My leadership team had a strategy share out and it was grow top line and reduce costs. Thank you for the strategic vision… I did not think of doing that until told today…
10 replies (most recent on top)
The layoffs from today is the strategy , layoffs to continue, as per plan. As usual we continue to be surprised with the lack of demand, even though pundits of all sorts have been taking about change in demand for a long time now ! We pay this exec team a lot of millions, the axe should swing at the top, before it goes further down..
@1aen+1kFzbOPp : C&E is actually "Cause and Effect Matrix".
Most of the hoppering sessions I participated in over the years were a waste of time. Too much focus on ideas that were resource intensive to implement, had low probability of success, and minimal $ benefit. When there were ideas that seemed reasonable and passed the "gut check", no one was prepared with data to show the potential benefit so the idea scored low and wasn't pursued. In one department, the same popular idea to address a long-standing issue was suggested 3 years in a row. However, the process engineer was too lazy to collect supporting data so nothing ever happened.
It sounds like the "hoppering sessions" and "dream state" exercises that you described may have been methods that the company used to generate and evaluate new ideas or inventions. The C&E matrix, or "cost and effectiveness" matrix, is a tool used to evaluate potential projects or ideas based on their expected costs and potential benefits. However, it sounds like the criteria for evaluating these ideas may have been subject to change or manipulation by leaders, and that the process may not have been entirely objective or effective. Additionally, the mention of ordering box lunch as an incentive for the process is indicative of the company not taking the process that seriously.
It is true that linking research and marketing functions more closely together could potentially lead to more profitable patents for a company like 3M. However, implementing such changes would likely require a significant overhaul of the company's organizational structure and communication channels. Additionally, rewarding employees for patents that generate revenue for the company could also incentivize them to focus more on developing patents that have a higher likelihood of commercial success, rather than pursuing more speculative or "blue sky" research.
3M had a high tech product that provided a visual indication when service life was getting close to end. It was obvious that customers would never pay for it. It's akin to developing high tech toilet paper that could keep track of the number of wipes. When it's done, you'll know it. Product didn't survive. While the $hit didn't end up on anyone's hands, I'm certain there was some left in their mouth when they had to eat it. Winning?
If 3M only paid its people more for patents that actually made the company money, then the place wouldn't be a patent mill but rather a better linked function between research and marketing.
Now the silos are so bad between functions and also between businesses. Unless you have a PhD in PowerPoint, you can't communicate with people who got 4 yesr degrees in engineering or even 9 years for the PhD crowd. They've forgotten the technical stuff that I know for slide shows.
Imagine how much dog food cousin Eddie could buy for sn-t if he delivered one meaningful patent.
I can’t help but notice every major financial publication indicates 3M has no clear strategy.
What gives?
Karina Chavez would agree!
4M Profile Quote “It’s about supporting constant iteration, until a point you make yourself obsolete.”
We’ll, mission accomplished 💯✅
A good strategy would focus resources on a biodegradable PFAS replacement for starters.
Does anybody think she has the best available qualifications for this role? Or was it to simply tick a box?
We called them hoppering sessions. Sometimes we'd do an exercise called "dream state". In all cases ideas were ranked by a C & E matrix. If leaders didn't like the score they'd change the criteria or change it on a "gut check. " A total waste of time but if you were lucky they'd order you a box lunch.
Listen, we have all been there, give forth your best ideas and watch the plaguerism of upper management implementing your idea as their own, here are some other ideas they have stole down the years:
Expanding into new markets: This could involve entering new geographical regions, or branching out into new industries or product lines.
Developing new products or services: This could involve investing in research and development, or acquiring or partnering with other companies that have innovative products or services.
Focusing on customer service and satisfaction: This could involve investing in training and development for customer-facing employees, or implementing new technologies to improve the customer experience.
Improving operational efficiency: This could involve streamlining processes, automating tasks, or outsourcing non-core functions.
Diversifying revenue streams: This could involve developing new revenue streams, such as offering consulting services or licensing intellectual property.
Mergers, Acquisitions, and Partnerships: This could involve acquiring other companies that are complementary to the business, forming strategic partnerships with other companies, or investing in startups.
Ultimately, the strategy that EO leadership team chooses will depend on the specific goals and circumstances of the organization.