Thursday, October 14, 2010

Click here for interesting items from a sponsor.

Wednesday, October 13, 2010

The Math

By: KLG Consultants, LLC
Our strategy advocates the  funding of 1,000,000 new start ups. Some of those start ups will fail for sure, but we believe there is a utility in failure. The aggregate intelligence of the  business world learns from mistakes.  They learn how to get better.
Let’s assume each new company receives $1,000,000 in new investment. To create and fund 1,000,000 new companies, this would then require 1 trillion dollars in new at risk venture investment. Assume now that each company on average hires 5 people as a result of that investment. That creates 5,000,000 (five million) new jobs over time.  It also creates tremendous economic activity within this process gets money moving into the system, causing an increase in velocity (the speed at which money flows through the economic system) throughout the entire economy.  There may also be a greater multiplier effect (how many times a dollar moves through the economic system) from this type of investment, as opposed to direct fiscal investment.
Assume now that one half of the new firms fail in the first year. That still leaves net new job creation at 2,500,000, if none of the other new companies grow. According to some venture portfolio theories, 10% of funded new companies will grow, 10% will stagnate at some point, 10% will barley survive, and the rest will fail. So then in the first year, 50% of the new firms will probably fail based on some portfolio theories, but 10% of them should be growing. That means 100,000 companies are adding jobs out of our original 1,000,000 new companies.  Let’s say in the second year, these hundred thousand companies each add 5 new jobs on average. That adds 500,000 new jobs and as a result there is   net new job creation of 3,000,000 after two years.
In the third year assume that another 200,000 of the new companies fail. That means 2,000,000 jobs are left from the original initiative, if there is no growth from the other 300,000 new companies left in business.
However, assume just 1% of the companies out of the original 1,000,000 are now in rapid growth mode. Assume those 10,000 rapidly growing companies each add 500 jobs in the 3rd year of the program. This creates another 5,000,000 new jobs. That means net new job growth is at 7,000,000 in the third year of the build up initiative. In the forth year the real bright stars emerge and   ½ of 1 percent  or 5,000 companies from  the original 1 million new companies add 2,000 more new jobs each, that means 10,000,000 new jobs. That means in the 4th year new job creation stands at 17,000,000, not including the external job creation due to the economic activity directly attributable to the new companies.

Now assume, in the fifth year, 1000 companies, 1/10th of 1% of the original 1 million new companies, achieve explosive growth and each add 10,000 new jobs. That adds 10,000,000 new jobs and job creation now stands 27,000,000 just inside the new companies at year 5. Assume in year 6-7, greatness is achieved at 100 of the new companies. They each add 50,000 new jobs.
With these assumptions, we believe in 7 years therefore, the build up  initiative creates 32,000,000 million new jobs, incredible economic activity, disruptive technologies, new medicines, alternative energy sources, new foods, and yes many new wealthy entrepreneurs and business owners.

Tuesday, October 12, 2010

An Innovation Strategy Proposal for the United States Economy

 A Play To Win Strategy  to create 32,000,000 new private sector jobs in the next 7 years, regain America’s economic leadership and balance the federal deficit.

Validation of Strategy:  President John F. Kennedy once said “A rising tide lifts all boats”.  Others have agreed.
Implementation Steps:    A 50% ITC for up to a $1 million dollar investment into new businesses.
 Type of Innovation Strategy: Based on the innovation mapping technique found in   Making Innovation Work: Ersatz Radical Innovation
                                    Ersatz Radical Innovation Determination:
Value Proposition: Entrepreneurial risk applied to new business creation through at risk venture investment   drives innovation, invention, job creation and national economic growth. (This is a radical change from the current Keynesian fiscal policy of government spending to stimulate the economy and create jobs. It also is a radical move away from reliance on large company rescues for national economic growth.)
Supply Chain: Entrepreneurs, investors, professional services firms, office supply stores, capital equipment providers and various governmental agencies that enable the administrative function of the new companies formed. (This supply chain already exists in the U.S. and there is no need for innovation.)
Target Customer:  Entrepreneurs and risk oriented investors. The benefits wil flow to the country as a whole. 
Product and Services: Incentives and education for new company formation and entrepreneurial development. (For this to be a national priority, comparative to the WPA of the New Deal, it will take a radical innovation in the service orientation of federal and state governments.)
Process Technologies: The process to facilitate this type of national imitative into startup companies already exists. 
Enabling Technologies:   These new companies may create new enabling technologies and disruptive technologies.  However, there is no need to enable the entrepreneurial spirit.

Tuesday, September 21, 2010

Innovation-A National Mandate

By: Kenneth L. Greenberg, CEO KLG Consultants, LLC

The last century was described by many observers such as Harold Evans as the American Century. In his work of the same name, The American Century, Evans make a persuasive argument that American cultural, political and economic dominance in world affairs could not be denied in the 20th century. Through a combination of events, including the industrial revolution, two world wars and various technological revolutions, America and its people led the world in GDP, per capita income, living standards and growth.

This article submits these questions for American corporate and political leaders:

1.      How will America maintain that leadership in this new century?
2.      How can our corporations, institutions, and the American people survive a quickly changing world economic landscape?

Thomas Friedman in his book, The World Is Flat, describes a changed globalized world at the end of the last century. He keenly observes that the effect of low cost labor  (in some cases multiples lower than US labor rates), open access to technology and shifting world demographics made the presumption of continued American dominance improbable if not unlikely. The book, Making Innovation Work defines innovation as not only technological change but also change in business process and model. If one accepts this definition, without innovation, the change necessary for American companies, organizations and institutions to not just grow but to survive in Friedman’s new flat world, will not happen. Even if one does not accept Friedman’s macro conclusions, another phenomenon is occurring, exponential technological change.

There is evidence that the hyper growth phenomenon of China, India and other former third world economies may, according to some observers, be unsustainable. Chinese leaders have even expressed this concern in an interview with The Financial Times of London. One could also deduce that a number of former third world countries that rely on non free floating fiat currencies and labor rates tantamount to slave labor, ultimately cannot evolve and change and will therefore implode. Notwithstanding the arguments for or against a sustained rate of change and the resultant impact on growth in former third world country economic activity, there is an undeniable demographic shift in favor of the current and former third world as evidenced by an 2006 IMF study.

However, even if one were to refute Friedman’s observations of the new world macro environment as merely notations of temporary conditions in an unstable world, fundamental exponential change has firmly taken hold in  free enterprise capitalist systems across the world.  Jack Uldrich, in his book Jump the Curve, describes the phenomenon of this rate of change, as it relates to technological change, as exponential change.  While industrial and technological change, the business cycle, and poor management have ended the life of many  US based organizations, Uldrich argues that the modern environment is unlike anything we have ever seen in past business cycles.

Even without exponential change, in Making Innovation Work, the authors cite a number of examples of companies, that, in the last century, the American Century, struggled with innovation, fell behind and are now playing catch up or worse. Some observers argue that the seeds for the demise of General Motors or the second or third coming of Chrysler were planted over decades in the last century partly by the failure to invest in successful innovation projects. Some may say, the failure of American auto manufacturers was inevitable simply due to the labor cost structure in competing countries. However, investments in innovative manufacturing and business model processes may have countered that seemingly insurmountable cost advantage. Mass migration to competing cars made outside the United States or by foreign manufacturers here in the US, appears to be the main statistical reason for loss of market share and revenues by American manufacturers. Simply put, fewer and fewer Americans want to buy cars made by American domiciled manufacturers.

There are many other examples of American companies in the last century that failed to change either business model, process, or technology and hence are gone or going that way: See Blockbuster, The Rocky Mountain News, and Circuit City to name a few. Even in one of the most advanced of industries, the telecom and internet industry, the market landscape is uncertain. Even though certain companies may have held a technological advantage at some point in recent history, companies that fail to find the winning business model combined with technological advantage may not survive. The final determinant of the winners, consumer taste, makes it even harder to ferret out who survives in the telecom space.

Across industries, Uldrich argues that this phenomenon only will accelerate. Without a culture of innovation surrounding business models and technology,  many companies risk becoming a vinyl record producer. Using an example from his book , Jump The Curve, but turned upside down to demonstrate the risk posed to companies by exponential change (a doubling rate of change), a company with 5.2 million customers that starts by losing 1 customer on day one, then 2 the next, and then 4 the next, etc. will lose all of its customers by day 24 (if the loss occurs in months, the total loss of customers occurs on month 24).  In our example, at day 20, the company lost less than 10% of its customers.  The loss of customers on day 20 is almost immaterial on a nominal basis, but it represents an exponential trend that will cascade in only 4 more days to destroy the company.  Think again of the Rocky Mountain News or other defunct newspapers.  How steep was their ad revenue diminution due to what started as an imperceptible decline in readership? With exponential revenue loss due to lack of innovation in business model and technology, cost cutting measures can never keep up. It is like applying a tourniquet to a heart attack victim. Who in these newspaper companies was managing innovation, if anyone? One can imagine while Craig’s List, E-Bay, and others grabbed revenues from traditional newspapers and reinvented want ad markets, the leaders of these now defunct newspapers were running to HR to determine proper severance policy for junior reporters. Perhaps the same junior reporters who were caught during work hours checking in with their MySpace and Facebook accounts.

Not all news related media companies imploded in the last decade; certainly not Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation, at least not so far. They continue to innovate and take advantage of the new media evolution, thus continuing to employ thousands of media and journalism professionals. However, our country has lost and will continue to lose many more media and journalism jobs unless more media companies or new media companies emerge, survive and thrive.

Ulrich argues that all industries must “Jump the Curve” or find the innovation that is five to ten years out and invest in that technology now. As described in Making Innovation Work, this innovation effort will require not only tremendous capital investment but leadership and management to increase the probability that these investments will become commercially viable. The authors of   Making Innovation Work are in agreement with Friedman and other observers, by pointing out, that without a culture of innovation, companies, and organizations and by implication, our society as we know it, cannot survive.

All is not lost. There is an upside. Two Denver based school teachers have created an ever evolving set of power point slides called, Did you Know or Shift Happens. Their ongoing presentation in its various iterations, tracks both the phenomenon of global demographic changes and the exponential speed of technological change. Rather than seeing the end and demise of our society as result of these two phenomena, they advocate instilling a culture of evolution and innovation in our educational system in order to enable our future leaders to expect exponential change and major shifts in world demographics and thrive in its wake. Their presentation can be a lesson to current corporate and national leaders. See change, expect it and plan to position your organization, company and our country to take advantage of it.

Absent innovation, more American companies are bound to fail. With record unemployment for this generation, bankruptcy rates at historic highs, and mortgage defaults at alarming rates, many economists believe job creation is an urgent national priority.  We cannot expect nor do many economists believe that it is economically sustainable for the federal government to continue to run record deficits trying to bail out these failed business models and antiquated product lines.

We must find ways to incentivize and motivate an ongoing culture of corporate innovation that takes advantage of exponential change and rapidly shifting world demographics and as a result stimulates growth. Many experts believe that this is the only way to create the millions of new jobs to replace the ones that have been lost over the last few years. Many statistical analyses show that it is a critical matter of corporate and national survival and renewal. Without economic growth and the job creation that comes with it, this century is just as likely to be the century of America’s undoing, rather than another “American Century”.

Thursday, September 16, 2010

Modern Leadership

"While there is a very distinct process for facilitative mediation as a method for dispute resolution, this paper advocates drawing from some, not all, of that process while constructing leadership and management systems for the modern corporation."


Thursday, August 26, 2010

HR tools and the P&L

When the wrong person is doing a job, performance suffers. Can that person be coached to improve?
Sometimes. In some cases though, a middle linebacker just can't be a place kicker.