A Business Technology Place

More or Less?


There will always be more work to do than is possible to accomplish by my team.

Think more. Whine less.

Earlier this year I penned some thoughts about thinking through resource contention, Do more with what you have!, because I was looking for better ways to address resource contention than to simply say more people are needed. Getting stuff done is as much a mindset as it is a collection of work output. I’ve learned that when I am overwhelmed with size of the backlog of tasks then the frequency of my output decreases.

In the book, ReWork,  Fried and Hansson address the value of staying lean with less,

“I don’t have enough time/money/people/experience.” Stop whining. Less is a good thing. Constraints are advantages in disguise. Limited resources force you to make do with what you’ve got. There’s no room for waste. And that forces you to be creative. “

Do I believe that? The words do inspire me to look at my backlog through a different set of lenses. One thing I know is this. If I’m able to produce consistent output that adds value to the customer and mission of my team then conversations about the priority of the backlog are easier.

In the book Blue Ocean Strategy, Kim and Mauborgne say it this way,

“instead of getting more resources, tipping point leaders concentrate on multiplying the value of the resources they have.”

The Theory of Constraints management paradigm teaches us to first find the constraint within a process and then to exploit the constraint by shifting resources, managing work queues, and possibly adding capacity. With this lense, value is unlocked by first examining the underlying process instead of trying to add more people.

More or less?

As I sit writing this, I’m led to these conclusions:

More is contentment with less because having less allows me to get more done.

Less is obsession about more, because having more often leads to getting less done.

Onward and upward!

Do more with less by working smarter

I haven’t kept count of the most commonly used phrases I’ve heard in my professional career. But “limited resources” has to be at the top and this phrase talks about people more than objects. It’s a given that there is always more work that businesses want to do than they feel like they can accomplish with the current number of people. If that were not the case then the business would let go of people to match capacity with demand.Resource Constraints

In my experience, most business leaders typically approach resource constraints by trying to hire more people or by ignoring the situation and letting the day-to-day tasks run as-is. Hiring more people is a difficult battle in most businesses and ignoring the situation certainly doesn’t provide answers.

I try to approach resource constraints by examining the underlying processes of how people work. Maybe I’m wired differently and don’t mind examining processes to find opportunties for improvement. Maybe I don’t mind fighting the battle of getting people to change existing processes. But if an organization is to work smarter, then it must examine underlying processes and not be afraid to make adjustments.

In the book Blue Ocean Strategy, Kim and Mauborgne describe this technique:

“instead of getting more resources, tipping point leaders concentrate on multiplying the value of the resources they have.”

The Theory of Constraints looks at the underlying process as well. This management paradigm teaches us to first find the constraint within a process and then to exploit the constraint by shifting resources, managing work queues, and possibly adding capacity.

At the end of the day, changing existing processes within an organization can be as difficult as justifying new hiring. But I would argue that it’s a more worthwhile endeavor. Throwing more people at some problems might provide a brute force solution. But the underlying process will eventually bog down the productive output and you’ll soon here again the infamous phrase “resource constraint”.

Find a way to multiply the value of what you have by first examining the underlying process for inefficiencies and also by making sure that underlying processes contribute to the overall goal of the organization. Easier said than done, but if it were easy then everyone would do it.

Operational effectiveness, strategic positioning, and your Internet presence

This week I was reading an article by Michael E. Porter in the November-December 1996 Harvard Business Review entitled “What is Strategy”. The article discusses the difference between operational effectiveness and strategy. The reason I was reading it was to understand ideas around how companies can use their strategy to create different value propositions and distinguish themselves from competitors. Ultimately I wanted to draw a parallel to the business differentiators and how companies use them as part of their Internet presence. I’ll review two examples of companies using different strategic positioning and then map that to their Internet presence.

First, a few key points from Porter’s paper:

..differentiation arises from both the choice of activities and how they are performed. Activities, then, are the basic units of competitive advantage. Overall advantage or disadvantage results from all a company’s activities, not only a few….In contrast, strategic positioning means performing different activities from rivals’ or performing similar activities in a different ways.

This makes sense. Companies that create a unique product/service offering that adds value for a group of people will be successful. But companies must devise a strategy that leads to a series of differentiated activities from their competitors. Otherwise, the competition will eventually become a price war where customers choose products based on price alone. Downward prices only help as long as you keep your margins or increase units sold. Porter’s thoughts here reminded me of Blue Ocean Strategies by W. Chan Kim. If you haven’t read this book already, I highly recommend it.

So where are two examples that I see this played-out in the eCommerce world? One is Zappos.com, an Internet only company recently purchased by Amazon. The second is Chik-fil-a, a popular fast food chain specializing in chicken based selections.

The Zappos Differentiator

How did Zappos put their name on the map despite entering a crowded shoe retail market? Without a doubt it’s their policy around delivery and returns. Free delivery and free returns. One of the top issues with selling shoes online is people are worried they will not fit. Shoe sizes could vary based on style so people need to size this product before purchasing.  Hence the Zappos policy. They are creating a competitive strategy around giving the customer the ability to truly shop and try products. Its all about convenience and service. There is a market for this level of service and their customers are willing to pay a premium above other shoe retailers for that experience. For example, buy three pair of the same shoe and try them on. Return the two that don’t fit. Zappos doesn’t compete on price in this arrangement (They build the shipping cost into the price of the shoes).

How does Zappos market this on their Internet site? Their unique policy is stated both in their Internet search results description as well as on their home page. The description in the search results shown here comes from the page meta tags.

Zappos Free Delivery 2

On their site they call out the policy in upper left of the home page. Internet studies continue to show this is the most valuable piece of real estate on a page. For western languages this seems obvious because its how we read our languages.

Zappos Free Returns

Then on the right side of the page there is a link that leads to pages explaining the policy. Notice right under the link the ability to see customer testimonials. That’s not there by chance. What better way to promote trust in the customer’s mind than by showcasing selected testimonials from the Zappos community.

Zappos Free Returns 1

The Chick-fil-a Differentiator

Chick-fil-a is a well known restaurant for chicken sandwiches. Their chicken sandwich is intended to be a healthier alternative to the hamburger from other competing fast food operators. The target market for Chick-fil-a is adults and higher income demographics as compared to younger audiences with most hamburger fast food chains. But I consider one of their main strategic differentiators to be their customer service and community involvement. I’ve written before about the customer focus at Chick-fil-a locations. You may not know that Chick-fil-a doesn’t franchise to independent operators. They have a central organization of stores with owner operators that meet certain criteria and pass the process for the position. Each owner operator then becomes heavily involved in their community. They appear at local youth events, schools, and other community celebrations. Often times they give away food or sell it at a reduced price. Why? Well, mainly because community enrichment is one of their core purposes and values. However, they also know that a high percentage of people will visit their locations and buy more chicken. What other fast food operators have you seen participating in the community like this?

So I took a look of the websites for Chick-fil-a, McDonald’s, and Burger King. Guess who is the only one to have the option to order online and setup for large community events? Now some would say that cold hamburgers will not suffice and would create a negative impression of their brand. I see that as a opportunity waiting for a solution. Chick-fil-a sees it as a competitive advantage.

The online ordering is for participating stores only. When you load the page they display a nifty mash-up map that plots your geographic location with their store locations to show those closest to you.

chickfila map

Does your web site promote your value proposition and play a part in the strategic positioning of your company?