by George Casey | Jan 21, 2014 | Business Analysis, Uncategorized |
A business model outlining and explaining how an organization creates, delivers, and captures value is used to launch new ideas or readjust the practices of an existing company. A comprehensive business model encourages strategic thinking and holistic design. In Business Model Generation: A Handbook for Visionaries, Game Changers, and Challengers, Alexander Osterwalder and Yves Pigneur describe the importance of developing and revisiting an organization’s business models. They assert that to stay healthy, you should continually reassess your business model’s current viability and future promise. The modeling process is improved when it is performed on a recurring basis and there is an honest and comprehensive vetting of ideas. Because almost all business models eventually become obsolete, proactive companies actively conceive and pursue new models. Doing this helps business leaders question long-held assumptions and make better decisions for their companies. To define a business model, the authors outline nine interrelated parts that cover a company’s customers, offer, infrastructure, and financial viability. For a thorough approach to new ideas or new ways of doing business, ample time and energy must be given to examining each component. Customer segments – Identify one or more types of customers. Mass markets and niche markets require different approaches. Your organization may have multi-sided platforms in which you sell different services to two or more different groups of customers. Value propositions – Determine which benefits lead customers to your company rather than to your competitors. Your organization may offer something new, perform better, or be designed to meet specific needs. Capture that information succinctly. Channels – Select the best customer touch points to communicate value and to...
by George Casey | Jan 20, 2014 | Uncategorized |
In evaluating business performance, business analysts, requirements management experts, and business leaders are all looking at the ROI. When bringing in consultants for new projects and processes, the focus on ROI stays in place. As clients, businesses are seeking tangible improvements in ROI. In return, consultants are becoming more and more prepared to demonstrate their impact. Both clients and consultants want to see the effect on the bottom line – before they sign on the dotted line. Jack Phillips explores this topic in “The Consultant’s Scorecard — Tracking Results and Bottom-Line Impact of Consulting Projects.” He underscores the point that not tracking ROI can be hazardous for both businesses and hired consultants: Wasted resources – When not focusing on the results that count, too much money can be wasted on interventions that are not defined and measured. Burned-up staff time – Phillips reminds us that consultants often have to consume a significant amount of staff time to provide them information and bring them up to speed. Negative effect on staff morale – This wasting of employees’ time affects morale. Because consultants report back to management, employees don’t see their contributions and only seem consultants as taking up time and creating work. Poor advice – When not tracking to ROI, consultants can give poor advice that results in reduced profits and increased expenses. Damaged careers – Supporting the wrong consultants can be detrimental to a manager’s career. With this much at stake, it’s imperative to have a solid ROI assessment in place that clarifies That various stakeholder groups can respond to the consultant at timeframes throughout the project Whether specified...
by George Casey | Nov 11, 2013 | Business Analysis, Uncategorized |
Every year companies lose money in staff time and resources by hosting poorly planned and organized conference calls. Starting late, tangents, and lack of follow-up all distract from successful meetings. Byron Van Arsdale led a great webinar for Enfocus Solutions. In “No More Lame Conference Calls,” Van Arsdale revealed several tips to taking control of conference calls and virtual meetings, keeping everyone engaged, and ending on time. The speaker quickly outlined the problem. In 2010, there were over 6.2 million conference calls held each week. TeleSpan Publishing Corp reported that in the same year consumers spent 9.3 billion minutes on free conference calls and 45.3 billion minutes on paid conference calls. Van Arsdale said the business cost in terms of lost productivity, wasted time, and lost sales opportunities when conference calls are inefficient or unproductive is astronomical. Van Arsdale explained that companies and organizations continue to waste precious resources on “lame” conference calls for one reason: Everyone thinks they lead great conference calls and are not inclined to take responsibility for any calls that do not go well. To address the challenges in leading conference calls, Van Arsdale offers several points: Remember you are a unique leader. Most people learn to lead conference calls based on what they learned from other professionals. Yet often their attempts to be like their role models go to far, and they end up not being themselves as they lead calls. Van Arsdale asserts you should develop your own style, based on your own strengths and qualities, so that you appear real and authentic. Make an agenda and distribute it well in advance of...
by George Casey | Nov 5, 2013 | ITIL and Service Design, Uncategorized |
The “Geek Gap” between managers, known as “suits,” and technicians or engineers, known as “geeks,” was growing apparent in 2006 when authors Bill Pfleging and Minda Zetlin wrote The Geek Gap: Why Business and Technology Professionals Don’t Understand Each Other and Why They Need Each Other to Survive. The authors found that the faulty communication caused by the Geek Gap was costing businesses billions of dollars each year in failed IT projects. They reported that in 2003, the Geek Gap resulted in the loss of $55 billion in the U.S. alone, and they predicted that as business became more technology based, the Geek Gap would continue to grow. Now, fast forward a decade, this prediction has held true, and businesses continue to look for ways to bridge the gap between executives and technicians. In their book, Pfleging and Zetl explain that the conflicts arise from the very different viewpoints, agendas, and ideas of how accomplishments are measured. They say suits have numerous pet peeves against geeks. They believe geeks: Don’t understand – or want to understand – anything about the businesses they work in Love technology for its own sake, not considering what new gadgetry might cost Expect that suits understand as much as they do about technology Can never seem to meet deadlines or stay within budgets Think rules shouldn’t apply to them Are bad with people Adding to this, there are several pet peeves geeks have about suits. They believe suits: Refuse to learn anything about technology Don’t understand technology but insist on making technological pronouncements Don’t value technology Only care about money Resist innovation Value image...
by George Casey | Oct 22, 2013 | Business Analysis, Collaboration, Uncategorized |
There is no “I” in team, and research shows there hasn’t been one for decades. Teamwork and the ability to succeed in a team environment – for the betterment of the team – are not new concepts. The skillset continues to be called on by managers and business leaders, and through the years, it has become a fundamental value of employees across all industries. Recognizing how important teamwork is to collaboration and communication, especially in requirements development, we revisit John Maxwell’s resource from 2006, the 17 Essential Qualities of a Team Player. In it, Maxwell asserts that teams win when they have good players, and on collaborative teams, each member has a talent that strengthens the whole team. Here, we revisit those 17 characteristics, recognizing that their importance never goes out of style. 1. Adaptable. Good team members are able to work with a variety of groups, from stakeholders to developers. They are flexible, open to different mindsets, and able to transfer their knowledge to new groups and endeavors. 2. Collaborative. Good team members see others as co-workers, not as competitors. They focus on the group and celebrate collective victories. 3. Committed. Teams are successful when they have members who are dedicated and believe in the value of their work. Good team members increase their level of commitment when they face a challenging task: The more difficult the problem, the less likely they are to give up. 4. Communicative. Communication is essential to team-building. Good team members communicate candidly and directly. When a problem arises, they resolve it promptly. 5. Competent. Good team members make a commitment to excellent...
