A New Model For Global Business: Winner's ProposalA New Model For Global Business: Winner's Proposal

First, cornerstones relates to a business that can only grow vertically. Rather, I believe we must have a foundation that will weather hurricanes, economic turmoil, partner failure, while at the same time allow us to expand the depth of our business, the breadth of our business, and appeal to the correct (dynamically defined) customer base. So rather than cornerstones, I would build my business on a floating platform.

I'm in agreement that CRM is (and I believe has been) dead. We keep trying to ride that pony, but the problem is the customer is not willing to allow you to manage their relationship. But don't scrap the whole idea--just change the acronym to Customer-Managed Relationships. This means your business must be able to move to meet the needs of the customer. Also, there seems to be a belief that customers have evolved to a point where they demand what they want, when they want it, how they want it, and where the want it. Is that really new? How many customers from 40 years ago do you know that said, "Well, you just go build something and I'll buy it even if it's not what I want"? The truth is there is a lot more buying power and economic wealth in the hands of a larger population. There has also been a tremendous amount of deregulation allowing customers direct access to information and products.

So I recommend as a plank in the platform, Customer-Managed Relationship. This will require some real planning and forecasting by business. More importantly, it will require understanding your current and target customer base. It will also require some risk-taking. You must be able to understand, communicate with, and continually adapt to the customer base and the potential market.

I also recommend Partner-Relationship Management, which includes suppliers, even the up- and downstream partners that you may not have direct interface with. The ability to be agile and provide the "right" offering requires all parties involved be vested in the success. This will be global, but the real key will be the partnerships. Many of these partnerships will require a new mentality around working with the competition.

A key plank is the institution's ability to plan and be able to proactively react to the changing market. Not necessarily the first or the best, but the right (defined by the customer) offering will be the winner. Too often, organizations look for an "anchor" product or account. An anchor is very often exactly what this type of plan can turn into, not allowing the organization to move. We have used terms like architecture and strategy, and have forgotten how to effectively plan. Planners (sometimes called visionaries) may be the most important plank in the platform.

The ability to show the value add of the product to the customer, and address the WIIFM (What's In It For Me?) factor for the customer. For years, organizations have tried to address WIIFM for their employees but have not really addressed it for their customers. Institutions have spent most of their resources trying to show how they stack up against their competition.

The final plank that many businesses amazingly overlook today is developing a pliable business plan that actually provides a viable model for the institution. Setting expectations of tremendous growth and then not achieving them has unraveled more than a few companies.

The original implementation of some of these concepts may have been Sears, Roebuck & Co. Its plan was to provide customers with a value add that provided convenience. Since it controlled much of the supply chain, its partner management was more of a dictatorship than a relationship. The catalog concept was a huge success and made Sears a name everyone knew. However, Sears set up some cornerstones or set the anchor and found itself outpaced by competition and innovation. Great ideas and plans have to continuously be evolved.

Recently there have been some interesting approaches to appealing to the customers, which has caused the competition to react. Reaction is typically not cost effective and sometimes not well-thought-out. For example, a 10-year warranty on a cheap car that then caused the other manufacturers to increase their warranties. Amazing how they reacted to the attack rather than highlighting the fact that the cost of ownership for the more expensive car was much less than the cheap car even with the longer warranty!

These are just my thoughts, and since I'm not a doctor in economics nor a CEO for a large corporation, they may be all wrong, but they sure seem sound.

John Lillard