable opportunity? How so? What makes a social network valuable? What social networks can your company set up that align with it’s strategies? Brand protection? Customer influence in product development? Building stronger relationships with your customers? among your employees? Are you afraid that you will lose control?
Don’t miss a post! Subscribe via EMAIL or RSS.
(Image Source: stock.xchng.com)
Tags: branding, customer relationships, green, product development, social networking, strategyShare This
By Bob Turek -- 2 comments
May 4th, 2008
Manufacturing Business Technology magazine’s article on collaborative innovation leads to an obvious question: how do you protect intellectual property when you involve many companies and associations in finding a link between a company with a problem and a company with a solution? Paul Stiros, CEO of NineSigma, a firm that links problems and solutions together, comments on this issue:
“Stiros says the entire process is conducted in such a way that neither party has to fear having intellectual property compromised. “The proposals submitted by solution providers don’t contain the actual solution,” he says. “They only contain the company’s capabilities for addressing the problem. Our client then holds conversations with the solution provider to determine if they can indeed solve the problem. Then they sign confidentiality agreements, and ultimately enter into a contract to have work performed.” “
Fairly simple approach to what could be a big problem. Capability is addressed before two companies attempt to work together. In the case of linking P&G and an agricultural products manufacturer together, the common experience and capability was making small bags, out of the same material, to hold oily substances without leaking. The agricultural firm had solved the problem already. NineSigma helped P&G find them. Then the companies worked out a deal with adequate intellectual property protection.
How do you collaborate with other companies on innovating products and processes? Was intellectual property protection a stumbling block to forming a relationship? Is NineSigma’s approach workable?
Don’t miss a post! Subscribe via EMAIL and RSS.
(Image Source: stock.xchng.com)
Tags: collaboration, innovation, intellectual property, project-managementShare This
By Bob Turek -- 2 comments
May 3rd, 2008
NineSigma, a firm that links problems of one firm to solutions of another, finds extensive networking to be essential. Manufacturing Business Technology magazine writes about the process:
“NineSigma starts by combing its database of more than 800,000 solution providers for potential candidates to solve the problem. In addition, Stiros [NineSigma CEO] says, “We have relationships with a number of professional and technical associations that redistribute our RFPs to their members, and that brings another 750,000 entities into the process. We also find that the people we send RFPs to are redistributing them to people they think might be able to solve a problem. In fact, 40 percent of the responses to our RFPs come from entities that we did not contact initially.””
What is astonishing to me is how well NineSigma uses professional and technical associations to gain business. Clearly, it is their business model that focuses on collaboration that allows such a good fit. Typically associations are very wary of companies using the membership lists to sell to. NineSigma has obviously broken that barrier because of the ability to communicate their business model in a way that is compatible with an industry association’s goals.
Have you tried to develop business through associations? What did you have to do to be successful? Were you focused on a collaborative process that helped many companies fulfill their goals? Hey! Wait a minute…what about protecting intellectual property? More on THIS iin my next post.
Don’t miss a post! Subscribe via RSS and EMAIL.
(Image Source: stock.xchng.com)
Share This
By Bob Turek -- 0 comments
May 2nd, 2008
Collaborative innovation across companies is happening! Manufacturing Business Technology wrote about a company, NineSigma, that facilitates this. What is very interesting about the innovation process is that NineSigma initially states the problem to be solved in GENERAL scientific terms. That way solutions outside the industry will be considered. In the Procter & Gamble consumer products example in my last post, they found an agricultural company who solved the same problem:
“The first step is working with the client to define their need as a general scientific problem. Stiros [NineSigma CEO] says this allows for developing RFPs that can be understood and responded to by people in a number of industries. Thus you get an agricultural products manufacturer solving a consumer goods problem.”
The idea of looking outside your company, your industry, and even your country for innovation has proven to drive new ideas and processes. One key is to do enough research to find these innovations. In the case of P&G it was finding a start-up to facilitate that research process when they reached a point of desperation.
Why not put these processes in ahead of time? Outsourcing research for innovations, product or process based, can be done as NineSigma has demonstrated. Has your company tried outsourcing the research required to find innovations?
Don’t miss a post! Subscribe via RSS or EMAIL.
(Image Source: stock.xchng.com)
Share This
By Bob Turek -- 0 comments
Recent Comments