Situation: A company has developed a disrupting technology that allows OEM manufacturers to produce high-end machines at a fraction of their current cost. The challenge is that the company does not possess the capacity to reach producers of high-end machines. The CEO seeks advice on how to efficiently focus channel development. How do you build channel sales?
Advice from the CEOs:
The dilemma is having a major disrupting technology in a market with a strong division between OEMs servicing the low/medium-end market and those servicing the high-end market.
This technology collapses the division between the low/medium and the high-end markets.
This shift disrupts the current business models of either group of OEMs, as well as their technology development plans. This is the source of resistance.
Therefore, the most promising channel development partner is either:
A low/medium-end OEM who is also a disrupter and who has the capability to develop a high-end sales and marketing effort; or
A high-end OEM that knows the market but who’s current strategy is failing and needs an entirely different solution to revive their prospects.
The near-term task is to gain market capability – both manufacturing and marketing/sales – and to use this capability to gain early market acceptance.
If, over the next 12 months, the company can begin to impact the market shares of the high-end OEMs, this is the surest way to gain their attention. Once the company starts to gain share, a likely outcome is that one of the high-end OEMs will buy the company to lock up their IP.
Another company used a similar strategy several years ago.
They entered a new market by way of a business collaboration with a high-visibility partner.
In one year, they took 30% market share from the market leader through this collaboration.
As a result, the market leader bought them because “it was less expensive to buy you than to spend the marketing dollars that we would have had to spend to compete against you.”
Situation: A CEO faces challenges with clients. The first is vague customer specs because they don’t understand the product. Second is misunderstandings as to timelines. Third is insistence on strict timelines while simultaneously demanding revisions to previous work. How do you add more discipline to quotes and pricing?
Advice from the CEOs:
Is the company’s technology strategy aligned with its capabilities? Currently the company is trying to build advanced solutions in multiple international markets with a small staff. There does not seem to be the technology or development discipline to convert current capabilities into a sustainable market advantage.
For near term focus, because of commitments and milestone payments due from the key customers, focus resources on finishing the last piece of these projects. Once this is done, step back. Look at options and determine the company’s technology strategy moving forward.
The key challenge is to define ONE beachhead on which the company will focus and which they can dominate. The objective is to leverage existing engineering creativity to create a sustainable competitive advantage.
As this exercise is designed, start with a clean slate. Don’t burden the process with a lot of restrictive assumptions. Consider using an outside facilitator to help facilitate this process.
Until this exercise is completed does it really make sense to seek additional work or to commit the company to the next phases with current customers?
Once the company has selected and committed to a technology strategy, the decision process becomes different.
The objective is to develop laser-like focus on the technology. Minimize distracting the team with other opportunities.
It may be OK to lose money on development projects if this work will significantly impact or accelerate the development of the company’s core technology.
How does the company justify asking for payment for development for future projects?
First, determine and clearly state the company’s technology strategy. Evaluate all future development projects and decisions in terms of their alignment with this strategy.
Second, if a particular project is completely aligned with the technology strategy, the company may waive the requirement of payment for development. This, ideally, will be the only exception.
Ask for a limited time/scope project to jump start and define new projects. This provides proof of company capabilities and establishes its credibility.
If is it necessary to negotiate or bid, start high and bargain down to but not below the best estimate of the cost of development.
Remember that deciding what NOT to do or quote is often harder, but just as critical, as deciding what to quote.
Situation: A CEO is
concerned about long term trends versus short term volatility. While the
business has done well over time, short term volatility has made it difficult
to project both personnel needs and cost. As the company expands geographically
these issues are becoming more critical. Which is more important – long or
from the CEOs:
the company find that capabilities are not fully understood until they get into
development? In this case, is the problem with variables of schedule, budget or
capability more important?
forward, evaluate each of these variables to determine which is having the greatest
effect, positive and negative, on project performance and profitability.
the problem is time constraints in the project planning phase, assure that
sufficient time for project iterations is allowed in both the schedule and
budget. It may be that the clients are not sure of what they want until they
see a model, and that several iterations are required to assure that clients’
needs are satisfied. Plan and bid for this.
fixed costs impact margins during dips between active projects, assure that enough
fixed cost coverage is built into project bids to cover dips.
geographically remote offices is the company’s issue a question of volume or
resource cost or is it a pricing issue?
it’s a pricing issue to stay market competitive focus initial activity where
this issue is minimized. As market presence expands, add additional capabilities
in phases according to the ability to cover costs profitably.
it’s a resource cost issue use the same solution, adding resources according
ability to cover costs profitably.
the company’s sales and marketing structure in phases while expanding into new
markets. If sales compensation is base plus commission, vary commissions paid
according to resource rates negotiated. This will tie sales incentives to
negotiated resource rates and will help to assure that costs are covered.
with short term issues effectively will improve long term planning and profitability.
Situation: Early stage companies often find it difficult to raise funds from traditional sources. An experienced CEO wants to help certain new companies of which she is aware in two ways – assisting them in receiving funding, and then helping to assure that they reach key milestones. What is the best way to profitably address this ambition? How do you fund a start-up?
Advice from the CEOs:
Build relationships with a few select sets of local investors – venture capitalists, angels, and private investors – with whom you have strong credibility. For a retainer or fee, agree to bring them a number of new pre-vetted companies in the next year, and post-finding, help the companies to succeed and hit milestones. From the companies that you bring to funders, ask for equity in return for securing funding and providing guidance.
Put yourself in the shoes of the person who will pay you – what do they want and how do you deliver this for them? Develop statistics from your past successes that highlight your capabilities. Don’t be shy about your accomplishments.
What are you passionate about? If the answer is development – linking technology entrepreneurs to strategic partners and then being an accountability partner to assure that milestones are met – this will be your focus and your pitch to both funders and tech companies.
Your value is linking the entrepreneur to the funding source and being an accountability partner.
Situation: A company is launching a new service – using existing technologies to address a new market. The CEO is curious as to whether it makes more sense to create a separate firm or corporation, a division within the current structure, or a new brand to take advantage of this opportunity? Do you launch a new brand or a new company?
Advice from the CEOs:
Because you are utilizing an existing process in a new market, don’t create the additional conflict or complexity that you might by splitting this into a separate entity just yet. Utilize the collaborative talent within the company to create a new brand rather than a new division or corporation.
Adding the additional overhead, accounting and other complexities of a separate entity is overkill – start it as a division or a brand.
Use this as an opportunity to grow your overall company brand. Create a series of icons to represent the company’s various capabilities. The icons will also help you to describe the range of capabilities of the company to prospective clients.
The market which you are addressing is early stage. By developing this new market as a new capability of your current well-respected brand, you have the opportunity to become the category leader.
When another CEO created new capabilities as extensions of existing technology he followed the following route:
Create a sub-brand as you develop and start to develop the new capability;
If it is successful and grows, develop it into a division;
If the capability grows to the point that you attract and decide to take outside funding to accelerate growth, create a separate company so that you don’t give away ownership of the parent company.
Think “effective vs. efficiency.” Start with efficiency. Add effectiveness (dedicated people) as opportunity proves itself out.
Situation: A company has developed a disrupting technology that will allow OEMs to produce high-end circuits at a fraction of their current cost. A non-exclusive OEM partner is using this technology but doesn’t have a channel to high-end users, and the company is too small to reach these customers themselves. How do you reach high-end users?
Advice from the CEOs:
Your dilemma is having a disrupting technology in a market with a strong division between OEMs servicing the low/medium-end market and those servicing the high-end market.
Your technology collapses the division between the low/medium and the high-end markets and OEMs and proposes a full-scale technical shift.
This shift disrupts the current business models of either group of OEMs, as well as their technology development plans. This is why you are finding resistance.
Therefore, you need a channel partner that is either:
A low/medium-end OEM who is just as much a disrupter as you are – highly promising but not yet well-established – and who is capability of developing a high-end sales and marketing effort; or
A high-end OEM that knows the market but is collapsing under their current strategy and needs an entirely different solution to revive their prospects.
Your near-term task is to simply gain market capability – both manufacturing and marketing/sales – and to use this capability to gain early market acceptance.
Your investors want to see early “Blue Chip” partners, but given market realities, this may not be the wisest strategy.
If, over the next 12 months, you can begin to impact the market shares of the high-end OEMs, this is the surest way to gain their attention. Once you start to gain share, a likely outcome is that one of the high-end OEMs will buy you to lock up your IP.
Another company recently used a similar strategy entering a new market by collaborating with a high-visibility partner.
In one year, they took 30% market share from the market leader.
The next year the market leader bought them because “it was less expensive to buy you than to spend the marketing dollars that we would have had to spend to compete against you.”
Situation: An acquired company is poised for dramatic growth. The corporation that acquired them has questions about the current team’s capability to realize planned growth, and achieve their financial and operational targets. How can they assess whether the existing team is up to the task?
Advice from Gene Tange:
Think of this as an assessment process that accurately predicts the ability of the leadership team to realize planned outcomes while maturing key business processes. The leadership team is tied to both financial and operational outcomes that cover competence, continuity and alignment. This enables proactive management of organizational changes to support planned growth of the business. A real life example will illustrate the steps of the process.
The starting point was whether the current CEO had the right compliment of skills and capabilities to lead a high performance team. Could this leader see beyond the current stage of growth in terms of the talent and processes required for growth? Could he build a high performance team, align them and retain them to achieve results?
The CEO then laid out the future state organization. The essential question was whether he had teams of leaders in each of the key functions to assure success.
Specifically, the Product Development Team generated a competitive analysis comparing the current product with all others to assure a 2 year competitive advantage. They were also tasked with improving cost of manufacturing.
The Sales Team installed an integrated CRM system to support large orders, including internal cross functional communication to increase customer visibility and satisfaction scores.
The Operations organization moved from a traditional batch manufacturing process to a state of the art, focused factory organization, eliminating WIP, reducing operational costs and increasing the speed of order to delivery.
Finally, the Finance and Administrative functions were assessed.
As a result, in 16 months the company grew 5x in revenue and increased margins. Time from order to delivery was reduced by 16x. Headcount was reduced while shipping volume increased by 5x.
A disciplined assessment process that predict business outcomes and ties your talent to the bottom line can provide a significant advantage in today’s highly competitive environment.
Situation: A company wants to grow by acquiring companies in similar verticals that have different but complimentary offerings. The targets will most likely be boutique operations. How should they target and prospect candidates?
Advice from the CEOs:
Before you think about either targeting or prospecting an acquisition do your internal homework. Establish your strategic plan, including strategic capabilities that you want to develop. Look for synergies within your plan, and assure that any new capabilities complement these synergies.
Will current customers be interested in the new strategic capabilities, or will you have to build or buy access to new customer segments?
Determine the leveraging factors. How much incremental business can you expect to gain compared to current business? Look at both top and bottom line impact.
Do a build/buy analysis to determine whether the capability is more effectively built using your own resources or purchased.
Leverage both internal and external resources to develop a target list. Ask what current employees may be knowledgeable of potential candidates.
Use your industry network to identify and gather information about candidates.
Retain a firm to assist you in identifying candidates. They can approach candidates from a neutral position to assess interest in acquisition.
It is critical to negotiate a deal that retains key talent. Founders and key staff of the acquired company must see the combination as a means to facilitate and expand their own vision. In many successful acquisitions you will see the following traits.
The acquiring company did not change management, accounting methods, or operational procedures of the acquired company.
They acted as a bank to facilitate pursuit of the acquired company’s dreams and already successful strategies.
They took a “hands-off” approach with the acquired company and did not try to force cultural change.