Businesses constantly struggle with capacity issues. Manufacturers seek access to the ideal manufacturing capacity, and service providers look to employ the optimum number of employees.  Both understand their labor spend is a key component of a company’s profit formula. So how is the entrepreneur to scale in an uncertain economy?

Those who had not experienced rapid market erosion previous to the liquidity crisis learned an important lesson; high fixed costs can be truly catastrophic when demand contracts quickly. Employers must marry labor costs with demand. There are several steps one can take to mitigate labor capacity risk:

Optimize Labor Efficiently- Most entrepreneurs intuitively understand that they should push low value activities down through (or out) of the organization.  Senior managers should aim for “zero administration”, where virtually all of their time is spent improving service or profitability, and not loading paper in the copier.  A good administrative assistant is worth their weight in gold. Similar thinking should apply to all; all work should be allocated to the appropriate staff based on their skill level, experience and cost.

Outsource Low Value Activities Based on Demand- The zeal for outsourcing is far from over. Organizations are not only seeking lower costs, they are looking to move resources outside their organization so that they can scale  their bandwidth quickly. Look for outsourcing partners who have infrastructure that can move, (in real time) with your business. Such organizations typically have an existing core competency in the services provided, including technology and human capital geared towards executing such work.

Increase Weighting of Incentives to Total Cash Compensation-Those who only provide subjective bonuses are actually doing themselves a disservice. Practically the entire Fortune 500 have moved to some type of performance based pay. Part of the rationale is to only pay out incentives when an organization reaches certain performance thresholds.  Failure to have a significant portion of cash compensation in incentives (20% or more) creates fixed costs and puts stress on a business and on employees. Fluctuations in demand require drastic action such as lay offs or furloughs.

Measure Labor Meticulously- Labor KPI’s are amongst the easiest predictive indicators to measure, and directly affect the bottom line. Examples include overtime, labor dollars per unit, direct labor, indirect labor and labor as a percentage of revenue.

Beware of External Demand Indicators- Within virtually every business segment there are external measures that provide context on future demand.  Add external indicators to your scorecard/dashboarding system so that you can stay in tune to the market place. Government websites, trade associations, and private research organizations offer a litany of statistics.  Plot such data  against company revenue to find which numbers correlate with business growth.

A federal judge’s recent ruling that elements of the health care bill are unconstitutional has heightened the health care debate.  Republicans, feeling their oats and perceiving a mandate are threatening to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

It was only after my friend and colleague Dr. Bala Chandrasekhar explained most of the information in this post to me that I first came to understand the fundamental problem.  Our medical community suffers from perverse incentives. The system does not reward results; it rewards the extension of care.

In the world’s best hospitals, such as the Mayo Clinic, physicians collaborate, in a finite space, where information is shared and decisions are made. In the overwhelming majority of cases, patients are shuttled around, from general practitioners, to specialist, and from one laboratory to the next.  Information about the patient’s medical history is rarely shared, an approach that does not support the best medical outcome for patients.

The advent of electronic medical records and new rules governing payments is the impetus to consolidation in a business so unsophisticated, that many medical files and prescriptions are managed with a piece of paper, pen and fax machine.  The institution of medicine needs to undergo radical change, and the prospects of larger organizations managing our care means that the stakes are getting higher.

Unlike professionally managed businesses, there are massive variations in best practices in medical groups.  Physicians hate oversight, and we pay the price in an estimated 100,000 people a year dying in U.S. hospitals from pure negligence (errors).

It is intuitive to all of us that raising medical care costs are unsustainable, yet the numbers are daunting.  The convergence of an aging populace and exponential health care inflation will double Medicare costs within a decade.  By 2020, Medicare and Medicaid are projected to increase from 21% to over 30% of federal spending (non-interest payments), and that doesn’t include massive spending by state and local governments. Proponents argue that we have the best medical care in the world; but at what cost? A knee replacement that costs upward of $40,000 in the U.S., costs $5,000 in Germany. We all want the best health care, but at some point common sense must prevail.

According to the bipartisan congressional report -Restoring America’s Future, “slowing the growth of health spending is realistic. Other advanced countries have substantially lower health spending as a share of GDP, while still achieving measures of access and quality that often exceed those in the United States. Although a uniquely American approach is required, these comparisons show what is achievable.” Health care reform focuses on capping costs for doctors and reforming various forms of insurance coverage (including universal coverage). It does little to reform the underlying behavioral issues that are driving up health care costs.  The fee for service model is dated and irrelevant.

If these costs are not constrained, our fiscal mess will get much worse, and our businesses and personal wealth will be drained by massive tax increases.  Small business owners, who bear the brunt of a bloated health care bureaucracy in the form of inflated health insurance premiums must advocate for more meaningful reforms.  Our economic future depends on it.

When the Internet was first thrust upon us, we didn’t know what to make of it. Nor did we know which of the entrants of the budding new market would win the beauty contest.  Our intuition was that someone (such as AOL, Netscape, Microsoft, Google, and Yahoo) would, and that the technology would be a game changer.

There are times when a technology is bigger than the first-to-market entrant who introduces it to us.  A current case in point is Toyota, a company who has been vilified in light of their massive quality and public relations problems. Yet Toyota has my attention, as they are braced to create disruption.

I recently bought a Lexus hybrid. I didn’t really buy it for environmental reasons, although reducing my carbon footprint was certainly a bonus. I bought it because I wanted all the toys, Lexus service and quality and was intrigued by the concept of 35 miles to the gallon (in a volatile world where the price of oil is at risk).

At its core, strategy is about managing trade-offs, and this technology provides the potential for consumers to gain the most, and give up the least.  I believe hybrid technology will emerge as a breakthrough, cross-over technology adopted by the majority of drivers in the U.S. in the next 5-7 years.  Electric cars are novel, yet inconvenient.  Americans are not going to adapt to sitting at charging stations for 2 hours, nor will they settle for a lack of power.  U.S. oil producers will not support any material shift to hydrogen, or corn, or recycled Twinkies, or whatever.  While the Prius was perceived as small and sluggish, the Lexus (a Toyota brand) is neither, and proves that the underlying technology can appeal to the masses. Toyota is way ahead of the pack in hybrid technology and I believe the day will come when it will provide a significant competitive advantage.

Of course this post is not about hybrids at all, it is about identifying breakthrough technologies that can disrupt an industry. Often, fortunes are made by the purveyor of a technology, as well as others who create alliances or business that can feed off it.

There are entire cottage industries being built to support such technologies, including the myriad of developers creating apps for The App Exchange (SalesForce) and Apple App Store.

Will Apple beat Microsoft in business computing (the answer is already clear in consumer products)?  Will cloud computing completely alter the technology landscape in ways we can’t even comprehend? Which mobile technologies will change the way we work and live?

What changes in health care technologies will revolutionize the way we care for the sick?  What emerging technologies could reshape your industry? What new delivery systems will improve the way your customers do business (or consume products)?  The answer will come based on who can create the best balance of trade-offs and win the beauty contest.

Without question, the number one issue I wrestle with as a strategic planning practitioner is managing the tension between strategy and tactics. The classical origins of the word strategy were set in ancient Greece (strategia), which means the “office of general-command”.  In a more practical business sense, the strategy is more about the battle to be fought, and the tactics the conduct of engagement, or how the war will be won.

I have participated in strategic planning off-sites that were highly strategic and ones where tactics were more emphasized. Ironically, it is not the facilitator who fosters such a distinction. It is the preparation of the client that drives strategic thought and innovation.

For example, identifying core customers is one of the most compelling strategic topics. Through the 90’s, McDonald’s management focused on expanding their footprint. Real estate developers and franchisees became McDonalds most valued audience[i]. They became a de facto virtual sales force.  The company focused its internal resources on building stores, and providing rigorous standards that could be replicated by franchisees.  By 2003, sales began to slump as an onslaught of rivals (including regional competition) began to offer more varied menu options.

McDonalds reallocated their resources to be more consumer centric. The company organized into regions, created new store design options and varied menus based on regional tastes (even offering porridge in the U.K.).  McDonald’s same store sales have steadily increased for the last 7 years.

McDonald’s case well exemplifies the marriage between strategy and tactics. Once the war was identified (through research), the methods or tactics (including redesign of stores and menus) were well executed.

The balance between strategy and tactics is sometimes misunderstood.  Market intelligence is severely lacking in most organizations I work with.  Clients don’t know what they don’t know, and they may not be willing to make the investment required to research trends.  Success is a dangerous tonic; it leads the marketer to believe he (or she) knows his market better than any other, which can be both a blessing and a curse.

Many organizations (even McDonald’s in this case) wait until their business erodes before investing in the requisite research. Yet strategy is clearly garbage in and garbage out, and a lack of understanding about customers, and their changing needs can be fatal.

Organizations can also take more practical steps to understand their universe. Sales teams should be aware of developments with competitors, and should actively communicate their movements with management and other sales people.  Leadership teams should be intentional about debriefing what they learn at trade conferences and from customers and vendors.  Companies that are best-in-class in terms of business intelligence have more formalized approaches to gathering and sharing market information.

One of the roles of the strategist it to narrow the uncertainties, and create focus on the markets, products and methods that will yield the most likely positive outcomes. Having actionable data is the means to that end.

Regardless of the quality of the strategy, entrepreneurs need to be completely consumed with execution (tactics).  High growth companies are adept at managing corporate initiatives which build infrastructure and support the sustainability of the organization. Such companies track such initiatives (and resulting action items) and KPI’s with fervor and discipline.

---

[i] Stress Test Your Strategy-Simmons Harvard Business Review November 2009