THATCHER: A LEARNING OPPORTUNITY MISSED?

23 04 2013
pic: guardian.co.uk

pic: guardian.co.uk

A week on from Margaret Thatcher’s funeral I am left wondering whether one of the most important lessons from her time as Prime Minister has been missed. To those with right leaning tendencies she appears unable to have ever done wrong while those to the left insist she could do no right.

Right or left, those who do not learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them, something politicians of all hues have been doing since she left office and, no doubt will continue to do into the future.

Whichever space on the political spectrum your views occupy, there was one thing about Margaret Thatcher and her time as Prime Minister everyone appears to agree on; she polarised views. However the problem with such polarised views, such extremes of adoration and hatred, is that they get in the way of reasonable analysis.

That same thing; reasonable analysis of the available data, should be at the heart of the development of any kind of quality strategy and its absence from the politics of the Thatcher era (and, indeed, since) has seriously undermined the quality of strategy coming from government then and since. Then and now we are served a diet of initiative-led rather than strategy led policy delivery and that can only serve up problems for the future.

To explain what I mean, I will use two of Mrs Thatcher’s flagship policies as examples and explain how delivering them as single initiatives rather than integrating them into longer term strategy has led to some of the problems we face today. I should emphasise that this is a modern-day cross-party problem, not simply a ‘throw-back’ to a bygone era.

The first of those policies was that of allowing council house tenants to buy their homes. Surely, not a bad thing and at the time a very popular initiative. Unfortunately, in implementing the initiative little consideration was given to cause and effect. The policy was not examined in terms of what else needed to happen for it to prove successful in the medium to long-term and hence no strategy integrating the servicing of all requirements was developed. Reasonable analysis was absent.

Cause and effect? Today we have a massive housing crisis in the UK. Social housing stock was sold off and never replaced. Those who purchased their homes in the 80s and 90s have seen the value increase enormously while those now looking for a home either cannot afford their own home or struggle to pay private rents and have little or no hope of ever finding social housing. More over 30s live at home with their parents than at any time in history.

The second policy which seemingly made sense at the time was the wholesale privatisation of energy and utility companies (denationalisation). The thinking was that the State was poor at running them properly and that private companies would do a far better job. The public liked the idea and hundreds of thousands of people bought shares in the newly privatised companies.

Cause and effect? One of the primary responsibilities of the Board of any private company is to their shareholders. Profit is king. Although few have joined the dots from privatisation to where we are today, the result is energy companies seeking profits and customers far from happy with ever-increasing bills. A very popular initiative/policy had failed to look to an inevitable future. Reasonable analysis was absent.

I am not suggesting that either policy was right or wrong. What I am suggesting is that a lack of good strategy, of analysis of cause and effect on future generations and national need meant that the policy/initiative of eighties contributed to the issues of today.

We cannot change the past but we can learn its lessons. Primary among those lessons is the importance of politicians thinking beyond the initiative of now and applying sound long-term strategy to their policies. Had that happened in the eighties the housing crisis might have been averted and household energy bills might be more manageable.

Unfortunately politicians of all parties have continued to put initiative led policy before policy led by sound strategy. They put aside or ignore that reasonable analysis of history’s lessons, of likely cause and effect to which I referred above.

Regardless of your personal political beliefs, perhaps we should agree that the most beneficial legacy left by the Iron Lady would be if our current day and future politicians learned a little more about cause and effect and the value of good strategy.

The lessons are there to be learned if any of them care to look.

© Jim Cowan, Cowan Global Limited, April 2013

Read more blogs by Jim Cowan

info@cowanglobal.net

Twitter @cowanglobal

Facebook.com/cowanglobal


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Categories : All Blogs, Consulting, Management, News Comment, Strategy

ATHLETICS BECOMING A MINORITY SPORT – IS THIS THE OLYMPIC LEGACY?

24 02 2013
pic: telegraph.co.uk

pic: telegraph.co.uk

I have now written about the Olympic Legacy on a number of occasions; most frequently questioning the lack of competent strategy in fulfilling the promise our politicians made to us and to the world in 2005; that the Games would bring an increase in sporting participation.

Nearly eight years later, we still await any strategy worthy of the name and, for some sports, time is running out.

I have a lot to be thankful to the sport of athletics for. As a former athlete I spent many enjoyable years training for and competing in the sport. Later I became a coach and was fortunate to work with many talented athletes. I have made friendships which have endured the years and the miles, I have seen more of the world than I could ever have dreamed of and I learned much about myself as a person. Athletics gave me a base from which I worked in a number of other sports with many fantastic individuals and great teams. Other than my parents, the sport of track and field athletics contributed more to my being the person I am today than anything else. I am grateful, extremely grateful.

Why do I share this with you?

Because athletics in the UK is in serious trouble. Forget that ‘Super Saturday’ of last summer; forget the success of Mo and Jessica and the others. That is the glossy picture that fronts a sport in decline.

The official figures paint a picture far rosier than reality. Sport England’s annual Active People Survey reports 2.1 million adults regularly (once per week) taking part in athletics. That is more than 1 in every 20 people but few other than politicians and those in sport whose jobs depend on these figures believe them anymore. Grass roots athletics certainly doesn’t. Even when you allow for the fact that Sport England includes joggers as athletes the figures are barely credible.

But what about the sport the public think of as athletics? What of the sport of Mo and Jessica and the others? What of track and field athletics?

In 2011 the Association of British Athletic Clubs asked world-renowned athletics statistician Rob Whittingham to take an independent look at track and field participation focusing on the key adult competition age of 20 to 34. His findings were that fewer than 2000 people regularly participated in track and field athletics. That is 0.1% of people participating in what the public might term ‘real’ athletics compared to Sport England’s figure for their definition of ‘athletics’.

As a way of picturing 2000 people, let me put it this way; it is insufficient numbers to field even 182 football or cricket teams (that’s fewer than four per English county) and enough for only 133 rugby union teams (fewer than three per English county).

Since 2011 athletics plight has continued. Local, national and international facilities have come under threat of closure from Mansfield to Gateshead and from Cwmbran to Don Valley in Sheffield. Britain’s most successful ever athletics club, Belgrave Harriers, has had to withdraw from the British League because of a shortage of volunteers. For the uninitiated, Belgrave has been athletics equivalent of Manchester United having won 11 National titles in The League’s 43 year history. Now their top flight aspirations are over.

In the absence of any competent strategy from DCMS, Sport England or England Athletics, Belgrave Harriers are now going it alone and have developed a strategy which will develop new, non-funding reliant income streams which, given time, can be reinvested in the club to support proper development. Where once they led on the track, perhaps Belgrave Harriers are now leading in new directions which will benefit a sport in desperate need of leadership if it is to save itself.

This is not the sport of Super Saturday, this is a sport in transition from major to minor. The sport of my youth, the sport which gave me so much and which has the potential to give much to others has become a minority sport. Strip out the joggers and not much of a sport remains.

Despite the promises of 2005 we have still to see an integrated strategy for the development of sport in this country, one which recognises the full sports development continuum. There has been plenty of talk and lots of initiatives and more than a few bad strategies, but there has been little of quality and now athletics is paying the price.

If the Olympic Legacy is to mean something, if politician’s promise to the people of the UK and of the rest of the world is not to ring hollow that must change and change quickly. Competent, quality strategy is required now, for the bell is ringing for athletics’ last lap.

© Jim Cowan, Cowan Global Limited, February 2013

Read more blogs by Jim Cowan

info@cowanglobal.net

Twitter @cowanglobal

Facebook.com/cowanglobal


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Categories : All Blogs, News Comment, Sport, Strategy

DOES THE TABLE IN YOUR BOARDROOM HAVE FOUR CORNERS?

17 02 2013

Boardroom TableIn small to medium-sized businesses there is often a missing corner or two on the boardroom table and, increasingly, the same is now true of larger companies.

What are these corners and what purpose do they serve?

The smaller the business the more likely that it is run by people who think in similar ways. For start-ups that friendship, that ‘likeness of mind’ is often a key component in getting from concept to reality but at that point it can become something that hinders the unsuspecting company.

The ‘Board’ (or those running the company) becomes a couple of people or a group of people who think and act the same. They lack the diversity that is required to drive the kind of growth which delivers on early potential. The business reaches a critical size and growth ceases or, if they are fortunate, slows.

In the larger company the situation is different but generates the same problem. There are a number of people around the boardroom table, often very diverse in specialism, experience and knowledge. And because of that diversity, a dangerous assumption is made – that the necessary range of skills, knowledge and experience are assembled.

In both cases, a reality check is needed. That check involves ensuring that four vital specialisms are assembled; the four key corners of any boardroom table. But what are these four key specialisms?

1.    The Strategist. This specialism is the most easily and most frequently overlooked. The board assume strategy to be a generalist skill which they can all handle between them and any ensuing strategy ends up being a hotch-potch of generalist ideas lacking proper direction and cohesion. And responsibility for strategy (in other words the company’s future) is shared, the buck does not stop anywhere and over time the strategy becomes a vague notion or is discussed in terms of aims and objectives with few (if any) clearly defined actions worth having.

2.    The Money Man. Of the four, this is the specialism least likely to be omitted in larger companies (there will usually be a Financial Director) but in the smaller companies is an assumed presence which doesn’t really exist. It is assumed because books are kept and the accountant checks them over every quarter (if lucky) or annually (more commonly).

3.    The Manager. Of bureaucratic mind-set, the Manager is the ‘husbander of resources’ essential to any organisation to ensure the economical use of those resources and to the eradication of waste. Unwatched the Manager can become caught up in his/her own bureaucratic processes and start overlooking the very waste he/she despises because the processes appear to be working. Focus is on the job of management not the future of the organisation.

4.    The Leader. Often, wrongly, assumed to be the same person as the manager, the Leader tends to the less bureaucratic and more to the adhocratic. The Leader’s role is to take people with them on the journey. Of course, without a dedicated Strategist the journey is often ill-defined and the Leader, being of adhocratic mind-set will lead wherever people will follow but not necessarily in the right, planned direction best for the company.

Put together the four might seem a strange group to be working together but it is their diversity which gives them their strength. The Money Man and the Manager tend to be data driven, needing historical information to inform any decision making. The Strategist and the Leader tend to the visionary, preferring to look to the future in preference to the past.

The mix is further diversified when considering where they sit on the continuum between bureaucratic and adhocratic. The Manager tends to be highly bureaucratic, the system and the process are everything and ease the job of management. The Money Man and the Strategist sit nearer the middle of the continuum, the data driven Money Man tending to (but not driven by) the bureaucratic and the future driven Strategist tending to (but not driven by) the adhocratic. The Leader tends to be more highly adhocratic wanting everyone pulling together regardless of direction.

None of these definitions are absolutes. There are certainly Strategists who favour historical data and putting a strategy in place requires a healthy dollop of bureaucracy if it is to be cohesive and executable.

The key to the four corners is that they balance each other. Bureaucracy and adhocracy are not natural bed fellows but are both important components of a healthy board. Data driven and future driven mind-sets are more likely to get along (but not always).

Most boards will feature a nominal leader in the CEO however the reality is that individual could be from any of the four corners and tend to be either the Manager or the Money Man. Companies are run sensibly, conservatively but are resistant to change. This is all very safe unless change is required (think of the recent spate of closures on the High Street).

There is nothing wrong with the CEO being Manager or Money Man so long as the board is balanced, that all four corners are occupied. However, most likely to be absent from the board room are the Strategist and the Leader which can undermine future planning and the spotting and seizing of opportunities to diversify and realise attractive directions in which to move and grow.

The healthy board will ensure the four corners are filled before adding other seats around the table. But how many actually do?

© Jim Cowan, Cowan Global Limited, February 2013

Read more blogs by Jim Cowan

info@cowanglobal.net

Twitter @cowanglobal

Facebook.com/cowanglobal


Comments : Leave a Comment »

Categories : All Blogs

WHAT IS CORE COMPETENCE?

7 02 2013

Oak TreeIt has been argued that core competencies are the true source of competitive advantage. But might understanding ‘core competence’ mean a rethink of the concept of corporation?

The term ‘Core Competence’ as applied to the competitive advantage of a business has only existed since 1990 when the Harvard Business Review published Gary Hamel and CK Prahalad’s paper; ‘The Core Competence of the Corporation.’ Reacting against the decentralised business portfolio strategy then being followed (and still followed today) by many large corporations, they argued that instead of a portfolio of businesses housed in standalone strategic business units (SBUs), companies should identify their portfolio of competences and plan to these.

The corporate world of 1990 was one where western companies were beginning to feel they had stemmed the growth in competition from lost cost, high quality Japanese imports. The western companies were catching up in these areas and the competitive advantage enjoyed by the Japanese through the 70s and 80s was diminishing.

The Japanese responded with wave after wave of new products in new markets. Honda diversified from cars and motor cycles to buggies, lawn mowers, boats and more.  Other Japanese companies diversified in similar ways.

As in the 70s and 80s, the western companies were slow to react. Hamel and Prahalad identified that this was not because they had worse management or lesser technical capabilities. It was because top management lacked the vision to exploit the depth of technological capability their companies possessed; it’s ‘core competence.’

That core competence is defined as something that you do better than anyone else. The larger the company the closer to ‘world class’ the core competence should be. It produces a core product or an efficiency which is not an end product. Hence Honda’s core competence was (is) in engines and power trains; once they had identified this, the diversification of their product range around the core competence became a logical step.

For other companies it is different. For example, Black and Decker’s core competence is in small electric motors. Having recognised this, their product range grew to include a multitude of products from lawn mowers to vacuum cleaners and from power tools to electric can openers. Core competencies open the way to many different markets and in thinking about how to exploit these markets, an environment which encourages innovation is created (Honda call it ‘the power of dreams’).

Hamel and Prahalad laid down three tests to identify a core competence:

  • ·         It provides potential access to a wide range of markets
  • ·         It provides a significant contribution to perceived customer benefit of the end product
  • ·         It is difficult to imitate

Therefore, being world-class at producing an ordinary component will not bestow competitive advantage. A core competence makes a disproportionate contribution to customer value and must be judged relative to the competition. It is something your competitors envy and wish they had.

Back to 1990 and Hamel and Prahalad identified how, in trying to match the new, core competence based competition coming from Japan, western companies mistook what was happening and some even deliberately (but unknowingly) lost or gave away their own core competence.

Where Honda recognised their core competence was in engines and power trains, Chrysler saw them as just another component and outsourced their manufacture. Short-term, in doing so Chrysler created a more competitive product but in the medium to long-term such a move contributed nothing to maintaining and developing the skills required to retain product leadership.

Hamel and Prahalad saw such decentralisation as ‘the tyranny of the SBU’ – the enemy of core competence. SBUs tend to the present focusing on maximising today’s sales, tending to be tactic not strategy led. What competencies they have tend to be hoarded and a reluctance to lend talented people to other SBUs develops. New opportunities are neither explored nor developed.

The job of management should be to develop an organisation-wide ‘strategic architecture’ – a road map to the future identifying which competencies to build and what technology they need. Core competencies are corporate resources and SBUs should have to bid for them just as they bid for capital resource. Reward systems and career paths should break free of SBU silos and key employees should be weaned off the idea that they belong to one particular strand (SBU) of the business.

Hamel and Prahalad described this diversified company as a large tree with trunk and limbs as its core products, the smaller branches as strategic business units and the leaves, flowers and fruit as the end products. The root system that nourishes, sustains and stabilises the tree is the core competence.

“If you look only at the leaves of a tree,” they said, “you won’t notice its strength. In the same way, you may fail to see the strength of your competitors if you look only at their end products.”

 

© Jim Cowan, Cowan Global Limited, February 2013

Read more blogs by Jim Cowan

info@cowanglobal.net

Twitter @cowanglobal

Facebook.com/cowanglobal


Comments : 2 Comments »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Categories : All Blogs, Business, Consulting, Strategy

ENOUGH FANTASY: THE HIGH STREET NEEDS REALITY BASED STRATEGY

27 01 2013

His Masters VoiceAs more household names disappear from our High Streets on a seemingly weekly basis, it is time for that sector to start basing their strategies in reality and not in some fantasy world which doesn’t exist or in some bygone day which is not returning.

During 2012, I saw a sharp increase in organisations from one particular sector coming to me for advice and support in developing new strategies to carry them safely into the future. These organisations were seeing their world changing and historic certainties had become present day doubts almost overnight. Their world was changing and their strategies needed to reflect that fact if they were to have a safe, healthy future.

The sector I refer to is the Third Sector, that area made up of charities, voluntary organisations and social enterprises although the description of a sector facing a new world of uncertainty after decades of security could as easily fit the High Street.

The key challenge, among many, faced by the Third Sector organisations that came to me was that of reduced funding. Government and local authorities have drastically cut what funding they have available for the sector while other funders have found resources limited by a range of issues brought about by the ongoing downturn in local, national and international economies.

In order to continue with levels of service, care, development and intervention provided during the last decade, these organisations are facing a stark choice; diversify your income streams or shrink and possibly die.

Of course, I have come across organisations unwilling to change. Prepared to cross their fingers and hope the next funding bid is successful rather than plan for life in their new reality.

The parallels with the High Street are uncanny. We see a minority of businesses adapting to changing consumer habits and tighter consumer budgets while others close their eyes, cross their fingers and plan for a world where consumer habits are unaffected by the internet age and disposable income has been unaffected by the economic crisis.

The strategies of these companies are based in fantasy, a place in which no successful strategy will ever be based. Good strategy is of the real world. It is, of course, informed by the past but it is not dictated to by history. The place a good strategy is taking you is the future and a better future at that.

Next time a High Street chain closes and blames consumers for shopping on-line; instead of blame they should ask themselves if they were aware habits had changed why their strategy had not reflected this reality. And, if they were not aware, why not?

The Third Sector is grasping the fact that the world is a changed place from even five years ago. The High Street chains need to do the same, and quickly, before more household names go the way of Jessops, HMV, Comet, Blockbuster and far too many others.

© Jim Cowan, Cowan Global Limited, January 2013

Read more blogs by Jim Cowan

info@cowanglobal.net

Twitter @cowanglobal

Facebook.com/cowanglobal


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Categories : All Blogs, Business, Charity, Consulting, News Comment, Strategy

A NEW EVENT MARKING THE LIVES OF TWO GREAT MEN SUPPORTING SOME GREAT CAUSES!

8 01 2013

Clough Taylor LogoOver the years I have committed to allocating 20% of my working hours to the design, development and running of charity events. At the end of last year, I launched a new social enterprise, People’s Events, with the idea that my 20% commitment will go further by chairing this new organisation than by acting as an individual.

People’s Events’ first event will mark the lives of two great men at one of the East Midlands’ most iconic venues and in support of some very worthy causes. I’d like to use my first blog of 2013 to share a little about the Clough Taylor People’s Run with you.

As its title suggests, the Clough Taylor People’s Run pays tribute to two remarkable men, Brian Clough and Peter Taylor. The successes of Clough and Taylor are now writ large in the pages of legend and although they are no longer with us, they are both remembered with affection by fans of all football clubs, not just the ones they managed.

Taking place on Sunday 10th March at the famous Donington Park motor racing circuit, the event will feature a 10km for over 13s and a 1km fun run for under 13s. Running is not compulsory; walkers are just as welcome. The important thing is to mark two great lives by supporting some great charities.

There are four official charities (although you can support whatever charity you want once you have entered). These are:

  • ·         CP Sport who help people with cerebral palsy fulfil their potential through sport
  • ·         Hope Against Cancer who fund vital cancer research programmes in the East Midlands
  • ·         Muscular Dystrophy Campaign who are dedicated to beating muscle wasting conditions and improving the lives of those affected by them
  • ·         Nottingham Hospitals Charity towards Pulmonary Fibrosis Research who are dedicated to researching and ultimately defeating Pulmonary Fibrosis

The Clough Taylor People’s Run is open to all and entering couldn’t be easier. Simply visit the event website, click on Event Entry and follow the instructions. There is even a downloadable entry form for those who prefer entering by post.

The entry fee of £20.00 (£10.00 for the 1km fun run) includes a T-shirt which you select your choice of colour for – Forest Red, Rams White or Neutral Blue. The challenge is for fans of the two clubs Brian Clough and Peter Taylor enjoyed their greatest successes with (Derby County and Nottingham Forest) to make their colour the predominant colour on the day! All finishers will also receive a commemorative medal.

Why not join us on 10th March and run (or walk) for Brian, for Peter, for Forest, for the Rams or simply for yourself but most importantly – for charity.

Don’t forget to spread the word!

The Clough Taylor People’s Run is endorsed by the families of both Brian Clough and Peter Taylor and supported by Derby County and Nottingham Forest football clubs. The event is sponsored by Donington Park, Quiet Storm, BCS Agency and (of course) Cowan Global. Limited sponsorship opportunities are still available, contact me for details. Follow the Clough Taylor People’s Run on Twitter and on Facebook.

© Jim Cowan, Cowan Global Limited, January 2013

Read more blogs by Jim Cowan

info@cowanglobal.net

Twitter @cowanglobal

Facebook.com/cowanglobal


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Categories : All Blogs, Charity, Events, Sport

NEW YEAR; NEW RESOLUTION; NEW FAILURE?

28 12 2012

new-years-resolutionsEvery year is the same; depending on which survey you read somewhere over 70%, 80% or even 95% of all New Year’s Eve resolutions are doomed to fail. Where will yours stack up in that statistical pile? 

Here are a few tips to ensure this year your resolution becomes reality.

Here at Cowan Global we spend our time helping businesses and third sector organisations become successful by helping them be better at strategy. This means not only better at delivering strategy but in establishing challenging but achievable targets to pursue in the first place.

And every year, where so many organisations fall short of their potential (and even fail), most of the population follow. Every year people set targets (aka New Year’s Resolutions) they have absolutely no chance of delivering.

Key to your being successful in whatever you resolve to do in 2013 is to be smarter when you set your target now. By smarter, I mean SMARTER because it is an acronym you can test your resolution against:

S stands for specific. If you aren’t specific about what you want to achieve how can you honestly know when you have succeeded? “I want to lose weight,” simply won’t cut the mustard; “I want to lose half a stone” will. It is specific so that you know what it is you are setting out to achieve.

M stands for measurable. You need to be able to measure progress or you risk losing motivation. “I want to get fitter,” is a laudable aim but is hard to measure. “I want to be fit enough to run 10km without stopping” puts a measure on it and you can tick off 1, 2, 3, 4 and more kms as landmarks along the way to help keep you motivated.

A stands for agreed. If you are involving other people, they must all agree or you will fail. Beyond that people have a penchant for setting resolutions they think others will be impressed by instead of setting targets for themselves. Put another way, your resolution must be something that, deep inside, you agree you can and will pursue, you must agree your resolution with yourself! Half-hearted = half-arsed = doomed to fail.

R stands for realistic. You will know people (you might be one of them) who have big, often alcohol driven dreams every December 31st who wake on 1st January to realise there is no way on God’s earth they will achieve their resolution and it bites the dust before it sees its first sunset. Unrealistic can mean plain crazy (eg I’m going to swim the Atlantic using butterfly) or ill-conceived such as committing to hit the gym for two hours every day when you know that work and family commitments will make one hour every other day far more realistic.

T stands for time-phased. In short; give yourself a deadline and, if it is a large undertaking give yourself some time-phased check points along the way. So, if you are going to run to the top of Mount Kilimanjaro for charity it might be wise to have some progressive targets along the way as you prepare.

E stands for exciting. Does achieving your resolution excite you? If yes, great; if no, bin it and get another because if you aren’t excited by it now the further we get into 2013 the less you will be motivated to achieve it and that will lead to only one thing – failure.

R stands for recorded. Not just a record for yourself but a public record to which you agree to be accountable. This might be as simple as telling your friends you are going to raise over £1000 for your favourite charity or it might be sharing your progress towards fitness, weight loss, giving up smoking or whatever else on a public blog. By recording what your resolution is you make yourself accountable for failure.

There are other acronyms you can employ. If you are aiming to improve at something you already do try CRAMP. Your resolution will need to be Challenging but Realistic, Agreed and Measurable not forgetting Performance orientated. Of course, if you forget to make it Measurable it becomes something else altogether!

Whether SMARTER, CRAMP or February wash out, thank you for reading the Cowan Global Blog during 2012, I’m looking forward to writing more in 2013 and hope you will join me then.

Have a great time on New Year’s Eve; see you the other side!

Clough Taylor LogoIf you are looking for a great charity run (or walk) to make your resolution target, why not consider the Clough Taylor People’s Run on 10th March? Organised by social enterprise People’s Events (of whom I am Chairman) and supported by Cowan Global, the event is a 10km run (or walk) around the historic Donington Park motor racing circuit in memory of two great men, Brian Clough and Peter Taylor, and in support of some fantastic causes. Every participant gets a free T-shirt and every finisher a commemorative medal. For more details click here.

© Jim Cowan, Cowan Global Limited, December 2012

Read more blogs by Jim Cowan

info@cowanglobal.net

Twitter @cowanglobal

Facebook.com/cowanglobal


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Categories : All Blogs, Business, Charity, Consulting, Education & Training, Events, HUMOUR, Management, Strategy

SANTA’S OWN STRATEGY STORY

19 12 2012

Blue Santa 2Here we are, Christmas rapidly approaching and, no doubt, Santa and his helpers are busy loading up their sleigh while the reindeer prepare at the pre-event Pasta Party. But are you aware that the scene you are probably picturing was aided by a very clever strategy early in the last century?

It is not widely appreciated that the original colour Santa chose for his work uniform was blue. Then along came Coca Cola with a Christmas advertising strategy which forever changed the colour of Christmas. The idea was simple, dress Santa in Coca Cola’s corporate colours thus making him an unofficial ambassador for the drinks company.

Within a few years, people had forgotten about Santa’s preferred blue hue and the whole world had adopted Coke’s new colour for Santa. Nowadays, Santa dresses in red – period. Coke still use him as part of their seasonal advertising, possibly one of the longest running celebrity endorsements in history, however the original campaign was so successful in changing Santa’s uniform that the link in colour scheme is no longer recognised.

Depending on whom you ask this story is true, a myth or a combination of the two. But it seems a nice little story of strategy changing the way we see Christmas through which I would like to wish everyone who subscribes to, reads or accidentally happens across the Cowan Global Blog a very merry Christmas and a happy, healthy, peaceful and prosperous New Year.

See you the other side!

© Jim Cowan, Cowan Global Limited, December 2011

Read more blogs by Jim Cowan

info@cowanglobal.net

Twitter @cowanglobal

Facebook.com/cowanglobal

(Originally posted Christmas 2011).


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , ,
Categories : All Blogs, Strategy

HOUSTON: IT’S YOU WHO HAS THE PROBLEM!

17 12 2012

NASAIt is a line which became synonymous with the early days of space exploration and it fell into common usage as a term used whenever things were going wrong; “Houston, we have a problem.”

Only today it is Houston or, more precisely, NASA who has the problem. Why? The organisation used by consultants around the world as an example of quality Visioning has forgotten how to do quality Vision.

I am among the many Strategy Consultants who, when asked to cite a great example of what a Vision should look like has quoted NASA’s Vision originally stated by John F Kennedy on 25th May 1961:

“This nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to earth.”

As a Vision it had everything a good Vision requires. It was measurable, it had a clear deadline, it was inspiring and motivational, it was achievable and it clearly sign-posted the way for the focus of the ensuing NASA Strategy which ultimately led to its being achieved.

Fast forward from the 1960s to the 2010s and things have drastically changed. Much of the discussion around the future of space flight appears to emanate from the private sector within the USA or from other nations not previously viewed as ‘space powers.’ NASA is slipping behind.

A recent report from the Space Foundation declared; “NASA’s 2011 Strategic Plan is no longer viable.” Others are declaring that neither NASA’s workforce, the US people nor the international community are inspired or motivated to achieve the goal previously stated of visiting an asteroid by 2025. (Source: Aviation Week).

In short, the pioneers and early pacesetters have flown off course. But why?

I would suggest that they need to do little more that look at their current stated Vision* and compare it to that of 1961. They should ask themselves; “is this measurable, does it have a clear deadline, will it inspire and motivate our people to strive for its achievement? Indeed, is it even a Vision?”

The answer will be a resounding no on all points.

While NASA need to look to their past to recognise a better route to their future, for businesses large and small around the world they still teach a simple yet vital lesson in Strategy, a lesson so many still get wrong:

The more specific and clearly stated your Vision, the easier it is to plan for its attainment, the more likely you are to achieve success.

It is a lesson which you forget at your peril!

*NASA’s current stated Vision is:

“To reach for new heights and reveal the unknown so that what we do and learn will benefit all humankind.”

It is classic bad Visioning; confusing Mission with Vision thereby omitting the very thing which gives Strategy direction!

 

© Jim Cowan, Cowan Global Limited, December 2012

Read more blogs by Jim Cowan

info@cowanglobal.net

Twitter @cowanglobal

Facebook.com/cowanglobal


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Categories : All Blogs, Business, Consulting, News Comment, Strategy

LEGACY FIGURES BEGGAR BELIEF

9 12 2012

Active_People_logo_fullI have visited the sorry tale of the absent Olympic sports participation legacy on numerous occasions over the last couple of years. Absent or bad strategy, undelivered promises and political finger crossing have been the key elements of the tale to date, to which we can now add barely believable data…..

Last week (December 6th) Sport England released the latest set of ‘Active People’ statistics which, somewhat surprisingly, were reported by the media without question. Yet, to anyone taking even a passing glance the figures are barely credible. It would appear that having been unable to generate the increase in sporting participation promised by our politicians when winning the London Games bid, the solution has been to simply massage the data to match the promise.

Officially 750,000 more people over the age of 16 are taking part in sport at least once a week compared to 12 months ago. Surely this is good news? Well, yes, it would be if it were believable.

The headline figure offered by Sport England’s expensive Active People survey is 15.5 million over 16s regularly (once per week) taking part in sport.

Put that figure another way and it tells us that Sport England want us to believe that 1 in 3 over 16s in England regularly participate in sport. Seriously? Take a look around you – friends, work colleagues, family, neighbours – one in every three are playing sport regularly, that is what we are being asked to believe.

I can only speak for myself and, for me, that claim beggars belief. That the media accept it unquestioningly astonishes me. That the politicians who fund this expensive survey believe it continues to offer value for money (if it ever did) astounds me.

One in three. Take another look around you. Not one in three under 30s or under 40s, but 33% of all over 16s in England.

It appears the solution for successive governments poor sports development strategy has been introduced. Just make the figures up to fit the promise. And why not, it appears no one cares enough to check anyway.

We still lack a properly integrated national strategy for the development of sport. Young people are still missing out on learning physical literacy at the key age/stage of development and we are still missing any target by which success (or failure) of government policy can be judged. But take a look around you, 1 in 3 of your neighbours are playing sport regularly (ahem) so everything in the garden must be rosy.

 

© Jim Cowan, Cowan Global Limited, December 2012

Read more blogs by Jim Cowan

info@cowanglobal.net

Twitter @cowanglobal

Facebook.com/cowanglobal


Comments : 2 Comments »
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Categories : All Blogs, Consulting, Management, News Comment, Sport, Strategy

« Previous Entries


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,084 other followers