Designing an Online Experience

I have been doing some work with online experience design lately and was reminded about the 7+-2 rule.

I remember reading somewhere that the human brain can deal with between 5 and 9 (7+-2) ideas at a time. So when you present information, it needs to be broken down into 7+-2 chunks. Put another way, you have 7+-2 goes to convince your reader that you have the answer to their problem, before they simply click away to another page.

Finally, here are a few useful sites for online experience execution:

css Zen Garden: clever site transformations using CSS (hint: click on the different layouts listed on the right hand panel).
Web Design Inspiration: a Flickr stream of images of well designed sites. Perhaps the most interesting part is reading different peoples comment reactions to each site - add your own.
css Beauty: css web design resources.

Situational Leadership

Situational Leadership is a model developed Ken Blanchard and Paul Hersey which suggests that we need to adapt our leadership style to the specifics of each situation and/or follower. Looking at the amount of support behaviour and directive behaviour called for in the situation, it arrives at 4 leadership styles:

Directing: Leaders define the roles and tasks of the 'follower', and supervise them closely. Decisions are made by the leader and announced, so communication is largely one-way. (Suitable for staff with low competence and low commitment.)
Delegating: Leaders are still involved in decisions and problem-solving, but control is with the follower. The follower decides when and how the leader will be involved. Read more on delegating. (Suitable for staff with high competence and high commitment.)
Supporting: Leaders pass day-to-day decisions, such as task allocation and processes, to the follower. The leader facilitates and takes part in decisions, but control is with the follower. (Suitable for staff with high competence and variable commitment.)
Coaching: Leaders still define roles and tasks, but seeks ideas and suggestions from the follower. Decisions remain the leader's prerogative, but communication is much more two-way. (Suitable for staff with some competence and low commitment.)

Is the Digital Music Revolution a Return to the 1930s?

Here is a fascinating article charting the evolution of the recorded music industry, and suggesting that it has gone full circle to resemble what it was like in the 30's and 40's.

Is the Digital Music Revolution a Return to the 1930s: "In many respects, thecurrent state of music resembles the 1930s and 1940s… returning to EPs and singles, fewer LPs, and a growth in live entertainment. If so, we may be poised for a rebirth of creativity. Much like the early radio stations using music to sell soap, blogs use Mp3s to sell advertisement."

It is nice to see someone take a more holistic view of the role of the Internet in an industry. When most writers simply describe the Internet as a force of creative destruction, this article provides a least one example of where there are more useful ways of looking at the situation. So next time you are faced with a seemingly helpless case of creative destruction, look a little further back into the industries past and see if you can't find a more constructive way through.

The top 50 thinkers - Times Online

TimesOnline recently published a list of the top 50 thinkers in business for 2007. You can read The top 50 thinkers - Times Online or visit thinkers50.com to see the list.

These are the people to whom the herd think you should be listening. It is worth being at least aware of what each of them are saying. More interesting, I think is guessing who will be on the 2009 list - where are the new ideas coming from. You can start to vote at thinkers50.com already.

NewCo / OldCo

I blogged recently on the 4 Horizons approach to corporate project portfolio management. One of the questions that frequently arises with Horizon 3 and Horizon 4 projects is whether you should try and launch these within the existing business, or within a separate start-up management structure.

The attractions for doing it within a separate management structure are reasonably obvious:
1. You can bring in fresh people with fresh ideas (rather than the existing problem who may be seen as part of the problem rather than part of the solution),
2. Who can start with a blank slate, and
3. Are not encumbered by the daily grind of problems in the old world which take up the valuable time they should be spending on developing the new proposition.

However, the disadvantages are also significant:
1. The staff working in the existing business will become alienated by (and potentially obstructive towards) the new idea,
2. It will be hard to motivate them to work on what will undoubtedly be perceived as a less exciting proposition, which will not get the investment they want to fix the problems they face every day, and
3. Ultimately (and possibly more importantly) this lack of enthusiasm in the existing business will spill over into its clients, who may start to look more actively at competing propositions. (The result being that by the time the new proposition is ready to launch you have lost the advantage of your existing client base!)

Branding the new offering becomes a complex decision. Do you retain links with your existing brand (and hence customer-base) and live with the juxtaposition of the new and the old under a single heading, or do you go for an entirely new brand with all of the investment that that requires.

At some point, if you try to separate your new and existing propositions too much, you are effectively funding a start-up from the profits generated by your existing business. At this stage the shareholders might legitimately ask why you did not return the excess funds to them so that they could decide for themselves if they wanted to invest in the risk inherent in a start-up venture. (In most cases, it would probably be inappropriate for them to do so as the risk profiles of the existing and new businesses would be so far apart.)

However, there is a win-win situation where the "new" proposition can be positioned as breathing new life into the "old" proposition. This is particularly the case where the new proposition is:
1. A product line extension, especially where the new product complements and enhances the existing product, or
2. A vertical extension, forwards or backwards into the value chain, where the new proposition represents an improved component supplied into the old proposition, or a revolutionary way of packaging and selling the old proposition.
(The launch of Egg by Prudential is a well-known example which attempted to achieve both a product line and vertical extension in a single new startup business.)

Whichever way you go, Horizon 3 and Horizon 4 projects require particularly strong leadership to inject new life into a business without alienating the those staff and customers who are heavily invested in the existing business. The aim being to bring your existing staff and customers along through a journey, rather than to canibalise them and risk destroying whatever value you have already created.

Oganisational Blindspots

There exists a hierarchy between data and strategy. A breakdown between any two layers results in an organisational blindspot.

SIKID (Strategy / Insight / Knowledge / Information / Data) – leave out any of them and you are left with ASE (“A stupid Expense”)[1]

This results in 4 Organisational Blindspots:

From which, if any, of these does your organisation suffer, and what can you do about it?

[1] Adapted from: http://www.wilsonweb.com/wct1/980515wunderman.htm

The Strategist as Playwright

When asked, "What is a Strategist and what does he / she do?", I find this analogy useful.

The CEO and Executive Team as the King and His Court: The King and his court decide that they want a play to entertain them. They decide broadly on the theme of the play, and agree to invest a certain amount of venture capital.

The Strategist as Playwright: The Playwright is then brought in to write the story around the theme. The playwright understands the King and his Court's requirements, looks at what other plays have already been written on similar themes, and gauges the prevailing sentiments of the play-watching public. Based on this, the playwright constructs the plot and sub-plots that develop the theme, and creates the characters necessary to implement it. The script (strategic plan) then pulls all the elements together to show how the play will unfold.

The Financial Planner as Producer: The producer then steps in to calculate the cost of producing the play, as well as the expected returns. A budget is prepared, and actors are recruited. Estimates are made of the size of crowd that will be drawn, and what they can be expected to pay to see the play. A cost / benefit analysis is prepared to ensure that the play will be profitable.

The Business Architect as Set Designer: The set designer then designs the theater and stage. The theatre must be large enough to accommodate the expected audience size and must have an appropriate balance of standing room, normal and balcony seats. The stage, wings, flies and props must also be designed to allow for sufficient room for the actors to move about, as well as sufficient room and mechanics to manipulate the set according to the dictates of the script.

The Programme Manager as Director: The director makes sure that all the actors know their lines and when and where they need to be to deliver them. He also ensures that the props and set are ready in time and integrate appropriately with the movements of the actors. The director takes final responsibility for pulling it all together and making it happen.

The Employees as Actors: The actors not only have to learn and deliver their lines, but they must also interpret them, under the guidance of the director, and bring them to life. During the live production of the play, the actors are required to make ongoing but minor adjustments to compensate for the mood of the audience as well as any slight variations on the part of their fellow players.

The Market as Audience: It is the audience who pay their money to see the play, thereby hopefully making it profitable. After the playwright, producer, set designer, director and actors have collaborated to work their magic, the audience receives the play and also stands in judgement. If the play does not please the audience, word will get out, and attendance at subsequent performances will be poor. Alternatively, if early audiences love the play, it can expect to play to full houses. The audience thus is the arbiter of the financial success or failure of the play.

The Analyst as Critic: Peppered throughout the audience you can expect to find a number of critics. These could be journalists, whose published opinions on the play could have an even more marked effect on future audience turnout, or they could be fellow playwrights looking to understand their competing plays and the audience reaction to them. Either way, the response of the critics is an invaluable indication of expected audience response.

In practice of course, life is much more complicated. In modern organisations, the division of labour is much less clear. For example, and entrepreneur frequently plays the roles of King and Court, Playwright, Producer, Director, Set Designer, Director and Actor in a one man show. In large organisations too, roles frequently don't exist or overlap in different ways. In fact, I would never suggest that anyone limit themselves to one role only. Rather, you will see an achieve more if wear different hats at different times and try to keep all perspectives in mind. Finally, of course, the world changes far too fast to support out simple analogy. In response, the Playwright writes the script as the Actors act it out, the Audience steps onto the stage to participate from time to time, the Actors ad lib in response to the chaos, the Set Designer redesigns the set during the show, while the Director and Producer frantically try to keep it all under control. Ah well, no analogy is perfect...

The inspiration for this analogy was taken from the film "Shakespeare in Love".

The 5 Levels of Strategic Orientation

Most people would agree that Strategic Orientation is a positive factor for organisations. But what does that mean? How do you determine how Strategically Oriented your organisation is, and what can you do to improve the situation?

There are 5 levels of Strategic Orientation. Each one builds on the previous one, providing you with a road map and a measure of progress towards Strategic Orientation. The 5 levels are:

Engaging in Strategic Dialogue
Strategic Planning
Strategic Measurement
Developing a Strategic Calendar
Integrating Strategic Dialogue

Each of these is discussed below.

1. Engaging in Strategic Dialogue

The first step towards Strategic Orientation is, very simply, to start talking about strategy. According to Dr. Robert Kaplan (personal communication, 2000), 85% of Executive Teams spend less than one hour per month discussing strategy. If an executive team can't find the time to lift their sights of the day to day operational and tactical issues to talk about strategy, then it should come as not surprise that it will not become an organisational priority. The organisation is likely to remain in "fire-fighting" mode indefinitely.

It is easy enough to actually measure the amount of time executives spend discussing strategy. The optimum time will, of course, depended on the competitiveness of the industry in which they operate (refer to Porter's 5 Forces model for one method of determining industry competitiveness). Sheer length of discussion though, whilst a good start, is not enough. It is important to focus on the quality of the discussion as well. Quality Strategic Dialogue requires continuing questioning of assumptions (ref: Senge for Double Loop Accounting, Balancing Advocacy and Inquiry). More complex techniques, such as Scenario Planning are also useful tools for increasing the quality of Strategic Dialogue.

2. Strategic Planning

Once the Strategic Dialogue is underway, it is important to formalise the outcome in a Strategic Plan. This should be a written document summarising the Strategic Dialogue under at least the following broad headings:

External Analysis: A shared view on the external environment as it is relevant to the company. Again, Porter's 5 Forces Model provides a useful framework here. The external analysis should also include a shared assessment of the opportunities and threats which the organisation faces.
Internal Analysis: A shared view of the internal state of the company. The McKinsey 7-S Model may provide a useful framework. The internal analysis should also include a shared assessment of the company's strengths and weaknesses.
Vision: Some form of vision statement or mission statement is required to describe the company's ideal future state. This ideal future state should be cognisant of both he internal and external analysis, drawing on the company's strengths to take advantage of opportunities.
Implementation Plan: Having formulated a vision of the future, the company needs to plan specific initiatives to achieve it. The Implementation Plan should take the form of a project of projects - a high level plan reflecting the achievement of specific strategic goals.

Most organisations have strategic plans, but often these are shelved - never to be looked at until next years Strategic Planning conference. Often, they are also considered to be top secret, highly confidential, and only to be seen by a few select top managers. It is not surprising then, that such plans are seldom successfully implemented. To be successful, the Strategic Plan must be widely communicated to everyone who is to be involved in its execution, and held up for scrutiny, challenge and modification. The only good Strategic Plan is a living Strategic Plan.

To measure the success of your Strategic Plan, you could measure:

The percentage of employees who have read the Strategic Plan.
The percentage of employees who can tell you, more or less, what the Strategic Plan is, without having to refer back to the document.
The percentage of corporate projects or initiatives which are directly aligned with and/or indicated by the Strategic Plan.

For a strategic planning and management process which can encompass all 5 levels of Strategic Orientation, see The Strategic Learning Model.

3. Strategic Measurement

Once the Strategic Plan is in place, it is very helpful to be able to measure its success. This can be measured along two dimensions:

Are we doing what we set out to do in the plan. (Input Measures)
Is what we set out to do in the plan have the effect that we anticipated. (Output Measures)

The Balanced Scorecard provides a systemic methodology for creating Strategic Measurements. It is most important though, to ensure that you have at least one measure for every significant aspect of your Strategy. About 16 measures is usually ideal - more than 25 measures might suggest a lack of strategic focus and become difficult to manage, and less that 12 almost surely indicates and oversimplification of the business.

A good framework for establishing Strategic Measures involves:

Establishing specific Strategic Objectives aligned to your Vision.
Identifying specific variables that indicate progress towards the achievement (or otherwise) of that Strategic Objective. (It may be necessary to identify more than one variable per objective as objectives may be hard to quantify and may thus require proxy variables.)
Set targets for each variable. These targets may be planned to change over time (e.g. to increase by 2% every month for the next 3 years) or may be constants. Change targets should always have a specific time dimension.
Devise specific initiatives to achieve each change target. (These should be the same initiatives as would be documented in the Strategic Plan.)

To measure the success of your Strategic Measurement, you could measure:

The percentage of people who can tell you what the Strategic Measures are, and which ones are up and or down for the most recent period.
The extent to which deviation for the measurement targets decreases over time after the introduction of the measure.

4. Developing a Strategic Calendar

In order to ensure that the Strategic Plan lives, a Strategic Calendar should be prepared. The Strategic Calendar depicts the organisations Strategic Planning processes and events, as well as the relationships between them. Ideally, the Strategic Calendar should depict an annual planning cycle. The objectives of the Strategic Calendar are to:

Ensure Strategic Dialogue, Planning and Measurement take place on an ongoing basis. Often, Strategic Planning is an annual event, and there is little else to ensure that any thought is given to organisational strategy throughout the rest of the year. The Strategic Calendar should ensure ongoing and regular attention is paid to different aspects of the strategy on a rotating basis. This ensures that the Strategic Plan is continually reviewed and updated.
Ensure Strategic Dialogue, Planning and Measurement take place at different levels. Clearly, an organisation would not like to review and update its entire strategy on a frequent basis. This would introduce uncertainty into the process, which would deteriorate the advantages gained from Strategic Planning in the first place. The Strategic Calendar should slice and dice the Strategic Planning process into different levels and components, and should ensure that these are each addressed in a logical and systematic process.
Integrate the Strategic Planning processes and events with those of other functions of the organisation. Strategic Planning exists as part of the greater organisation process and is particularly interlinked with Financial Planning and Human Resource Planning (particularly performance appraisal and incentivisation). The Strategic Calendar should reflect these interdependencies, ensuring that each activity is seen as part of the greater whole, rather than as an unwelcome chore.

5. Integrating Strategic Dialogue

Finally, the organisation is ready to weave Strategic Dialogue into the very fabric of the organisation's communications. Strategy involves establishing the metaphors and mental models which underlie the way in which people think about the organisation. Refer to The Strategist as Playwright for a metaphor on the Strategist's role in writing the organisation's dialogue. The extent to which people discuss the organisation using the metaphors and mental models established during Strategic Dialogue indicates the extent to which people have internalised or "bought into" the strategy. Such internalisation of metaphors and mental models will also guide their day to day action, ensuring a Strategy Oriented organisation.