Client Insights, Managing Consultant, IBM Center for Applied Insights
Today we’re launching new research of financial services that build on findings from our global cross-industry study, Why partnering strategies matter, released in May of this year. Here, I'll explore how the financial services industry compares to our global study - where they outperform, and where they have an opportunity to improve performance.
What did we find?
The financial services sector has faced a number of challenges in recent years. A global economic crisis slowed growth and put pressure on these enterprises to creatively cut costs while also facing increased governmental compliance and regulatory requirements. Client expectations and sophistication also rose. Similar to respondents in our global study, leading financial firms began a shift in sourcing motivations and execution.
As reported in our cross-industry study, leaders that source broadly and for innovation do better financially, reporting 2x revenue growth and 5x gross profit growth compared to their peers. Financial services respondents are no different. What is different for financial services companies is increased attention on agility achieved through new business and operating models, and responding better by anticipating market shifts.
Does the financial services industry partner differently?
First, we looked at how financial services compare to global respondents across four partnering strategies. When we look at extent of outsourcing and primary sourcing motivation, we find a higher percent of Enterprise Innovators and Enterprise Optimizers in financial services. What does this mean? Respondents in financial services are at the forefront of this shift in sourcing strategy - sourcing more broadly across the organization compared to their industry peers.
Are business priorities and partner capabilities different?
Enterprise Innovators in the financial services sector are similar to leaders in other industries - putting an emphasis on agility and responsiveness to achieve desired business results. However, financial services leaders differ in three areas: their focus on enabling new business models to outperform, anticipating market shifts, and creating a culture of innovation throughout the organization. Enterprise Innovators in financial services order these priorities more than 20 percent higher than their peers in other industries.
Can these leaders do more?
Financial services organizations can do more to improve the connection between shifting sourcing motivations and execution. Enterprise Innovators in financial services are aligning their services with business outcomes, but are less likely to tie metrics to business outcomes. They are on par in transforming their scope to include a broad range of delivery models, include partners in strategy, and vertically integrate contracts across infrastructure, business processes, and applications. However, when it comes to skills, they are less likely to make the required role changes to current personnel. Finally, they are moving toward integrating governance across service providers, but can improve by implementing enterprise-wide governance.
To see our full study - ’Partnering for innovation in financial services’ and to access the global cross-industry study, visit our page.
This is my third post in our series about research into changing sourcing strategy and execution. My first post looked at how leaders are taking a broader and more strategic view of sourcing relationships. In the second, I looked at the dramatic financial impact of sourcing decision-making (2x the revenue growth and 5x the gross profit growth compared to their peers!). Here, I’ll explore top business priorities and partner capabilities Enterprise Innovators are looking at to structure, scope, and govern these shifting sourcing relationships.
Priorities are shifting and capabilities must adapt to match Enterprise Innovators include enterprises which put a greater focus on innovation and sourcing for a broad set of capabilities. Agility and market responsiveness are key differentiators. If they are going to get the rapid innovation and growth they seek, they need specific capabilities from their chosen partners.
Enterprise Innovators are looking for providers that can help them wherever they want to go:
Geographic specific experience and expertise
Proven physical and IT infrastructure
Flexible, integrated supply chains
Creative approaches to existing channels
Proactive ideas for new technology
Enterprise Innovators are experimenting with new business models along the way, trying to learn quickly and driving new ideas to results. If partners cannot respond, they may be left behind.
As I’ve said, these leaders are seeking a different kind of provider, in truth, a different type of relationship. To accomplish their business objectives, they recognize the need to alter the way they structure and manage their long-term alliances. Key facets of this change is outcome visibility, a focus on transformation (not just moving capabilities), and keeping all players involved in governance.
How can we see success?
Historically, service level agreements have focused on operational or cost-centric measures like system availability or cost per service desk call. But new leaders are aligning measurements with business priorities. In the financial services sector, that might mean driving uptake in mobile banking; in the telco industry, it might be lowering subscriber acquisition cost or increasing up- and cross-sell rates; or for a retailer, it might involve meeting an aggressive roll-out schedule for expansion into a new market. This shift in thinking gives rise to new vendor valuation models – ones that can help assess a provider’s contribution to broader business objectives beyond cost reduction.
Must everything change?
Enterprise Innovators are sourcing to get capabilities they need to innovate on a broad scale. So there’s a transformative bent to their sourcing relationships. Their contracts are more likely to be vertically integrated – they may include business process, applications and technology infrastructure – to enable more holistic change.
Enterprise Innovators are more likely to engage partners for specific industry or functional expertise which they can leverage to transform the roles of their employees. If their aim is marketing innovation and they’re sourcing analytics capabilities, they want their partner to do more than just provide a basic service – they want help reshaping how the marketing function works – to drive beyond understanding customer segments to understanding individual customers, from describing what’s happening to predicting what’s next.
Can we just work together?
Enterprise Innovators are pushing faster toward enterprise-wide governance. Because they’re focused on results, they recognize the need for input and collaboration across all the business units and providers involved. If the goal is accelerating the launch of new products and services, then marketing, manufacturing, distribution and sales may all need a voice in related services sourcing decisions.
This post concludes my three part series on sourcing market shifts. Want to continue the conversation? To learn more, visit our page and download the whitepaper!
I came across this Smarter Commerce video a couple of weeks ago and I really like because it gets to the core of what Smarter Commerce is and why you should care about it. If you take a few minutes to watch it, what you’ll notice is that it keeps coming back to the customer as a central theme.
And at the end of the day, that’s really what Smarter Commerce is all about. It’s taking all of that data you’re collecting, helping you develop insights about your customer and the marketplace, and then applying all of that to every aspect of your business.
We recently conducted some research on a couple of specific areas with our colleagues from IBM DemandTec. Specifically, we looked at retail merchants and CPG sales organizations. The retail merchant research was conducted in collaboration with Planet Retail and the CPG sales org research was conducted in collaboration with Kantar Retail.
As we looked at the data from these research projects, we kept coming back to the same central theme as the video above: the customer. Everybody talks about being customer-centric. It’s almost a cliché. But what we found was that while everybody talks about it, most aren’t actually doing it.
Merchants tend to be product and category oriented, and CPG sales orgs tend to focus on their customer, the retailer, rather than the end consumer. Now we’re not saying that merchants should forget about product categories or that CPG sales teams should ignore the retailer, but we found that groups that placed a strong focus on the customer (or more specifically the consumer when talking about CPG) tended to outperform those that didn’t.
These “leaders” were customer-focused and collaborative, both within their enterprises and externally with vendors and partners. And they also made much greater use of analytics to uncover insights about their customers and the marketplace. The differences were really quite striking. For example, Leading Merchants were 1.6x more likely on average to use analytics to drive merchandising decisions, while Leading CPG Sales Organizations were more than 1.7x more likely to use analytics to improve product innovation.
When you are in the business of developing (hopefully) provocative, data-driven thought leadership, every topic or issue can seem like it is undergoing rapid, fundamental transformation. Things are faster. Things are more complex. Things are being disrupted. When setting out earlier this year to take a look at how the role of finance and the CFO is changing, I had to make sure that I wasn’t going to fall into that pattern without due cause.
There are plenty of articles, reports and other quips saying that CFOs can’t just keep the books anymore. Protecting the bottom line isn’t enough. The value that they provide needs to change. Finance leaders have to be more creative, more innovative, and more strategic, yet still maintain operational discipline and efficiency.
Is this true? Are there finance leaders who are doing things differently and succeeding because of their efforts? After research, analysis, study and conversation, I have to say that this is real, and it comes down to those who can manage three areas that are accelerating concurrently and reinforcing one another.
Accelerating technological change…
With economic uncertainty and tightening business and technology cycles it is hard to stay at the cusp of change, let alone get ahead of it. A recent article on the Forbes blog, “4 Ways Technology Is Transforming Business Strategy”, does a nice job explaining why technology is disrupting strategy. Since technology (mainly IT, but also in other areas) doesn’t change in a nice linear way, it’s dramatically reducing the shelf life of business models. The pace of change is out of whack, coming in fits and spurts, and making the job of finance executives, who like things nice and predictable, very difficult. But technology is not just a challenge; it’s also an opportunity to give CFOs and other finance practitioners new tools.
Accelerating strategic change…
Traditionally a functional role, finance has always been responsible for efficient financial operations, ensuring compliance, providing trusted information and managing cash and capital. However, things are getting harder and harder with stability and predictability becoming a thing of the past when it comes to markets, competition, and customers. What can CFOs do about this strategic shift?
In the article, “Think Functionally, Act Strategically”, the author discusses how functional roles, like finance, have to change to meet accelerating strategic change. They have to balance the basic business capabilities and competitive necessities of the past with differentiating capabilities of the future. It is not just about using the current capabilities and processes of the organization anymore – CFOs have to co-create the strategy, the tools, the processes and the implementation plans with the rest of the business.
By embracing and riding technology and strategic acceleration, CFOs can potentially unlock performance gains. We decided to go back and re-examine the results from IBM’s 2010 Global CFO Study, extend the work, and see how organizations were performing financially that were pushing their efficiency and analytical capabilities. You can read the approach and details in the report, but looking at financial measures like revenue and EBITDA, we found that those enterprises that are excelling at efficiency and insight are outperforming financially through all phases of the economic cycle. We hypothesize that this is opening them to new strategic possibilities – evolving into what we call “performance accelerators” (see graphic below).
CFOs and others in the finance function can help manage the acceleration of technology, strategy and performance. By using their current capabilities and developing new tools and processes, they can act as headlights, the gas, the breaks and the navigation system for their organization. We can’t analytically prove the existence of “performance accelerators” yet, but with further research we expect to show that strategic, growth-driven CFOs are seeing accelerating performance benefits.
Client Insights, Managing Consultant, IBM Center for Applied Insights
This is the second post in a 3-part series about our new Sourcing research. My first blog post in this series looked at current outsourcing market shifts - a broader and more strategic view of sourcing relationships. Today I am exploring the financial impact of sourcing decision-making. Enterprises that source broadly across the organization and with a primary focus on innovation perform better financially – racking up 2x the revenue growth and 5x the gross profit growth compared to their peers.
An initial look at average revenue growth and gross profit growth across segments suggested a potential correlation between partnering strategy and business performance. You can see below that respondents who are both sourcing broadly and sourcing for innovation, outperform by considerable margins (as you may recall we are calling these outperformers 'Enterprise Innovators'). However, we knew that a number of other factors – such as industry, company size, geography – could be influencing these results.
We initiated analysis to help rule out firmographic characteristics as the reason for Enterprise Innovators’ outperformance. Against a slate of financial measures, each based on 3-year 2011 compound annual growth rates, Enterprise Innovators trended higher than the average of the other segments combined. This overall pattern is statistically significant. However, since this sourcing study is observational, we could not definitively conclude that Enterprise Innovators’ approach to sourcing causes better financial performance based on this correlation. To help make that case, we used an analytical technique called propensity score modeling.
Propensity score analysis matches Enterprise Innovators with other organizations in the sample that have similar firmographic characteristics, such as industry, company size and geography. In this case, we calculated propensity scores using 68 Dun & Bradstreet variables – those which showed a significant difference between Enterprise Innovators and the other segments.
Enterprise Innovators scored higher than other businesses on all financial measures even after propensity score matching, suggesting their approach to sourcing – i.e., sourcing broadly to drive innovation – was a contributing factor to this higher performance.
My next blog post in this series will look at top business priorities and partner capabilities across the sample, and then explore how Enterprise Innovators structure, scope, and govern their sourcing relationships. Please log in and leave a comment!
Based on changes we’re observing in the market, along with direct experience working with clients, we initiated survey research to explore the premise that outsourcing motivations have shifted, and therefore, so should sourcing execution. Traditional outsourcing was focused on cost savings – now we’re seeing a shift to sourcing for skills and expertise – cost is still important, but organizations are indicating that they’re looking for higher business value outcomes as well.
To better understand sourcing motivations and execution, we started this research with three objectives:
To understand how sourcing motivations are changing
To determine how sourcing strategies impact financial performance
For those clients who embrace a new sourcing strategy, do they have different expectations? And, how do they structure and manage their sourcing relationships?
The rise in social, mobile, cloud computing and big data is creating tremendous potential for innovation. But it’s also forcing C-suite leaders to reconsider whether their organizations have the necessary expertise to capitalize on these opportunities. Of the number of factors impacting their organizations such as market factors, regulatory concerns, globalization, environmental issues, etc, CEOs reported technology as the most important factor impacting their organizations over the next three to five years. This is forcing organizations to rethink how they operate - creating new challenges and opportunities.
Across the C-suite, we’re seeing a pattern of partnering to get the right skills and expertise to innovate faster and move the business forward.
69% of CEOs are looking to partner extensively
53% of CEOs are partnering for innovation
92% of CMOs will increase use of external partnerships for customer and data analytics
65% of growth-focused CIOs are partnering extensively to change the mix of skills, expertise and capabilities
Sources: 2012 IBM Global CEO Study, 2011 IBM Global CMO Study, 2011 IBM Global CIO Study
We’re seeing a focus on looking to partner extensively, partner for innovation, and gain new skills that they haven’t had before. This shift in mindset – bringing strategic capabilities in, versus sending work out – is one reason enterprises are balking at the word “outsourcing” to describe these sourcing relationships.
To better understand the changing dynamics in business and IT services sourcing, we surveyed 1,351 sourcing decision makers from around the world. Our findings suggest that sourcing motivations are evolving beyond cost savings to include higher-order business outcomes like competitive advantage and innovation.
This sample was intentionally designed to be robust and diverse and included:
Growth and major markets
Business and IT leaders
C-level and key decision makers. Respondents had to indicate they played a key role in sourcing decisions for their organization to participate.
When we looked at breadth of outsourcing and primary motivation, this 2x2 segmentation model emerged:
Four partnering strategies:
Enterprise Innovators are looking to outsource broadly, and indicate a primary motivation of innovation.
Focused Optimizers are motivated to innovate, but are more narrow in their approach.
Enterprise Optimizers indicate they partner extensively, but they do outsource primarily for efficiency. They indicate they’re not yet looking to incorporate innovation in their overarching sourcing strategy.
Focused Optimizers, the largest population, partner narrowly for efficiency and effectiveness.
The y-axis explores primary motivation for outsourcing. We presented a range of options from traditional motivations focused on staff augmentation, IT or business process cost reduction, to productivity improvements achieved through standardization, automation, centralization, to innovation. We defined innovation to be aspirational - changing the way your industry works, changing the way you monetize value and redefining your company’s role in the value chain, including how you collaborate and how you operate.
For the x-axis, we looked at respondents’ current extent of outsourcing. We asked respondents whether they outsource across 80 different business processes, applications and IT functions. Using a trimmed mean analysis approach, the midpoint is 14. Those below the midpoint were categorized as sourcing in a more narrow fashion, those at or above the midpoint were categorized as sourcing broadly.
For those below the horizontal line, their primary motivation is operational efficiency or effectiveness. This includes traditional outsourcing objectives like short-term resource augmentation, cost reduction and traditional productivity improvements. Only 7% of surveyed decision makers said cost reduction and efficiency was the sole reason they outsourced IT infrastructure, applications and business processes. So while we’ll see in a future blog post that cost savings is a key business priority across the sample, it is not the sole reason for outsourcing for the majority of our respondents.
It is not enough to outsource broadly or just for innovation within a discrete process or function. It’s the combination of sourcing broadly across the enterprise for innovation that drives financial outperformance.
My next post explores the link between partnership strategy and financial performance. Log in and leave a comment!
In my previous post, I emphasized the importance of consumer focus for CPG companies. We, at the IBM Center for Applied Insights, have been working on a comprehensive global study* to gain more quantitative and qualitative insights about the increasing consumer focus of these CPG companies.
For the purpose of this study, we have segmented the market in terms of the degree of consumer focus and the use of analytics by the survey respondents. In this post, I would like to point out towards the most notable finding of the lot: existence of a “Leader” group amongst the survey respondents which enjoys much more clout with the retailers. In fact, they are nearly three times less concerned about needing a retailer’s approval to execute their plans, and 1.4 times less concerned about seeing their planning processes extended as a result of delays. They also exhibit superior financial performance over the rest. Between 2009 and 2012, the leading publicly quoted consumer products companies in our sample saw their stock prices rise 1.6 times faster than the rest (16 percent cumulative annual growth rate for Leaders compared to 10 percent cumulative annual growth rate for Others).
The companies in the Leader group use advanced analytics and collaborate extensively (both internally between functions and externally with retailers) to develop a high degree of consumer focus.
As shown in the figure 1 below, they comprise of about 15 percent of the total respondents.
The executive presentation will be delivered at the IBM Smarter Commerce event at Nashville this week.
For more details and insights on what exactly are these leaders doing differently than the rest and what steps can be taken to become one, revisit this space in a month. The Center and IBM DemandTec are authoring a complete paper on this topic, due out by the end of June.
I look forward to your comments and observations. Please click “Add a Comment” below or “More Actions” to share this with others.
Note - For the purpose of this study, we conducted telephone interviews with 356 senior sales executives at consumer products companies in Australia, Canada, India, the United Kingdom and United States, between February, 2013 to March, 2013. These respondents cover 10 product categories. Forty-six percent of them work for large enterprises (employing 1,000 or more people), while 54 percent work for medium-sized enterprises (employing 100-999 people).
Yesterday, we hosted a virtual livestream launch of our new Sourcing research. We’re live with exciting new research that explores how business and IT services sourcing are shifting – and the link between these shifting motivations and better business performance.
The sourcing market is changing. Clients are looking for sourcing relationships that offer higher value business outcomes in addition to cost savings. From our direct experience working with clients and general market observations, we've recognized technology shifts are accelerating the need for capabilities organizations don't have in-house.
To explore the extent of this shift – and how it is impacting organizations' sourcing motivations and strategies – we initiated a large-scale research project. Through this research, we saw distinct differences in the way that clients view outsourcing, and we uncovered a link between innovative sourcing practices and better business performance.
To better understand sourcing motivations and execution, we had three objectives for this study:
To understand how sourcing motivations are changing
To determine how sourcing strategies impact financial performance of the business
For those customers who embrace a new sourcing strategy, do they have different expectations? And, how do they structure and manage their sourcing relationships?
For the virtual panel, Rich Lechner, IBM VP of Services Marketing, served as moderator. I kicked off the discussion with an overview of study methodology and key findings. Then we were joined by the following experts:
Phil Fersht, CEO & Founder, HfS Research
Pat Kerin, General Manager, Strategic Outsourcing, Global Technology Services
Stan Sutula, Vice President, Finance and Planning, Global Technology Services
Joanne Collins-Smee, General Manager, Globally Integrated Capabilities, Global Business Services
Let’s start with some startling facts about the consumer products and goods (CPG) industry. Failure rates of new product innovations are estimated to be higher than 70 percent globally. Still, more than 80 percent of traditional marketers make decisions based on gut feel and past experiences, instead of using scientific approaches that unlock new insights (for example, advanced analytics).
Today, CPG companies are wrestling with a host of market challenges related to market, retailer and technology. Some of the significant challenges faced by the CPG companies include:
Market – Volatile commodity prices and shifts in global supply and demand increasingly influence the gross profit margins of CPG companies. Large multi-national CPG companies have global supply chains and they sell globally, hence their profit margins are affected by the cyclical movements of currencies, economies and other macro-economic factors in a country.
Retailer – The increasing clout of retailers in the marketplace poses significant challenge to the CPG companies. The big retailers are getting even bigger and more powerful. CPG companies face pressure from the retailers to reduce prices. There is a lack of collaboration/partnership with the retailers as retailers continue to limit access to consumer data and insights. CPG companies increasingly find it challenging to obtain approval from retailers for executing their plans and strategies. Maintaining retailer’s loyalty also becomes a big ongoing challenge for the CPG companies.
Technology – Keeping pace with exponential increase in data and associated analysis and technological developments has always been a challenge for the CPG companies. Companies are struggling with integrating data across channels and functions, cleaning and standardizing it and churning it with the help of advanced analytics to produce actionable insights.
These are all important challenges worthy of attention for the market participants, in order to survive and compete in the marketplace. Still, the manufacturers should start focusing on the one thing that can inform their product development, improve their operational effectiveness, increase their competitiveness and boost their profits - the consumer.
The presence of today’s technology-enabled empowered, omni-channel consumer affects how CPG companies control costs, grow sales, coordinate a wide variety of trade activities, manage time and manage the customer (retailer) relationship. These consumers are empowered by an abundance of information, technology and choices. Their expectations from the companies have increased in terms of ongoing engagement and constant experience across channels. And they can champion or sully the reputation of a brand at the click of a mouse. Their constant online and offline engagement with companies and their products generate a lot of data about their shopping behavior and preferences. That is why, manufacturers should start taking their end consumers more seriously as this knowledge can inform various functions like sales, supply chain, IT etc. across the companies (and not just marketing) and help companies transform their entire value chain. This would help them to anticipate consumer need s and proactively plan for them. This can also help them collaborate with retailers and gain a seat at the decision maker’s desk.
Many CPG companies, globally, have started to realize this need of strong consumer focus and are deploying dedicated resources and advanced analytics to develop consumer centric capabilities. For example, in its 2011 category leadership study by Kantar retail, when retailers were asked which manufacturers ranked among the top three in consumer/shopper insights and category management, Procter & Gamble (41.9%), Kraft Foods (37.1%) and PepsiCo (27.0%) came out on top, with General Mills a hair width behind (26.9%).
We, at the IBM Center for Applied Insights, have been working on a comprehensive global study of over 350 CPG senior executives to gain more quantitative and qualitative insights about the increasing consumer focus of these CPG companies. The focus of this study would be to understand market trends, the need for consumer orientation, who are the leaders, how they are doing it and the results achieved.
Watch out this space for more insights and information on the release of forthcoming executive presentation, info-graphic and white paper.
I look forward to your comments and observations. Please click “Add a Comment” below or “More Actions” to share this with others.
In a world of increasing and varying information security threats, academic initiatives focused on cybersecurity are proliferating - yet, there is still the danger of falling short in addressing the long-term threat. To avoid becoming too focused on near-term issues, programs must be more collaborative across their own institutions, with industry, government, and among the global academic community. Only by working in concert can we meet today’s demand while educating the next generation to create a more secure future.
There have been a lot of recent reports, blog posts and news articles discussing the cybersecurity skills gap. It has been an ongoing issue for a while, and will continue into the future. We wanted to tackle this problem, not from the demand side, but from the supply side. So, the IBM Center for Applied Insights and IBM’s Cyber Security Innovation team selected 15 academic programs in 6 different countries from the over 200 institutions we monitor and work with. We conducted interviews with faculty members, department chairs and others. This week, we released a synthesis of those interviews in our latest security insights paper,“Cybersecurity education for the next generation: Advancing a collaborative approach” .
Through our interviews it was confirmed that cybersecurity is top of mind for students, educators, industry and government. Industry and government are currently facing a significant skills gap and this is causing the programs we interviewed see extremely high demand for their students, both undergraduate and graduate.
But, not all is rosy with the increased demand and attention. Programs are expected to provide more of everything – courses, graduates, opportunities, research – which has caused programs to face a number of organizational and technology challenges. Stained programs are addressing these challenges in different ways, taking different approaches to cybersecurity education, but still sharing similar common principles.
The trends, challenges, issues and differing perspectives cannot be fully addressed by each academic program on its own; cybersecurity is a global problem and should have global solutions. A set of leading practices promoting a longer-term and more collaborative approach is needed. We identified three general areas that the leading programs we talked to excelled at, all dealing with collaboration and connection.
1. Collaborate within your own institution – Cybersecurity programs should embed security practices and principles in computer science and engineering courses and take a holistic technical approach. They should work with other disciplines and schools in the university (e.g., business, law, ethics, medicine, policy). They should offer diverse education options for students and professionals (graduate, undergraduate, professional development, etc.).
2. Co-evolve with industry and government – Academic programs should have deep ties with industry and government – partnering and collaborating on research, curriculum development, and opportunities for students. A hands-on, practical, approach is also extremely important. Laboratory work, projects, special-interest groups, and internships should all be cultivated.
3. Connect across the global academic community – A number of the programs we talked with discussed the need for building a “science of security” to anticipate security problems and a cross-discipline lingua franca among scientists, engineers and policy makers. Fundamental concepts and common vocabulary can only be developed with participation of the entire global cybersecurity community.
We recently put together a nice video that provides an overview of Marketing Science. What is Marketing Science exactly? Well you can either watch the video or take a look at our Whitepaper. But the short version is that it's a way for marketers to deal with the challenges that "Big Data" presents by using a more rigorous scientifically grounded approach to develop insights and then using those insights to impact the business.
The concept itself really isn't very complicated. We've boiled it down to 3 steps: Architect Data, Apply Science, and Influence Action. However, the application of these concepts isn't always easy or straightforward. So over the coming months, I'll be posting about some of our own internal examples of applying Marketing Science to give you a better feel for what it looks like in practice.
And if your company has been engaging in Marketing Science, we'd love to hear about it. Who knows, maybe your example could be the subject of a future blog post.
The era of “Big Data” presents a variety of challenges and opportunities for marketers. With the increase in volume, velocity, and granularity of data, marketers can become much more precise in how they interact with both the marketplace and individual customers. But the same time, when you’re dealing with large volumes of data, it’s easy to over-fit your models and mistake “noise” for “signal”, to borrow a concept from Nate Silver’s excellent book, The Signal and the Noise.
This is something that we’ve been dealing with internally at IBM for a while now. In response, we’ve developed a framework internally that we think may help others refine their own approach to generating insights from data.
We call this framework “Marketing Science”. This is a 3-step framework consisting of “Architecting Data”, “Applying Science”, and “Influencing Action”. The fundamental idea is to apply the scientific method to developing insights within a business setting. This presents unique challenges in and of itself. But there are some basic concepts to keep in mind:
"Architecting" (or collecting and structuring) data is extremely important. The rest of the process depends on getting access to the right data from a variety of sources and if you haven’t done a good job of dealing with data across your enterprise, it’s like trying to run a 100m race with your shoes untied.
A hypothesis-test-refine approach to data analysis is central to the concept of Marketing Science. Developing and testing hypotheses is one of the main ways you limit your exposure to over-fitting data.
Within a business setting, insights are only valuable in so far as they’re able to inform decision-making and/or influence action. At the end of the day, driving business outcomes is the goal of Marketing Science. Keeping this in mind helps to keep you focused through the first two steps. And it means that once you’ve uncovered a nugget of insight, the real work may just be getting started as you take that insight back to the business.
Marketing Science is a fascinating topic that we’ll be talking about quite a bit more moving forward. We’ve conducted some market research that I think will be very enlightening and have started collecting some use-cases of how we’re applying these principles in a practical sense. In the meantime, if you have any comments or thoughts on developing insights from data, we’d love to hear from you.
I've previously written about our research of leading marketers, both their correlation with improved financial performance and what exactly they do differently than everybody else. We recently sat down with three leaders from our Enterprise Marketing Management team, Yuchun Lee, Elana Anderson, and Jay Henderson, and asked them to discuss our research and the implications of that research in more detail. Check out the video to get their take on why marketing matters, and how you can continue to engage with customers effectively and invest your marketing dollars intelligently.
Leave us a comment here or on YouTube to let us know if you're seeing similar trends in your enterprise.
This month is the 10th anniversary of London’s congestion charge. It was not quite the first such scheme (Singapore had been running theirs for almost 10 years) but it was certainly one of the earliest internationally visible Smarter City projects before the term had even been invented. So what can we learn 10 years on from their experience?
Prevailing opinion at the time was that it was an audacious experiment. Most people expected it not to work, & certainly not to be popular. But if it was a success, it would establish London as a pioneering city, with many others in the UK and elsewhere keen to emulate it.
How wrong that opinion was! Congestion charging has been a success with remarkably few technical problems and an acquiescent, if not wildly enthusiastic, public. It had an immediate impact on traffic volumes and congestion and London is a cleaner city as a result. Yet the follow on wave of implementations has not happened. Why not?
I think the reason is in how the benefits from congestion charging are delivered and communicated to the public. The economic case for congestion charging is hard to dispute – it is cheaper to implement than road building programmes and the benefits of reduced congestion, from fewer accidents, increased mobility and fewer emissions are considerable and proven. Yet these benefits are not clearly visible to the public, who only experience the inconvenience of adapting to a new way of paying for their commute. When proposed schemes are put to the public (as they were in Manchester, Edinburgh and West London) the public voted strongly against. It takes a particular brave mayor to risk upsetting public opinion, whatever the ultimate gain to the city as a whole.
So for significant smarter city projects like congestion charging to proceed as more than vanity projects of bold mayors, more work is needed to convince the public of its benefits. There are signs that this may be happening….As technology in related areas like telematics, car to car communications, automated parking systems etc progresses, the creation of a digital city road infrastructure can be seen as an enabler to drive innovation and new business opportunities. Many governments, including the US, UK, Germany, S Korea, Japan and Singapore have identified the potential of investing in traffic management and information services to drive business investment and jobs. There is a race to lead these industries of the future. But to join the race, let alone win it, cities will need first to convince their public that it’s worth it.
Mobile money has progressed by leaps and bounds in the recent years and a lot of innovations are happening globally. The industry is undergoing a lot of changes and ecosystem participants are trying to learn from their successes and failures to innovate further. I have been an avid follower of the various developments happening in the industry. In this post, I will capture my thoughts on key segments of growth/developments which I would expect to happen this year. I believe these segments of growth/developments have the potential to bring further scale and innovation in this industry:
1. Development of ‘App Store’ – I expect that some of the major mobile money service providers may open up their platforms via an Application Programming Interface (APIs) that allows third parties to hook in and innovate. This development has the potential to replicate the success of the ‘Apple Appstore’ by providing an incentivized ecosystem to the developers. They would develop innovative and customized applications for specific markets which would address specific needs and in turn, attract more customers to the service. Thinking further, an ecosystem of these Apps stores from various service providers can provide further scale up and growth opportunities to them.
For example, a Kenyan MPesa customer on his visit to Ghana, can simply download an app to pay parking fees or make some quick purchases in a busy market in Ghana. Implementing platform level and customer level interoperability would be the foundation to build this big ecosystem.
2. Transformation of traditional model of B2B payments – Increasingly, mobile money is finding its application in the Retail industry for Point of Sale (PoS) transactions. Interestingly, I would expect more Business to Business (B2B) mobile money solutions to emerge for various industries. These solutions would focus on transforming the way payments are being made throughout the value chain. The aim would be to reduce risk of carrying cash, optimize liquidity, and provide delivery of goods and payments with security.
For example, Coca-Cola Sabco is looking at the use of mobile money as a way to shift the supply chain of its Manual Distribution Centers away from cash. In Papua New Guinea, IFC is looking at piloting mobile money to reduce the use of cash in the coffee supply chain.
3. Development of new business models – Traditionally a Mobile Network Operator (MNO) or a bank provides the mobile money services either individually or in collaboration. Of late, new business models are emerging as different industries are exploring mobile money based custom applications.
For example, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL), a leading telecom service provider in India, has a mobile banking platform which will help mobile subscribers to send money orders electronically. The unique thing is that this SMS based service is done in association with India Post. Receiver will be able to encash the SMS at all post offices in the country. Starbucks, a leading coffee chain is already among the most successful early adopters of mobile payments, claiming to have processed USD26 million in mobile transactions in the US just 12 months after launching the service. Recently, it has forged a partnership with Square that will see the mobile payments company power in-store credit and debit card payments for Starbucks.
I expect that more of these innovative and interesting partnerships will emerge which would utilize mobile money to conduct business more efficiently and effectively.
I look forward to your comments and observations. Please click “Add a Comment” below or “More Actions” to share this with others.