Friday, October 30, 2009

A better way to cut costs


According to a recent McKinsey Quarterly survey, 79 percent of all companies have cut costs in response to the global economic crisis—but only 53 percent of executives think that doing so has helped their companies weather it. Yet organizations continue to cut. Cost reductions often go wrong, and experts suggested that they can be done in a better way.

In the heat of a financial crisis, companies must focus on their financial viability, but they tend to cut about equally everywhere—without considering their strategic needs—because that seems more straightforward, and in some senses more fair, to all executives concerned. A second problem, with longer-term consequences, is that quick head count reductions often come at a price: missing the opportunities that crises can create to improve business systems or to strengthen parts of an organization selectively.

First, companies should start any cost-cutting initiative by thinking through whether they could restructure the business to take advantage of current and projected marketplace trends (for instance, by exiting relatively low-profit or low-growth businesses) or to mitigate threats, such as consolidating competitors. An important part of the analysis is to understand a company’s financial situation and the range of potential outcomes under a number of different external economic scenarios. Second, within the resulting strategy, take time to understand which activities drive value—in the public and nonprofit sectors, a good proxy might be mandated outcomes, such as the number of workers, health metrics, or school performance—and which activities do or could make the organization competitively distinctive. Organizations should invest in value-creating activities and cut costs in others while meeting clear financial goals in a set time frame.

Intelligent cost cutting need not reduce the overall scale of the savings that organizations can achieve. But by shifting the focus from organizational structure to current and future strategic needs, it makes for smarter savings, even at companies that have already started down another path.

Matrix Management

Matrix management is a structure for running those companies that have both a diversity of products and a diversity of markets. In a matrix structure, responsibility for the products goes up and down one dimension and responsibility for the markets goes up and down another. This leaves most managers with a dual reporting line: to the head of their product division on the one hand, and to the head of their geographical market on the other.

The matrix management had been part of an attempt by companies to create complicated structures that matched their increasingly complicated strategies. But it focused only on the anatomy of the organisation. It ignored the physiology (the systems that allow information to flow in and around the organisation) and the psychology (the “shared norms, values and beliefs” of the organisation’s managers).

Thursday, October 29, 2009

Making Better Decisions


In recent years decision makers in both the public and private sectors have made an astounding number of poor calls. The list of examples will be never ending if anyone starts to pen down those examples. So let’s not waste time in citing examples. Let’s get into the core issue as being carried in a recent article published in 'Harvard Business Review'.

Why this decision-making disorder? First, because decisions have generally been viewed as the prerogative of individuals—usually senior executives. The process employed, the information used, the logic relied on, have been left up to them, in something of a black box. Information goes in, decisions come out—and who knows what happens in between? (The black box deserves some unpacking). Second, unlike other business processes, decision making has rarely been the focus of systematic analysis inside the firm. Very few organizations have “reengineered” their decisions. Yet there are just as many opportunities to improve decision making as to improve any other process. Recent popular business books address a host of decision-making alternatives.

However, although businesspeople are clearly buying and reading these books, few companies have actually adopted their recommendations. The consequences of this inattention are becoming ever more severe. Organizations must help their managers employ better decision-making processes. Better processes won’t guarantee better decisions, of course, but they can make them more likely. One can improve decision making in following steps:

Identification - Managers should begin by listing the decisions that must be made and deciding which are most important. For example, “the top 10 decisions required to execute our strategy” or “the top 10 decisions that have to go well if we are to meet our financial goals.” Some decisions will be rare and highly strategic. Without some prioritization, all decisions will be treated as equal—which probably means that the important ones won’t be analyzed with sufficient care.

Inventory - In addition to identifying key decisions, you should assess the factors that go into each of them. Who plays what role in the decision? How often does it occur? What information is available to support it? How well is the decision typically made? Such an examination helps an organization understand which decisions need improvement and what processes might make them more effective, while establishing a common language for discussing decision making.

Intervention - Having narrowed down your list of decisions and examined what’s involved in making each, you can design the roles, processes, systems, and behaviors your organization should be using to make them. The key to effective decision interventions is a broad, inclusive approach that considers all methods of improvement and addresses all aspects of the decision process—including execution of the decision, which is often overlooked.

Wednesday, October 28, 2009

Prioritize Value over Volume

Recently I came across an article from Harvard Business Review and the subject is very close to my heart as I have several arguments on this and today I am happy that my thought process was right. Research has shown that multitasking results in mediocre outcomes. By giving too little attention to too many things, you fail to do anything well. However, the answer isn't single-tasking either. Single-tasking is far too slow to help you succeed in today's fast-paced world. Instead, identify the tasks that will create the most value and focus on those. By prioritizing value over volume and sharpening your focus on the things that truly matter, you'll increase the quality of your work, and ultimately, the value you provide. What to do with all those tasks that didn't make the high value list? Put them on a "do later" list. If they fail to make it to the high value list over and over again, ask yourself: why do them at all?

Friday, October 23, 2009

The diminishing dollar

One of the few calamities that has not befallen the world economy during the past two years is a dollar crash. Between September 2008 (when Lehman Brothers failed) and March 2009 (when America’s stock markets hit bottom), the dollar rose by almost 13% on a trade-weighted basis. For the past six months the greenback has been sinking steadily, hitting a 14-month low against a basket of leading currencies. A weaker dollar should also assist global economic rebalancing by helping to reorient America’s economy towards exports. So in general, it should help rather than hinder the global recovery. Is it the end of America’s status as the world’s reserve currency?
(From The Economist)

Thursday, October 22, 2009

Strategy Has Never Been More Important

In today's business environment, strategy execution is critical to any company's performance. Becoming a strategy-focused organization (SFO) involves five key phases, governing representing the final one. Governing encompasses all the management systems and processes by which strategy execution is carried out and should, therefore, be ongoing in an organization's life as an SFO.

Learn Best Practices of Strategy Focused Organizations
We can all learn from our mistakes, but with something as complicated as managing performance and executing strategy, it is better to learn from the winners than doing experimentation as it is costly, both in human and financial terms.

Managing Innovation
We all know that without execution, strategy is worthless. But innovation without execution is arguably worse. It's costly, both in human and financial terms. Consider the opportunities for value creation — from controlling design and development costs to reducing time to market — that come with getting things right the first time. It's no surprise that companies are looking at improving the way they manage both the efficiency and effectiveness of their various innovation activities.

Leadership and Change
Among the most important things a leader must do is make the case for change.

Identify Your Employees' Hidden Talents

Please find the highlights of an interesting article from HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW....it is a must read article for all those who are heading teams.

In today's economy, finding external talent to fill your company's needs isn't always possible. Nor is it always necessary. By paying attention and asking the right questions, you will likely discover many hidden talents among your existing employees:

Turn a compliment into an interview:
When congratulating an employee on a job well done, ask exactly what helped her succeed. By better understanding her process, you may uncover an unseen strength.

Ask why employees prefer certain tasks or projects:
Preferences can be a view into someone's talents. An employee might enjoy a project because it involves a product she cares about or because it gave her a chance to design surveys. Knowing which will possibly uncover talents.

Inquire about dreams:
Ask your employees what they would do if they had their career to do over again. Peoples' dreams often include an aspect of themselves they don't regularly share.

Friday, October 16, 2009

Productivity and Performance

• Improving Productivity
Improving productivity is more than just a matter of working faster; it's about accomplishing more with limited resources. The four topics covered will help you boost the productivity of your staff and yourself: Leading a Team, Project Management, Running a Meeting, and Managing Your Time.

• Improving Performance

Developing the capabilities of your staff is one of your greatest challenges. The four topics covered will help you improve your ability to manage others for better results: Leading and Motivating, Assessing Performance, Coaching, & Giving and Receiving Feedback.

• Working with Teams
Effective teamwork is essential to getting work done in today's organizations. The four topics covered will help you develop the skills you need to lead a team successfully: Keeping Teams on Target, Leading a Team, Working with a Virtual Team, and Leading and Motivating.

Monday, October 12, 2009

Can Asians replace Americans as a driver of global growth?

ASIA’S emerging economies are bouncing back much more strongly than any others. While America’s industrial production continued to slide in May, output in emerging Asia has regained its pre-crisis level. This is largely due to China; but although production in the region’s smaller economies is still well down on a year ago, it is rebounding in those countries too. Taiwan’s industrial output rose by an annualised 80% in the three months to May compared with the previous three months. JPMorgan estimates that emerging Asia’s GDP has grown by an annualised 7% in the second quarter.

Asia’s ability to decouple from America reflects the fact that the region’s downturn was caused only partly by the slump in American activity. In most Asian economies falling domestic demand was more important than the drop in net exports in explaining the collapse in GDP growth. The surge in food and energy prices in the first half of 2008 squeezed profits and spending power. Tighter monetary policy aimed at curbing inflation then further choked domestic demand.

The recent recovery in industrial production reflects the end of destocking by manufacturers as well as the large fiscal stimulus by most governments. But the boost from both of these factors will fade. Meanwhile, export markets in developed economies are likely to remain weak. So the recovery in Asian economies will stumble unless domestic spending, notably consumption, perks up.

Consumers’ appetite to spend varies hugely across the region. In China, India and Indonesia spending has increased by annual rates of more than 5% during the global downturn. China’s retail sales have soared by 15% over the past year. This overstates the true growth rate because it includes government purchases, but official household surveys suggest that real spending is growing at a still-impressive rate of 9%. In the year to May, sales of household electronics were up by 12%, clothing by 22% and cars by a stunning 47%.

Elsewhere in the region, spending has stumbled, squeezed by higher unemployment and lower wages. In Hong Kong, Singapore and South Korea real consumer spending was 4-5% lower in the first quarter than a year earlier, a much bigger drop than in America. But Frederic Neumann, an economist at HSBC, sees tentative signs that spending is picking up. Taiwan’s retail sales rose in May for the third consecutive month. Department-store sales in South Korea rose by 5% in the year to May.

It is often argued that emerging Asian economies have large current-account surpluses—and are thus not pulling their fair weight in the world—because consumers like to save rather than spend. Yet this does not really fit the facts. During the past five years consumer spending in emerging Asia has grown by an annual average of 6.5%, much faster than in any other part of the world. It is true that consumption has fallen as a share of GDP, but that is because investment and exports have grown even faster, not because spending has been weak. Relative to American consumer spending, Asian consumption has soared (see chart 2).

In most Asian economies, private consumption is 50-60% of GDP, which is not out of line with rates in countries at similar levels of income elsewhere. China, however, is an exception. Private consumption there fell from 46% of GDP in 2000 to only 35% last year—half that in America. In dollar terms, spending is only one-sixth of that in America. (Singapore’s consumption is also low, at just under 40% of GDP.)

This explains why China’s government has recently taken bolder action than others to boost consumption. Over the past six months the government in Beijing has introduced a host of incentives to encourage households to open their wallets. Rural residents get subsidies for buying vehicles and other goods such as televisions, refrigerators, computers and mobile phones; urban residents get a subsidy if they trade in cars and home appliances for new goods; tax rates on low-emission cars have also been cut. There is huge potential for higher consumption in the countryside as incomes rise: only 30% of rural households have a refrigerator, for example, compared with virtually all urban households.

The government has also introduced several measures this year to improve the social safety net, such as spending more on health care, pensions and payments to low-income households. On June 19th it ordered all state-owned firms that had listed on the stockmarket since 2005 to transfer 10% of their shares to the National Social Security Fund to shore up its assets. The short-term impact is likely to be modest but if such measures ease households’ worries about future pensions and health care, it could in the long term encourage them to save less and spend more.

Another way to boost consumption is to make it easier to borrow. In most Asian economies household debt is less than 50% of GDP, compared with around 100% in many developed economies; in China and India it is less than 15%. South Korea is the big exception: households have as much debt relative to their income as Americans and their saving rate has fallen over the past decade from 18% of disposable income to only 4%. In many other Asian economies financing for consumer durables is virtually nonexistent. Promisingly, the Chinese bank regulator announced draft rules in May to allow domestic and foreign institutions to set up consumer-finance firms to offer personal loans for consumer-goods purchases.

These measures are a modest step in the right direction. But a bigger test of Asian governments’ resolve to shift the balance of growth from exports towards domestic spending is whether they will allow their exchange rates to rise. A revaluation would lift consumers’ real purchasing power and give firms reason to shift resources towards producing for the domestic market. But so far, policymakers have been reluctant to let currencies rise too fast.

Asian spending is already an important engine of global growth. Even before the crisis, emerging Asia’s consumer spending contributed slightly more (in absolute dollar terms) to the growth in global demand than did America’s. But it could be even bigger if Asians enjoyed the full fruits of their hard labour, rather than subsidising Western consumers through undervalued currencies. It is time for an even greater shift in spending power from the West to the East.
(From Economist)

Tuesday, October 6, 2009

Global Capital Markets

A new report by the McKinsey Global Institute highlights the impact of the global financial crisis on global capital flows.

The global financial crisis and worldwide recession abruptly halted nearly three decades of expansion for international capital markets. From 1980 through 2007, the world’s financial assets—including equities, private and public debt, and bank deposits—nearly quadrupled in size relative to global GDP. Global capital flows similarly surged.

But the upheaval in financial markets in late 2008 broke this trend. The total value of the world’s financial assets fell by $16 trillion last year, to $178 trillion, the largest setback on record. One of the most striking consequences of the financial crisis was a steep drop-off in cross-border capital flows, which include foreign direct investment (FDI), purchases and sales of foreign equities and debt securities, and cross-border lending and deposits. These capital flows fell 82 percent, to just $1.9 trillion, from $10.5 trillion in 2007. (A sharp drop in cross-border lending was the biggest reason capital flows dried up.) The trend appears to have continued in the first quarter of 2009, with global capital flows falling to an estimated $1.5 trillion on an annualized basis.

Monday, October 5, 2009

The Next Crisis: Coming in 2011

According to Anthony Tjan who is the CEO, Managing Partner and Founder of Cue Ball (a venture and early growth equity firm investing in the information media and consumer sectors), believes that the next crisis is coming in 2011.

With the Dow reapproaching a five-figure level, we have felt at least some temporary economic reprieve in recent months. But Anthony has talked to many astute people recently (both Democrats and Republicans) who question the stability of the upturn. Some of those who believe that this might be a dead cat bounce, or what economists term a double-dip recession, are pretty damn smart. Among them is Harvard University professor Martin Feldstein, who explained in a recent interview with CNBC that the massive stimulus is supporting the upturn and that support runs out by 2010. We may be in a precarious position by 2011.

Bill Achtmeyer - Chairman and Managing Partner of the Parthenon Group, agrees that macroeconomics eventually win out and we should carefully brace ourselves for what might loom ahead — the next crisis in 2011.