consultaglobal

“Completing some online surveys is like wading through mud (…) the fundamental difference between conducting online and offline research is the presence of a human interviewer. (…) with no interviewer in sight, the online respondent is more likely to drop out of a survey sooner (…) they can progress through a survey with a minimum thought and response.”

Read Deborah Sleep and Jon Puleston’s article, “The Survey Killer,” on Quirk’s Marketing Research Review.

This past summer I blogged about the difference between stated and observed behaviors, which negatively impacts the reliability of many market research projects. More so when usability testing is not part of the process. If interested in that subject, I suggest going back to my post on Microsoft’s Mojave Experiment.

Most recently, online surveys have been embraced as a fast and cost efficient way to poll markets. However, their trustworthiness is questioned on numerous counts: inferior web design, inconsistent interaction, unnecessary verbiage, respondent boredom…  all of which undermines the quality of the outcome.

So, there are obvious opportunities to make sensible improvements: let’s recognize the growing importance of online multimedia and collaboration tools to help raise survey engagement levels and enable crowdsourcing projects.

José de Francisco López
Chicago, IL     24 Nov 08

This is a presentation I gave at a recent Contentinople webinar. I am happy to share that this talk was very well received. Light Reading reports that the end survey filled out by the attendees delivered outstanding ratings.

As usual, please let me know your comments and feedback. As that talk was part of my role and responsibilities at Alcatel-Lucent, I would appreciate emails going to my corporate email, which I show on page 2 of the above presentation.

QUESTION - “So, you think that if the U.S. economy is in a prolonged severe recession; now, let’s be a bit optimistic and say that we are not going to go into a 1930s style depression over the course of the next four years. Let’s say that we have four or three years where the we economy is close to zero or negative growth during that period.”

“What that does do to the prospects for good ideas getting funded and ideas that are already funded, somehow, getting to the point of liquidity, being sold, getting public, or being able to make their net?”

John Heilemann, New York Magazine.

ANSWER - “There are two parts to that question. I do think that good ideas are going to get funded and I do think that most of the promise in the venture capital business, if not all of them, it is made by five percent of those firms. They are not going to go away and they are going to keep funding good ideas, they won’t be in as attractive terms as there used to be, it is now a buyers market instead of a sellers market, but I don’t know any of the good firms that are closing up shop. That’s one thing.”

“But liquidity, how it is that we get those companies to produce a return for the employees and the investors…. that’s another question. We might not see very much liquidity for the next three or four years. Certainly, that’s the kind of planning we are doing in advising. Now, Google is not just going to buy all of these, or even a lot in my opinion, of the Internet related start-ups and then… who else will?. I don’t think there is going to be IPO markets for a while.”

“Take a long view, don’t cut with the mid axe, be really smart about focusing on your core. But, get ready for a longer haul.”

John Doerr, Kleiner Perkings Caufield & Byers.

The above clip comes from the Web 2.0 Summit held in San Francisco earlier in the month.  John Doerr went on to deliver eleven considerations for entrepreneurs, which I have translated and condensed into the following five:

1. Act now: secure 18 months worth of cash based on a conservative revenue forecast and address needed financing fast. Secure the cash in government back securities and offer equity instead of cash bonuses.
2. Act decisively: consider major adjustments such as putting on hold costly facility and infrastructure expansions as well necessary cuts. Renegotiate contracts with your suppliers.
3. Protect the vital core: ensure that the center of gravity of your business continues to support the enterprise. Re-evaluate R&D priorities.
4. Leverage analytics: figure out he leading indicators that can help you predict opportunities to repeat and win more business.
5. Communicate: convey an honest vision that transcends today’s economic reality and ensure credibility by not sugar coding the facts. Get your corporate image and everyone in the company to project the value proposition at all levels of communications with customers, partners, investors and suppliers.

Related posts:

José de Francisco López
Chicago, IL     17 Nov 08

Companies designing high tech infrastructure deal with multiyear product development cycles in fast changing markets. Therefore, business strategists are interested in spotting early leading indicators signaling market shifts. By the same token, those focusing on operational efficiencies seek to enable processes that shorten development lead times while allowing for greater agility.

Paradigm shifts deliver opportunities for innovators. So, it pays to understand the nature of the changes and how that translates into new market needs, expectations and product requirements. Note that some market transitions happen to be driven by new customer behaviors enabled and fostered by a given societal, economic and regulatory environment. But some other are initiated by visionary innovators creating new market opportunities. Generally speaking, either just listening to customers in isolation or building something in a vacuum while expecting customers to come might not do the job.

In the HBR interview I quoted in my last post, John Chambers, Cisco’s CEO, talks about the early discovery of market transitions by ‘listening to clues.’ This exercise involves scouting and scanning trends that can eventually lead to market disruptions. The thinking is that companies can lead emerging trends by exercising thought leadership early in the game. Competing for the future prompts innovative thinking to capture customer’s mindshare well in advance to launching a product that’s going to take some time to develop.

Moreover, new product development requires not only visionary leaders but also passionate and tempered confidence. This works best when backed up by a clear understanding of where trends lead and market behaviors.

This means being able to envision, conceptualize and communicate forward looking product requirements. As risky as that kind of forecasting exercise might seem, it is riskier to start a new project just based on what worked well so far, then delivering an outdated product two or three years from today in a changed market.

Innovators need to balance thought leadership activities and getting early customer feedback with decisions on when to come out of stealth mode. Time is of the essence.

José de Francisco López
Chicago, IL     12 Nov 08

“We’ve become pretty good at tapping opportunities from economic downturn cycles. In the face of everyone – in 1993, 1997, 2001, 2003 and now in the current one – we became even more aggressive in our investments in existing and new market opportunities. At the same time, our peers often became very conservative.”

John Chambers, Cisco’s CEO, in an interview with Bronwyn Fryer and Thomas A. Steward for Harvard Business Review.

Cisco’s success is partly due to the company’s interest in making the most of ‘market transitions.’ Chambers defines them as the precursors to market disruptions which, often times, involve game changing innovations. As an example, best selling products can take Cisco:

• six to nine months to figure out how to best leverage a given opportunity;
• two to three years invested in new product development;
• three to five years to reach $1 billion in sales from that initiative.

It should be noted that Cisco has also mastered the acquisition and integration of other vendors. Crescendo being an example: a $92 million acquisition in 1993, now delivering $7 billion a year.

John Chambers claims that competitors, peers in his own words, are likely to cut back when facing an economic downturn, which opens up opportunities for Cisco to outspend them, thus taking markets by storm.

Related posts:

José de Francisco López
Chicago, IL     1 Nov 08

“It became a thinking process, a philosophy that said ‘let’s do things differently’ (…) emotion is the added value to this (…) being flexible, thinking flexible, acting flexible, context over dogma.”

Chris Bangle, Director of Design BMW Group

GINA is a shape shifting car showcased at BMW Museum in Munich since June of this year. The car’s aluminum frame is literally dressed up in about two hours with fabric made of polyurethane-coated Lycra, durable water proofed spandex in other words. The car’s exterior shape can be changed thanks to movable parts controlled by electric and hydraulic actuators. Interestingly enough, the 1959 Velorex Oskar was already covered by a plastic material, which made it more energy efficient than heavier competitors.

Going back to BMW’s concept car, Chris Bangle states that Gina’s design team was able to challenge existing principles and conventions. The intent is to enable creative thinking, enabling a chain reaction which will eventually influence the company’s research.  As Bob Johansen states in “Get There Early” this is about being able to “sense the future to compete in the present”:

“It’s the ultimate paradox for leaders: you can’t predict the future, but you must make sense of it in order to thrive. To be successful, leaders need to sort out what’s important, devise strategies based on their own point of view, and get there ahead of the crowd.”

Reference posts:

• Design concepts: future car (1)
• Design concepts: future car (2)
• Volvo XC60 concept car
• Ergotrans
• Cultural Differences
• Next Gen Prius
• Google and BMW
• Toyota Personal Mobility
• Audi Design Foundation

José de Francisco López
Chicago, IL     4 Nov 08

“We need something new, we need a new economic paradigm (…) innovation economics (…) metrics measuring the variables that goes into innovation (…) what we need is creativity (…) we need a national innovation policy.”

Watch Bruce Nusbaum’s video, “Government Innovation Policy,” on BusinessWeek.

The stock market is still going through a roller coaster showing brisk gains and loses typical of a bear environment. Heading for a deep recession and reminders of the severe downturn suffered during the great depression about a century ago are fueling policies leading to governmental intervention.

Most would agree that we are undergoing new paradigm shifts not yet well understood. Recipes that might have worked well in the 2oth century might no longer apply.

My take is that both “the economics of innovation” and “innovation in economics” should be the center of gravity of policy making. But, with just a few days left for the presidential elections, I’m not certain whether the candidates have fully embraced what that entails beyond the desire to become ‘energy efficient,’ leveraging IT in the healthcare system, and various kinds of  ‘tax incentives.’

My definition of innovation implies a successful change, one that generates the kind of value that is worth embracing and that is a source of wealth for the stakeholders in the value chain. Needless to say, this relies on first fitting the needs of end users. That is the litmus test for any invention, emerging technology, new business model, or ‘change’ in today’s networked economy.

Much has been written about what leads to innovative products and services, yet policy makers appear to struggle with the underlying economics and social implications. This is partly due to the fact that XXI century economics is in need for innovation itself. It is clear that any efforts referring back to either Keynesian economics or Milton Friedman will not do the job and, therefore, creative thinking is needed as today’s recession will yield a new revolution we need to start getting ready for.

Related posts:

José de Francisco López
Chicago, IL     1 Nov 08