The one number you need to grow

Companies spend lots of time and money on complex tools to assess customer satisfaction. But they're measuring the wrong thing. The best predictor of top-line growth can usually be captured in a single survey question: Would you recommend this company to a friend? This finding is based on two years of research in which a variety of survey questions were tested by linking the responses with actual customer behavior--purchasing patterns and referrals--and ultimately with company growth. Surprisingly, the most effective question wasn't about customer satisfaction or even loyalty per se. In most of the industries studied, the percentage of customers enthusiastic enough about a company to refer it to a friend or colleague directly correlated with growth rates among competitors. Willingness to talk up a company or product to friends, family, and colleagues is one of the best indicators of loyalty because of the customer's sacrifice in making the recommendation. When customers act as references, they do more than indicate they've received good economic value from a company; they put their own reputations on the line. And they will risk their reputations only if they feel intense loyalty. The findings point to a new, simpler approach to customer research, one directly linked to a company's results. By substituting a single question--blunt tool though it may appear to be--for the complex black box of the customer satisfaction survey, companies can actually put consumer survey results to use and focus employees on the task of stimulating growth.     

Three questions you need to ask about your brand

Traditionally, the people responsible for positioning brands have concentrated on the differences that set each brand apart from the competition. But emphasizing differences isn't enough to sustain a brand against competitors. Managers should also consider the frame of reference within which the brand works and the features the brand shares with other products. Asking three questions about your brand can help: HAVE WE ESTABLISHED A FRAME?: A frame of reference--for Coke, it might be as narrow as other colas or as broad as all thirst-quenching drinks--signals to consumers the goal they can expect to achieve by using a brand. Brand managers need to pay close attention to this issue, in some cases expanding their focus in order to preempt the competition. ARE WE LEVERAGING OUR POINTS OF PARITY?: Certain points of parity must be met if consumers are to perceive your product as a legitimate player within its frame of reference. For instance, consumers might not consider a bank truly a bank unless it offers checking and savings plans. ARE THE POINTS OF DIFFERENCE COMPELLING?: A distinguishing characteristic that consumers find both relevant and believable can become a strong, favorable, unique brand association, capable of distinguishing the brand from others in the same frame of reference. Frames of reference, points of parity, and points of difference are moving targets. Maytag isn't the only dependable brand of appliance, Tide isn't the only detergent with whitening power, and BMWs aren't the only cars on the road with superior handling. The key questions you need to ask about your brand may not change, but their context certainly will. The saviest brand positioners are also the most vigilant.     

Solving the futures challenge - all you need is a 3LA

In this article, the author responds to a number of claims regarding the Integral Operating System, Causal Layered Analysis and the field of Futures. In particular, the author takes aim at those who claim that the reason the futures field has been lacking in influencing change towards more positive world is the result of not having an effective tool kit. To the contrary, the author suggests that the Futures community's failure at changing the existing ‘market driven paradigm’ has more to do with “… an unwillingness to get our hands dirty and to play in the same sandbox as our clients.” To that end the author targets in particular, a piece suggesting that making the Causal Layered Analysis more complex, exclusionary and ‘new and improved’ is the best way to make inroads into the economic liberalism model now in control. In counterpoint the author suggests that not only is this a flawed approach, it is unlikely to assist those with greatest need - the wider Futures Community.     

Getting the truth into workplace surveys

There's no doubt that companies can benefit from workplace surveys and questionnaires. Good surveys accurately home in on the problems the company wants information about. They are designed so that as many people as possible actually respond. And good survey design ensures that the spectrum of responses is unbiased. In this article, the author, a former research scientist at the University of Michigan and currently the president of a survey design firm, explores some glaring failures of survey design and provides 16 guidelines to improve workplace assessment tools. Applied judiciously, these rules will not only make a tangible difference in the quality and usefulness of the data obtained but will also produce an increased response rate. The guidelines--and the problems they address--fall into five areas: content, format, language, measurement, and administration. Here are a few examples: Survey questions should require people to assess observable behavior rather than make inferences; each section should contain a similar number of items and each item should have a similar number of words; words with strong associations to gender, race, or ethnicity should be avoided; the wording in one-third of the questions should be changed so that the desirable answer is a negative one; and response scales should provide a "don't know" or "not applicable" option. Following the guidelines in this article will help you get unbiased, representative, and useful information from your workplace survey.     

Getting it right the second time

Once a business performs a complex activity well, the parent organization often wants to replicate that success. But doing that is surprisingly difficult, and businesses nearly always fail when they try to reproduce a best practice. The reason? People approaching best-practice replication are overly optimistic and overconfident. They try to perfect an operation that's running nearly flawlessly, or they try to piece together different practices to create the perfect hybrid. Getting it right the second time (and all the times after that) involves adjusting for overconfidence in your own abilities and imposing strict discipline on the process and the organization. The authors studied numerous business settings to find out how organizational routines were successfully reproduced, and they identified five steps for successful replication. First, make sure you've got something that can be copied and that's worth copying. Some processes don't lend themselves to duplication; others can be copied but maybe shouldn't be. Second, work from a single template. It provides proof success, performance measurements, a tactical approach, and a reference for when problems arise. Third, copy the example exactly, and fourth, make changes only after you achieve acceptable results. The people who developed the template have probably already encountered many of the problems you want to "fix," so it's best to create a working system before you introduce changes. Fifth, don't throw away the template. If your copy doesn't work, you can use the template to identify and solve problems. Best-practice replication, while less glamorous than pure innovation, contributes enormously to the bottom line of most companies. The article's examples--Banc One, Rank Xerox, Intel, Starbucks, and Re/Max Israel--prove that exact copying is a non-trivial, challenging accomplishment.     

Getting IT right

Modern information technology started four decades ago, yet in most major corporations, IT remains an expensive mess. This is partly because the relatively young and rapidly evolving practice of IT continues to be either grossly misunderstood or blindly ignored by top management. Senior managers know how to talk about finances because they all speak or understand the language of profit and loss and balance sheets. But when they allow themselves to be befuddled by IT discussions or bedazzled by three-letter acronyms, they shirk a critical responsibility. In this article, the authors say a systematic approach to understanding and executing IT can and should be implemented, and it should be organized along three interconnected principles: A Long-Term IT Renewal Plan Linked to Corporate Strategy. Such a plan focuses the entire IT group on the company's over-arching goals during a multiyear period, makes appropriate investments directed toward cutting costs in the near term, and generates a detailed blueprint for long-term systems rejuvenation and value creation. A Simplified, Unifying Corporate Technology Platform. Instead of relying on vertically oriented data silos that serve individual corporate units (HR, accounting, and so on), companies adopt a clean, horizontally oriented architecture designed to serve the whole organization. A Highly Functional, Performance-Oriented IT Organization. Instead of functioning as if it were different from the rest of the firm or as a loose confederation of tribes, the IT department works as a team and operates according to corporate performance standards. Getting IT right demands the same inspired leadership and superb execution that other parts of the business require. By sticking to the three central principles outlined in this article, companies can turn IT from a quagmire into a powerful weapon.     

Getting offshoring right

The prospect of offshoring and outsourcing business processes has captured the imagination of CEOs everywhere. In the past five years, a rising number of companies in North America and Europe have experimented with this strategy, hoping to reduce costs and gain strategic advantage. But many businesses have had mixed results. According to several studies, half the organizations that have shifted processes offshore have failed to generate the expected financial benefits. What's more, many of them have faced employee resistance and consumer dissatisfaction. Clearly, companies have to rethink how they formulate their offshoring strategies. A three-part methodology can help. First, companies need to prioritize their processes, ranking each based on two criteria: the value it creates for customers and the degree to which the company can capture some of that value. Companies will want to keep their core (highest-priority) processes in-house and consider outsourcing their commodity (low-priority) processes; critical (moderate-priority) processes are up for debate and must be considered carefully. Second, businesses should analyze all the risks that accompany offshoring and look systematically at their critical and commodity processes in terms of operational risk (the risk that processes won't operate smoothly after being offshored) and structural risk (the risk that relationships with service providers may not work as expected). Finally, companies should determine possible locations for their offshore efforts, as well as the organizational forms--such as captive centers and joint ventures--that those efforts might take. They can do so by examining each process's operational and structural risks side by side. This article outlines the tools that will help companies choose the right processes to offshore. It also describes a new organizational structure called the extended organization, in which companies specify the quality of services they want and work alongside providers to get that quality.     

Change the way you persuade

You call a meeting to try to convince your boss that your company needs to make an important move. Your argument is impassioned, your logic unassailable, your data bulletproof. Two weeks later, though, you learn that your brilliant proposal has been tabled. What went wrong? It's likely the proposal wasn't appropriately geared toward your boss's decision-making style, say consultants Gary Williams and Robert Miller. Over the course of several years' research, the authors have found that executives have a default style of decision making developed early in their careers. That style is reinforced through repeated successes or changed after several failures. Typically, the authors say, executives fall into one of five categories of decision-making styles: Charismatics are intrigued by new ideas, but experience has taught them to make decisions based on balanced information, not just on emotions. Thinkers are risk-averse and need as much data as possible before coming to decisions. Skeptics are suspicious of data that don't fit their worldview and thus make decisions based on their gut feelings. Followers make decisions based on how other trusted executives, or they themselves, have made similar decisions in the past. And controllers focus on the facts and analytics of decisions because of their own fears and uncertainties. But most business presentations aren't designed to acknowledge these different styles--to their detriment. In this article, the authors describe the various subtleties of the five decision-making styles and how best to persuade executives from each group. Knowing executives' preferences for hearing or seeing certain types of information at specific stages in their decision-making process can substantially improve your ability to tip the outcome in your favor, the authors conclude.     

公开透明,转移支付的生命线

今年5月4日,国务院总理温家宝在国务院常务会议上表示,将进一步推进财政预算公开的工作,其中明确要求公开中央对地方转移支付资金管理办法,由此引出了社会上对转移支付公开性和透明度的关注和思考。     

预算:愈编愈难

从今年上半年的财政增长势头看,财政收入的增长已经大大超过了人们的预想界限。记者在调查中发现,甲地的财政收入增长了30%,乙地的财政收入增长了50%,有地区更甚,增长70%!我们的财政收入已经达到了如此高的程度,增长的速度也如此迅猛。但我们真的是要为此骄傲吗?或者还有一些隐忧?     

你了解赤道原则吗？

新修订的赤道法则就整合社会和环境的影响以及评估和管理这些影响到融资的项目而言,已经向前迈出了一大步。新的原则包括对EPFIs和其借款人更强有力和更明确的要求     

股市需要“真牛”

一脚踏入7月,2009年已经过半。盛夏的大地仍交错着高温与暴雨,但是,任何一种极端的天气都不可能永远持续,就像股市不可能永远只是单边上扬或下跌。