Disqus - Latest Comments for adrianho

Re: Should the CMO role be merged with the CIO role?

adrianho — Thu, 13 Nov 2014 17:43:23 -0000

Thanks for reactivating this post, I had forgotten about it myself. I agree that the functional roles are very different and there is very little cross over at staff levels. However, at the same time businesses like Uber and Airbnb are proof that technology operations are in fact the biggest drivers of demand. Additionally companies like Amazon, Valve and others are demonstrating that "internal" technology platforms that are initially designed to optimize internal systems can actually be exposed to external partners and customers and turn into brand new revenue streams. There's a lot of diffusion between these areas and rather than having two (often competing) visions I still wonder whether having one officer responsible for both might be the best for a certain set of companies?

Re: — Coined | Backer's Club

adrianho — Fri, 22 Aug 2014 18:43:49 -0000

Add me to the disappointed list, I bought 5. Four of them are for family members who aren't tech savvy, don't want to be beta testers and won't bother learning to use a device that will be outdated within months. How do we get a refund?

Re: Our assault on imagination.

adrianho — Thu, 13 Dec 2012 14:14:43 -0000

Hi Nigel, I think you are right that it's possible to ladder up from small things but what I've started to realise is that the atmosphere this approach creates among your teams and your clients is one of optimization, small improvements and logical incrementalism. Therefore, while it is possible, I am starting to believe it isn't wise. Big ideas inspire and energize, they prove it's possible to take leaps. The best way to execute a big idea may well be through a series of smaller ones, but I don't believe it's the best way to arrive at a big idea.

Re: On being independent.

adrianho — Mon, 10 Sep 2012 14:45:46 -0000

In reading this properly it looks like my work helped to make the E65 the most popular 7 series ever which couldn't be further from the truth. I'm comfortable claiming that my work didn't hurt...

Re: Ad Fed MN

adrianho — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 09:29:21 -0000

Thanks Valeria, you are far too kind as always! Good luck with your speech too and let me know if you are ever in MN

Re: Planningness: production as strategy.

adrianho — Tue, 24 May 2011 13:19:00 -0000

Hey Frank,

I guess the point of the presentation was to talk about the lessons we learned from looking at Agile and other methods that we thought could improve our process and approach. We haven't completely abandoned traditional methods, we are simply taking a more humanistic approach to project management that allows us to include adaptation and discovery along the way that, hopefully, make our projects and ideas better.

Thanks,
Dave
Head of Production

Re: Parsing the semiotics of company mission statements

adrianho — Sat, 04 Dec 2010 14:57:43 -0000

Maybe they'll buy Wikileaks now that Groupon is a no go?

Re: What your motivations say about your brand?

adrianho — Thu, 28 Oct 2010 09:35:16 -0000

Hey Andy, good to hear from you here. I agree, there's a time and place for entertainment as there is for utility, my mistake was that I was trying to generalise in my post because I didn't want to call someone out specifically.

There is a kind of comedy - quite frequently used in our business unfortunately - where the intended target of the product or service is portrayed to be a helpless or useless sap solely for the purposes of creating an "entertaining piece of film."

Having worked in the industry for too long, all I see is a smug creative team who think they're better than everyone else and an equally supercilious client who believes his customers are to be manipulated not served.

Perhaps I'm cynical, perhaps I know more than most people, but I don't think intentions like that can be masked no matter how charming the disguise.

Re: Nonlinear strategy

adrianho — Thu, 02 Sep 2010 10:10:11 -0000

I had read you paper a while ago - in fact very soon after starting ZJ and liked it very much. I agree with you though, I do think the idea of emergence is right (and new) especially in strategy. In science, a variety of processes have emergent properties which aren't apparent initially. Most recently (at least for me) Douglas Hofstadter in his book "I am a strange loop," proposed that consciousness is an emergent property within our brains.Very interesting and also agree, this thread has been very helpful to me too!

Re: Nonlinear strategy

adrianho — Wed, 01 Sep 2010 09:38:24 -0000

What a fantastic presentation! That is very much what I am talking about. Slide 17 in particular points out what some of the goals of this kind if strategy might be e.g. to form specific kinds of relationships or in your words to allow for emergent structures.

So where is part 2?

Re: Nonlinear strategy

adrianho — Wed, 01 Sep 2010 09:31:48 -0000

That's a great post but I think it's a slightly different interpretation of what I was aiming for. I would call what Saffo talks about strategic prototyping. It's about trying a variety of different end-points and being quick to adjust on the fly. I think there is an outcome of strategy where no goal is ever defined. See my response to Polle.

Re: Nonlinear strategy

adrianho — Wed, 01 Sep 2010 09:27:57 -0000

Yes, that is one way to think about it, but it could also be even more open. For example, the strategy could be to aggregate and the collective intelligence of your customers and deliver it back to them (in fact I wrote about this last year: http://www.zeusjones.com/bl... ) This is an example of a completely open-ended strategy where a process rather than an end-point is defined.

I think this is the point I was originally trying to make about nonlinear strategy. It seems that goals cannot be predicted accurately in many cases and therefore it's better to define a process which can deliver multiple benefits rather than a goal which delivers one.

Thanks for helping me think this through!

Re: Nonlinear strategy

adrianho — Tue, 31 Aug 2010 18:28:42 -0000

Actually it is very similar to playing a game, have a goal in mind but adapt tactics to meet the challenges.

Re: Nonlinear strategy

adrianho — Tue, 31 Aug 2010 18:27:41 -0000

Yes that's interesting, although it feels like they just gave up at "it's complicated"

Re: Nonlinear strategy

adrianho — Tue, 31 Aug 2010 18:26:05 -0000

Yes, maybe this is not new, I am particularly guilty of rediscovering stuff that people have already talked about before. I think the difference is I am talking about how strategy plays out in the marketplace rather than at the specific campaign level. I will try to clarify my thinking

Re: Nonlinear strategy

adrianho — Tue, 31 Aug 2010 17:24:16 -0000

Well inherent in my thinking is the idea that a strategy is only good if both the company and the customer benefit from it. So rather than typical strategy which is fairly exploitative and one-sided, the "direction" is established in partnership.

Re: Nonlinear strategy

adrianho — Tue, 31 Aug 2010 17:07:03 -0000

Maybe? Is that something people talk about already?

Re: All strategies are not equal.

adrianho — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 11:16:05 -0000

I like the claim and proof model, leads me to the fact that claims need to be demonstrated in order to be proven which is sound, basic practice that many companies fail to grasp.

Re: All strategies are not equal.

adrianho — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 08:30:25 -0000

Agree, unfair is important, but I think that's a well accepted goal of strategy. Didn't someone else say something about winning the battle before it begins or something like that?

Re: All strategies are not equal.

adrianho — Wed, 11 Aug 2010 16:09:46 -0000

Yes sorry, I was a bit lazy and left that bit out. If strategy is physical and dependent upon your physical assets then it is how you use these assets that is the important question. Thanks Adam

Re: Sustainability no longer an advantage for small companies.

adrianho — Mon, 10 May 2010 17:48:14 -0000

Whew, like you said lots of (good) points, but the one that really gets me thinking is your assertion that:

"If people were to actually explore Walmart's commitment they'd see sustainability efforts are merely slowing the intensity of their footprint, not reducing it. In fact, Walmart’s footprint is still growing...

"Which brings us to a fundamental point: growth is the enemy of sustainability. So as long as shareholders value growth above all and corporations measure their value in terms of market capitalization, mature publicly traded companies will forever be at odds with the idea of sustainability."

I think you have hit onto something very important here which is that the overall business model of the company must be considered before one can make a judgment on their efficacy re: sustainability. If, like Walmart, the overall business is clearly about increasing consumption, then all sustainability efforts are simply aimed at fixing problems they create. However, aren't some big companies in the business of stealing share - or replacing existing consumption? In a mature category like automobiles, I think we have reached the limit of market size, therefore the battle is replacement.

Similarly, many small companies are going into existing markets to replace existing consumption, but I would think there are a bunch of small businesses that start in brand new categories that are spurring increased consumption. Can you really say that:

"Small companies can be structured in a way that they have a net-plus affect on the environment."

Lots to chew on here

Re: Sustainability no longer an advantage for small companies.

adrianho — Mon, 10 May 2010 14:52:07 -0000

I've had to think about this for a bit and I don't disagree with what you're saying here, but let me see if I can provide a counterpoint.

I think that Zipcar (and their like) are operating as a lab, creating markets that - when large enough - a big company will have a much better claim on filling.

Some "attributes" like personal service, craftsmanship, passion, handmade, etc. are very hard to scale and therefore solid attributes upon which to base a small business. For a small company, an investment in these is a direct investment in margin.

Sustainability is much better at scale and therefore an "investment in sustainability" probably won't lead to margin improvement or margin protection. In fact, in the long run, it's probably money down the drain from a pure investment standpoint.

I'd argue small companies need to have as capitalist a mindset as large ones, therefore if I were an entrepreneur starting up or a VC, I would have to think twice about basing a large part of my strategy upon sustainability.

Re: Sustainability no longer an advantage for small companies.

adrianho — Mon, 10 May 2010 14:02:39 -0000

Good point, competition is so 20th century, and acquisition is 00s thinking. I agree the interesting thing will be the new kinds of partnerships that are formed.

Re: Sustainability no longer an advantage for small companies.

adrianho — Mon, 10 May 2010 09:59:49 -0000

Hey Edward, good to see you!

That's the new role for small companies, to keep the corporations on the straight and narrow!

I think many will see it as a ploy but I have optimism that more will embrace it as a smart strategy and something that makes what they do more meaningful. People in big companies want to care about their jobs too. I think things like this make everyone's life better.

Re: Sustainability no longer an advantage for small companies.

adrianho — Fri, 07 May 2010 14:24:10 -0000

Yes, agreed. The usage of sustainability as a strategy is a bit cynical (and pessimistic on my part), I'd love for it to be THE business model not just a business model. Thanks Andrew - we're also big fans of John's thinking here too.