Flourishing brands, an entrepreneurs lesson in archetypal branding

The summer of 2016 has already passed and now it is time for some serious work again. Although to be honest, the work was there all the time, we were only a little less outspoken about it than we usually are.  But taking some distance gave me an interesting ‘summer-job’.

Every year during the summer I take up some bigger background task within our firm. Because new information and/or requests drop in at a considerably lower pace during the July and August months so there is a little more time. Time to reflect and review, refine or design the larger question marks in business life. This time though it feels like I took on a complete summer-school. The topic? All about “branding your brand”.

At the end of 2015 we decided as a team to take 2016 to ‘sharpen our saw’ a little (to speak with Covey). This meant for starters reviewing the activities we actually perform on a daily basis in our services versus the activities we are known for (I can recommend doing this because I think most firms will be surprised on the differences, but more about that at a later time). After that we refined the portfolio which we actually want to be performing and be known for. Now, finally, it is time to design some updated clarity on the positioning we fill with our brands  in the marketplace to fulfil that portfolio (LAKRAN Procurement Professionals / AGAIN by LAKRAN). All results were interesting, but you will be updated on that from our company-blogs and other communication in due time. This being my personal blog-spot (aiming for a zoom into the entrepreneurs lessons of things and the driving forces behind our brands) I thought it would be most interesting to share my most important branding lesson.

There is one topic that hangs with me as being still very undervalued in today’s businesses: Archetypal Branding

Basically this branding method handles about giving a recognizable personality to your brand and let that be guiding in every marketing effort you do. But even more, let that personality be the recognizable value that drives your colleagues attitudes towards clients. That last one is of course very complex because they are personalities themselves that ask for certain space to act and room to grow. The challenge is combining the two, making sure that the people you employ actually fit the brand personality by heart, let them grow together and as such grow your brand.

This alignment between workforce- and brand- personality can naturally be achieved in more than one way, where selecting the right colleagues or selecting the fitting brand type are the most theoretically logical ways. But the business world is never as synthetic as that, allowing you to organize all these things the theoretically correct way. So all efforts of branding your brand start with internally branding your brand. This gives reasons, other than filing your business plan with an investor or bank, to get your mission statement and corporate values defined. Even more so, get them plastered on walls, discuss about them every meeting not only to be defined, but to be lived by!

Build a culture and work on that 24/7. Only after that, the commercial branding can start.

When I take these new insights (for me they are new, not being a marketing specialist I worked my way through books, interviews and all kinds of related information) and start analysing my competition and every other brand I come across, it becomes clear that many of those are not managed along these lines. Which I think is a shame, because much interesting value drips away from within our marketplace because branding efforts go to waste just after spending the money. I would love for some more competition that is clearly positioned on this knowledge, because I think that sharpens positioning for all of us, making the market place a more fun place to work for all.

Curious to your thoughts!

Doede van Haperen

ceo LAKRAN.

www.lakran.com

www.again.nl

www.ehiring.nl

To all you entrepreneurs out there: “it’s the path that counts …”, it sounds BORING, but becomes so true a wisdom in Lean-Start-Up!

“It is the path that counts, not the destination alone”. We have heard it all before, more than once. And even better, I am 100% confident that all entrepreneurs have mentioned it themselves to anyone who wanted to listen (and many who did not even) at the moment they quit their jobs and started their dreams.

But let us be honest immediately, all of those entrepreneurs are all the same and do not actively enjoy the path at all. They love the outcome, the end result, that is what they live for. They dread the hunt because that keeps them up at nights, but they love the kill so much that they keep bothering themselves with hunting, keeping a balance of love-and-hate in a daily routine. Off course that thrill of up and down, that complete rollercoaster, is what they need, by personality so to say. But the danger is aiming for goals too far in the future, being only content at achieved targets which have become too big. The thrill becomes higher, but the fall also deeper.

So far no news, these theories about the average breed of entrepreneurs have been written down by various authors already. And yes, I found them often very recognizable…

“Then where is the new insight here in this post?” one could ask while reading this. Well, I wanted to share my new-found wisdom on the old-school sayings about “the travel being the thing that counts”. This new-found wisdom lies for a large part in adopting “the lean start-up” as our companies method for new product development.

What makes the lean start-up method?

Product development according to lean start-up follow one of the main theories behind lean process management: everything that you deem logical in a process but what a (potential) client is not willing to pay surplus money for can be considered waste.

Translated into product development, lean theory is about functionalities in your product or components in your offered service. Developing in lean start-up is about making sure you add as little waste as possible in your product, thus building what the market asks for or quit trying in an early stage. The steps to lean-start-up are basically as follows:

1.       Invent the product in your head, the same way you always did it. Dream about the added value you want to deliver and find that niche gap you always knew was there.

2.       Make your idea as little as possible. Take away all parts of your idea that do not necessarily add to the core value you want to deliver, the core issue you want to resolve.

3.       Create a first prototype based on your stripped idea, the minimum viable product. This first prototype can be a 3d-printed model, a faked demo-software product or even just a set of slides explaining your basic idea.

4.       Start testing the value of your idea in the marketplace and start gathering feedback on the use, desires and feelings. But most importantly: start gathering a validated thought on what needs to be added before one starts to be paying money for its use!

5.       Keep on developing the product based on actual validated wishes from the marketplace.

Better fitting products with a higher value drive are developed this way while asking lesser funds and lower risk.

Then why this post about a link with “the path..”?

I can hear you think: “So far this post is still mostly about knowledge from other authors, where is your main climax?”

Well, here it is: using the lean start-up as a method for product development changes your periodically routine from long frustrated stints of investment and development leading to one big high or one big fail, to a process of short stints of investment and development to continuous moments of “YES” or “should be a little better”. You learn more about what you are doing and about the marketplace behind it, you work more relaxed with your developing crew, you focus only on the smallest details necessary because all other load has been eliminated, you… simply enjoy the path better.

Curious to your thoughts!

Doede van Haperen
www.lakran.com
www.again.nl
www.ehiring.nl

What makes simple in IT? Marketing versus real technology.

What makes simple in IT? Marketing versus real technology.

At the ending of 2014, I wrote a blog about the buzzword of that year being ‘disruptive’. Of course I am tempted now to wait until the end of December with publishing this blog, but why wait. It is already very clear to me what the buzzword for this year is in ‘my’ world of IT and cloud applications: ‘simple’.

Wherever you click, swipe or scroll, the word ‘simple’ seems to be added to everything the software market is producing at the moment (and yes, my software firm does the same, guilty as charged!). To my opinion though, there is usually one important part missing in the marketing. No one seems to really define what ‘simple’ is…

Honestly, so far I have seen only one firm doing a nice attempt at framing the buzz a little more than just buzzing along, being SAP in their statement of investing heavily in “consumer simple, while maintaining their business strong”. This statement kind of relates to impulses in my head that visualise a targeted definition of simple, being the way we do things at home on our sofa holding only a tablet pc. 

Beyond that I only find examples that:

1. say nothing at all, like “simple is aiming for user-centric”, which is to me nothing more than just replacing one buzzword with another;

2. are smart but hollow, like “we do things simpler”, sounds valid because it can always be more simple than today but actually is just consulting marketing, not a real brand promise; or even

3. are full-fledged lame, like naming a firm ‘simple blahblah’ and not even bother with an explanation or frame at all…

But then what? Because I am a little torn. Being a software entrepreneur (see my firm AGAIN by LAKRAN), I can highly appreciate the marketing value of a ‘simple’ promise, but as a services entrepreneur (see my firm LAKRAN ProcurementProfessionals) I greatly value the marketing effect of keeping your promises. Communicating a promise without a proper explanation is too easy to keep, or not possible to keep at all, so as an entrepreneur I think much value is wasted in the greater software market because of the lack of a clear vision on what is simple.

Considering all this, I just thought to start an attempt at focussing on some sort of definition to ‘simple’ in business software. Please feel free to react to this, might make a nice discussion.

A definition of the word simple can be found in a dictionary like ‘easy to understand or do’. But that automatically brings me to the core: what does one find easy. In checking synonyms I come a little further. Words are mentioned like ‘intelligible’, ‘understandable’, ‘unmistakable’, ‘lucid’. Checking definitions on those synonyms gives me a useful trail: “capable of being understood”.

When I take that last meaning and reflect that as a meaning in IT, I come to the understanding that ‘simplifying’ is “optimizing a software’s capabilities of being understood”. The question that remains left then is what makes a software better understood? A question that I honestly do not expect to be answering in the next few lines of text, because that is where technology finally gets the upper hand of marketing. What is actually possible? How is a software developer able to grasp that technology and make it work? How does a user relate to software? Who or what makes a user? How does a user think? Or is there more to understanding software than aiming at the users that handle it?

For now I would like to keep an open mind, and thus aim for more than just users. To me (being active in interorganisational software such as Suppliers and Buyers collaborating on one platform), understanding software should also be a ground rule for organisations, but also for the software that integrates to it, for the stakeholders that need to decide on it, for ...

And how do you make sure that a complex construct of stakeholders and technology is able to understand one piece of software? Simple (and yes, humor attempted in using this word;-)), by making sure the gap between “what they do and understand now” and “what they are supposed to do and understand with the new software” is as small as possible!

So to support a wide angle to ‘simple’ in business software, from here on I think that a proper definition (or so you want ‘goal’ to simple)  should be to “maximize output, while asking as minimal compromise/change as possible from all involved”.

Curious to your thoughts...

Doede van Haperen

www.again.nl

www.lakran.com

www.ehiring.nl

The Human Factor

The Human Factor

There is one topic, apart from entrepreneurship, that I can talk about for hours (if it is not days) on end without getting bored with myself. Trust me, those who really know me became aware of this the hard way.. This topic is the Vacancy to Pay (V2P) process for hiring of external staff.

While working on that topic with various clients over quite some years now, it keeps on surprising me how far the chemistry is usually off in this part of procurement. While the people are far from stupid, the orders and targets are often pretty clear, and even every once in a while there is someone involved with some sort of vision, still somehow the stakeholders don’t mix. Outcomes of projects for optimization can be easily predicted: pointing fingers, harsh words, unsatisfied operational agents and most of the time at least one of the stakeholders that is not reaching its goals. Off course I am talking about the Hiring-stakeholder triangle of Procurement, HR Management and IT.

Okay, sure thing that the blood types of the average agent in those three business functions do not really match. Reference frameworks of the daily work could not be further apart and the primary work focus is quite something else when you work with people, savings or technology. But usually the claim is made that optimizing their Hiring-V2P processes together is difficult because their targets are differently set. And then there is that surprise again…! Because how can it be, that departmental goals within a company do not match, and thus do not add up clearly to the company’s global goals?

For the sake of argument, let us just conclude that any professionally driven organisation simply does not let that happen, so there must be other reasons like politics, general understanding, priority settings, etcetera. To summarize: the Human Factor is involved!

When we realize this, we can also conclude that optimizing the V2P process, and organisational aspects surrounding it, for any organization is never a matter of having a proper solution-set alone. It takes some managed change efforts at stakeholder level to get there, where the focus is “common ground”. Below some of my experiences to start the right path towards successful V2P optimization:

1.       Counter one-sided focus: Get the V2P change lead by a person who is, in behaviour, not explicitly a product of one of the three blood types, but knows her/his way in all walks of business involved.

2.       Level the playing field and manage priorities: Make sure that this neutral lead does not only have access to the highest levels of internal clients, but also to the common problem owner(s) above that (SSC-owner or Board).

3.       Lead the way, don’t hassle on orders: Realize that above tips give some clear pointers on the best-fitting profile and seniority of the required resource to lead the project.

4.       Grow your playing field together: Start any project initiation phase by investing in identification of common goals before you start drawing towards end results. This can take some time and workshop effort, but will certainly pay off!

5.       Constructive solutions come from constructive teamwork: Realize that above tip gives some clear pointers on the best-fitting profiles of the mandated project members involved for the initiation.

6.       Joint success means joint failure: Eventually initiate the change from both business stakeholders Procurement and HR Management, make sure the success and failure rests on both shoulders.

7.       Solutions support vision: Involve IT from a process-driven perspective and make them accountable for their part in the success.

In the end, a proper and accepted V2P solution is driven by logic, usability, cost-cutting capabilities and, certainly not at the least, added value in managing the price/quality ratio in temporary staff. No matter what the interpretations on targets and goals are, these will (or at least should!) always stand firm in a project that carries vision. And so these should be covered by the right mind-set for all parties involved in getting there.

The Human Factor is usually the problem but can also make the difference..

Doede van Haperen
www.lakran.com
www.postulit.com

To turn best practice into best value

To turn best practice into best value

While working on several concepts and customer offers at the same time, you will sometimes find interesting challenges on your way. One that comes up more often is the challenge of “valuating” Best Practices. Within our IT practice, we are more and more getting used to (and our company even focusses primarily on this form of delivery in SAP P2P) best practice solutioning. But being honest on most Best Practice suppliers: in reality it can mainly be described as “OFTEN” practiced, instead of “BEST” practiced per se! All of us like to sell our customers the impression, but the moment they start asking supporting data…

As I have written about more often, within our Business Consulting practice, we keep ourselves pretty busy with searching into the depths of Best Value Procurement at the moment. These activities result in various customer engagements, offering and advising at both ends of the BVP-table. This new way of tendering, following less strict quality directions, challenges suppliers to offer their best knowledge into solutions. But the only way you can convince your customers about the added value, is by supporting it with facts. Where a regular tender is traditionally invented by the customer and the supplier only has to claim and convince experience, a BVP tender only knows a certain goal and the supplier is the party to invent, explain and claim added value.

As a basic thought, the concepts of Best Value Procurement and Best Practice Delivery fit like gloves and go together like a handshake. Unfortunately in reality, it is hard to let these two really meet. It is not expected that the number of BVP tenders will completely overgrow the regular tenders, so for some of the less flexible IT suppliers, there is still some hope that they can stay in business with some part of the market cornered in the old way of storytelling. But for the rest of us out there, the niche players that feel the need to add value and stand out in the crowd, it gives some nice new thought about approaching the concept of Best Practice Delivery.

Lately, I am working with a software company who seemed to have really understood this dilemma: Organizations need solutions not only because they want them but because they have an issue and need an actually performing setup to counter them. This company sells software for business process modelling, that is often used as a delivery channel for best practice templates. But besides the solution push, there is a feature incorporated in the software, that helps you as a supplier to monitor the actual performance of your process. So designing it, automatically also gives you the tools in hands to monitor your success. And the beauty is: this allows you to actually change your ways, optimize your delivery impact by improving your solution. So this software (but of course most of all this line of thinking) allows you to go grow your product through all phases: 1. get a lot of experience, 2. design a nice commonly used solution, 3. sell it, 4. monitor closely, 5. Evolve it, and 6. sell it better again and again.

Most competitors stop at #3 but we want to stand out...

Doede van Haperen
www.lakran.com
www.postulit.com

Turkey time and looking back

Turkey time and looking back

It has finally happened: the first day off in my Christmas break. The last (full) working days of the year have passed by last week in a rush. End-year stress in one of the projects we are involved in, last steps of strategy/planning for the foundations I work for, checking in with all of my colleagues, the usual that most of you will recognize I guess..

But sitting on the sofa, thinking back on a successful year for ourselves, you realize that it has been a strange year, business wise. The crises period of the previous years was still very much all around and still we were able to grow?! We had a good 2012, but starting last January, it was not at all sure how much we would be able to keep up with that trend. In hind side it is easy to conclude that 2013 was even better than the year before, but it took real focus and strategy. For myself I think we can conclude that 2013 was somewhat of a turnaround. My own time directly involved in clients' projects has been reduced. I wanted (and heard: needed?!) to make myself more available for strategy, new business, product development and vision forming. Struggling with all kinds of questions, I tried to evolve myself over the past 12 months from an entrepreneurial procurement consultant, into a business leader in procurement consultancy. There is of course still a lot to learn, the ones that really know me will be sure of that, there is much more to take in and even more to digest. But the first confidence is there that we are heading into a distinct and successful direction! This feeling shows in the growing pile of orders toward 2014..

Considering a little wider circle than only our little firms, I started wondering how others in (procurement) consulting have dealt with getting out of the crises, or are still dealing with it. Fortunately, Google has the answer as Always. There and then it struck me. How little entrepreneurs are actually able to change their ways.. So many of them have started a business based on professional skill alone, they had learned an (often great!) trick before and started doing that, and doing that successfully. But then economy struck. They keep on doing the same thing and doing it harder and faster to keep up with the slowing down numbers. But is that an answer to survive? The few main things that I recognized while reading were the following:

1. Growth in the business stopped by anxiety and lack of focus.
2. Innovation in the business stopped by capacity drain to catch every billable hour possible.
3. Sales opportunity slows further and further down by the previous 2 points.
4. And then there is the changing customer perspective in consulting, that is a wrecker all alone.

...I know, all in all no rocket science for the experienced organizational advisors out there, but still four main points that I am proud to say we have broken with during the last year. We were able to create room to work, create ability to focus and ability to think. These 'simply' paid out!

All fair, I did not do this all alone, besides our own hard-working winners, I used some strategy advisors and outside-perspectives to reach to this point. Helping me make decisions, reminding me of the things "we" have said... But it is a nice conclusion to draw at the end of a year. We had a plan, started in 2012, saw growth, drafted a better plan for 2013 and stuck with it.. Now the plans for 2014 are final, brushed up and ready to roll!

To all our business relations, we hope that 2014 brings the same insights, but first a Merry Christmas!

Doede van Haperen
www.lakran.com
www.postulit.com

Procurement fashion

Procurement fashion

Today I was triggered by a Twitter contact (thanks @RuudOlthof) on the suject of trends in Procurement. As it is with all other subjects, the last weeks of the year inspire all kinds of (self-proclaimed?) guru's to pick up their christall ball and predict the future based on trends. But what is a trend in Procurement?

Any business function is prone to trending and fashions. Where for instance in "sales" these trends tend  to be (wauw, say that 15 times in a row: "trends that tend...";-)) supported by a somewhat objectifyable base in market analyses, within "procurement" trends appear to come from nowhere other than these guru's. Procurement has a firm basis in the area of Logistics where the common ground seems to be the explainable flowing of goods, money and information. Then why is it that we implement high-value P2P tools only because our competitor does, or that we talk about Social Return in Procurement when we do not even master the KPI management of a simple outsourcing deal on a callcenter service? No logic at all in flowing of information, but just over-eagerly copycatting where someone else was having succes. Marketing is everything, not only in "sales", but also within "procurement"!

Procurement departments should be more into marketing techniques, also in their trends of execution. Where a sales department does a thourough study on the demographics and culture of a target audience before picking up on a trend, procurement should do so too. What is their internal market thinking, doing, expecting of them? What is the maturity of the organization, what can it handle and what cultural fits are there or are there not? And only in the end ask yourself "How to mix these with trending successes in the world or procurement?"

Still too often we are asked to help implement solutions that are basically only chosen because it is trendy, not because it is supported and really helping this organization to reach for the next level... Hopefully 2014 brings the trend of breaking with trends...

Doede van Haperen
www.lakran.com
www.postulit.com