The somewhat barbaric title of this column in fact conceals a reality that concerns a certain proportion, not to say a certain number, of companies: the concept is correct, but its implementation or marketing is “off the ground”.
Let’s look at concepts that have reached a certain intellectual maturity but are not “taking off” in operational or commercial terms. There may be many reasons for this, but certain constants seem to emerge:
• The approach is based on fantasy or imagination, without any technical testing.
• The product is too complex for rational use by a “lambda” public.
• The quality/price ratio is not adapted to a specific market in which the competition has a more attractive product.
• The buyer has no freedom of action, being captive to the supplier because of a “clever” concept of retention.
Certain “problems” of this type can also be found in the service sector, where processes and flows are correct but totally prohibitive . The increasingly “Anglo-Saxon” vision and approach to business, and the judicialization of the business world, are pushing companies to put risk management and operational compliance before operational matters, at enormous cost and with the result that certain operations are avoided. As a result, processes and flows are correct “in law”, but totally unacceptable in practice.
In an official market (and we’re not talking about grey, opaque or parallel markets), no one today disputes the need to be “compliant”, to respect standards, to avoid major risks, be they industry-related or decreed by the authorities. In this way, standards have brought a form of harmonization to concepts and processes, avoiding major setbacks for companies.
However, getting it right conceptually does not bring success, nor does it guarantee operational efficiency. By way of example, certain standards (DIN, ISO, etc.) enable us to have “certified” processes, but not necessarily efficient in accounting terms. If the mere fact of complying with all certifications led to increased sales, or even profits, this would have been known long ago. So, we can conclude that the concept serves as a basis for the operation, but does not solve it…
Certain operational biases can produce exactly the opposite of what is intended. Another example of a “concept” is participation. Involving as many people as possible in the development of a process can be stimulating and highly productive. Conversely, the decision-making and execution process should be as direct as possible and restricted to a small number of people.
Environmental standards are a case in point: when a measure becomes punitive, and therefore non-incentive, or when an ecological process makes day-to-day work much more complex, it’s a safe bet that most people concerned will quickly want to find palliatives, rightly or wrongly.
Companies that are successful in the long-term work in a form of duality, making compromises an asset and pragmatism an ally. This reminds me of what one of my teachers said about knowing a lot of highly educated people, but not necessarily intelligent ones. Maybe that’s the difference between the conceptual and the operational.
Enjoy your reading and see you soon.