2014 guesses

As usual I ask myself what could happen in the new year.  

Some predictions, illusions, and overall food for thought.    

We can name 2013 the year of the tablet.  Finally tablets took off.  They are used everywhere. Supermarket chains are even offering their own tablet versions.Books stores still survive, just. Online shopping is on the increase, and offline shopping is still alive. IT job offers are on the rise, but salaries are not up that much.  

What can we expect for 2014? 

-This year can become the cyber security year.  Cybercrime appears to become more sophisticated, but so are the organisations fighting it.  Also the universities educating the future security professionals. Those of us who are still sceptical of cloud computing can see a reason not to use as much the cloud or Dropbox as we used to.  

-This year can also be the year of business intelligence (BI).  Just check the number or courses with this name.  Also the number of jobs even in the academic sector.  Time to see if it delivers, because the name and technologies associated with it have been around long enough.  

-For many businesses globalisation can come to an end this year.  It has worked well for some, not so well for others.  What could be more feasible now is to have partnerships with certain countries.  The global scenario is to be occupied by cities.  Rio de Janeiro will be on stage, but others will also follow.  Cities will need to offer good living conditions, not only economic opportunities.  My continuous concern with city centres in the UK so because I still do not see how cities can be inclusive for migrants, the elderly, and families.  

-Technology will definitely help people to continue being connected, but this year there can be many more social media communities, and Facebook might need to fight hard to remain valuable.  Time to reinvent itself? Maybe.  And Amazon? They need to offer more convenience at good prices. 

Ok, let us see what really happens this year.  Happy 2014! 

 

Time to look elsewhere?

The UK high street is dead.  Long life to the new high street.

It is a street where those who recycle and assist can now live, but just.   

In my home town among other unusual suspects we now have two charities occupying (legally of course) the biggest shops in the high street. 

These shops are now nicely refurbished.  The city council also splashed some cash in bringing the surrounding walking area up to a good standard.  After some hassle, finally people can have a stroll and walk around.  

Other players in my hometown who did some redecorating include Lloyd's Bank and the coffee chains.  They have taken over less powerful players.  

The former got rid of its black sheep brother (TSB) and the latter did of a local coffee shop.  Not physically but in terms of the market.  TSB had to move to another store nearby.  Not    centrally located.  In the margins. 

A sign of changing times I suppose.

What still remains in the city centre is the picture of economic recession.  Empty shops, shops that go bust and leave.  Not as many as a few years ago, but still.  Other shops remain there, they do well (toy stores), others are still defiant.  Yes, we can still walk and see these shops, as if we were inspecting the aftermath of what they have had to endure.  

Sadly, what also remains in city centres is the mentality that they are not for everyone.  Yes, you can go there, but parking is limited or expensive.  There are really few shops or restaurants for families.  The elderly have one or two spots to hang around before the night clubbers, the young families or the couples take over at the cinema, the Starbucks the Costa coffee (UK based), the fast food or the sandwich shops.  Elevators in shopping centres are always busy.  They are considered a luxury, the same as escalators.  

There is inclusion, but it is very limited.  A kind of public relations stunt.  The stunt can also be seen in the new regeneration plans.  More shops, more happy people, more birds, more green spaces.

So if we want to experience life in a town, where should we as parents of kids, as tourists or people who want to show visitors around, go? Where can we really seat and relax, and experience town life? 

Is it time to look elsewhere than the town centre? 

Or is it time to resign ourselves to wait for better prospects...? 

Too many questions, I know. 

The new era of e-business, and what about Amazon?

Just recently I was explaining to my MBA students the difference between e-commerce and e-business.  As always, I said that e-business means profund transformations in the way companies do business.  So that they make the best of information technologies and add value to their customers.  

I also mentioned that companies should redesign if not reengineer their processes in order to integrate technology.  

And then I was asked the question : is Amazon an e-business?

Silence in the room...

This question has puzzled me for a couple of years.  Other students have asked me if Amazon has had a clear strategy to become what they have become.  

My answer to the latest question and the others has been: Amazon is a strange case, like a strange animal.  You try to picture it using ideas of strategy and e-business and you do not fully succeed.  

So this time we tried to pin Amazon down as an e-business.  And guess what.  Amazon was left wandering.

Yes, because out of the discussion, it became useful to think of an e-business as a pioneer type of business, one which changes the nature of existing business models.  Amazon could have done that at the beginning when they were selling things online (books, CDs).  The idea is to attract customers to a new business model, an online one. 

But now they are virtually eating their competitors, and not only by achieving differentiation in costs, bit also by raiding their offline world.

Take for example the UK bookshop Waterstone's.  They are now selling Amazon Kindle devices.  They said they have no other option.  They get a cut of the sales.  

But they at losing market to both Amazon and to the electronic books sellers.  So any compensation they receive from Amazon is at the expense of helping Amazon establish a business model that is not fully online, at the expense of their own business (offline) model.  

We are coming to see that a new era for e-business should be about a consistent and ethically driven interaction of online and offline worlds.  In the case of Amazon, they might grow bigger, but they will have to think if what they are doing in the offline world is the right thing to do.  Just like the supermarkets like Walmart.  They are the big player in a supply chain, but why do you have to eat the smaller players if you need them? 

Both online and offline worlds cannot coexist without each other.  Just as much as we say that e-business is about being online. We should also say that this being has a moral drive to at least not harm directly others.   And if you do, help them become part of a wider system, one that is bigger than you and the others.   

The resilient neighbourhood

Forget the news about twitter going to initial public offering.  Forget that the UK Royal Mail is now being privatised.  Somehow the silent revolution I spoke in my previous post does not show that there is an increasing concern with security of business, food and energy. 

Somehow resilience is now at the forefront of the agenda for many.  I just saw an email with an invitation to talk about resilience in businesses.  The topic of the future.  In the email there was a strong association with the word security.  One of developed countries' favorite one.   

Is resilience a natural reaction to security issues? Or is this about a new wave of expansion that also involves securing control of anything being considered as valuable?  Why are we talking about this now? Is this for everyone?

Many respectable members of the academic community say that resilience so the next big thing.  Making sure that your organisation and community lasts for sometime is now a key goal.  So those interested in sustainability can see a new reincarnation of the term.  The reincarnation is not about saving the planet, but surviving, and thriving.  

Not sure what the term means though.  Not sure what is behind it.  Maybe we feel that something will have to give in the planet and something has to survive: Species, geographical areas, markets, (some) people. 

And of course the bees...

In a world that has been recently struck by natural and non-natural disasters, it seems that resilience is about controlling or managing that which you can.  It seems to be about preparing for contingencies.  But what about those who cannot prepare, or have not even considering that there is a need to? Are we limiting our concern to just a few things and a few people? Have we become conformist, or anti-sistemic?

So in another email I see there is a project to assess the degree of resilience of disadvantaged communities.  Sorry to say this, but at first sounds to me like the old readiness assessments about electronic government.  Was your government ready to embrace the new way of managing government? Of course not, was a likely outcome.  Why? Because you needed to be good in the first place.  You needed you have good institutional capacity, you needed money, you needed good financial management. So you were not ready simpy because you were not one of those good ones.  Sorry.  You needed to radically change by comparison.  

So it is about the resilient vs the non-resilient.  It us about those who are prepared or can prepare and those who cannot.  It is about a divide.  Academics like it divide things, so we can claim we discover what can make you or your organisation jump from one camp (have nots) to the other.  

The word resilience does not sound to me as offering much about changing in tune with who and I you are unless we say let us build a better place for everyone in the planet.  But if we are going to build walls in order to feel more resilient, we are just contributing to our own demise.  As if we could all survive on our own.  As if we were not fragile. As if we were not human...

Being systemic makes me think we cannot just build a resilient organisation without a resilient ecosystem.  If communities become fragile, it is also because their environment has become fragile.  What are we going to do about it? We cannot just bury our heads under the sand, or build underground refugees or bunkers for our own people.  Organisations will have to look at how to build resilience for the human systems that they are part of.  And be critical to see how they contributed to make those systems fragile.  

We can assess resilience, but that is only the beginning of a truly systemic effort to go over the crises we have experienced and will continue experiencing.  

So next time you hear the word resilience, please think twice about who should really be talking about it.  

You will need to think not only on your own household or organisation, but invite the neighbours too.  

The 'new' silent anti-revolution in technology - hold your breath

The mobile industry seems to carry the flag of innovation these days...

At least it seems so if you read the latest news.

Microsoft buying the mobile phone branch of Nokia (yes, there are other  Nokia businesses we do no hear much about); Apple diversifying its new creations to cover more ground at different speeds; and Blackberry reducing its size.

Either we have become used to innovations as hollywood-jobs styles of product launch events, or to see innovations as business re-structuring in the technology market.

What stroke me particularly (also because I am a user of ipad, yes I am, to the surprise of many who know me!), is that the launch of the new iphone/ipad operating system was the quietest of the events.  Like a silent revolution, or should I say a silent anti-revolution?

It used to be the case that the most exciting developments in technology were those of software.  If anyone remembers, just waiting for the new features of the new Microsoft Windows operating system was met with lots of speculation, hype, excitement.  Hardware had just to provide faster and more efficient processing, capable of supporting all the software inventions that engineers were throwing to the market, inventions that were normally cooked in a relaxed atmosphere by these engineers, or should I say geeks?  I studied computer science and met one or two of these guys, and also dreamed at some point if I should be one of them.  Life took its turn and here I am, as a researcher, academic and now a father of beautiful twins.

So not a lot of excitement for me about technological innovations, but it is not only myself that I need to blame in this regard.

Let me say that technology companies, and for this effect mobile companies too, have become locked in this hype-game where the substance is difficult to fine.  True, there are innovations of some scale in the new technology products.  Microsoft also tried to innovate by putting its operating system in new hardware devices (tablets).  But what we see is just a rearrangement and re-assemblage of tiny innovation into existing products.

Apple might say they have introduced a new micro-processor with the new iphone.  But how software is making the best of this processor, apart from making the interface friendlier and perhaps (just perhaps) a bit more efficient, does not show.  At least not in the marketing briefs.

I am not a church fan of Microsoft, Apple or anyone.  My blog is often updated in a Dell computer that runs Windows XP.  This operating system is still stable after many years.  And I also have an iphone.  Where have the software innovations gone?  Where are the geeks, trying to connect different hardware devices so they can talk to each other?  Where are the innovations in green personal computing technology, and the people caring about them, where are they?

Is it that they are all belonging to the Android church, which still needs to show how much more efficient it is than its competitors?  Or is it that all the geeks have left Microsoft and are now being replaced by marketeers (no offence to any of these guys though) or carefully conservative managers (who are capable of delivering, according to the advertised job descriptions)? Where are the new inventors?

And of course we need to ask this question:  Where is the money for research and development in technology?

One thing feeds another (systemic thinking, remember?), and if many companies cut on their investments for the future and have nicely cut corners to produce ok innovations rather than good ones, then we will not have much to be excited about in the next few years.

So for now let us all continue being silent in this hype of revolution that is also becoming predictable each year.  Let us hold our breath for really good things.  And let us keep trying to challenge ourselves as innovators.

The law on the IT side

Things seem to have changed since I was working in IT (information technology) projects for the financial industry...But others remain the same. 

At that time I remember having to explain to a lawyer the requirements of a software package that my company was about to buy.  She was on our side and drafted a contract that was forcing the software supplier to deliver what they promised.  I had been dealing with this supplier and had agreed to these requirements.  

Our boss thought that it was better to put these requirements in the contract.  A rare occasion to do so I thought, because I was used to the idea that IT people more or less trusted each other in our competence and promises.  If we say it can be done, it should be done.  Part of our professional ethics, or our own ego perhaps.  Part of my own education.  I had learned the hard way at university and in my first job as a software programmer what happens when you do not deliver projects.  

At the time of this contract there were several (and long) meetings, and when the supplier attended them, this lawyer got them cornered.  The supplier was more versatile in IT matters, less in legal ones. The contract became a long document. We had to draft it several times because requirements changed due to the negotiation that took place. We did not seem to trust each other.  

Did this long process have to do anything with fairness?  Well, it turned out to be a matter of not losing money and getting more that we initially bargained for.  It was a kind of competition.  Avoid losses, make the other pay for penalties.

As of today what I see is that IT people have become experts at putting the law at their side.  Think of Amazon and Google (not) paying taxes.  They abide by the law, regardless of the morality of their acts. Even Obama has recently taken the side of Apple against Samsung and the judges have ruled out in Apple's favour.  The US judges. In this case there does not seem to be any written contract, only the laws of (fair) competition. But if this is about fairness, why does the end result have to be stopping your competitor from selling their products?  

So maybe this and other cases will set a precedent that says that an IT project/product needs to have a lawyer (or a team of lawyers) as a permanent team member.  Project management techniques will have to focus not only on ensuring successful project completion but also on protecting economic interests of the project.  

Or perhaps it should be a case of making IT contracts fair to all the parties. But still, many people could fear that the invisible hand of the market (or their competitors) will play against them.  

We have advanced much in developing new technologies.  But we are still not trusting each other.

Quality when you need(ed) it

Today there were news about the inevitable sale of Blackberry...

Another giant has to bow to its rivals.  Or maybe its golden days are past.

Talking to a student about this, we realised that many companies might have their own idea about quality of their products.  And then this idea might not be the same that customers have.

It seems that we are changing our idea of quality.  Or we are fed different ideas as if we could choose. As if choice was ours to make.  Remember: you can choose any colour of your car as long as it is black.

Quality for me is still an elusive term.  As a man I associate it with reliability, specially when it comes to technology.

In the case of mobile technology it seems that appearance has taken the upper hand.  I do not know about Blackberry's competitors idea of quality, but it seems they have been able to convince the customer that they are the ones having the upper hand in terms of quality.  As if quality had to do with fast innovation and development of products at our fingertips.

Another take on quality which could help us here is that of quality of relationships.  Blackberry still strikes me as a stand alone company.  Very good, reliable, but with no allies with common goals.  Specially mobile operators and software companies.

What could the future hold for Blackberry?

Maybe a very specific customer niche well exploited, maybe going back to basics (I always like this). Maybe innovation at a different and meaningful pace. Maybe a soul search...Maybe making things simpler, for illiterates like me.

Amazon and its biggest CRM challenge

Amazon, the omnipresent virtual retailer of almost everything has announced this week that it no longer offers free delivery in the UK on some articles that are less than £10. 

The funny side of the story as someone has pointed out, is that the company is seeking additional sources of revenue in order to pay tax, once and for all.

Reading between the lines though, one can see that there could be other interests at play.  The interest to sell more, so that if you want an item but it costs less than £10, pair it up with another cheap item so that your bill exceeds £10 and you get free delivery this time.  

There is also a clever marketing strategy.  We as human beings get caught in the comparison syndrome as Rolf Dolbelli states in his book "The art of thinking clearly" (which I bought recently from Amazon!).  When you have two things or people and you compare them, you would select the one that stands out from the other.  This is regardless of the price you pay.  The decision is as rational as it can be, considering that there is a sample of only two.  So for Amazon this means you will sell the ugly thing with the less ugly one. But you will sell two.  Whereas for the customer, in reality, it means she bought two things, when she thought she bought the nicest one.  

Strategies like this get on the way of a good and responsible customer relationship management (CRM) activity.  If the goal is to strengthen and maintain good relationships, why does not Amazon look first into who were the customers buying small things? 

In my view, Amazon has a CRM strategy that encourages people to buy more of the same, based on our previous purchases, regardless of anything else we might like to do next.  Again, this works well by comparison, so that for instance you have a book and you can be tempted to buy a similar one, only cheaper, or more interesting that the one you already have.  

But is is not good CRM.  Good CRM is about understanding where customers are in their lives, anticipating what you and I might need in the future.  Just like a good friend.  And also caring for other stakeholders.  Like a socially responsible business.  

As insignificant as a small item appears to be, it could be an indication of where you are at in your life.  True, this item could be paired up with bigger ones.  Amazon has an opportunity here, by looking at a broader picture and responding. But Amazon should not try to milk the small customers here.  They either seem to be loyal, otherwise why should buy from Amazon, or they could be very weary of transport costs.  

If the issue here is cost of transport of small items (and I keep saying in my blog that this is just an excuse not to care for customers), then Amazon is inadvertently leaving the space open for other companies who could provide those small items at cheaper cost.  For some customers, buying only what they need is a more logical way of proceeding.  For others, it would be preferable to bite the dust and buy things themselves from a nearby shop.  In any case, their relationship with Amazon might be no longer desirable.  Other companies will show up on the door step and will offer, by comparison, a better deal. 

I am a book and CD buyer by nature.  But what assurances do I have that I will not be the next on target from Amazon? I thought we were friends...not sure anymore dear Amazon ! Please show some care not only for your balance sheet but for the rest of organisations and people involved.  Maybe Yu need to change your idea of CRM.  

Bring back the ethics !

This week the UK prime minister has hit out at the technology companies.  He is threatening them with strong legislation if these companies fail to act on preventing people to access pornographic and children images.  He is saying that companies are not doing enough and should do so on moral grounds. 

Interesting language that he is using, specially the moral stance.  

But he is barking on the wrong tree I think.  It seems more a revenge on the same companies that have skilfully managed to avoid paying taxes in the UK.  They seem to know more the legal possibilities that they have.  

These are more or less the same companies that many countries (and I suspect also the UK) who in the 90s were invited to come and stay in order to bring the information society to place.  They were offered tax breaks as long as they established their manufacturing or service facilities in the countries.  

Some companies also brought some research capabilities.  Countries like India and China are now hosting research centres for Microsoft and the like.  These centres also attracted the best talent and have become an aspiration for many youngsters.  

No questions were asked about the sustainability of these capabilities, or the real contributions they were making to the welfare of societies.  The technology hubs have become centres of excellence whilst at the same time the conditions of populations barely change.  

Look at Bangalore for instance.  Look also at Galway in Ireland.  Is anyone worried about the living conditions? 

What no government neither any technology company has bothered to bring to youngsters is ethical education.  I remember many years ago when I was challenging a technology entrepreneur who was asking for more government support to bring the latest technology to our home country in Colombia.  I asked: who is going to look after the living conditions of the people in the country? He replied, it is not our problem, we only care about technology.  

And this has been the motto of many companies.  They care about innovation in technology.  They do not care about ethics.  But neither do governments.  They are as responsible as anyone else for the use or misuse of technology.  They are also responsible for allowing business to become irresponsible ethically.  

We as educators are responsible for just giving the market what it needs.  Professionals who can produce advanced technology, but who do not care about taxes.  Because we teach them about efficiency.  And this also means being efficient with the taxes that you pay.  

Technology professionals might say that it is not responsibility to care about taxes, let alone the living conditions of the people of the communities where they work.  They are there just to do a job.  Nothing else.  They were educated not to ask difficult questions, ethical questions. They were educated not to take responsibility on social issues.  

We all need to bring back the ethics, because it touches upon every aspect of the business, and most importantly, it touches on every single individual that works in it.  Ethics is not about enforcing legally moral behaviour.  It is about nurturing it.  It is about making people aware that any action has consequences. 

This, is to me, the real 'moral' stance that we need to take.  We should stop blaming the technology companies, they are whatever we want them to be.  What do we want to be as technology professionals ? Surely not one of these gurus we see around who pass on moral responsibility cot others.  

Systemic impacts of information technology (IT) infrastructure investment

Just yesterday (June 26 2013), the UK chancellor announced plans for investment in the UK infrastructure.  Roads, trains and some flagship projects (on energy also) will finally be given a go-ahead or a positive nod in terms of funding.

There are already some critics, citing that there is a missed opportunity to revitalise the construction industry by borrowing cheaply and making available much more funding.  Lack of long term vision is also cited and above all, serious commitment.

Just imagine if this 'lack' of vision and commitment is applied to an organisation's IT infrastructure.  

To many this is unthinkable. Reducing IT infrastructure investment is out of the question.  We teach our students that  when you invest in IT you are investing in a strategic asset.  True, it is expensive and painful, but ere are very good examples to show that IT can provide a long term return on investment, plus better customer service, new business opportunities, rapid product development, etc. e infrastructure is the backbone over which your applications and communications reside.   Networks, hardware, data centres, they are all part of the infrastructure.   Investing in infrastructure is investing in  the organisation's future health.

This is what IT professionals hold as true.  And many managers also do it. 

But let us go back to the criticisms to the UK chancellor.  If we are to believe that there is a short mentality in investment, I am afraid to say that is is also the case for IT. And more specifically with the new cloud computing fashion. 

For an organisation, Cloud computing is becoming the antithesis of IT infrastructure investment.  It is sold as "Pay as. You use" IT service. No more expensive infrastructure.  It is up to the cloud computing providers to invest. Your focus is on your business, let the IT providers care about theirs. 

Sounds nice, but we are relinquishing control of the IT infrastructure to a third party. They are obliged by contract to make sure that the service that they provide is of high quality, and to do that they should invest in their IT infrastructure.  We just but the front end part of the infrastructure (tablets, pcs and the like). 

So what could be the systemic effects of investing or not investing in the IT infrastructure?

I do not have the full answer to this as I am not a visionary or a prophet.  But I could say that these effects are related to the assumptions that will guide the decisions of those that will (not) invest in the infrastructure.  

If these assumptions are guided by short economic gains, or economies of scale (and you can ask cloud computing providers about this), I find it difficult they would fully cater for something that has to be there but might not report the expected benefits.  Cloud providers would surely plan their infrastructure capacity but will think twice in investing beyond what they need; it is hard to predict growth in IT services as it is has been the case before.  Like a property landlord that lets the property to tenants, the cloud computing provider might not buy the most expensive furniture.  Or if they do, they will charge a premium.  Just to make sure they balance the numbers.

Like every other business. 

Even if cloud computing providers invest in infrastructure, they will have to work together with others who would have a different perspective on investment.  We need to remember that cloud computing is a mixture if services from different companies.  And even if there is consensus, there is another issue at needs to be looked at.

It is the infrastructure of energy that is required to supply computing grids with the electricity they need. Who is going to invest in energy infrastructure ? The government?

I really hope the UK chancellor thinks about this last point, because roads and trains need energy.  

And I hope that IT managers think of who is doing what in new ecosystem of cloud computing services worldwide.  We need to think systemically on the consequences of (not) investing appropriately in infrastructure. 

Making the best of the online and offline worlds, not just (screw) fixing them!

In my previous post I mentioned a construction materials company that has decided to increase the number of stores in the UK.  

I now remember the name of the company: Screwfix.  I remember the name because a few days ago when I went to withdraw money from a cash machine, I saw an advert in the machine stand (clever way of marketing themselves!), announcing that they were about to open one of these new stores in the town where I live.

The advert also stated the opening hours.  Before I could read it all, my jaw dropped:  They were going to open the store from Monday to Friday only! 

So my first thought was, what about people like you and I who work from Monday to Friday?  Cannot we go to the shop on Saturday or Sunday? Again, Britain's 9 to 5 no-weekend shop culture in the era of globalization (and still standing in the economic recession) came to mind.  I thought, they should open on the weekend, if not extend their opening hours during the week.  Of course this might prove 'expensive' and 'unfeasible', but then why are we then opening new stores? Just to gain a few customers when you could gain them all?  

The memory of this advert came back to mind a few days later when I was watching TV.  Once more, the name Screwfix came on the screen.  This time I just had a glimpse of the advert, and could notice they were showing the wonderful mobile phone application that they have, with which you can browse the catalogue of products.  

So I wonder, if you are a mobile phone user, in the middle of a building job, which could take place on a Saturday (or even a Sunday, but then luckily for Screwfix this might be the odd case, also considering Britain's culture of not having any building work on Sunday unless it was the Olympic park), and you see something that you need, but the store nearby is closed on the weekend. What would you do?

Screwfix might say, well you can drive to another store, and we might have one of these open during the week end.  I would think twice before spending more on petrol, also because the costs are transferred to me.

So instead of 'fixing' the offline world to I do not know what sort of business model, and making online applications sophisticated for the 'user' (in terms of navigation, and the like), Screwfix should really think outside of the box and ask itself:  What does a customer really need? 

In this way we should be making the best of the online world by making it more compatible with the offline world. Online and offline worlds are systems, they interact together, so whatever you do in one will have impacts in the other. 

Screwfix could also think of delivering products in additional hours to customers who really need them.   I am sure there are many customers that are willing to pay an extra fee and avoid the hassle of driving to a store or waiting until the next working day.  The 'problem' could be, as many if not all UK companies that provide home delivery, they rely on third parties. But that could be solved by having, in addition to 'open' stores, some vans.  

Well, Screwfix might say, we have done an analysis of our 'standard' customers (probably after a careful segmentation driven by financial indicators), and this is what they want.  For sure, that is an answer that gets many companies off the hook.  By focusing on the 'standard', you then lose customers.  In hospitals, 'losing a customer' means losing a human life.  I leave it to you to judge this.  But I remember Edward Deming, the quality guru, who warned us about focusing on the 'standard' as a sign that we lose quality, customers and even the company!

Ps: I checked the website of Screwfix just after finishing this post.  They have opening hours during the weekend, and during the week they open until 8pm.  Some good news but not what I was expecting (for instance I was expecting them to open early on Sundays, not just at 10am which is now standard practice for pharmacies and supermarkets). Some of the suggestions of this post still apply when it comes to serve customers.  They should also review the design of the website.

The pendulum is swinging again, so avoid it !

Supposedly good and bad news in the last few days for businesses in the UK. 

Good news is that some businesses have decided to go back to the high street, in other words and perhaps abusing of this term, they have decided to expand their physical locations.  They are opening now new stores.  One if them if I remember rightly is a furniture company, the other sells screws and related items for construction.  These companies have realised they need to get closer to the customer, who wants to 'touch and feel' the product before buying it.

It seems rather obvious to me that adding value means making sure communication and interaction with the customer is done in the best,possible way and even costly way, if the customer has any real value to the company.  Touch and feel used to and still is essential activity of selling and buying things.  A good online value proposition will attract buyers to go to your shop rather than going to the competition. 

So those who think that online interactions replace everything, you should think twice.  We have much to learn from online dating websites about this...

Now the not good news.  Mary Portas' experiment of revamping the high streets of a number of towns seems to have failed.  10 of the 12 city centres being experimented with have shrank in terms of their trade.    If you thought that the pendulum of online vs offline was swinging again towards offline from the good news, please think again.  Are we in for more uncertainty in the UK? 

Let me just say that the idea that growth is to happen in the city centres of countries needs revising.  To me this is an untenable assumption, perhaps romanticised because many people including myself find it entertaining to go to city centres as many of our ancestors used to.  But this type of nostalgia cannot be preserved at the expense of entrepreneurs, or even potential customers.  If city centres are not attractive for trade, it is because they do not offer a nice whole experience worth the hassle unless you really need to go there or you enjoy the buzz but just for a while, once or twice during the week. You cannot build a good and sustainable business only on occasions.  Because rent, salaries and the like cannot be just paid occasionally. 

The problem of city centres and physical locations is not only economic, it is social and cultural.  Besides, a savvy entrepreneur would carefully consider his/her finances before paying rent in a place where people do not see life in a full sense of the term. 

And where does this leave our online and other information and communications technologies? Well, they could still help attracting people to go, touch and feel the product, but they cannot replace the harsh, complex and admirable reality of life in town centres or elsewhere...maybe they should be used now to show where businesses have gone and try to provide evidence of why they went elsewhere. 

So if the pendulum swings again, avoid it ! 

Rethinking online value

Last year I posted a view on how online retailers are re-positioning themselves in the cyberspace. This year has caught some of them "offside". They have gone bust.

Why? Lack of a good online value proposition or OVP according to the terminology of Dave Chaffey.

It is essential to offer convenience, quality, and other things at a reasonable cost. And the delivery is key. Timely, cost effective, traceable.

Many retailers see the online as just another channel. This is wrong. Like me, people do not have time to do things offline. Why Our lifestyle. Our situation. Our priorities. We need help, and are willing to pay for it. Time is very, very precious ! You and I have many things to do


So please, rethink you idea of online value, have a good business idea, but back it up with a good proposition, and deliver what you promise. We cannot but trust you as a business !