Category: management

  • Australia’s lost business agility

    Australia’s lost business agility

    The recent digital competitive index by Swiss business school IMD, flagged a worrying trend in Australian industry, reporting the nation’s commercial sector is falling behind its international counterparts in digital competitiveness.

    Overall the IMD’s digital competitive rankings weren’t terrible for Australia with the nation only sliding one place to 15th globally from its 2018 place — albeit down from ninth five years ago.

    But the indicators that kept Australia in the top 20 were in the nation’s international student numbers and the national credit rating, hardly the mark of an economy on the leading edge.

    Jarringly, the survey ranked the nation’s business agility, 45th out of the 63 economies surveyed.

    IMD’s definition of an economy’s business agility includes the local industry’s adoption of big data, IT integration, concentration of robots and local companies’ ability to respond to opportunities among other factors.

    For those of us who’ve spent the last two decades proselytising about the importance of investing in technology, the fall was disappointing but unsurprising as Australia has long been lagging in its digital investments.

    The answers to why this is happened over a twenty year period that saw Australia become one of the world’s richest economies lies mainly in the investment priorities and opportunities of the nation’s small business and corporate sectors.

    With the exception of the mining industry, Australian corporations aren’t globally focused. Most of the nation’s large corporations are domestically facing service providers like banks, telcos, toll road operators and supermarkets which sees them focused on maximising local profits rather than competing in international markets.

    Most of them also operate as duopolies or monopolies, so much so that in most sectors, Australia can be described as the ‘Noah’s Ark of business’.

    Added to that, those dominant local corporates have shareholders addicted to high dividends., in turn reducing the funds available for reinvesting in the businesses.

    When Australian corporates do invest in digital technologies, it’s almost always to slash costs. A mindset which leads them into disastrous deals with global IT outsourcers and tech vendors.

    Of course continual failure on that level doesn’t matter when you can pass the costs of failure onto customers by increasing milk prices or credit card fees.

    For the small business sector there’s a slightly different set of constraints, however with most SMB’s also being local service providers they haven’t needed to invest to stay competitive.

    But small businesses trying to compete in global markets, or looking to invest invest, face another problem — accessing capital.

    Over the last 30 years, Australia’s small business sector has been frozen out of bank lending with loans only accessible to proprietors able to pledge 100% collateral — usually home equity — against their loans.

    For providing effectively risk free loans Australian banks charged handsomely, helping make them the profitable banks on the planet, something that was missed in the weak, and dare one say naive, conclusions of the Hayne Royal Commission into the nation’s finance industry.

    The upshot of the banks’ refusal to lend to small businesses means their investment and subsequent productivity has stagnated and fewer have been able to compete in global markets.

    So Australia’s fall in competitive indexes isn’t surprising and it’s an added handbrake on the economy as the government struggles with flat income growth, stagnant private sector employment rates and declining GDP per capita.

    Fixing these roadblocks is wholly up to government — the banking system needs to be reformed, taxation policies need to be overhauled and serious consideration has to be made about breaking up the nation’s more inefficient and dominant corporates to stimulate domestic competition and innovation.

    Sadly, there’s little recognition of the problem among Australian’s politicians, bureaucrats, business leaders or media and, one suspects, there’s no appetite for meaningful reform.

    So Australia will muddle along for the moment, but its hard to see how living standards can be maintained as the country’s business sector stagnates.

    Which is the real warning from the IMD.

    Similar posts:

  • GE’s Predix predicament – an industrial giant finds software is hard

    GE’s Predix predicament – an industrial giant finds software is hard

    Industrial giant General Electric is finding software is hard, reports Business Insider.

    The company, which former CEO Jeff Immelt declared was a ‘digital industrial company’ is finding its Predix software system and associated cloud services are far more complex and difficult to manage than expected.

    Back in 2015, I toured the head office of GE Software outside of Silicon Valley and interviewed the division’s boss, Bill Ruh.

    Ruh was upbeat about the internet of things – or Industrial Internet in GE’s terminology – with an estimate the IoT was worth $14 billion to the company as it found new efficiencies and markets.

    Today that vision’s looking a little tarnished as the company struggles with a 25% share price drop and a self imposed ‘time out’ on Predix’s development.

    GE’s IoT predicament illustrates just how complex the engineering and management challenges of the Internet of Things really are.

    The software needs of a sensor in a train brake pad are very different to that of fuel pump in a jet engine or the blade controllers of wind turbine.

    Added to that is the challenge of organising, storing and securing the information these devices collect. This is the main reason why GE is moving its data management services to AWS and Microsoft Azure.

    That a company with the resources and top level commitment of GE is struggling with this underscores the complexity of the internet of things. That complexity is something every IoT advocate and connected device vendor fails to consider at their, and their customer’s, peril.

    Similar posts:

    • No Related Posts
  • Twitter’s curse of management

    Twitter’s curse of management

    Today Twitter celebrates the tenth anniversary of hashtags.

    What’s notable about the story is how Twitter’s management thought hashtags were a ‘nerdy idea’

    Twitter has been consistent in ignoring its user community despite every successful feature of the service coming from the platform’s grass roots.

    It’s hard not to think Twitter’s greatest barrier to success is its leadership.

     

    Similar posts:

    • No Related Posts
  • A monument to a modern pharaoh: Links of the week

    A monument to a modern pharaoh: Links of the week

    Starting a new job makes keeping the website up to date difficult but it is possible to get some reading done. Some of this week’s highlights included the auto industry’s changing business model, inside Microsoft’s Vista mistake and Apple’s memorial to a modern pharaoh.

    A monument to a modern pharaoh

    Apple Park is an anachronism wrapped in glass, tucked into a neighborhood says Wired’s Adam Rodgers. However his main point is Apple’s new five billion dollar new headquarters is really just a memorial to Steve Jobs and his ego.

    Dissecting a dying business model

    The car industry is one sector in a perfect storm of disruption and Australia’s General Motors Holden is slashing its dealer network to deal with declining demand and technological change.

    Notably in the story is what happens to the dealers when their contract with GMH is cut with the franchisees having to hand over tools, signage and manuals. It shows just how the corporation controlled its franchisees.

    Where Vista went wrong

    This blog has long maintained that Microsoft’s release of the Vista operating system was not only the biggest mistake the company ever made but also gave an opening for Apple, Google and Amazon to seize the computer market.

    So a post from developer Terry Crowley a former Microsoft developer is an insight into how the process went wrong. His view on internal cultures for companies facing market disruption is telling.

    “In fact, the more power you hold, the more accountable you need to be to open yourself to honest challenge on either facts or logic. This is even more critical in times of rapid change because the facts and consequential logic might change. Accountability and transparency means you are able to reassess your conclusions and react quickly.”

    The Life and times of Jerry Brown

    An excellent interview between US political commentator David Axelrod and California governor Jerry Brown ranges over topics from Ronald Reagan’s rise, today’s hostility to government and his Asian travels while in the political wilderness. It’s worth a listen.

    Similar posts:

    • No Related Posts
  • Clash of car cultures

    Clash of car cultures

    With tech companies piling into the automotive industry – with varying results – it’s not surprising the established auto manufacturers are looking at making alliances with their potential Silicon Valley competitors.

    Ford’s alliance with Google was one of the most promising in the sector, however it fell apart in a classic clash of cultures as Automotive News reports.

    One of the key differences in the cultural crash was the priority of the two businesses – for Ford this is about the future of the company while for Google autonomous vehicles are just another moonshot.

    Coupled with that, Ford are locked into their traditional products and have a sceptical Wall Street to keep happy as Automotive News describe when the two company’s CEO’s met.

    In early December 2015, Fields came to Silicon Valley to discuss the deal with Google co-founder Sergey Brin. In a region where there are so many electric cars that office workers often argue over charging stations to plug in their Teslas and Nissan Leafs during the workday, Fields showed up at Google with an army of staffers in a fleet of Lincoln Navigators. Sources said Fields and his team were armed with a plan to make a big splash out of the partnership news, and much of the discussion centered around making an impression on Wall Street.

    With Google being generally secretive about their ‘moonshot’ programs, it’s not surprising Sergey Brin and his team were perturbed by Ford planning to make a big announcement about the partnership. Had the auto maker done its due diligence, their delegation would have been a lot less ambitious and lot more circumspect.

    Ford’s casting around for tech partners also illustrates the management didn’t understand the tech industry’s politics and dynamics, not only do they have a long standing agreement with Microsoft on their Sync product but they were also touting an alliance with Amazon to incorporate Alexa into their cars.

    While there’s undoubtedly some revisionism in the Automotive News story – there’s always some airbrushing of history when a new CEO takes over – the tale does illustrate the difficulties facing business owners and managers when building alliances with others who don’t necessarily have the same objectives.

    A clash of cultures is always tough to overcome and that’s often the biggest challenge facing industrial giants like Ford as they deal with a rapidly changing world.

    Similar posts:

    • No Related Posts