Outcomes, not deliverables

"As a leader, you want to keep your team focused on critical outcomes and problems. To do this, you first need to identify where scope creep usually happens and cut it off quickly. In practice, this means shifting your entire team's mindset from "what" you're building to "why" you're building it, ensuring a project's outcomes are clearly defined. This will keep the team's narrative focused on the problem being solved.

...

Driving projects by outcomes means defining success based on problem resolution, and measuring progress by how effectively you solve the problem. Therefore, an outcome is a problem that an audience has that isn't addressed or is insufficiently addressed — not the individual project deliverables or features. Defining outcomes means setting aside assumptions on audience wants and desires, and shifting attention to what pain points exist and what is required to eliminate them.

...

Emphasizing outcomes also helps you to align your team around a common purpose and shared goals. By providing clarity on what needs to be achieved, you're motivating your team and empowering them to work together to apply creative approaches to problem solving. Without knowing the outcomes, it is presumptive to say whether any specific tactic or deliverable is needed or necessary. In short, only when problem-based outcomes are determined can a useful scope of features and deliverables be defined."

Recordar:

•  " If we want to talk about success, we need to talk about outcomes, not just outputs"
• Think “outcome before output”

Trechos retirados de "Project Managers, Focus on Outcomes - Not Deliverables" 

Para reflexão

Acerca de "Don't know, don't care":

"Clients and customers can be frustrating.

Perhaps they don’t know what you know.

Perhaps they don’t care.

It’s possible to educate and inspire.

It might be more productive to find the few that want to go where you do."

Julgo que falta acrescentar algo como "Perhaps you don't care. Perhaps you are too focused in your output, and less focused in the outcome"

Sempre o foco nos clientes-alvo. Ou, como li recentemente, "We might know what we are selling, but do we know what the customer is buying?": 

"Another related issue is the manner in which the offering is supposed to create value for the customer. The traditional perspective is simply to consider the offering so as to contain the value that it brings to the customer. The service literature has however suggested that sellers need to consider that the customer's actual use of the offering is a deciding factor in what comes out of the offering [Moi ici: O outcome]. This perspective suggests that the offering should be seen as co-created by the seller and the customer, implying that value cannot be predetermined by the seller but also depends on the customer. This makes it much more difficult for the seller to design and control value creation. One way of doing this is to involve the customer in the seller's processes of designing and providing the offering, whether it is a component or a solution."

 

"pitching a win-win-win “story”

Três ideias fundamentais retiradas do primeiro capítulo do livro SMASH: Using Market Shaping to Design New Strategies for Innovation, Value Creation, and Growth de Kaj Storbacka e Suvi Nenonen. 

Os mercados são mais do que para trocar valor, também servem para co-criar valor:

"The Function of a Market System Is Exchange, for the Purpose of Value Creation 

Specifically, markets are CASs of exchange, for the creation of value. And we do need to be very specific about that. Common definitions which include exchange but omit use-value and the value creation aspect sound curiously zero-sum, as though the same resource is simply being shuffled around the system in a grand version of the children’s birthday game pass-the-parcel.

...

Just as markets divide into supply and demand, so does value divide into exchange value to the supplier and use value to the customer/user. In a firm-focused, production-centric view such as the traditional business strategy approach, value too easily comes to mean what is really only exchange value - the value to the producer or seller - or, worse still, the price.

…

A user will willingly pay a higher price if she can get more use value out of the product. So use value should be integral to the firm’s market view, and any way to increase use value offers potential gains in exchange value right back. This is where co-creation comes in. The firm’s product is only one component in the customer’s use value."

Os mercados não são um dado, são uma variável:

"Markets Are Socially Constructed, so You Can Reconstruct Them, too

Markets are social systems.

…

The key point for us is that, being socially constructed, markets can be consciously reconstructed. Because humans can be persuaded, incentivized or, where laws or sheer market power are involved, coerced by other humans, the firm has a means of influencing the human agents and their creations. This is how you can turn social reconstruction to your advantage. Fundamentally, viewing markets as shapeable systems suggests that opportunities are not precursors of strategy; rather they are outcomes of deliberate efforts to shape markets. ... We should not make strategy for a company - we should make strategy for the system. [Moi ici: Isto é tão bom!!! Urdir um ecossistema. Daqui: "

Uma empresa que trabalha com o BSC começa por determinar quem são os clientes-alvo! Uma empresa que trabalha com o BSC e comigo, para além dos clientes-alvo tem também de determinar qual é o ecossistema da procura."] Furthermore, strategy ought not to be viewed as winning a zero-sum game; nor ought the focus to be on competing. On the contrary, it should clarify how the company can engage in collaborative activities with market actors (suppliers, customers, and partners) in order to improve the creation of the use value. Companies that can promise improved value creation for several actors simultaneously are the ones most likely to be successful in shaping their respective markets.

The job of the market leader is not to increase own market share at the expense of others, but rather about creating a positive sum game where many market actors grow the market together.[Moi ici: Maximizar o valor para todos os que estão no ecossistema]

…

The pay-off to all the theory above is that it enables you to become a market shaper.

...

“What is this market shaping that you are so worked up about?”

…

Changing the definition of markets from mere exchange mechanisms to a system fostering value creation is not just semantics or purely academic debate. Think about the implications. We’re claiming that, like any other human-made systems, market systems can be changed by companies, governments, and even singular individuals" 

 

Os mercados podem ser trabalhados e manuseados:

"Building on the theoretical insight that, unlike poets, markets are not only born but also made, this strategy takes a new product or service and aims to consciously attract or build the elements of a fully functioning market around it.

…

What are the main ingredients for shaping markets? This is a question that it takes the rest of the book to answer fully. There is no single formula and no linear progression of steps. It’s about a continuous cycle. And there’s a degree of art to it as well as science. Broadly though, market shaping begins with re-focusing your business definition, which also acts as your frame on the market, so that you can see the rich reality of your market system and training it on the slice of the universe of possible markets which you want to start with. You then need to envisage a new shape for that market system that would benefit your firm more, by capturing a share of extra use value you’ll help create (in other words, co-create) for customers. Whichever other players it requires to effect the change, you’ll need to appeal to them by offering a share in the value creation as well. This involves pitching a win-win-win “story” or narrative about your proposed new shape. [Moi ici: Há anos que prego isto. Por exemplo: "Ganhar-ganhar-ganhar porque passa por orquestrar uma relação que traga vantagens não só à clássica interacção diádica, cliente-fornecedor, mas também a outras combinações"] And you’ll need to time the whole intervention to strike when the market is “hot” and malleable.

…

Which firms could practice market shaping? … You don’t need market power in the traditional sense of monopolies and oligopolies. In fact, being big can hinder creative thinking of the kind a new strategy requires if the great idea gets tangled up in the red tape of internal processes. However, you need a good idea _ a vision about how to shape your market into a better re-incarnation of that market - because market shaping works only if you are truly able to improve the market. And remember, “improving” means improvement to others as well, not just to you."

Think “outcome before output”

The first time I used the expression on my blog:

Think “input before output”

It was in October 2017 in "it took a holistic approach towards how to play". Since then I have used it here dozens and dozens of times, for example in:

• Privileging inputs over outputs (partt XII) (a serie of 12 blogposts in Portuguese)
• Focus from output to input (in Portuguese)

This week I started to think that the expression is not the best for what I intend to convey. In this blogpost, "Beyond product versus service", I put these two definitions of ISO 9000: 2015:

• Product - output of an organization that can be produced without any transaction taking place between the organization and the customer
• Service - output of an organization with at least one activity necessarily performed between the organization and the customer

When an organization focuses on its output, it thinks about product. You do not need interactions:

At the limit, the organization vomits as much as possible, wants to increase the pace at which produces in order to lower unit costs and be more competitive.

What do I mean by focusing on input?

Assume that what is the output of the organization is actually the customer's input. Something that the client will use to process in his life, in his own way.

However, now I realize that there is another word and another position for what I want to communicate ...

Think “outcome before output”

When thinking about the client's outcome there must be interaction with the client. Customers are all different and look for and value different things. Only by interacting with them is it possible to understand what each one values. Outcome is not a physical result, it is not a noun. Outcome is not the bottle and the wine that you drank, the outcome is the party is the good mood between friends.

Of course, if we are in a B2B relationship, our client, in addition to his outcome, will also have his output:

And if it is a B2B relationship, the organization should also consider their client's client and their outcomes:

And here we start to get into another classic theme of my blog: ecosystems. In an ecosystem, the objective is no longer to maximize value for the customer, but to maximize value for the ecosystem. Therefore, we can reach an ecosystem in which the customer is a prisoner of the relationship that the organization has developed with the customer's customer:

And I return to a blogpost from March 2007 (in Portuguese)

Think “outcome before output”

A primeira vez que usei aqui no blog a expressão:

Think “input before output”

Foi em Outubro de 2017 em "it took a holistic approach towards how to play". Desde então usei-a aqui dezenas e dezenas de vezes como, por exemplo em:

• Privilegiar os inputs sobre os outputs (parte XII) (uma série de 12 postais)
• Foco do output para o input

Esta semana comecei a pensar que a expressão não é a melhor para o que pretendo transmitir. Há tempos, neste postal, "Beyond product versus service", coloquei estas duas definições da ISO 9000:2015:

• Product - output of an organization that can be produced without any transaction taking place between the organization and the customer
• Service - output of an organization with at least one activity necessarily performed between the organization and the customer

Quando uma organização se concentra no seu output, pensa em produto. Não precisa de interacções:

No limite podemos dizer que vomita o mais possível, quer aumentar o ritmo a que produz por forma a baixar custos unitários e ser mais competitiva.

O que querodizer com focar no input?

Partir do princípio que aquilo que é o output da organização é na verdade o input do cliente. Algo que o cliente vai usar para processar na sua vida, à sua maneira.

No entanto, agora percebo que há outra palavra e outra posição para o que quero comunicar...

Think “outcome before output”

Ao pensar em outcome do cliente tem de haver interacção com o cliente. Os clientes são todos diferentes e procuram e valorizam coisas diferentes. Só interagindo com eles é que é possível perceber o que é que cada um valoriza. Outcome não é um resultado físico, não é um substantivo. Outcome não é a garrafa e ovino que se bebeu, outcome é a festa é a boa disposição entre amigos.

Claro que se estivermos numa relação B2B o nosso cliente além do seu outcome também terá o seu output:

E se é uma relação B2B a nossa organização também deverá considerar o cliente do nosso cliente e os seus outcomes:

E aqui começamos a entrar num outra tema clássico deste blogue: os ecossistemas.

Num ecossistema o objectivo não é mais maximizar o valor para o cliente, mas maximizar o valor para o ecossistema. Por isso, podemos chegar a um ecossistema em que o cliente é prisioneiro da relação que a organização desenvolveu com o cliente do cliente:

E volto a Março de 2007.

Value - where, how, who, when

"The fact that customers and firms have different value-creating processes implies value is created in different domains and is no longer entirely in the firm’s control. Managers are increasingly aware of the need to understand customers’ roles in firms’ activities, such as those evident in service process blueprinting or customer journeys. The increasing roles of customer participation amplifies the need tounderstanding how customers orchestrate value.
...
Rather than the components of a service being absolute, they are treated as relative to alternative services and evaluated against an individual reference point. In other words, aspects beyond the exchange, product, service or interaction may constitute value as experienced by the customer. Sometimes value elements are invisible to the firm and independent of the firm. Moreover, value is not only inherent in the offering itself but also in elements only indirectly related to a specific service provider. In other words, customer value can be conceptualized as including both customer-defined and relativistic aspects with value-adding or value-decreasing characteristics.
.
Where is value created? Researchers suggest that value is formed in three domains: in the company’s world through value-in-exchange; through co-creation through customer-company interactions, that is, joint value creation; and in the customers’ world through value-in-use, otherwise known as independent value creation. Value arises in customers’ internal and external contexts based on both individual and collective elements. Hence, value is not only based on customers’ experiences with provider-created elements but can emerge outside the domain of the service provider in the customer’s world. We will now turn to a discussion of how value is created, who creates value, and when value created.
.
How is value created? As mentioned, value is seen as inherent in the interaction between the customer and provider, but value also emerges through interactions with other customers. Recognizing the impact of other customers on value formation, we acknowledge that value is created based on individual and communal experiences.
.
Who creates value? Value co-creation research highlights the important contributions of the customer to the value creation process. Recently there has been a shift away from dyadic value creation to a focus on networks and systems, to the interaction among multiple actors, and more recently to ecosystems. Despite this, practitioner and researcher attention to communal and networked value is low. The lack of attention to the communal influence of customers on value is problematic, as different forms of communities increasingly network and link customers and customer-to-customer interactions are increasingly relevant sources of value.
.
When is value created? Classic service research focuses on service encounters which implies that value is created solely within the service interaction. In contrast, a relationship marketing perspective emphasizes a longer timeframe that includes both before and after purchase. Irrespective of these differences in length, the underlying backdrop is the customers’ experience of the time of the service process. More recently, a broader notion of time has been called for that includes consideration of the past, present, and the future of the customer, not just the service process. Accepting that value is created not only in the interaction between the customer and the provider (and service system) extends the time-frame of value to the cumulated reality as experienced by the customer."

Trechos retirados de "Strategies for creating value through individual and collective customer experiences" de Kristina Heinonen, Colin Campbell e Sarah Lord Ferguson, publicado por Business Horizons 2018.

"helping them break through the limitation of this thinking"

"There is a difference between price and cost. Price is what you pay for something, and the cost is representative of the value (of which price is only part of the equation). Some people prefer to use price as the value, eliminating all other factors from consideration. Helping clients to recognize and address the other factors can shift them away from looking only at price.
...
Sometimes ... you have to engage your client about what else they value outside of price, or you have to prompt them with the value by addressing it directly. You have to point them at the additional costs they are going to incur by being cheap, things like missed deadlines, rework, reordering, waiting for product, additional labor, poor speed to market, falling behind their competition, more labor, disappointed clients, lost clients or customers, poor experience, frustrated internal employees, loss of reputation and on and on.
...
When your dream client weighs price more heavily than other factors that are equally—or more—important, you are responsible for helping them break through the limitation of this thinking. You are also responsible for not allowing them to underinvest in the results they real need—and avoiding the higher price they pay by being cheap."

Trechos retirados de "Helping Your Clients Understand Value"

O poder da interacção directa

Continuando a minha leitura de Christian Grönroos e Johanna Gummerus em "The service revolution and its marketing implications: Service logic vs service-dominant logic".
.
Penso primeiro nos que sonham com a automatização das relações com os clientes, penso nos encadeados pelos faróis do eficientismo e que, por isso, passam ao lado da vantagem competitiva da interacção.

"The firm is not restricted to offering value propositions ...Service marketing knowledge, concepts and models reflect the foundational premise that service providers are not restricted to offering value propositions; instead, the marketing context of service firms, unlike that for consumer goods, is characterised by interactivity, reciprocity and two-way influences in the service process. The value for the customer of the service being provided in this process thus depends on how the service provider and customer, through their behaviour and communication, influence each other. The provider clearly influences the service and its value for the customer. In addition, fellow customers who are simultaneously present in the process may exert impacts....providers, together with other parties, may need to act to ensure the realisation of proposed value, which is possible only during the interaction between the firm and the customer....Because the actors’ processes – the firm’s service production process and the customer’s consumption and value creation processes – merge into one collaborative, dialogical process during direct interactions, a platform for co-creation of value for both actors arises. The activities on this platform are interactive, mutual and reciprocal. Both parties can directly and actively influence each other’s processes. Therefore, the value-in-use created for the customer (or the firm or both actors) is influenced by actions that occur on the platform..As a clearer understanding of the nature of direct interactions shows, in services there are ample opportunities for the firm, as a service provider, to go beyond the goods logic-influenced view that the firm can only offer value propositions. The service provider can actively and directly influence customers’ perceptions of the firm and its service, as well as customers’ willingness to continue buying from it. Whatever value the service provider has originally promised, or proposed (using value proposition terminology), may be moderated and altered during the interaction process and thus change the customer’s experiences and determination of value-in-use. The higher the value-in-use, the greater the likelihood that the customer considers buying from the same firm the next time. If the co-creation process has an unfavourable impact on the customer’s experiences and value-in-use, the effect likely will be the opposite."

Interacção e co-criação de valor

Parte I.
.
Continuando a saborear a reflexão de Christian Grönroos e Johanna Gummerus em "The service revolution and its marketing implications: Service logic vs service-dominant logic".

"If co-creation of value is used analytically, rather than in a metaphorical sense, we must ask: what is the role and focus of co-creation, who is involved, and when does value co-creation occur? The key to answering these questions is the interaction concept.
...
Although “enterprises can offer their applied resources for value creation and collaboratively (interactively) create value following acceptance of value propositions, but cannot create/deliver value independently”, the meaning of this assertion gets disguised by the claim that firms and customers are always co-creators of value.
...
Direct interaction means that two (or more) actors act together in one process, in which their doings and sayings influence each other’s actions and perceptions. The two actors’ processes thus merge into one collaborative, dialogical joint process. During this interactive process, every actor involved can directly and actively influence the value-in-use that emerges for the other actor (or actors). This collaborative, dialogical joint process then becomes a platform for reciprocal co-creation of value. What takes place on the interaction platform may influence how value is realised, or value fulfilment, for one or all actors – provided they are prepared to and effectively make use of the value co-creation opportunity.
.
Direct interaction need not be a joint collaborative, dialogical process with two persons though; it also can be a direct interaction between one actor (e.g. customer) and an intelligent non-human resource. For example, interactions with a system that can intelligently register the actions or speech of a person and respond to it form a joint dialogical process together with the person, as well as a platform for value co-creation. Both parties learn and immediately react on the basis of the lessons. Such interactions are also direct interactions. Most non-human resources, such as products and various types of systems, do not possess intelligent properties in this sense. For example, physical products or IT-based systems that respond in a standardised way to user actions do not meet the  criteria of intelligent non-human resources. The customer still interacts with the firm, through the use of products or resources, but the interactions do not provide a value co-creation platform. These indirect interactions with a firm or a service provider involve resources, including non-intelligent products and systems, that the service provider offers to the customer as a source of potential value-in-use. Whether value-in-use is created or emerges by the use of such resources depends on the actions of the customer alone. This value creation can be characterised as a customer’s independent value creation.
...
Only direct interactions enable co-creation between the actors, such as a service provider and a customer, and form a platform for value co-creation. In the total value generation process, the development and provision of products and other resources by a firm, which enable indirect interactions only, are part of the provider sphere, which is closed to the customer (and other actors). Similarly, the resource integration actions of a customer, involving only indirect interactions with the firm, is closed to the firm."

Acerca do valor e da sua criação

Um artigo, "The service revolution and its marketing implications: Service logic vs service-dominant logic", de Christian Grönroos e Johanna Gummerus, muito bem escrito, dá gosto ler.

"we offer five notes on value and value creation. First, both SDL and SL use the expression “value creation”, even though value is not always, and perhaps is even infrequently, instrumentally created. Value can just emerge from a resource integration process; as suggested by the customer-dominant logic, such emergence even could be the normal case. In the SL and for this paper, the expression “value creation” refers to this phenomenon, without any assumptions about whether value-in-use emerges or is instrumentally created. Second, use – not context, experience or interaction – is the key qualifier of the value-in-use notion, so SL adopts the term value-in-use, without disguising this key qualifier. Naturally, value-in-use depends on, for example, the social and physical context in which usage takes place. If the context changes, so should the level of value-in-use. Third, value-in-use does not exist at a singular point in time, as value-in-exchange does, but rather evolves over time in a cumulative process during usage. This cumulative process may include destructive phases, in which value accumulation takes negative turns. Then value can be both positively created and destroyed. Fourth, use can take many forms, not just as a matter of physical use. For example, mental use occurs when a person dreams about a holiday trip in the near future or remembers the trip while looking at pictures afterward. Use also might be mere possession, such as when a person feels content knowing he or she owns a luxury car or a famous painting. Fifth, value for the customer and value for the firm are two sides of the same coin, so firms and customers reciprocally influence each other’s value creation. Not only does the firm function as a service provider, but the customer may provide the firm with actionable information about how to develop its resource base and systems, in which case the customer functions as service provider, with the firm as a user and value creator.
...
The service provider then serves as a creator of potential value-in-use and facilitator of real value-in-use. From a customer perspective, potential value-in-use is not real value yet; there is no difference between potential value-in-use and value-in-exchange. When a customer pays for a resource, the act manifests value-in-exchange, but there is still no realised value or value-in-use for the customer. In contrast, for the firm, manifested value-in-exchange is real value."

Continua.

Implementar soluções passa por lidar com o ecossistema

Ao ler "CM: Receitas electrónicas atrasam consultas : Saúde : Jornal de Negócios" não pude deixar de sorrir.
.
Horas antes tinha lido de uma penada "Key Skills for Crafting Customer Solutions Within an Ecosystem: A Theories-in-Use Perspective" de Scott B. Friend e Avinash Malshe e publicado por Journal of Service Research.
.
Costumo trabalhar com, e escrever aqui sobre, os ecossistemas da procura. Os autores escrevem sobre os ecossistemas que existem dentro das organizações do cliente. Por exemplo, num hospital:

"Our data offer empirical evidence which indicate that many key account customers are made up of a collection of internal and external stakeholders. These stakeholders may remain geographically concentrated within a single site or dispersed across multiple sites. Irrespective of where the stakeholders are located, they are deeply intertwined and exhibit constantly evolving interactions and interdependencies among themselves as well as with the various vendors. Further, these interactions may occur independently or simultaneously and at different times and frequencies.
...
Employing a broader customer lens that accounts for the multiple stakeholders within the customer helps shed greater light on what it takes for the vendor to successfully develop and implement customer solutions
...
[Moi ici: No caso de um hospital os autores referem como constituintes do ecossistema]Patients, doctors, medical staff, hospital administrators, family, friends, hospital board members, local community"

...

"the ecosystem perspective and the complex interactions among the vendors and various stakeholders we bring forth suggest vendors must invest significant time and resources into studying ecosystem composition and dynamics.
...
Given the degree of diversity that exists among stakeholder requirements, capabilities, and resources, vendors should go beyond the buying center to assess customer needs and constantly incorporate these variable stakeholder capabilities in order to best align with an ecosystem."

Ou seja, é preciso trabalhar com as várias partes interessadas internas. Como terá sido a preparação para minimizar as resistências à mudança? O que terá sido feito de forma diferente aqui "The End of Prescriptions as We Know Them in New York"
.
Voltarei a este artigo.
.
BTW, quando ler ecossistema e trabalhar com a ISO 9001:2015 pense em cláusula 4.2

Valor, contexto e interacção

"Four fairly new insights are challenging our traditional beliefs:
1. Value creation happens at the point of use, not the point of production;
2. Mass solutions are not as competitive as contextual solutions;
3. Transactions are replaced by interactions because contextual value creation cannot take place without interaction;
4. Open networks and reach and richness of networking are more valuable than control of proprietary assets."

Não são novidades aqui no blogue.
.
O ponto 4, em sintonia com "Uma evolução interessante", vem suportar o que penso: o avanço dos restaurantes não é por causa do controlo, é por causa da autenticidade.
.
Trechos retirados de "Work and the games we play"

Acerca do valor durante o uso

Sobretudo para quem trabalha no B2C:

"Value-in-use
While value can be derived through interaction with the firm and its offerings, it can also arise through a process of consumption, which may be mostly independent of the company’s intervention or exchange. ViU extends beyond the co-production, exchange, and possession of a good or service, and it requires customers to learn how to use, repair, and maintain a product or service proposition. ViU is derived from the user’s use context and processes including time, location, or uncertain conditions, unique experience, stories, perception, and symbols, and relational affect. Value is co-created in use because customers assess and determine the value of a proposition on the basis of the specificity of their usage. ViU manifests in ways of mutual application of skills in the form of operand and operant resources of actors, which result in integrated stages of transformation.
ViU is the customer’s experiential evaluation of the product or service proposition beyond its functional attributes and in accordance with his/her individual motivation, specialized competences, actions, processes, and performances. The dyadic and networked actions of consumers reinforce their own beliefs and identity and result in associations and relationships with the proposition that enrich customers’ lives. The opportunity to apply and legitimize their own “meaning” or subjective assessment generates usage value. Additionally, in ViU, participants’ mental models attach value to the usage processes. These mental models have a specificity and uniqueness that offer personalization—a unique consumption value through the enjoyment of doing, or an idiosyncratic use process."

Trechos retirados de "Value co-creation: concept and measurement" de Kumar Rakesh Ranjan & Stuart Read, publicado por J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci.

Consequências da radioclubização ou os muggles à solta

No postal anterior terminámos com a citação:

"Millennials would rather support small, local brewers, even if they have to spend a little more money,"

Os muggles não só não acreditam na magia como a destroem quando ela existe.
.
Ao longo dos anos através dos marcadores:

• radio clube;
• hollowing
• centromarca

E em postais como:

• Um exemplo de radioclubização? (Novembro de 2013)
• A radioclubização das marcas (Fevereiro de 2013)
• A ilustração da corrosão da oferta... ou das expectativas da procura (Dezembro de 2011)
• Hollowing (parte III) (Agosto de 2011)
• Again, repit with me: Value is a feeling, not a calculation (Julho de 2011)
• Hollowing (Dezembro de 2010)

Fomos aqui testemunhando a destruição de valor provocada por muggles à frente de empresas que um dia tiveram e faziam magia, através daquilo a que metaforicamente chamo de "hollowing" e de "radioclubização". Quando uma marca, outrora poderosa e querida pelos seus clientes ou aspirantes a isso, optou algures por deixar de apostar na criação de magia, de interacção, de co-criação de valor e começou a dar prioridade à redução de custos, começou a descurar o cuidado naquilo que a fazia diferente. Com o tempo, a erosão acaba por transformar essa marca numa espécie de aristocrata arruinado, habituado a boa-vida mas já sem os recursos para a suportar. Assim, acaba por ser uma carapaça enganadora por fora e oca por dentro.
.
Já aqui referi um americano, Chamberlin, um verdadeiro promotor da concorrência perfeita. O académico era tão defensor da concorrência perfeita que advogava o fim de todos os monopólios, mesmo dos informais. As empresas não deveriam, segundo ele, poder usar marca comercial ou outras ferramentas de marketing e de identidade que permitissem criar diferenciação. A diferenciação cria um campo de possibilidades que se alimenta e gera novas formas de promover a concorrência imperfeita e os tais monopólios informais.
.
Já aqui referi por várias vezes o marxianismo, a crença de que o valor de um produto reside no trabalho que nele foi incorporado até ao momento da transacção. A maior parte das empresas segue este pensamento, ainda que não o reconheça, quando, por exemplo, pratica o cost+plus pricing.
.
Sem magia, os clientes concentram-se nas funcionalidades do produto e aí, começam a interrogar-se sobre se o preço que pagam é justo face ao valor que recebem...
.
Sintomática e previsível esta evolução "An emerging trend in retail should scare everyone from Michael Kors to Macy's"

"Consumers are increasingly questioning the prices behind the products they buy — and this trend is challenging some of retail's biggest heavyweights.
.
Retail startup Everlane, which claims to offer better prices on clothing, encourages consumers not to shell out at department and specialty mall stores.
.
"Know your factories. Know your costs. Always ask why," the company's "about" page reads."

Isto faz-me recordar este postal "O marxianismo entranhado (parte II)" de Outubro de 2009 mas tão actual:

""The relative values of commodities are, therefore, determined by the respective quantities or amounts of labour, worked up, realized, fixed in them"... à posteriori até sinto algum embaraço... esta visão marxiana ignora o cliente, o consumidor, que é quem atribui o valor.
.
O valor não é algo de intrínseco às coisas, aos produtos e não tem nada a ver com a quantidade de trabalho que foi necessária para a sua produção. O valor é atribuído por quem compra."

Qual a alternativa que proponho às PME?
.
.
.
Que pensem nisto: "Value it's a feeling, not a calculation"
.
Que pensem nisto: O valor é uma classificação subjectiva, muito pessoal, que alguém, o cliente, atribui não a um produto, mas à experiência que esse produto permitiu sensoriar.
.
Os muggles apoucam, erosionam a experiência e acabam por remeter a questão do preço para o lado objectivo, para o lado matemático e aí é uma corrida para o fundo... tablets a $50 USD quem vai ter medo? Quem vai aproveitar?
.
Que viajem é que a sua PME pode iniciar para se entranhar de magia, para apostar no valor durante o uso e não só no valor na transacção?
.
Fará sentido co-construirmos juntos esse caminho?

Empresários portugueses e os outros

Há experiências que temos na nossa vida de contacto com as empresas que ficam sempre gravadas. Ainda me lembro do tempo em que pensava convictamente que isto só acontecia em Portugal com PME portuguesas:

"For example, the tire manufacturer in our qualitative sample developed a new tire casing that allowed it to regroove and retread its tires more often than its competitors could. As a result, customers’ trucks could go tens of thousands of miles more with the vendor’s tires than with any other competitive tire. This tire-related innovation objectively contributed to lowering trucking companies’ total cost of ownership. The manufacturer initially tried to sell its tires at a higher price, but to no avail, likely because customers did not perform tire management in an optimal manner, so they could not reap the benefits of this innovation. Because they did not perceive the value of the higher-priced tire, customers were simply unwilling to pay. [Moi ici: Lembro-me de empresa com produto que permitia reduzir o custo de execução de uma laje, reduzindo fortemente o tempo. Como os empreiteiros não faziam contas estão a imaginar a dificuldade. Lembro-me de empresa com polímero mais denso que permitia velocidades de extrusão mais altas, como os fabricantes de tubagens não faziam contas... ] Over time, though, the manufacturer learned that its technology-related choices for the tire casing—which represented tangible resources in the form of differentiated goods—offered a unique asset that neither competitors nor third-party service providers could promise."

Trecho retirado de "Hybrid Offerings: How Manufacturing Firms Combine Goods and Services Successfully" publicado em Novembro de 2011 por Journal of Marketing

"making sense of value creation and co-creation" (parte VII)

Parte I, parte II, parte III, parte IV,  parte V e parte VI.
.
E voltando ao artigo de Gronroos e Voima:

"that interactions are situations in which the interacting parties are involved in each other’s practices. [Moi ici: Não é uma mera transacção, não basta ir à prateleira buscar um produto padrão, não basta disponibilizar as instalações, é preciso calçar os sapatos do outro] The core of interaction is a physical, virtual, or mental contact, such that the provider creates opportunities to engage with its customers’ experiences and practices and thereby influences their flow and outcomes. Opportunities for interacting are natural in service encounters but may be created in goods marketing contexts too, such as through order taking, logistics, problem diagnosing, and call centers..Interaction is a dialogical process. Customer and provider processes merge into a coordinated, interactive process in which both actors are active, such as when a customer orders a vacation from a tour operator. In direct interactions, the processes are simultaneous and intertwined....the role of the customer and the provider in value creation and co-creation depend on the sphere in which potential and real value are being created. Only in a joint sphere is co-creation of value between the firm and the customer possible....Because value is created in usage, interactions make the value creation process potentially accessible to the provider. If the service provider manages to make use of this opportunity, it may take part in the customer’s value creation process as a co-creator."

O esquema que se segue é fundamental:

"making sense of value creation and co-creation" (parte VI)

Parte I, parte II, parte III, parte IV e parte V.
.
Mais um exemplo das palavras-chave:

• interacção + co-produção = co-criação de valor
• co-criação de valor + utilização = experiência de criação de valor

Desta vez em "Uniquely For Me: How Brands Are Moving From Mass Customization to Individualization":

"Today, customization is commonplace for a variety of goods from cars to jeans to computers to many others. Technological advancements are making it easier and more cost-effective for brand owners to reach consumers on a more personal level.
.
However, the expectation of tailored products and services has especially blossomed in the digital and 3D printing age. So what’s next? We’re now seeing a trend where products go beyond mass customization to individualization, truly meeting the needs of each unique person."

Acerca da co-criação de valor

Recentemente reli "The customer as cocreator of value" de Birgit Rettinger. De cada vez que o leio, sinto que consigo captar algo mais e chegar a novas intuições sobre a service-dominant logic, sobre o value-in-use e o value-in-context.
.
Os trechos que se seguem:

"When creating interactive contacts with customers the firm generates opportunities to cocreate value with them and for them. Interaction rather than exchange is fundamental.
...
Operant resources that particularly represent knowledge and skills are central. The customer himself/herself is an operant resource that is a collaborative partner who cocreates value with the firm and determines value. Value is unique to each customer. What firms provide is a complement to the knowledge, resources, and equipment possessed by the customers themselves.
...
It is focused not on selling “products” or “services” but rather on the customers’ value-creating processes, where value emerges for customers and is perceived by them.
...
Instead of “targeting” customers, firms have to hold dialogues with them.
...
The customer is not merely a receiver with needs to be fulfilled at the end of a “value chain”; he or she is an operant resource, together with whom, in a value-creating process, a firm can create a solution that satisfies needs.
...
“Value cannot be created independent of the beneficiary and then delivered.”
...
the goal of business is not to create value for customers but rather to mobilize customers to cocreate value."

Enquadram muito bem os casos deste texto "Move up the food chain to move up the profit curve".
.
A Target pode ter os artigos à venda, contudo, se os potenciais clientes não souberem como os organizar, como os utilizar, o valor potencial percepcionado será menor e funcionará como uma barreira mais forte à compra. Ainda este mês de Agosto vivi uma situação que me fez pensar nesta abordagem, um parque de campismo com boas instalações, numa zona cheia de oportunidades de lazer (escondidas e dispersas) e que não consegue sair da cepa torta porque se limita a disponibilizar, a vender, a transaccionar as instalações. Se investissem na informação e na disponibilização para co-produzir experiências de lazer para os seus clientes teriam muito mais sucesso, aposto.
.
Enquadram também este texto, "Understanding substitutes", de Seth Godin, mais longo do que o habitual.

"Some goods are difficult to understand before purchase and use, and most consumers undervalue them and treat them like commodities
...
If you want to charge extra for eggs, then, you need people to believe that they are worth more than the substitutes. This sounds obvious, but it is the key wisdom that gets us started. How much it costs you to make an egg is completely irrelevant to this discussion (or even how much it costs the chicken, but that's a whole different discussion). People will switch to a similar good any time you haven't given them a good reason to pay extra.
...
And for anyone who seeks to offer a good or a service that costs more than the good-enough commodity substitute, we have to understand and embrace the fact that we are in the business of making luxury goods."

Valor e a experiência

"we adopt a phenomenological perspective and conceptualize ‘‘value in the experience’’ as individual service customers’ lived experiences of value that extend beyond the current context of service use to also include past and future experiences and service customers’ broader lifeworld contexts.
Within this view, ‘‘value resides not in the object of consumption, but in the experience of consumption’’. Similar to other conceptualizations, value in the experience is a subjective phenomenon.
...
value stems from service customers’ learned perceptions and preferences based on evaluations of the probable and resulting consequences in certain situations. In contemporary service marketing and management discourse, customer value is no longer ‘‘objectified’’ and reduced to that which is produced or processed for customers; rather, customer value is now considered a phenomenon that relates to customer experience and value-in-use.
...
Value in the experience is individually intrasubjective and socially intersubjective.
...
Value in the experience can be both lived and imaginary.
...
Value in the experience is constructed based on previous, current, and imaginary future experiences and is temporal in nature.
...
Value in the experience emerges from individually determined social contexts.
...
customer value is viewed as being ‘‘ . . . idiosyncratic, experiential, contextual, and meaning-laden . . . ’’. Service customers are always, consciously and unconsciously, accessing and modifying, their ‘‘stock of knowledge’’ of their individual and collective ‘‘lifeworlds.’’
Value in the experience is determined by the individual service customer’s context and is constantly changing and will very much depend on the particular service customer’s specific interest and personal lifeworld context. The contexts in which service customers experience value do not necessarily equate with the service contexts offered or proposed by the service organization."

Trechos retirados de "Characterizing Value as an Experience: Implications for Service Researchers and Managers"  publicado em Janeiro de 2012 no Journal of Service Research de Anu Helkkula, Carol Kelleher e Minna Pihlström

Anything goes vs equações

Gosto da frase e acredito na sua mensagem:

O valor é um sentimento, não o resultado de um cálculo feito numa qualquer folha de excel mais ou menos artilhada.

Por isso, torci logo o nariz a esta mensagem "Using the Value Equation to Evaluate Campaign Effectiveness".
.
Ainda para mais depois de ter lido na viagem da manhã o artigo "Characterizing Value as an Experience : Implications for Service Researchers and Managers" de Anu Helkkula. Carol Kelleher e Minna Pihlstro, e publicado pelo Journal of Service Research em Janeiro de 2012.
.
Proposições avançadas no artigo:

"Proposition 1: Value in the experience is individually intrasubjective and socially intersubjective.
.
Proposition 2: Value in the experience can be both lived and imaginary.
.
Proposition 3: Value in the experience is constructed based on previous, current, and imaginary future experiences and is temporal in nature.
.
Proposition 4: Value in the experience emerges from individually determined social contexts."

Boa sorte, para quem acredita em equações