Last month, a new player potentially emerged in the e-book arena. It was a surprise to me, perhaps not to all of you, but Discovery, a vast organization in the communications arena, which includes the Discovery Channel, was awarded a patent on March 6th.
The Patent Office stated that it was an invention for, "a new way to distribute books and other contextual information to bookstores, libraries and consumers." This implies a similar "readership" as other electronic books such as Amazon's Kindle and the Sony e-Book.
However, Discovery's approach is a bit different; it claims to be more of an electronic library. Yes it would use a portable "electronic viewer" and a portable "book-shaped reading device", but it uses a video signal format that will allow both sending and receiving at the same time. Thus, they promise to "revolutionize the distribution of books".
The question then becomes, are they more interested in the transport of files rather than the actual reading (in a 1 on 1 sense) of the document? Looking at who they are, it may be the case. On the other hand is distribution the key to a revenue stream, or is the reading device?
This is all very interesting and worth watching.
Note: Please see my previous postings on the Kindle dated February 7th, and February 13th.
Monday, April 28, 2008
Strategic Planning - Friend or Foe?
My previous article concluded with the importance of strategic planning and a promise to explore it further. For those of us who study strategic planning, the merits or lack thereof, become pretty apparent. When not approached in a committed and disciplined fashion, it can be ineffective and somewhat hypothetical. When lack of follow up is added to the mix, it becomes an outright waste of time & money.
How can this be avoided? How can we use the PROCESS to ensure success?
In this day and age, we like lists; so here are mine:
1) Commitment must come from the top
2) Buy-in/understanding from the management team is crucial
3) It is a PROCESS through which direction is discovered, not mandated
4) The process should be taught, learned, and internalized
5) Communication should be candid, non-threatening, and insightful
6) It takes time
7) Findings should be carefully documented
8) Time lines are created
9) Follow up is not an option
10) Evaluation is frequent and thorough
Too often steps are skipped in our haste to force results. Patience, monitored by the time line and results, offsets this temptation.
Finally, there are 4 things to consider about your business, as part of the process: 1) Your core competencies 2) Your equipment/capabilities 3) Your products 4) Your customers. Simply put, strategic planning is an evaluation PROCESS considering these 4 things and how they interact in the atmosphere of the 10 principles above.
How can this be avoided? How can we use the PROCESS to ensure success?
In this day and age, we like lists; so here are mine:
1) Commitment must come from the top
2) Buy-in/understanding from the management team is crucial
3) It is a PROCESS through which direction is discovered, not mandated
4) The process should be taught, learned, and internalized
5) Communication should be candid, non-threatening, and insightful
6) It takes time
7) Findings should be carefully documented
8) Time lines are created
9) Follow up is not an option
10) Evaluation is frequent and thorough
Too often steps are skipped in our haste to force results. Patience, monitored by the time line and results, offsets this temptation.
Finally, there are 4 things to consider about your business, as part of the process: 1) Your core competencies 2) Your equipment/capabilities 3) Your products 4) Your customers. Simply put, strategic planning is an evaluation PROCESS considering these 4 things and how they interact in the atmosphere of the 10 principles above.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Is Your Growth Random, or Planned & Focused?
The most common business challenge I find when consulting in the print arena is that of attempting to be all things to all people. Certainly the strategy of one stop shopping is a sound one, but too often it may result in a scattered approach that waters down service AND profits.
When most businesses grow to where they are respected, a force in their niche, and profitable, it is not random good fortune. Most likely they found something their customers valued and needed, developed core competencies to provide it, and then streamlined the process to maximize return. This takes strategy, planning, training, commitment, and time.
One of two things usually happens next: 1) Complacency sets in 2) We expand helter skelter. No good leader wants stagnancy, so the usual response is to attempt growth, usually through either of two approaches. We look for additional products to produce (whether the customers want/need them or not) on existing equipment, or we look for a magic bullet product/service that complements our existing operation.
Let's look at this.
Although either of the two above approaches can work, the odds are against it. What really needs to happen is a third alternative: Strategic Planning. Many of us would agree, but why then does it only happen about 20% of the time?
First of all, several people (including myself) are doers rather than planners. Planning takes time, money, and thought. Many strong leaders would rather get at it, and go by their gut. It can seem quicker, less costly, and it certainly (for me) is more fun. We must however, resist the temptation. Why?
I would submit that we forget what got us there. A new venture, plant, or division is a large undertaking and we usually approach those kind of challenges with a systematic approach. We learn about the need; we brainstorm how to satisfy it; we put together a focused product or service; and we figure out how to build/provide it. Most of the time, with a passion!
Why then don't we continue that PROCESS? Forgetting what got us there could mean that we think we have all the answers, or that we can take shortcuts and still get there. Both of these attitudes are problematic.
Strategic Planning avoids these pitfalls, and makes the journey a more objective one, rather than simply following our gut. In the next 2 articles, we will take a look at what Strategic Planning is, and then how we arrive at that most important destination: focus.
When most businesses grow to where they are respected, a force in their niche, and profitable, it is not random good fortune. Most likely they found something their customers valued and needed, developed core competencies to provide it, and then streamlined the process to maximize return. This takes strategy, planning, training, commitment, and time.
One of two things usually happens next: 1) Complacency sets in 2) We expand helter skelter. No good leader wants stagnancy, so the usual response is to attempt growth, usually through either of two approaches. We look for additional products to produce (whether the customers want/need them or not) on existing equipment, or we look for a magic bullet product/service that complements our existing operation.
Let's look at this.
Although either of the two above approaches can work, the odds are against it. What really needs to happen is a third alternative: Strategic Planning. Many of us would agree, but why then does it only happen about 20% of the time?
First of all, several people (including myself) are doers rather than planners. Planning takes time, money, and thought. Many strong leaders would rather get at it, and go by their gut. It can seem quicker, less costly, and it certainly (for me) is more fun. We must however, resist the temptation. Why?
I would submit that we forget what got us there. A new venture, plant, or division is a large undertaking and we usually approach those kind of challenges with a systematic approach. We learn about the need; we brainstorm how to satisfy it; we put together a focused product or service; and we figure out how to build/provide it. Most of the time, with a passion!
Why then don't we continue that PROCESS? Forgetting what got us there could mean that we think we have all the answers, or that we can take shortcuts and still get there. Both of these attitudes are problematic.
Strategic Planning avoids these pitfalls, and makes the journey a more objective one, rather than simply following our gut. In the next 2 articles, we will take a look at what Strategic Planning is, and then how we arrive at that most important destination: focus.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Rules of Negotiation
As a member of TEC/EA, I have access to several talented speakers and writers. Recently I came across an article on negotiation by Douglas Gilliss that was simple and yet profound. I'd like to carry what he said a bit further for today's post. Gilliss maintains that there are 5 rules: I will comment on them, and add a few more.
They are: 1) Don't negotiate against yourself. This means giving away services or things (free shipping or, we'll paint the upstairs bedrooms) without knowing if the other party cares about them.
My first add: 6) Do your homework. So many times we enter a deal hurriedly without learning what the others want from the transaction. This is a key point; how can we give and take effectively without knowing what they REALLY want? Use the Internet, know how their business is going, talk to your broker.
2) Offer a choice. Excellent point, and hopefully of two positives. It also gives the other person more of a feeling of control.
3) Never prove the other person wrong. Again, basic human dynamics. We risk winning the point and losing the deal.
4) The never, never rule. Here are more fundamentals; don't ever give something up without getting something in return. He makes a good point that when things are traded, they should be equal in value. And I would add, not emotionally based.
This inspires my second add: 7) Never, never let the other party "know". What you value most, what you are emotionally tied to, or what your bottom line is. are all things you may be willing to give concessions to get. If the other party knows they will play you like a fiddle to get overcompensated for them.
5) The business you turn down determines your bottom line profits. This means walking away. It is an extremely powerful action, and can be so without being caustic, especially when done in a matter of fact way. When you say, in essence, this has gone too far for me to realize the minimum I need to have, they see you beyond your bottom line. The next move is theirs.
I will leave you with my final, and probably most important add: 8) Determine the personality style of the other party. If she is a headline person, she will not want data and details. If he is a contrarian, he will see the downside in everything. If he is reserved, he won't appreciate your demonstrative outbursts. This is basic sales stuff, but nowhere is it more crucial to use than in negotiating. Know your audience and give it to them the way they want it. They'll be more comfortable with you, which usually means a good outcome.
Good luck and good negotiating!
They are: 1) Don't negotiate against yourself. This means giving away services or things (free shipping or, we'll paint the upstairs bedrooms) without knowing if the other party cares about them.
My first add: 6) Do your homework. So many times we enter a deal hurriedly without learning what the others want from the transaction. This is a key point; how can we give and take effectively without knowing what they REALLY want? Use the Internet, know how their business is going, talk to your broker.
2) Offer a choice. Excellent point, and hopefully of two positives. It also gives the other person more of a feeling of control.
3) Never prove the other person wrong. Again, basic human dynamics. We risk winning the point and losing the deal.
4) The never, never rule. Here are more fundamentals; don't ever give something up without getting something in return. He makes a good point that when things are traded, they should be equal in value. And I would add, not emotionally based.
This inspires my second add: 7) Never, never let the other party "know". What you value most, what you are emotionally tied to, or what your bottom line is. are all things you may be willing to give concessions to get. If the other party knows they will play you like a fiddle to get overcompensated for them.
5) The business you turn down determines your bottom line profits. This means walking away. It is an extremely powerful action, and can be so without being caustic, especially when done in a matter of fact way. When you say, in essence, this has gone too far for me to realize the minimum I need to have, they see you beyond your bottom line. The next move is theirs.
I will leave you with my final, and probably most important add: 8) Determine the personality style of the other party. If she is a headline person, she will not want data and details. If he is a contrarian, he will see the downside in everything. If he is reserved, he won't appreciate your demonstrative outbursts. This is basic sales stuff, but nowhere is it more crucial to use than in negotiating. Know your audience and give it to them the way they want it. They'll be more comfortable with you, which usually means a good outcome.
Good luck and good negotiating!
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Online Access To Course Material
An interesting addition is growing to the list of threats to the printed book. It is not digital books, or digitally printed books, but rather online material. Supplemental content has been available in the Higher Education market for many years now, but it is gaining increasing use in the high school market, and even increasing in the elementary segment. In many instances, the entire textbook is posted, although not to replace the printed book, but to complement it.
This is increasing due to the cost of the printed book, often to avoid having multiple copies, and to have available at home (or at school) when the hard copy is left somewhere else. In the case of supplemental material, it allows homework to be done with more information, more readily available.
Despite the economic and convenience benefits to the schools and students, and surprisingly enough, there are many disadvantages openly offered: 1) Some students don't have computers at home 2) Parents who help their children with homework may not be computer literate & therefore prefer the textbook 3) Virtually everyone agrees that screens are more difficult to read than books 4)Books can be more comfortably read than a computer from an ergonomic point of view 5) There are temptations with video games and other sites when on the computer 6)There seems to be an agreement that administrators and teachers will take several years to get more comfortable with online content versus the printed book.
This angle does make the debate that much more involved from all points of view. The most prudent thing we can do is to keep listening & observing, while being sensitive to the issues, our students, and the importance of the book itself.
This is increasing due to the cost of the printed book, often to avoid having multiple copies, and to have available at home (or at school) when the hard copy is left somewhere else. In the case of supplemental material, it allows homework to be done with more information, more readily available.
Despite the economic and convenience benefits to the schools and students, and surprisingly enough, there are many disadvantages openly offered: 1) Some students don't have computers at home 2) Parents who help their children with homework may not be computer literate & therefore prefer the textbook 3) Virtually everyone agrees that screens are more difficult to read than books 4)Books can be more comfortably read than a computer from an ergonomic point of view 5) There are temptations with video games and other sites when on the computer 6)There seems to be an agreement that administrators and teachers will take several years to get more comfortable with online content versus the printed book.
This angle does make the debate that much more involved from all points of view. The most prudent thing we can do is to keep listening & observing, while being sensitive to the issues, our students, and the importance of the book itself.
In Case You haven't Noticed . . .
Once more, I feel compelled to write about the future of digital print in the general market, as well as in the book industry. PIA/GATF has put out some helpful information this year, which we would do well to internalize.
In their recent "Focus on the Future", a front page article began with, "Just in case anyone might still be wondering . . . digital printing is here to stay." Why do I think, then, that many of us ARE still wondering, or, like the electronic book, hoping, that it all goes away?
In an article by Andrew Fetherman, he quotes Gilles Biscos of Interquest who says overall digital print volume will grow 20-30% annually. We might say OK, it won't be in books, but Gilles says digital book print will grow annually by 26%. Yes, it is a small number now, but at 26% per year, it won't take long to become a big one.
We know publishers are being squeezed from all directions - their owners, their suppliers, and their customers. Yet it is amazing to some of us how stringently they're fighting back. They want to lower inventory, reduce the risk of obsolescence, pay less, improve title longevity, and have product faster. These wants/needs play directly into digital print.
Meanwhile, the digital industry continues to improve its offerings in quality and workflows. Color is better, the front end more streamlined, proofing is easier, and schedules are completed in less and less time. Additionally, web-to-print solutions are being promoted by the Digital Print Council (DPC).
This all adds up to our future looking different, much different. It very well could be so different some of us may not recognize it at all.
In their recent "Focus on the Future", a front page article began with, "Just in case anyone might still be wondering . . . digital printing is here to stay." Why do I think, then, that many of us ARE still wondering, or, like the electronic book, hoping, that it all goes away?
In an article by Andrew Fetherman, he quotes Gilles Biscos of Interquest who says overall digital print volume will grow 20-30% annually. We might say OK, it won't be in books, but Gilles says digital book print will grow annually by 26%. Yes, it is a small number now, but at 26% per year, it won't take long to become a big one.
We know publishers are being squeezed from all directions - their owners, their suppliers, and their customers. Yet it is amazing to some of us how stringently they're fighting back. They want to lower inventory, reduce the risk of obsolescence, pay less, improve title longevity, and have product faster. These wants/needs play directly into digital print.
Meanwhile, the digital industry continues to improve its offerings in quality and workflows. Color is better, the front end more streamlined, proofing is easier, and schedules are completed in less and less time. Additionally, web-to-print solutions are being promoted by the Digital Print Council (DPC).
This all adds up to our future looking different, much different. It very well could be so different some of us may not recognize it at all.
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
"Conflict" Resolution
Yesterday, after attending a seminar given by Edgar Papke, I wrote about preventing criticism from degenerating into "conflict". I differentiated the word from a suggestion for improvement or a disagreement, rather regarding the word as a stressful situation gone bad. This post addresses how to resolve conflict once it does get that far. As yesterday, I acknowledge Edgar's contribution.
Edgar asserts that we are one of three kinds of people: We are either driven by doing the right things, a win-lose mentality, or feeling that we belong. This is an interesting insight when viewed with what are generally the four personality profiles of dominance/directness, interpersonal/interactive, amiable/consistent, and pleaser/conscientious touted by Myers/Briggs, DISC, AVA or Drake P3, as examples. These 3 kinds of people will operate within their 4 personality styles.
The authenticity-oriented person who needs to be true to themselves as a top value, within the 4 personality types, will have to "do the right thing" when resolving conflict. They want a structure that is ideal centered, and empowers teams. They will be motivated by good intentions, openness, and affection.
The competitive expertise-driven person, when faced with conflict wants to win; they always believe their way is best. They want structure that is objective, competency-focused, and functional. Their key motivators are individual achievement, competency, and to be in control.
The inclusion-oriented person must be one of the group, be involved, and build consensus. Their desired structure is cross-functional, personal, and done through groups, not individuals. What motivates them is their accountability to team members, their importance to the team, and to be doing something significant.
Why is this important to know? First, we must know ourselves and do what we do best ("play the game in our home court"-see my earlier blog). Secondly, we must know what other people want, and how they resolve stressful situations, which will put us closer to resolution. Thirdly, knowledge builds confidence and patience. We will have the energy to get through it successfully.
Having written all this, it comes down to caring and doing the little things necessary to take care of our people, a common theme of my blogs. Good Luck!
Edgar asserts that we are one of three kinds of people: We are either driven by doing the right things, a win-lose mentality, or feeling that we belong. This is an interesting insight when viewed with what are generally the four personality profiles of dominance/directness, interpersonal/interactive, amiable/consistent, and pleaser/conscientious touted by Myers/Briggs, DISC, AVA or Drake P3, as examples. These 3 kinds of people will operate within their 4 personality styles.
The authenticity-oriented person who needs to be true to themselves as a top value, within the 4 personality types, will have to "do the right thing" when resolving conflict. They want a structure that is ideal centered, and empowers teams. They will be motivated by good intentions, openness, and affection.
The competitive expertise-driven person, when faced with conflict wants to win; they always believe their way is best. They want structure that is objective, competency-focused, and functional. Their key motivators are individual achievement, competency, and to be in control.
The inclusion-oriented person must be one of the group, be involved, and build consensus. Their desired structure is cross-functional, personal, and done through groups, not individuals. What motivates them is their accountability to team members, their importance to the team, and to be doing something significant.
Why is this important to know? First, we must know ourselves and do what we do best ("play the game in our home court"-see my earlier blog). Secondly, we must know what other people want, and how they resolve stressful situations, which will put us closer to resolution. Thirdly, knowledge builds confidence and patience. We will have the energy to get through it successfully.
Having written all this, it comes down to caring and doing the little things necessary to take care of our people, a common theme of my blogs. Good Luck!
From Conflict to Opportuinty
Yesterday, I had the good fortune to participate in a TEC sponsored seminar on conflict resolution for leaders. Edgar Papke, a well known speaker, writer, and human dynamics expert was our facilitator. Today's posting is a result of his inspiration, so you can either credit, or blame him!
Where I'd like to start is with his initial premise that conflict is good. As we think about it, we realize that little gets done without some level of stress being present, otherwise why would we do anything differently? So, certainly, if improvements result from stress & the resultant change, it's positive.
Before we blindly embrace this "conflict" word, however, let's look a bit closer. I would suggest that differing values, stress, & even disagreement are positive. The question is; should we let it get to conflict? Perhaps I'm reading too much into the word, but I'm thinking that conflict is disagreement gone bad, or at least, not shared & discussed.
I've always told my clients to teach and to treat contrarians, differing opinions, or criticism positively, as a gift, just as they might a compliment. Opposing points of view are a chance to get it right, or get better. Without the suggestion, without the stress, without someone else taking a chance, nothing happens. I'm sure that this was Edgar's point.
The interchange only degrades when either person injects negative connotations, such as aggressiveness, emotion, sarcasm, or judgement, into the discussion. Several things can then happen with either person, such as withdrawal, anger, or defensiveness. My point of this blog is that we need to take leadership and stop it there, before it turns to conflict, and a more difficult challenge to handle.
We as leaders and managers bear the brunt of the responsibility to give and take it positively. How? Well, first of all we treat it with a high level of importance. So we handle it now, or tell them when we will. Secondly, we listen carefully and without interrupting, even when painful. Thirdly, we clarify, and repeat back without judging. If we can pull this much off, we are well on our way to mining the benefits without the conflict. What do you think?
Tomorrow, more on the actual "conflict" resolution.
Where I'd like to start is with his initial premise that conflict is good. As we think about it, we realize that little gets done without some level of stress being present, otherwise why would we do anything differently? So, certainly, if improvements result from stress & the resultant change, it's positive.
Before we blindly embrace this "conflict" word, however, let's look a bit closer. I would suggest that differing values, stress, & even disagreement are positive. The question is; should we let it get to conflict? Perhaps I'm reading too much into the word, but I'm thinking that conflict is disagreement gone bad, or at least, not shared & discussed.
I've always told my clients to teach and to treat contrarians, differing opinions, or criticism positively, as a gift, just as they might a compliment. Opposing points of view are a chance to get it right, or get better. Without the suggestion, without the stress, without someone else taking a chance, nothing happens. I'm sure that this was Edgar's point.
The interchange only degrades when either person injects negative connotations, such as aggressiveness, emotion, sarcasm, or judgement, into the discussion. Several things can then happen with either person, such as withdrawal, anger, or defensiveness. My point of this blog is that we need to take leadership and stop it there, before it turns to conflict, and a more difficult challenge to handle.
We as leaders and managers bear the brunt of the responsibility to give and take it positively. How? Well, first of all we treat it with a high level of importance. So we handle it now, or tell them when we will. Secondly, we listen carefully and without interrupting, even when painful. Thirdly, we clarify, and repeat back without judging. If we can pull this much off, we are well on our way to mining the benefits without the conflict. What do you think?
Tomorrow, more on the actual "conflict" resolution.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)