>O2 THINKING AHEAD >> Starbucks: An interview with Howard Schultz

>

 

 McKinsey Quarterly

Starbucks’ quest for healthy growth: An interview with Howard Schultz

The company once grew fast. Now CEO Howard Schultz wants it to grow with discipline—in emerging and developed markets alike.

When Howard Schultz returned to Starbucks as CEO in early 2008, after a hiatus of nearly eight years, he quickly concluded that growth had become a “carcinogen” and that the company needed a transformation in its culture and operating approach. As he was leading that change process, Schultz also chronicled it in his new book, Onward: How Starbucks Fought for Its Life without Losing Its Soul.1 In this edited conversation with McKinsey’s Allen Webb, Schultz answers some of the questions raised in his book, describes the insidious impact of breakneck growth on Starbucks, and explains how he hopes to keep the company on a healthier growth trajectory. Emerging markets have a significant role to play in powering future growth. So does Starbucks’ transition into what Schultz hopes will be the first company to excel as both a retailer and a purveyor—in supermarkets and other mass-market channels—of consumer packaged goods.
Included with this edited summary of Schultz’s comments are video excerpts from the actual interview.

 

Howard Schultz on Starbucks’ quest for healthy growth
The CEO describes his plans for the company to grow with discipline—in emerging and developed markets alike.

Howard Schultz: Let me try and put growth in the context of the last 15 or 20 years of Starbucks’ life, and then I’ll try and specifically answer the question. You have to understand that in 1987, Starbucks had 11 stores and 100 employees, and we had this dream to create a national brand around coffee and a unique experience in our stores that, hopefully, we would be able to extend from the West Coast to around the country.
And from that point on, the dream started becoming a reality, and it almost had a life of its own. What we were building seemed to work wherever we opened stores. We had a little bit of luck and business acumen and perhaps just the fortuitous opportunity that comes along with perfect timing. For 15-plus years or so, almost everything we did worked as we built this very unique brand around coffee and a values-based organization.
When you look at growth as a strategy, it becomes somewhat seductive, addictive. But growth should not be—and is not—a strategy; it’s a tactic. The primary lesson I’ve learned over the years is that growth and success can cover up a lot of mistakes. We’re going to make more mistakes. But we’ve learned a great lesson. And as we return the company to growth, it’ll be disciplined, profitable growth for the right reasons—a different kind of growth.
The Quarterly: So turning the clock back to 2008, what were some of the things you were seeing that felt carcinogenic?
Howard Schultz: When we reviewed some of the underperforming stores, I was horrified to learn that the stores that we ultimately had to close had been open less than 18 months. When you look at that—the money invested and the money that we had to write off—those decisions were made with a lack of discipline. Also, I think there were times, during that period when we were chasing growth, when we were making decisions that were kind of complicit with the stock price. That’s a very, very dangerous road to go down.
The Quarterly: One thing you did, soon after returning, was to stop reporting same-store sales.
Howard Schultz: Correct.
The Quarterly: Why did you do that, and how did it work out?
Howard Schultz: Well, there’s a fine line between trying to manage the company in the most appropriate fiduciary way—and at the same time providing analysts with 100 percent transparency, which they deserve. And I say “fine line” because you don’t want to start making decisions that are based on a P/E or stock price. However, when a P/E gets to a certain point and a stock price gets to a certain point, you begin to believe that the organization, the enterprise, is worth that. And then you get to a point where you’re managing to either uphold it or to increase it.
An albatross around the neck of most retailers and restaurant companies is this metric that Wall Street created many, many years ago: the calculation of the growth of stores open for more than one year. Taking one unit and seeing whether or not that unit is growing, year over year, is a solid case study of whether a company is healthy, but not the only one. In any event, Wall Street became enamored with this number. And as a result of that, most retailers and restaurants report comp-store sales on a monthly basis. What that does is produce tremendous fluctuation in stock prices on a monthly basis, because God forbid you get a down month.
I thought, when I came back, that we had become linked internally to the comp-store sales number, and we started making decisions that were driving incremental revenue and perhaps were not consistent with the equity of the brand. I wanted to remove that albatross from the necks of the operators.
So I announced, one day when I came back, that we were going to stop reporting monthly comps. And you would’ve thought the world came to an end. It didn’t come to an end. Now, at the time, since we were not performing, I was accused of not being transparent and trying to hide things. But what I was trying to do was make sure that our people were managing the business for the most appropriate constituent, which is the customer.
The Quarterly: What is an example of the kind of decision making that was concerning you?
Howard Schultz: I once walked into a Starbucks, and there was a table of teddy bears in the store that had nothing to do with coffee whatsoever. I asked the manager about this, and she said she was really enthused and excited because it was adding to her comps. You know, this doesn’t make any sense.
The Quarterly: You established an agenda when you came back—a seven-point transformation agenda. And you didn’t abandon growth as part of that. In fact, one of the planks was to “create innovative growth platforms worthy of our coffee.” Why set a goal like that when just fixing your core business was such a key priority for you?
Howard Schultz: You can’t attract and retain great people for a company that isn’t going to grow. No one wants to go home at night and say, “I’m working for a company that’s getting transformed.” It’s not very exciting. It’s so vitally important to give people hope, to provide aspirations and a vision for the future. And I knew from day one that when I returned, it wasn’t only going to be about restoring the company back to its original form. We had to instill a deep sense of commitment to growing the company.
The Quarterly: What did you mean, exactly, when you said you hoped to figure out a different way of growth for Starbucks, a different growth pattern?
Howard Schultz: This is a unique inflection point for Starbucks; I think we’ve identified a very big opportunity to do something that really has not been done before. And that is the following: there are many, many companies, domestically and around the world, that have built a domestic national footprint around retail stores, just like Starbucks—the Gap, Costco, Wal-Mart, Coach, Zara. And there are many consumer-packaged-goods companies—Pepsi, Coke, Kellogg’s, Campbell’s. There hasn’t been one company I can identify that has been able to build complementary channels of distribution by integrating the retail footprint and the ubiquitous channels of distribution—in our case, grocery stores and drug stores.
So the model is, Starbucks can seed and introduce new products and new brands inside our stores. We introduced VIA instant coffee in our stores. Instant coffee is a $24 billion global category that has not had any innovation in over 50 years. And no growth. If we took VIA and we put it into grocery stores and it sat on a shelf, it would have died. But we can integrate VIA into the emotional connection we have with our customers in our stores. We did that for six to eight months and succeeded well beyond expectations in our stores. And as a result of that, we had a very easy time convincing the trade, because they wanted it so badly.
We can draft off of our stores into ubiquitous channels of distribution and then integrate that into the capability and the discipline we have around social and digital media. And this is not a pipe dream. This will happen in 2011. Right now, one out of every five transactions in our stores happens off the Starbucks card. And it’s growing rapidly. Sometime in 2011, not only are you going to be rewarded for buying something at a Starbucks store, but buying Starbucks-branded products in a grocery store is also going to give you a reward off your Starbucks card. So we’re going to integrate the reward system, in a way that has never been done before, between our retail stores and the wholesale channel.
The Quarterly: Let’s shift gears and talk about Starbucks’ potential in emerging markets.
Howard Schultz: The big opportunity, in terms of total stores, is what’s happening in China; we’ve got 800 stores in greater China, 400 in the mainland. When all is said and done, we’ll have thousands. We’re highly profitable there. We’ve been there 12 years, and I would say that the hard work—in terms of building the foundation to get access to real estate, design stores, and operate them—is well in place.
We started out, like most Western brands, going to the two major cities, Shanghai and Beijing. In the last couple of years, it is stunning to see what we’ve been able to do in secondary and tertiary markets—these markets have five to ten million people in them. This past month, we opened up in two cities that people never heard of. One is Fuzhou, which has a population north of five million people. In a rainstorm, people were lined up in the morning waiting for the Starbucks door to open.
I was in China last month, and a government official told me there are now 140 cities in China with a population north of a million people. We don’t have a rollout plan for 140 of those cities, but we strongly believe that the discipline and the process are in place for us to execute a very big growth plan in China, learning from the mistakes we made in the US.
Every consumer brand imaginable is rushing to these emerging markets, with China being the number one. I wasn’t around for the gold rush, but I suspect that’s what it’s like: everyone’s just throwing stuff against the wall, hoping something’s going to stick. We want to be very thoughtful and disciplined—not get carried away, not go to too many cities. I don’t want to go so wide. I think success in China, for us, is making sure we go deep in these markets before we spread out to so many markets around the country. It can be seductive; we’ve got to be very disciplined.
The Quarterly: So how do you choose?
Howard Schultz: There’s a whole team, a real-estate team—that is, a local one—that is working with our people here in Seattle. As you might imagine, we have built, over the last 40 years, a very refined model in terms of demography and understanding where our stores should be located. And based on the success we’ve had in China over the last few years, we’re now mapping those statistics and metrics in a way that gives us a very good understanding, with great predictability.
The Quarterly: What other emerging markets strike you as particularly important?
Howard Schultz: I just came back from India, and we will open up stores there, hopefully within the next 12 months. I think we’re significantly understored in Brazil, where we’ve got 50 stores or so—with a very big upside. We’re not in Vietnam yet; we’re looking at Vietnam with a close eye. If we’re lucky, maybe we’ll get there by 2012.
The Quarterly: How do you think about prioritizing growth opportunities in those countries?
Howard Schultz: It’s clear that the number-one growth opportunity is China. We believe that we can build a major business in India, but we’re not there yet. So our international team created a growth plan for the next three years in terms of the number of stores, the number of markets. The US team has done the same thing on a parallel track, and then we’ve laid onto that the investment that we’re making currently in building a significant capability and business model around CPG,2 which is what I described earlier.
The Quarterly: You said in your book that you’re particularly cognizant of not wanting the same things to happen in China that happened in the United States. What are you doing to guard against that?
Howard Schultz: All of the learning in the last two and a half years of the transformation is now being layered onto every international market in terms of how we operate the stores and how we enhance the customer experience. Now, with regard to China, given the fact that it is a big opportunity, we are providing the China team with resources that, perhaps, other markets are not getting—senior people who are managing big businesses at Starbucks are going over to China to ensure that the China team has the benefit of all the things that we’ve learned, as well as the benefit of the mistakes that we’ve made. I’m spending a disproportionate amount of time there myself; maybe it’s my own paranoia.
What we want to do as a company is put our feet in the shoes of our customers. What does that mean, especially in China? It means that not everything from Starbucks in China should be invented in Starbucks in Seattle. Now, the Chinese customer, like many customers around the world, does not want a watered-down Starbucks. But we want to be highly respectful of the cultural differences in every market, especially China, and appeal to the Chinese customer. So as an example, the food for the Chinese stores is predominantly designed for the Chinese palate.
Now, this is not a company that did these kinds of things in the past. We were fighting a war here between the people in Seattle who want a blueberry muffin and the people in China who say, “You know what, I think black sesame is probably an ingredient that they would rather have than blueberry.” And I would say that goes back to the hubris of the past, when we thought, we’re going to change behavior. Well, no, we’re not going to change behavior. In fact, we’re going to appeal with great respect to local tastes. So we have a list of core products, in almost every country we’re now doing business in, that is right down the center to appeal to the local consumer.
What we’re trying to do is create a balance between this being a Starbucks store with all the trappings and, at the same time, a very deep level of sensitivity to local relevancy. That’s hard to do when you’re all over the world in 55 countries. The reason it’s working is that we’re decentralizing and, for the first time, trusting that the people in the marketplace know better than the people in Seattle.
The Quarterly: What’s your biggest growth constraint?
Howard Schultz: It’s not financing. We’re sitting on about $2 billion in cash. And what I’ve said publicly to the Street is that this probably will be the first time in our history when we will be quite opportunistic about potential acquisitions.
Rather, it’s human capital. We want to attract world-class people who have values that are well aligned with the culture of the company. And we want to make sure that the growth of Starbucks in the future doesn’t in any way cover up the mistakes we’ve made in the past.
The Quarterly: How worried are you that growth could become carcinogenic again?
Howard Schultz: I’m not worried about that at all. I can’t count on one hand how many times the leadership team or the company has celebrated over the last 18 months. And the truth is, we’ve had a lot to celebrate. We’ve more than quadrupled the market value of the company. We had record revenue, record profit for the year, for the quarter.
But we are actually turning over rocks and looking at the things that perhaps we didn’t get right and constantly, I think, beating ourselves up. If you walked into our Monday morning meeting, you would think this is a company that is still trying to transform itself. I would describe the team and I as spending as much time as we did then looking in the rearview mirror—at the things we’ve just done to ensure that we’ve laid the right foundation and that the culture is preserved as we grow the company. It’s quite a different discipline and mentality than we had in the past.
There is a discipline of being very self-critical, with real quantitative metrics to study the investments that we’re making across the board, whatever they are—return on investment in stores, return on investment in advertising, return on investment in new-product introductions; looking at the entry cost of new markets in a different light; looking at the supply chain in a different way. This is a company that took $700 million of costs out of its operations in the last two years. And we’re still looking for more.

About the Author
Starbucks healthy growth article, exceptional past growth, Strategy

Allen Webb is a member of McKinsey Publishing and is based in McKinsey’s Seattle office.

Enhanced by Zemanta

>The 4 Es of Social Media Strategy

>

Jill Dyché in her Information Management Blog “The 4 Es of Social Media Strategy” contests that companies

are pretty vague about the drivers for the new “Social Media”initiative.

Apart from the usual platitudes of “getting closer to employees, partners, and customers via lower-cost channels” it turns out very few business leaders can answer my question about the desired outcome of social media analytics.
In our experience, there needs to be at least one prevalent driver for social media.

She calls these the “4 Es of Social Media Strategy.”

There are already some great examples of companies that have zeroed in on one of these areas used it as a foundation for other drivers. For instance, J.C. Penney offers its Facebook fans—now over half a million strong—unique deals and discounts, clearly leveraging the social media channel to Engage a younger demographic of apparel customers. Earlier this year the retailer leaked its Oscar ads on Facebook before the show aired, mixing a little Entertain with a lot of Expose.
Indeed, many on-line retailers remind shoppers about shipping rates and return policies on their websites and through their blogs. But web strategist Jeremiah Owyang wrote this week about how Levi uses social media to Educate shoppers to “like” a product and to tell their friends about it.
Del Monte has leveraged the power of social networking with its “I Love My Dog” community, in which dog lovers can interact with the company and with each other. Del Monte gets 40 percent of its revenues through pet products (Snausages, anyone?). Who knew?

And that’s the point. Del Monte has gone from Expose as its primary driver—ensuring that pet owners ($2 billion a year strong) know about its various brands—and moved to Engage as its workaday model. The packaged goods company enlists its ready-made social community in surveys—using it to test marketing campaigns and get feedback on new product ideas—and occasionally moving over to Educate when it comes to product ingredients. In the meantime Del Monte is collecting information that can inform new campaigns and product ideas.
Over time your company’s social media strategy can incorporate each of the 4 Es, but there is usually a single prevailing need that will likely justify the initial effort, and provide the foundational platform and skill sets for subsequent social media activities. The key is to avoid making social media a “research project” or, as a Chief Marketing Officer pronounced it recently, “an intellectual exercise with no tangible benefits.” In a word, Ouch!

Jill also blogs at JillDyche.com.

>The 4 Es of Social Media Strategy

>

Jill Dyché in her Information Management Blog “The 4 Es of Social Media Strategy” contests that companies

are pretty vague about the drivers for the new “Social Media”initiative.

Apart from the usual platitudes of “getting closer to employees, partners, and customers via lower-cost channels” it turns out very few business leaders can answer my question about the desired outcome of social media analytics.
In our experience, there needs to be at least one prevalent driver for social media.

She calls these the “4 Es of Social Media Strategy.”

There are already some great examples of companies that have zeroed in on one of these areas used it as a foundation for other drivers. For instance, J.C. Penney offers its Facebook fans—now over half a million strong—unique deals and discounts, clearly leveraging the social media channel to Engage a younger demographic of apparel customers. Earlier this year the retailer leaked its Oscar ads on Facebook before the show aired, mixing a little Entertain with a lot of Expose.
Indeed, many on-line retailers remind shoppers about shipping rates and return policies on their websites and through their blogs. But web strategist Jeremiah Owyang wrote this week about how Levi uses social media to Educate shoppers to “like” a product and to tell their friends about it.
Del Monte has leveraged the power of social networking with its “I Love My Dog” community, in which dog lovers can interact with the company and with each other. Del Monte gets 40 percent of its revenues through pet products (Snausages, anyone?). Who knew?

And that’s the point. Del Monte has gone from Expose as its primary driver—ensuring that pet owners ($2 billion a year strong) know about its various brands—and moved to Engage as its workaday model. The packaged goods company enlists its ready-made social community in surveys—using it to test marketing campaigns and get feedback on new product ideas—and occasionally moving over to Educate when it comes to product ingredients. In the meantime Del Monte is collecting information that can inform new campaigns and product ideas.
Over time your company’s social media strategy can incorporate each of the 4 Es, but there is usually a single prevailing need that will likely justify the initial effort, and provide the foundational platform and skill sets for subsequent social media activities. The key is to avoid making social media a “research project” or, as a Chief Marketing Officer pronounced it recently, “an intellectual exercise with no tangible benefits.” In a word, Ouch!

Jill also blogs at JillDyche.com.

>A 4 Step Approach for Selecting the Right BI solution

>

Boris Evelson  in his Information Management Blog – Forrester Muse, titled “Use a Four-Step Approach to Select the Right BI Services Provider” contests that the fast-paced business environment often introduces new requirements, enhancements and updates before you’re even done with your first Business Intelligence implementation. 

Therefore, we typically recommend doing sufficient due diligence upfront when selecting a BI services provider — as you may be stuck with them for a long time.

We recommend the following key steps in your selection process:

  1. Map BI project requirements to potential providers. Firms should use Forrester’s “BI Services Provider Short-Listing Tool” to create a shortlist of potential providers. With the tool you can input details about your geographic scope, technology needs, and the type of third-party support you need (i.e., consulting versus implementation versus hosting/outsourcing). The tool then outputs a list of potential providers that meet the criteria. For each potential fit, the tool also generates a provider profile summary that offers key details around practice size, characteristics, and areas of expertise.
  2. Narrow your short-list based on additional needs and considerations. Beyond the capabilities of Forrester’s “BI Services Provider Short-Listing Tool,” firms must eliminate or add partners based on factors such as their current strategic suppliers list or past partner success or failure (and therefore image and reputation internally), plus references from peers. Similarly, some BI services buyers will have a preference for larger, global companies whereas others may want to consider more regional players and boutiques. Some firms will consider a single-provider strategy whereas others may engage multiple providers for different needs/phases.
  3. Send RFI/RFP to potential candidates. Forrester’s “BI Service Provider Short-Listing Tool” is a basic starting point only. Most firms will need a more detailed RFI or RFP to uncover additional relevant details about project approach, proposed staffing model for a specific need, costs, or technical IP/accelerators/tools. Beyond key details about project approach and resources, BI services buyers will likely benefit from finding out details around provider strategy, such as SaaS and cloud capabilities or strategic partnerships.
  4. Zero in on the finalist using Forrester’s BI consultants’ selection methodology. This is where the hard work starts, because from this point on the selection process becomes quite subjective. Dig deeper and understand your prospect’s strategic advisory capabilities. Also, check out their existing methodologies, reference architecture, and any relevant solution accelerators. Review their execution methodology, strength in data governance, and experience with next-generation BI technologies (such as Agile BI, self-service BI, and others).

Boris also blogs at http://blogs.forrester.com/boris_evelson/

>A 4 Step Approach for Selecting the Right BI solution

>

Boris Evelson  in his Information Management Blog – Forrester Muse, titled “Use a Four-Step Approach to Select the Right BI Services Provider” contests that the fast-paced business environment often introduces new requirements, enhancements and updates before you’re even done with your first Business Intelligence implementation. 

Therefore, we typically recommend doing sufficient due diligence upfront when selecting a BI services provider — as you may be stuck with them for a long time.

We recommend the following key steps in your selection process:

  1. Map BI project requirements to potential providers. Firms should use Forrester’s “BI Services Provider Short-Listing Tool” to create a shortlist of potential providers. With the tool you can input details about your geographic scope, technology needs, and the type of third-party support you need (i.e., consulting versus implementation versus hosting/outsourcing). The tool then outputs a list of potential providers that meet the criteria. For each potential fit, the tool also generates a provider profile summary that offers key details around practice size, characteristics, and areas of expertise.
  2. Narrow your short-list based on additional needs and considerations. Beyond the capabilities of Forrester’s “BI Services Provider Short-Listing Tool,” firms must eliminate or add partners based on factors such as their current strategic suppliers list or past partner success or failure (and therefore image and reputation internally), plus references from peers. Similarly, some BI services buyers will have a preference for larger, global companies whereas others may want to consider more regional players and boutiques. Some firms will consider a single-provider strategy whereas others may engage multiple providers for different needs/phases.
  3. Send RFI/RFP to potential candidates. Forrester’s “BI Service Provider Short-Listing Tool” is a basic starting point only. Most firms will need a more detailed RFI or RFP to uncover additional relevant details about project approach, proposed staffing model for a specific need, costs, or technical IP/accelerators/tools. Beyond key details about project approach and resources, BI services buyers will likely benefit from finding out details around provider strategy, such as SaaS and cloud capabilities or strategic partnerships.
  4. Zero in on the finalist using Forrester’s BI consultants’ selection methodology. This is where the hard work starts, because from this point on the selection process becomes quite subjective. Dig deeper and understand your prospect’s strategic advisory capabilities. Also, check out their existing methodologies, reference architecture, and any relevant solution accelerators. Review their execution methodology, strength in data governance, and experience with next-generation BI technologies (such as Agile BI, self-service BI, and others).

Boris also blogs at http://blogs.forrester.com/boris_evelson/

>Social Business Intelligence: The Pipeline Dream

>

James Kobielus in his Information Management Blog “Social Business Intelligence: The Knowledge Management Connection” contests that Business intelligence (BI) has always had a “pipeline” orientation– known as “simplex” information transfer; in other words, a primary focus on the one-way flow of data, information and insights from “sources” (e.g., your customer relationship management systems, enterprise data warehouses, and subject-area data marts) to “consumers” (e.g., you).

However, many real-world intelligence flows are full-duplex, many-to-many, and person-to-person in orientation. This fundamental truth will continue to drive the spread of “social” architectures in core BI and advanced analytics…


Forrester has recently seen a growing interest in “social BI,” and in fact my colleagues and I recently social-blogged our collective thinking on this topic. Since then, we’ve seen vendor announcements, such as TIBCO Silver Spotfire, that invoke this new industry catchphrase. We’ve seen considerable discussion within the analyst community generally about this release and about what this and other vendors are doing in social BI. In this present post, I’ll be repeating some of the points from my inputs to the earlier Forrester blog, but am extending my observations to call out a broader emerging context.
For starters, social BI is no fad, nor is it an entirely new phenomenon. As I pointed out more than 3 years ago in the pages of Network World, many BI vendors had already added collaboration functionality such as instant messaging, human workflows, and shared analytic project libraries to their solutions. The trend has deepened since that time, as evidenced by the steady convergence of social networking into BI product architectures, as well as by the demonstration of shared discovery and visualization features in analytics initiatives such as IBM’s ManyEyes project. Yours truly alluded to what we now call social BI when I stated, way back then, that we should “expect to see such interactive Web 2.0 technologies as AJAX, blogs and wikis revolutionize the BI experience.”
As I noted in the recent Forrester multi-analyst blogpost, the move toward fully social BI implies all of that plus the following features, which, we predict, will find their way over the next few years into a wide range of commercial BI solutions:

  • Social BI interactivity: We’ll see growing incorporation of Wikipedia, Facebook, Twitter, and kindred models of user-centric development, publishing, and subscription into the heart of the interactive BI user experience. Accelerating the trend toward pervasive BI, we’ll see more solutions that enable reports, dashboards, charts, and other BI views to be embedded in social media. You can regard today’s collaborative BI mashup offerings, discussed in my Forrester report from a year ago, as pointing the way toward this style of self-service team-based development, as do BI solutions from Lyzasoft, Tableau, JackBe, and other social-focused vendors.
  • Social BI content marts: We can expect to see more BI solutions that support extension and/or replacement of traditional data marts with vast user-populated pools of complex, mashed-up, subject-oriented analytic content and applications. It’s not inconceivable that what I’m calling “social marts” will incorporate and build on content repositories that many enterprises have built on platforms from today’s enterprise content management (ECM) vendors.
  • Social BI information integration: Users will be able to choose from a growing range of BI solutions that support discovery, capture, monitoring, mining, classification, and predictive analysis on growing streams of social media content, much of it coming in real-time from both public and private sources. Essentially, this is where advanced analytics features such as social media analytics, social media monitoring, and social network analysis, subject of another recent blogpost of mine, will converge into the growing social BI stack.

Pardon me for tooting my Nostradamus horn yet again, but I’d like to call attention to another long-range trend that I glimpsed then, and which the movement toward social BI shows is coming to pass. In 2007, I said “over the next several years, expect to see the BI, collaboration and knowledge management (KM) segments converge.” Some may have considered that a stretch, if not a bit far-fetched, considering that these are all large, well-established markets providing solutions that many enterprises, to this day, deploy in separate siloes. However, with the growing incorporation of social networking architectures in enterprise collaboration, content management, customer relationship management, and other tools, it’s only a matter of time before these market segments blur into a seamless cloud of social KM solutions.
As an enterprise IT professional, you’re probably watching all this with the usual combination of bated breath and healthy skepticism. Obviously, social BI is far from a mature marketplace. The industry is groping for a common approach toward which to evolve. BI vendors are still trying to get their collective heads around the vision of social BI. Just as important, vendors are, in their various ways, striving to differentiate through innovative new features that are aligned with the sorts of capabilities many of us enjoy through our personal dabblings in Twitter, Facebook, and the like.
As your current BI vendors roll such features into their products, you’ll probably start using them when you upgrade in the normal cycle. To the extent that you adopt small-scale BI solutions for particular business units, branches, or teams, those deployments might benefit from social BI that either supplements existing collaboration and KM tools — or eliminates the need to acquire those other, stovepipe solutions.
Social’s the thing, all right. Once you — and your BI vendor — are ready to move toward a more social-oriented capability, it would make sense to socialize those plans with some significant others inside your company. Start with the people responsible for your company’s collaboration, KM, and ECM initiatives.

Like what you see? Click here to sign up for Information Management’s daily newsletter to get the latest news, trends, commentary and more.

Jim also blogs at http://blogs.forrester.com/james_kobielus/.

>Social Business Intelligence: The Pipeline Dream

>

James Kobielus in his Information Management Blog “Social Business Intelligence: The Knowledge Management Connection” contests that Business intelligence (BI) has always had a “pipeline” orientation– known as “simplex” information transfer; in other words, a primary focus on the one-way flow of data, information and insights from “sources” (e.g., your customer relationship management systems, enterprise data warehouses, and subject-area data marts) to “consumers” (e.g., you).

However, many real-world intelligence flows are full-duplex, many-to-many, and person-to-person in orientation. This fundamental truth will continue to drive the spread of “social” architectures in core BI and advanced analytics…


Forrester has recently seen a growing interest in “social BI,” and in fact my colleagues and I recently social-blogged our collective thinking on this topic. Since then, we’ve seen vendor announcements, such as TIBCO Silver Spotfire, that invoke this new industry catchphrase. We’ve seen considerable discussion within the analyst community generally about this release and about what this and other vendors are doing in social BI. In this present post, I’ll be repeating some of the points from my inputs to the earlier Forrester blog, but am extending my observations to call out a broader emerging context.
For starters, social BI is no fad, nor is it an entirely new phenomenon. As I pointed out more than 3 years ago in the pages of Network World, many BI vendors had already added collaboration functionality such as instant messaging, human workflows, and shared analytic project libraries to their solutions. The trend has deepened since that time, as evidenced by the steady convergence of social networking into BI product architectures, as well as by the demonstration of shared discovery and visualization features in analytics initiatives such as IBM’s ManyEyes project. Yours truly alluded to what we now call social BI when I stated, way back then, that we should “expect to see such interactive Web 2.0 technologies as AJAX, blogs and wikis revolutionize the BI experience.”
As I noted in the recent Forrester multi-analyst blogpost, the move toward fully social BI implies all of that plus the following features, which, we predict, will find their way over the next few years into a wide range of commercial BI solutions:

  • Social BI interactivity: We’ll see growing incorporation of Wikipedia, Facebook, Twitter, and kindred models of user-centric development, publishing, and subscription into the heart of the interactive BI user experience. Accelerating the trend toward pervasive BI, we’ll see more solutions that enable reports, dashboards, charts, and other BI views to be embedded in social media. You can regard today’s collaborative BI mashup offerings, discussed in my Forrester report from a year ago, as pointing the way toward this style of self-service team-based development, as do BI solutions from Lyzasoft, Tableau, JackBe, and other social-focused vendors.
  • Social BI content marts: We can expect to see more BI solutions that support extension and/or replacement of traditional data marts with vast user-populated pools of complex, mashed-up, subject-oriented analytic content and applications. It’s not inconceivable that what I’m calling “social marts” will incorporate and build on content repositories that many enterprises have built on platforms from today’s enterprise content management (ECM) vendors.
  • Social BI information integration: Users will be able to choose from a growing range of BI solutions that support discovery, capture, monitoring, mining, classification, and predictive analysis on growing streams of social media content, much of it coming in real-time from both public and private sources. Essentially, this is where advanced analytics features such as social media analytics, social media monitoring, and social network analysis, subject of another recent blogpost of mine, will converge into the growing social BI stack.

Pardon me for tooting my Nostradamus horn yet again, but I’d like to call attention to another long-range trend that I glimpsed then, and which the movement toward social BI shows is coming to pass. In 2007, I said “over the next several years, expect to see the BI, collaboration and knowledge management (KM) segments converge.” Some may have considered that a stretch, if not a bit far-fetched, considering that these are all large, well-established markets providing solutions that many enterprises, to this day, deploy in separate siloes. However, with the growing incorporation of social networking architectures in enterprise collaboration, content management, customer relationship management, and other tools, it’s only a matter of time before these market segments blur into a seamless cloud of social KM solutions.
As an enterprise IT professional, you’re probably watching all this with the usual combination of bated breath and healthy skepticism. Obviously, social BI is far from a mature marketplace. The industry is groping for a common approach toward which to evolve. BI vendors are still trying to get their collective heads around the vision of social BI. Just as important, vendors are, in their various ways, striving to differentiate through innovative new features that are aligned with the sorts of capabilities many of us enjoy through our personal dabblings in Twitter, Facebook, and the like.
As your current BI vendors roll such features into their products, you’ll probably start using them when you upgrade in the normal cycle. To the extent that you adopt small-scale BI solutions for particular business units, branches, or teams, those deployments might benefit from social BI that either supplements existing collaboration and KM tools — or eliminates the need to acquire those other, stovepipe solutions.
Social’s the thing, all right. Once you — and your BI vendor — are ready to move toward a more social-oriented capability, it would make sense to socialize those plans with some significant others inside your company. Start with the people responsible for your company’s collaboration, KM, and ECM initiatives.

Like what you see? Click here to sign up for Information Management’s daily newsletter to get the latest news, trends, commentary and more.

Jim also blogs at http://blogs.forrester.com/james_kobielus/.

>Analytics in Retail

>

Mark A. Smith in his  Information Management Blog titled “Analytics in Retail: An Operational and Financial Mandate”contests that for

every role in a retail organization, marketing, selling and serving customers are critical  for converting shoppers to profitable customers. functions.  As volumes and sources of data continue to expand, the retail industry is going through a transformation in using all forms of data to advance its efforts. And Analytics in Retail, can help determine the best actions to optimize future efforts in the most cost-effective manner.


I have seen retailers spend enormous amounts of time on marketing their products through pricing and promotion, but most spend far less time to understand if the right customers are being marketed to or if the proximity and travel patterns of consumers to retail locations are correlated to their propensity to spend. Retailers are just starting to realize that understanding and influencing customer conversations on the Internet in social media channels is a necessity and that it requires a new type of analytics that can process text and phrases that reveal consumer sentiment and opinions of their brands. Also the advancement of consumer and market analytics from organizations like IRI and Nielsen continue to play a key role in the knowledge how to optimize brand and categories for retailing. Being savvy about this in the front office requires a team of people working closely together to optimize the marketing-to-sale process in hopes of containing costs and maximizing volume at the right price whether in a retail location or online.
The front office is not the only place where retailers need advanced analytics. They are valuable in managing the movement of goods and services, from the demand plan and forecasts through the management of external suppliers to fulfillment and payment. These days managing that process needs analytics that can be applied not only daily and weekly but also by the minute and hour. Of course the fluid set of processes in manufacturing and logistics have long used analytics but usually piecemeal and not across the entire process. Comfortable with their own set of unique processes, retailers have been reluctant to embrace business process management; now the innovative ones have begun to use business events in a synchronized manner with complex event processing (CEP) to correlate and analyze activities along the demand and supply chain in retail stores to the back office operations.
Another vital need is financial management that engages costing and profitability at every level, from product and category to location and customer, to determine whether retailing practices are effective. In many organizations the finance department has not played a leadership role in working with operations and marketing to get mutual agreement on the metrics and analytics needed to support financial goals. This is beginning to change. This also requires a team effort in which finance collaborates with analysts. This analytics has to be applied to the workforce to reduce employee churn, train people effectively and retain the most productive. Advances in workforce analytics have made it easier to look at these processes. Applied properly, analytics can ensure that the right level of investment is made to contain costs through learning, establish flexible work hours and design incentives to keep the workforce productive and contributing to profitability. No matter if you are trying to use historical or predictive analytics the opportunity to improve is everywhere in retail organizations.
It is important to remember that you cannot take only a general or industry specific approach to improving retail analytics; you need to focus on each specific line of business and its needs, which vary from the front office and operations to finance and the workforce. I advise you to be careful in selecting tools and vendors, as many claim to provide the analytics you need for your whole retail industry but only address a handful of activities in their applications. You will have to prioritize what lines of business and processes you most want to improve; you’ll consider industry-specific solutions but also examine technology that can be used across industries. Retailers will find they can learn a lot at looking at the advances in other industries, especially the manufacturers that source their goods. Just as important is to establish the right level of competencies in your analyst teams along with the right technology tools. Investing in your IT organization so it can adapt and grow with new analytic technologies is also necessary. These are examples of the critical areas that retailers need to examine to become more savvy with analytics and drive stronger business results.

Mark also blogs at VentanaResearch.com/blog.

>Analytics in Retail

>

Mark A. Smith in his  Information Management Blog titled “Analytics in Retail: An Operational and Financial Mandate”contests that for

every role in a retail organization, marketing, selling and serving customers are critical  for converting shoppers to profitable customers. functions.  As volumes and sources of data continue to expand, the retail industry is going through a transformation in using all forms of data to advance its efforts. And Analytics in Retail, can help determine the best actions to optimize future efforts in the most cost-effective manner.


I have seen retailers spend enormous amounts of time on marketing their products through pricing and promotion, but most spend far less time to understand if the right customers are being marketed to or if the proximity and travel patterns of consumers to retail locations are correlated to their propensity to spend. Retailers are just starting to realize that understanding and influencing customer conversations on the Internet in social media channels is a necessity and that it requires a new type of analytics that can process text and phrases that reveal consumer sentiment and opinions of their brands. Also the advancement of consumer and market analytics from organizations like IRI and Nielsen continue to play a key role in the knowledge how to optimize brand and categories for retailing. Being savvy about this in the front office requires a team of people working closely together to optimize the marketing-to-sale process in hopes of containing costs and maximizing volume at the right price whether in a retail location or online.
The front office is not the only place where retailers need advanced analytics. They are valuable in managing the movement of goods and services, from the demand plan and forecasts through the management of external suppliers to fulfillment and payment. These days managing that process needs analytics that can be applied not only daily and weekly but also by the minute and hour. Of course the fluid set of processes in manufacturing and logistics have long used analytics but usually piecemeal and not across the entire process. Comfortable with their own set of unique processes, retailers have been reluctant to embrace business process management; now the innovative ones have begun to use business events in a synchronized manner with complex event processing (CEP) to correlate and analyze activities along the demand and supply chain in retail stores to the back office operations.
Another vital need is financial management that engages costing and profitability at every level, from product and category to location and customer, to determine whether retailing practices are effective. In many organizations the finance department has not played a leadership role in working with operations and marketing to get mutual agreement on the metrics and analytics needed to support financial goals. This is beginning to change. This also requires a team effort in which finance collaborates with analysts. This analytics has to be applied to the workforce to reduce employee churn, train people effectively and retain the most productive. Advances in workforce analytics have made it easier to look at these processes. Applied properly, analytics can ensure that the right level of investment is made to contain costs through learning, establish flexible work hours and design incentives to keep the workforce productive and contributing to profitability. No matter if you are trying to use historical or predictive analytics the opportunity to improve is everywhere in retail organizations.
It is important to remember that you cannot take only a general or industry specific approach to improving retail analytics; you need to focus on each specific line of business and its needs, which vary from the front office and operations to finance and the workforce. I advise you to be careful in selecting tools and vendors, as many claim to provide the analytics you need for your whole retail industry but only address a handful of activities in their applications. You will have to prioritize what lines of business and processes you most want to improve; you’ll consider industry-specific solutions but also examine technology that can be used across industries. Retailers will find they can learn a lot at looking at the advances in other industries, especially the manufacturers that source their goods. Just as important is to establish the right level of competencies in your analyst teams along with the right technology tools. Investing in your IT organization so it can adapt and grow with new analytic technologies is also necessary. These are examples of the critical areas that retailers need to examine to become more savvy with analytics and drive stronger business results.

Mark also blogs at VentanaResearch.com/blog.

>Why Consumer Goods Companies Need Analytics to Compete?

>

Mark A. Smith in his Information Management Blog titled “Consumer Goods Companies Need Analytics to Compete” contests that given the cutthroat competitive landscape among consumer goods manufacturers, from food and beverage to electronics and automotives, capturing the minds and wallet share of customers, by reaching out to them with the right product and right price is no easy task.

Optimizing business efforts from manufacturing to product and throughout the supply chain to customers requires a comprehensive set of tasks that cannot be done without insights on what has happened in the past and where current activities are going. Those event-driven and demand-driven insights can come through analytics that assess the small but important details of pricing, trade promotions and processes in the supply chain to keep retailers satisfied with inventory levels.


Retailers themselves are learning how to use analytics, as I recently pointed out (See: “Analytics in Retail: An Operational and Financial Mandate“); and to keep up, manufacturers must be smarter in their sales teams and the people who manage the sales and operational plans that commit capital and resources of the organization. In addition, Finance is not just along for the ride any more as it looks to get more engaged in the effectiveness of spending and balancing financial resources to meet the margin targets for the quarter. This can be accomplished through costing and profitability analytics that examine product and marketing investments across the business.
These days it is insufficient to apply analytics only to data representing historical activities; also needed is predictive analytics based on models and variables that can provide forward-looking projections of what will likely happen based on the planned activities. Organizations need to know how much and when to invest in marketing and product activities where pricing and promotion can generate only limited benefits in this busy marketplace of ever more competitors and changing economic conditions. All these demands are driving many consumer goods manufacturers to build new competencies in business analyst teams and seek tools and technology to apply analytics most effectively. Analysts then can cross lines of business to work more closely together than just focusing on their individual department’s functions.
It’s clear from all this activity that the consumer goods industry is in flux, forced to mature in its processes and utilize technology to its fullest. To optimize consumer brand recognition and profitability, companies must re-examine their current analytic processes and use data to determine if there are faster, better and, yes, cheaper methods to meet never-ending demands from a variety of business areas.
Of course any organization may need to prioritize where you focus improvements in the lines of business, but I advise you to consider that industry-specific solutions from technology providers are likely to solve only some of your needs. Getting away from the silos of spreadsheets and the inefficiency of electronic mail is a must; you want to have an analytic process that is much like your manufacturing process. Working collaboratively across business and IT is one big step in the right direction.

Mark also blogs at VentanaResearch.com/blog.