McKinsey survey just out (download pdf 631kb here) confirms the importance of not only setting clear goals for transformational change in organisations, but the need to bring people along the journey. Results show this is best done by engaging staff early and widely and leading the way from the top. Engagement requires clear, success-oriented and ongoing communication as the principle tactic in a range of means to motivate staff.  Where new systems are a catalyst for process or behavioural change, the same applies - get people in board with the benefits, and understanding what is happening all along the way, the the results are more likely to be what you intend.

When it is accepted. Business proposals can mean many things but their common role is to present an offer to contract and their mission is to facilitate closure.  The level of explanation and material supporting scope, time, price, and terms and conditions depends on what the customer requires. Typically the smaller the job or the more established the relationship, the less is needed. If you have a price advantage, your proposals may need to work less hard to help you close but will need to be convincing in documenting risk mitigation. If, however, your offer is more about service quality, your proposal needs to help establish this position in its content and appearance. Over 80% of proposals will be unsolicited or respond to informal requests so have the advantage of allowing you, the supplier, to define structure and content - others are set in the RFP (there is a great deal of cynicism about RFPs and many businesses avoid blind bidding on them). But even if you try and go directly to contract, after verbal closure, it is good practice to document your offer for clarity and affirmation of your professionalism. In new business connections, this is a defining moment of truth and the last step in successful sales.

Why do some organisations single out individuals or functions to blame for what is a systemic failure or leadership issue? A bit like in-fighting within the sales and marketing divide, Forrester is highlighting the fallacy of situations where front-line staff are expected to hold all the complexity of product and pricing offers in their heads. What group psychology is in play here? Smart companies leave the institutional complexity under the hood.  Frustrated managers that want to shoot the messanger should instead just go for the famous big red button.

SaaS is the way systems will be delivered in the future. The benefits are just too compelling. Most first generation SaaS applications, however, are designed for consumers or small businesses. This business model is favoured by investors who promote highly scalable out-of-the-box solutions because they make for a more stable (large) instal-base that achieves economies of volume. This model works for investors but not really for enterprise customers.  Enterprises pose unique challenges for SaaS. From identity/access, to data/operations and regulatory compliance; MSDN identifies the integration considerations and implications here (with a one-page summary). The secret, however, is for SaaS to be configured and supported for individual enterprises by solution providers. These tailored SaaS models will be delivered either by SaaS owners with local focus or third party aggregators who create context-specific support (a gap identified in the all-SaaS business concept). The trick is to make this work for investors.

Automation of any process involves creation of human-machine interfaces; and be it on the factory floor or in business software, there are some common principles to good interface design.  People need boundaries if they are to operate efficiently, and interfaces can be the rails on the bridge that enable them to get from A to B as quickly and as accurately as possible. Where people are required to interpret instruction or follow an order of process, good usability will enable this in a natural, less cognitive, but completely informed way.  While we push these boundaries continuously, the science is well understood. There is a good overview of models and interfaces in this dissertation by Leshan Li on Action Theory and Cognitive Psychology in Industrial Design (pdf 559kb). (Not surprisingly, a paper that is quite readable even if academic).

United States Postal ServicePaper is a powerful medium for carrying a message. It is not only accessible by the unwired, preferred for review by many, and most easily shared in meetings, but a printed piece appeals to the most basic levels of a person's senses: texture, true colour, and its accoutrements target the senses and leave a lasting impression. This sensory delight is part of what makes paper documents special. Paper should also be considered the elite medium for customer and business documents because of what it costs the environment. Direct mailers recognise this and, while leveraging the effectiveness of mail marketing, many are making efforts to be a little greener. DM is an easy target, however it only adds 2.4% of land fill, where over a third is other methane producing waste paper and paper products. Business can play a role by not printing draft content or unnecessary pages (try the free app GreenPrint to save the trees) - get it right digitally before publication. And, given the wood pulp yield of a tree is only around 50% by weight, you should at least recycle (or go even further and consider non-wood paper such as hemp or banana).  

Strategists are in the future business. They help people understand what may be and what they can do about it. The only problem is things are happening faster and more dramatically than ever before. and it's not only hard to decipher and to keep up, but you can no longer ignore trends happening elsewhere on the planet - we are too connected now. If you have a future-view, you can share it by superstructing at the Insitute for the Future (check the date on the "GEAS press release" before getting too spooked).  It also pays to keep an eye on the stories of professional futurists - those with the resources and brains dedicated to trend monitoring. Great food for thought and ideas can always be found at trendwatchers, and one of the best presentations I have seen in a long time can be downloaded from the Global Business Network here. Entertaining, inspiring, and a little scary.

Process automation in sales and marketing is typically driven by a need to improve efficiency and is usually focussed on measurability: ROI for campaigns, win rates and pipeline progress for sales. These are important but, if made paramount, also carry a risk for customer relations - ironically, the risk of alienation. Process automation can lead to customers treated as numbers and staff as robots. See Alan Zell's experience in the wedding registry business. If your enterprise has a case for process automation, your products or pricing are probably relatively complex and its likely you can deliver to quite specific customer needs. Use the automation opportunity to build relationships through personalisation of your customer communications and offers. Talking to people as individuals is more customer-focussed than being efficient and will give you a far more positive result - business and reputation growth.

Authenticity - a big term in branding today. A reflection perhaps of the new standards of transparency demanded by society (and fuelling social media participation). People are overloaded by marketing messages, cynical about advertising, and distrusting of ulterior motives - like selling you something.  There was a good Fast Company article on this last year. What's most important in underpinning authenticity is delivering on your brand promise. To this end, NZ label Icebreaker is breaking ground with evidence of its brand integrity by launching this month the Baacode. This enables you to trace the wool in your merino garment all the way back to the high country station where it was grown.  Authenticity is the new brand benchmark so businesses need to now more than ever to be sure to speak honestly, openly and with actions as much as words. Better to be humble and factual and have your raving fans build the hype.

More evidence of the sales and marketing divide is seen in the latest study from the CMO Council: "Driving the Bottom Line from the Front Line" (register to read). This highlights how few teams are aligned and what damage this creates to the effectiveness of go-to-market efforts. Less than 20% say their sales and marketing organisations are extremely collaborative, and less than half have taken steps to bring them together. Tragic how we get wrapped around our own axle. The solution is actually not that hard - it comes down to respect, empathy and listening to the needs and assumptions of the other party - each has much to learn and contribute but only together can the value of new initiatives be realised. See further commentaries from Brian Carroll here and Todd Ebert here.

One thing we have learned about what makes an implementation successful is recognising and managing it as a "change project". To realise the benefits of any new approach that requires people to behave differently, a business needs to bring people on the journey. People need to want to change, to want to achieve the new approach. And to make this happen in today's environment, people need to see something in it for themselves - less drudgery, better results, more positive interactions etc.  Change management is not easy but it can be an intense leadership experience, focusing on one spike in the constant change cycle and moving people in a significant way with trust and respect.

Beware of your comfort zone, its an unnatural state. The second law of thermodynamics states that all things tend to disorder; this means you can't even break even. If you try and settle for "OK", your energy levels will fall, your enthusiasm will wane - ultimately, satisfaction breeds defeat. Unless you aspire to a vegetative state,  don't settle for OK - instead strive, drive;  live deliberately and aim for the highest and most positive purpose you can imagine.  Sales, in particular, requires self-motivation for perseverance and continued commitment. Knock-backs build character and experience - take their lessons and build on them for next time.

Richard Powers, brainiac author of infofiction novels that combine high science with storytelling, discussed the "bundle theory of self" as opposed to the "ego theory of self" in a great Kim Hill interview the other day (streaming audio here). This suggests that people function as "complex cauldrens" of hundreds of subsystems (verbal, mathemetical etc ) that constantly break and reform the world around us in unique ways. We are ecosystems, noisy parliaments running elaborate conversations between inside and out. Our self is more like a rugby team where players, coach etc change but fans remain loyal to hold it together. We are not solid, we are a chaos, an ad hoc improvisation, a continuity within socialised fluctuation. We are a collaborative work of art that we make up as we go along with the people we meet - swapping a bit of each other as we interact. Scary stuff but to me, this goes a long way to explaining why the ambiant intimacy of social media is so compelling. Also why empathy and personailty is so important in sales.

What has to be the ultimate evidence of synergy in customer relationships is collaboration in innovation. More than just listening to customer feedback or monitoring social media sites for real-time market research, more than co-creation of online content, companies are really beginning to engage with customers in idea generation for service improvement or creation. We saw it last year with Ideastorm, now the new customer made trend for product development is gaining momentum. People like Chris Lawer are researching it, and McKinsey is putting its serious intellect into it also. It just makes sense.

Earlier this year, Guy Kawasaki started Alltop.com as an organising framework for the best blogs on the web. Alltop is now a great way to find excellent content, laid out in a simple, clean style designed to achieve “cessation of Internet stagnation” by providing “aggregation without aggravation.”  We are flattered that The Sizzle has been selected for inclusion in the sales category! Thanks Alltop.

The most effective change is sponsored and driven by senior management. It is a leadership function with the power to align, motivate and deploy resources. It is more than a mechanical process, however. Because you are moving people, it is a human process. As such is requires the right individuals to be its key agents. Attached here is a recent McKinsey paper that defines how to build an effective change agent team.

Making a Change Agent Team

The world needs more Dark Knights and business needs more people to stand up for what is right for their organisation with selfless, ethical, actions. There's a nice summary of what a hero means from Tara Hunt on HPC. But how do heroes survive corporate politics? It takes a clever hero to change a system from within (put a cucumber in pickle and the pickle doesn't get cucumbered). 

Catastrophe Theory was developed in the 60s, in vogue in mathematics in the 70s, applied more widely in science the 80s and evolved in to Chaos Theory in the 90s. While business has proven too complex for general application it is intuitive that there is a spectrum of options for how organisations can get better at what they do - at one end there is a smooth and gradual process (promoted by Kaizen, Six Sigma etc BPI) and at the other there is an abrupt or radical response to an event - a catastrophe. Change events can be deliberately created (e.g. by business process reengineering) when continuous improvement is not cutting it. In the land of proposals, however, these events could include: a new senior manager or introduction of a new system. They could also be cataclysmic, however, such as loss of an important, "sure thing" bid, scathing and embarrassing customer feedback, or commercial exposure to poor documentation. Sometimes real change does need an event - but aren't we better to be the architect of that event rather than have it forced upon us?

Business is so rational right? Decision makers combine numbers and facts to compute the most logical result, right? Wrong. Business is made up of people and people are not always rational; actually, homo economicus is a mythical being. This is where marketing can really support sales. Break down the buying process and understand the influences on each step.There is much more at play than just numbers and facts. Sure, price is often the biggest factor but few buying decisions are risk free and most are swayed by more complex, softer, intangible beliefs or expectations. How well a vendor presents themselves, how much confidence they instill, how much understanding they demonstrate, how easy they are to work with. Marketing can support sales here by helping structure and articulate arguments and ensuring they are presented professionally and cleanly. A brand can command a premium if it demonstrates value in the feelings it creates around the rational offer.

Inefficiencies hidden within internal processes can be the bane of businesses facing cost pressures. These are nowhere less significant than in document creation. IDC surveyed 350 companies to discover that the top three most significant causes of inefficiency included:

1. recreating content that already exists
2. searching for content to reuse
3. creating customised varieties of information

While inefficiency is an insidious problem, a more dramatic cost impact is beginning to become apparent: the cost of dissatisfied staff leaving. The impact of churn has been estimated at 150% of a person's salary by both Mercer in Australia and Unisys in NZ. And this may be the tip of the iceberg if you also consider: costs of decreased productivity, lost investment in training and development, loss of revenue for key sales or management executives, administration set up, equipment purchase, recruitment costs, the new employee's induction into the business culture, management downtime in interviewing candidates, legal fees and payout commitments. Once upon a time managers could say - putting together documents is their job, they are paid to do it. The problem is nobody enjoys inefficiency - its not just an economic problem, its a problem for staff satisfaction. If companies do not provide systems and processes that value their people's time, they increasingly risk losing them to a competitive labour market - with very high consequential costs. The benefit cost ratio of document automation will only rise.