Was Steve Jobs a Role Model for Leaders? - Darren Overfield and Rob Kaiser - Harvard Business Review

I feel articles like this miss the point entirely on why Steve Jobs was one of the greatest leaders of our time.  The power in Steve Jobs was as a CEO and visionary, not in managing a group of people as a mid manager in an organization.  Steve Jobs' style doesn't necessarily work in the middle of an organization, or even as a team leader higher in the organization.  Steve Jobs is the one who proved this.  He was kicked out of his own company because the maniacal focus and perfectionism was too much for a team and organization to take.  But as the leader of the organization, it works.  He could set the culture and the focus.

The power of Steve and his personality was his decision making and intuition regarding the industry.  There are plenty of other leaders with great intuition, however the decision making is lacking.  He learned the ability to focus, probably due to his Buddhist studies.  Because he was focused, when he was presented with issues he was able to make quick, brilliant decisions. Apple is great because he made an entire organization focus and he made decisions.      

Amazon profits: They don't exist, but the company keeps on keeping on.

I totally agree with this article.  Companies like Amazon and Google are ruining innovation and stifling competition.  If they are going to compete in many markets at a loss, it prevents many other companies from entering the space because they can't compete and make a profit.  

I still don't understand the fascination with market share.  Market share without profit is meaningless.  The theory with Amazon is eventually they'll be able to bring some of that massive top-line to the bottom, but can they really?  Are customers loyal to Amazon or the price?  If they try to get more margin will they keep the business or have they just trained their customers to expect the service and goods at a discounted price and wait until they get it?  

It's about time Wall Street and bloggers start rewarding companies that make money and are growing longterm sustainable business models, instead of focusing on market share and number of non-paying customers a company acquires.  

Want to be successful? Be inconsistent

Embrace being inconsistent

My conclusion on the topic of consistency is that it’s not required for success. There is a lot of talk about hard-nosed businessmen needing to be true to their word and never change their mind. I think a better approach is to be open to making adjustments as you learn more. That’s the smarter thing to do. It’s also much more difficult.

Don't be afraid to change your mind.  Be decisive, yet flexible.  Communication is the key when changing views or direction.  If your team knows why the decisions have been changed and what is going on in your mind, they will buy into the change much quicker.  If changes are constantly dictated down without any reason for the change, teams will get frustrated and feel like they are constantly spinning their wheels.  

How to Repair Your Data - Thomas C. Redman - Harvard Business Review

No matter what, do not underestimate the data quality problem, nor the effort required to solve it. You must get in front of data quality.

Data warehousing is hard.  To build a model that works for the business users and have data quality that truly delivers "one version of the truth" takes dedication and a group that truly understands the business.

Address preexisting issues.

 There are some problems that have been created already, and you have no choice but to address these before you use the data in any serious way. This is time-consuming, expensive, and demanding work. You must make sure you understand the provenance of all data, what they truly mean, and how good they are. In parallel, you must clean the data.

We are currently in the process of doing this in my organization.  In fact, we are going to rebuild the entire data model.  Sometimes it's easier to start from scratch instead of figuring out what is wrong with the current model.  Of course, our model isn't that wonderful for the business, so this made the rebuild decision quite easy.

Prevent the problems that haven't happened yet.

...build controls (such as calibrating test equipment) into data collection; identify and eliminate the root causes of error;

Data warehousing efforts also fail because end users find the errors most of the time.  When this occurs, getting the organization to trust the data becomes a challenge.  There is always the questioning of if this data is right.  Proactively fix data and let end users trust the data, they will spend more time discussing strategy instead of fighting over data quality.

David Allmark: What do you tell a team that has failed? | 30 Second MBA

I have always believed you don't celebrate the victories and punish the failures.  It leads to everyone focusing on the outcomes, instead of taking calculated risks and innovating.  When failure is punished, teams tend to lean towards conservative programs that are sure fire, but minimal growth.  This leads to a stagnate team that doesn't drive large incremental value.

Seth's Blog: Beauty vs. specs

Some can't understand why a product or service doesn't catch on. They can prove that it's better. They can quote specs and performance and utility. It's obvious.

The other might be willing to look at the specs, but he really doesn't understand them enough to care. All he knows is that the other choice is beautiful--it makes him feel good. He wants to use it.

Since the iPad mini announcement the bulk of pundits say it costs too much.  $329 is higher than I would have liked it to be, of course I would like it to be free if I had my choice.  But Apple is playing for the long run.  

Apple could have created a $249 iPad mini, they are perfectly capable.  However, they chose to make the product that aligns with their brand and is beautiful.  In the long run it pays off.

Put Failure in Its Place - Whitney Johnson - Harvard Business Review

Another great saying is, "If you're not failing, you're not trying."  I believe most companies and executives are afraid of failure.  It's easier to copy a competitor or keep with a strategy that is slowly failing for fear of losing their job.  

Is This Driving Incremental Revenue?

So I went to lunch with my daughter today.  We were out and about and she loves Tony Roma's, saw that we passed one and asked if we could go to lunch there.  When walking up to the door there was a "check-in with foursquare" sign on the front door.  So I did.

Mind you I was already there, already made my decision to eat there, was going to pay full price before I saw this sign.  I checked in and they gave me 10% off of my meal, for essentially doing what I was already going to do.  So why is this a good strategy?

I understand the whole social aspect of this check in.  This goes to all of my "friends" and they get to see I ate there.  But how many of my "friends" are paying attention to what I am doing, aside from those stalkers I have, by the way, stop reading this, but I digress.  How many people am I really influencing, enough to make up 10% for a meal I was going to pay full price?  I don't see it.  That is a lot of cost to overcome to drive something that can't be measured.

Am I crazy?  I just don't see this as a good business decision.  Just my thoughts.

Will Apple Repeat The Most Dangerous Strategic Mistake Leaders of Fast Growing Corporation Can Make? - Forbes

It amazes me how many companies, even Forbes, use Apple to grab headlines.  This article is about nothing.  The two arguments being used are litigation and switching maps?  Let me elaborate for a minute on each:​

The litigation against Samsung are a necessary evil.  Nowhere does the article mention that Apple was asking Samsung for license agreements pretrial.  ​Apple should defend their innovation, else we will get the refrigerator market, where every piece looks exactly the same and does the same thing.  This is good for consumers because manufacturers only compete on price, however in the long run it is terrible for consumers because innovation is non-existent.

The maps debate is getting old.  Apple had to make a move away from Google because of turn-by-turn navigation.  It was an easy talking point for Apple competitors.  Apple will now be allowed to innovate in the maps arena which should allow for greater maps from Apple and Google in the future.  This will be so much better for the consumer.  ​

In both these cases Apple is not making the mistake of these other companies.  Apple is looking out for the customer by allowing innovation and making it expensive to copy instead of innovate.  Both will lead to better customer experiences as time passes.​

Apple Maps: Damned If You Do, Googled If You Don’t | Monday Note

I agree with Gassée.  Apple maps are really not that bad, I am sure they will get better and I am sure they are worse in other areas.  I think Apple should have used a "beta" monicker similar to Siri, or something along those lines, that would have allowed the learning process to be documented.  ​

This is a good lesson for most businesses.  Be upfront and honest with your customers.  No business is perfect and as long as customers get more benefits from your greatness, they will look past your flaws.​

The Secret Phrase Top Innovators Use - Warren Berger - Harvard Business Review

Very interesting article how a single word can change the way people behave.​

In Search of the Ideal Groupon Discount - Rafi Mohammed - Harvard Business Review

50% off discounts attract the wrong customers, who I call uber-deal hunters. These deal-maximizers come simply for the big discount with little intention of becoming full price patrons.

This is exactly what I thought when Groupon first came out.  I remember doing 2-for-1 coupons at my families restaurant in California when I was a kid and we were very busy, but the customers never came back.  I quickly came to realize that the customers who look for those deals are always looking for the next big deal, not the next best product.  I like what Rafi has to say, ​smaller discounts for trial has a better opportunity for repeat guests.

Big Data's Human Component - Jim Stikeleather - Harvard Business Review

Machines don't make the essential and important connections among data and they don't create information. Humans do. Tools have the power to make work easier and solve problems. A tool is an enabler, facilitator, accelerator and magnifier of human capability, not its replacement or surrogate ... That's what the software architect Grady Booch had in mind when he uttered that famous phrase: "A fool with a tool is still a fool."

From my last post, I talked about humans being able to make the data actionable.  The understanding of the data that is used for the model is more important than understanding the ​math behind the algorithms.  Algorithms can find the patterns humans can't, however the algorithms can't determine if the answers are relevant. 

We forget that it is not about the data; it is about our customers having a deep, engaging, insightful, meaningful conversation with us

Exactly.​

Understand that expertise is more important than the tool.  Otherwise the tool will be used incorrectly and generate nonsense (logical, properly processed nonsense, but nonsense nonetheless).

The answers will be fancy, but will not help make decisions for frontline or CRM more effective.​

When we over-automate big-data tools, we get Target's faux pas of sending baby coupons to a teenager who hadn't yet told her parents she was pregnant, or the Flash Crash on Thursday May 6, 2010, in which the Dow Jones Industrial Average plunged about 1000 points — or about nine percent.

Humans should always be paying attention to the outcomes and put parameters around the use of automated answers.  Answers should be used in conjunction with other factors for the best decision.​

Although data does give rise to information and insight, they are not the same. Data's value to business relies on human intelligence, on how well managers and leaders formulate questions and interpret results. More data doesn't mean you will get "proportionately" more information. In fact, the more data you have, the less information you gain as a proportion of the data (concepts of marginal utility, signal to noise and diminishing returns). Understanding how to use the data we already have is what's going to matter most.

​

What Executives Don't Understand About Big Data - Michael Schrage - Harvard Business Review

too many organizations don't quite grasp that being "big data-driven" requires more qualified human judgment than cloud-enabled machine learning.

Human judgement also comes with a caveat, the human's have to be knowledgable about the business at hand.  So many times consultants come in and use terms like "big data" and "data modeling" with promises of transforming the business.  Much more goes into transforming the business with data and that is the knowledge to take the findings and apply those findings into the CRM efforts to make an impact.

What works best is not a C-suite commitment to "bigger data," ambitious algorithms or sophisticated analytics. A commitment to a desired business outcome is the critical success factor.

The desired outcome is so important.  Otherwise the result is usually not actionable, just informational.  ​

Executives need to understand that big data is not about subordinating managerial decisions to automated algorithms but deciding what kinds of data should enhance or transform user experiences. Big Data should be neither servant nor master; properly managed, it becomes a new medium for shaping how people and their technologies interact.

Without taking the findings and enhancing decisions made by frontline staff or database marketing experts, the data is not actionable. ​

The Power of Subtraction →

This is something I try to subscribe to everyday.  While I don't necessarily agree with all 5 of his subtractions, I do believe that maniacal focus is what it takes to be the best at what you do.  To focus, one needs to subtract all of the noise that consumes businesses.  ​

Can Big Data Smoke Out the Silent Majority? →

Of course sophisticated analytics are being used to find pockets of money, just as they have long been used by financial service companies.

The private sector has been using these tactics for years now.  It doesn't surprise me that sophisticated political campaigns are also using it.  Data mining is very powerful, everyone should be using it.​

Customer Experience Should Be Part of Your Business →

Appoint a chief customer officer

Over the past six years, we've seen an increase in the number of companies that have a single executive leading customer experience efforts across channels and business units. Whether firms call them a chief customer officer or give them some other label, these leaders sit at high levels of power in organizations...

There it is again, that title of Chief Customer Officer.  ​It makes a lot of sense.

Will Apple’s Patent Victory Create A Usability Hell? →

Pinching to zoom on touch-screen devices is such a common gesture today that it’s hard to believe Steve Jobs wowed audience members (who actually cheered and applauded for close to 20 seconds) when he first stretched his fingers against the iPhone’s glass face.

"With regard to gestures, I think it will be hard to change the status quo because they’ve already gained such widespread acceptance," says one top interaction designer at HP.

It has such widespread acceptance because everyone copied it.  So the argument is because we've all copied "pinch-to-zoom" and our customers are now used to ​it, Apple shouldn't be able to force you to do something else?  

Hmmm...strange argument.  So if you own something and I steal it and later on you want it back, I can just say, "Well I've gotten used to using this, so you are out of luck."  Interesting.

Meet Your Company's New Chief Customer Officer →

Sounds like my next title...​

Marketers Flunk the Big Data Test →

This is a great article on making data actionable in marketing.  This is the toughest part of Customer Intelligence.  Creating reports is so much easier.​

On average, marketers depend on data for just 11% of all customer-related decisions.

This is a disturbingly low number, but one that does not surprise me.  ​

But in today's volatile business environment, judgment built from past experience is increasingly unreliable. With consumer behaviors in flux, once-valid assumptions (e.g., "older consumers don't use Facebook or send text messages") can quickly become outdated.

In my industry what worked 10 years ago has no bearing on what works today.  Even what worked before the recession does not translate.  What your customers are doing today is more relevant than what they used to do.  ​

When we tested marketers' statistical aptitude with five questions ranging from basic to intermediate, almost half (44%) got four or more questions wrong and a mere 6% got all five right. So it didn't surprise us that just 5% of marketers own a statistics text book.

Marketing analysts don't even have statistics backgrounds.  Analysts who have SQL background and can get data are usually the ones that shine, however they usually don't make the best analyst.  Analysts are supposed to analyze data, not pull data.​

...dashboards often capture response-based metrics such as clicks and open rates that aren't tied to more important measures such as customer loyalty or lifetime value — and yet, marketers are rewarded for improving the response metrics.

Defining the right metrics are so important.  Marketers have to look at the long-term value of guests and resist the temptation to micromanage individual campaigns.​

​