At this moment economists of well known resources world wide come with their adjustments (and similar explanations) on Japanese economic growth (GDP) expectations for 2011 and beyond, including currencies and other leading indicators.
Now the damage, the delays and the recovery will have an impact, here is no disagreement. The question here is what this will do to your economy and business?
Some say it is too early to tell and adjust modestly, others heavily correct their forecasts downwards of Japan or other countries. Probably the truth will be somewhere in the middle but what are you going to tell your management or stakeholders? Following a heavy paid opinion in case it goes wrong?
If Japan is a key country to your business or Japanese firms are competing it will be helpful to access reliable data and to integrate them efficiently at any corporate level. Now who can deliver that? What resource outperforms others about Japan? What fits nowadays in your budgets?
Let us not tell each other stories and fairy tales about forecasting. There is no resource (or economist) able to tell you what exactly this impact will be in the short, long term, in size, in dollars or yen or in your industry. It is all guessing, constantly adjusting and no one will afterward tell how wrong they were.
Some professionals do not care and rely blindly on that brand name provider where paying the price seems of lesser concern. As corporate pays the employees follow without benchmarking or doubt. A too common vicious circle of business - market intelligence with no tangible synergies or contribution.
Others tell their planning, market intelligence, finance or other data teams to search on internet looking for more (free) information about Japan. Here extra labor costs and outdated info seem not questionable because it is for free. Sure!
When knowing all the alternatives, what is your price for reliable economic data of Japan and the effects globally? What is your tool or provider? Do you care about quality, synergy and fees when using macro parameters?
If so, please contact me because on Tuesday the 5th of April we will release our new monthly edition of Major Economies, including the last changes of 25 selected national and international institutions for 10-15 key Japanese macro parameters (2-5 year forecasts).
Key differences with other alternatives; hard to beat average forecasts, more cost / time savings and faster ROI. Is that welcome in this business climate or not?
I´d be pleased to inform you how to get this Japanese update without charge. Thanks in advance!
Mostrando entradas con la etiqueta ROI. Mostrar todas las entradas
Mostrando entradas con la etiqueta ROI. Mostrar todas las entradas
jueves, 24 de marzo de 2011
viernes, 31 de julio de 2009
Who are the Winners and Losers in this Cost Driven Business Climate?
Who are the Winners and Losers in this Cost Driven Business Climate?
There are winners and losers in today’s management. Not those who already blew it with fraud, greed and mismanagement but those who are not capable of convincing their management of making a change which leads to a long term cost / time saving.
Perhaps a bold statement but it is true. After almost one year of being in daily contact with decision makers it is clear that there are winners and losers in this environment.
Excepted are those leaders who cut the big peaces out of the cake. Everyone can fire 10,000 people. Short term cost cutters are no winners. Maybe they are not losers either because they get paid for it very well.
Also excepted are the unfortunates who simply had no chance and were part of the inevitable job cut. But this is about those who still are out there and can make a difference for the company, for the colleagues and even for themselves.
The easiest way to describe a winner is a manager who continues looking for improvements and is willing to approach his or her management asking for a change.
As this change involves spending this manager is risking a lot but with the right argumentation and attitude there is nothing to loose.
When can be demonstrated that with often a small investment a large saving will be realized this can only create a win/win situation.
Think of for example tools with an annual investment of 1K, 5K, 10K or 20K where otherwise 10 times more will be spend.
Imagine you propose your management to spend 20K to save 200K. Would they look at it or call you insane?
It is noticed that while the upper management welcomes this kind of opportunities the lower management is not making the effort to inform them. Fear or disinterest?
Losers will not even think about trying. They will deny every possibility of making improvements. They do that for own (job) protection, disinterest or simply to avoid any confrontation with the management.
In fact they see this crisis as a great opportunity to say `no`. “Sorry, we are told to cut spending, so we have no budget”.
What no budget? Will your upper management postpone a decision when all computers are hit by a new virus?
"Sorry, we cannot afford to fight this virus because there is no budget, try again in six months time".
Is the economic crisis not a kind of virus? How come companies blame the economy for missing orders but not spending better on economic information for example?
It is similar to consumers who stop spending which will not help the economy recover. When companies keep on using secondary tools to "understand" economic threats, waste hours on non core business research etc, is that helping?
Is it because economic information is not important or there is no better alternative available? It does not matter because the outlook remains uncertain?
Have you really tried and compared in terms of cost/benefits or it really does not matter costs remain higher in terms of labor and fees of ´we can only contribute in good times` providers.
Unfortunately due to the global crisis there are more losers than winners. Again, this is about working winners and losers.
Where in this cost driven business climate a search for more efficiency and the naturally cost cut is a priority most managers remain silent. What is the benefit of this hiding?
Almost every company turned into a cost cutting machine to remain profitable or keep losses controlled.
While this is an old trick it has to be done but it will not be the best way to prepare the organization for a recovery. It certainly should not be awarded.
What is more important are the smaller changes like for example the attitude of employees but also secondary expenses.
Would some one who after making an effort surprises his or her management with a contribution to the new corporate strategy in the form of a cost/time saving not be better off?
Of course size matters. Big charges will contribute faster than smaller ones but the effect on the long run (economic recovery and growth will take some years) is smaller.
After cutting the large parts it is time to look for smaller parts. But here is entered the domain of the mid and lower management where there are more losers.
To be more successful a company not only needs a restructuring from the outside (immediately visible for share and stakeholders) but also on the inside (not available to public domain). A difference in looking at short or long term results.
Changes on the inside of an organization can only be done by the managers. They have to search for new tools to help lowering costs but without creating disorder or sending wrong messages to their teams, like the upper management with their large cuttings.
To do that you have to be a manager that can operate in both good and bad times. Most managers now only think of their own situation, lesser about the organization and not at all about the colleagues.
They even consider leaving the company or already accepted another job. Sure, surviving is a priority but who guarantees your next job is save? Would it not be better to become a winner?
Who says it is not possible to gain from this momentum? Can you only perform when everyone is winning and loose when everyone is losing?
Should we all feel miserable and wait till the storm is over? Stop being creative and taking initiative? Not listen to what is available in the markets because there is no budget?
Is it really true when offering the board, the higher management or whoever is above you a solution that helps cutting costs, you will be ignored?
Is it more important to stop new spending because of budget restrictions or orders from the top instead of creating a long term synergy? Is it better only to contribute to a short one?
Managers who accept it is time to stop producing, to make no further attempts and wait for the next episode have a higher chance of losing. Not only jobs but around the corner there are always winners.
Managers who can convince their bosses certain changes do not affect negatively but positively business. Managers who for example come with a tool that demonstrates a welcome ROI after the first day, week or month.
These managers can demonstrate efficiency is out there and this is the best time to find and implement it. Even when an initial investment needs to be made. Making a change is not without investment.
Investments can be small but for sure can be done smarter. Why spending 100K when it can be done for 10K? Because it is easier or the ´we are so used to this provider`excuse?
Who would not accept a change from 100K to 10K? Who would not invest 10K when this would lower costs from 100K?
Only winners will accept and will make an effort. Not because it is impossible but because it is the best alternative.
There are winners and losers in today’s management. Not those who already blew it with fraud, greed and mismanagement but those who are not capable of convincing their management of making a change which leads to a long term cost / time saving.
Perhaps a bold statement but it is true. After almost one year of being in daily contact with decision makers it is clear that there are winners and losers in this environment.
Excepted are those leaders who cut the big peaces out of the cake. Everyone can fire 10,000 people. Short term cost cutters are no winners. Maybe they are not losers either because they get paid for it very well.
Also excepted are the unfortunates who simply had no chance and were part of the inevitable job cut. But this is about those who still are out there and can make a difference for the company, for the colleagues and even for themselves.
The easiest way to describe a winner is a manager who continues looking for improvements and is willing to approach his or her management asking for a change.
As this change involves spending this manager is risking a lot but with the right argumentation and attitude there is nothing to loose.
When can be demonstrated that with often a small investment a large saving will be realized this can only create a win/win situation.
Think of for example tools with an annual investment of 1K, 5K, 10K or 20K where otherwise 10 times more will be spend.
Imagine you propose your management to spend 20K to save 200K. Would they look at it or call you insane?
It is noticed that while the upper management welcomes this kind of opportunities the lower management is not making the effort to inform them. Fear or disinterest?
Losers will not even think about trying. They will deny every possibility of making improvements. They do that for own (job) protection, disinterest or simply to avoid any confrontation with the management.
In fact they see this crisis as a great opportunity to say `no`. “Sorry, we are told to cut spending, so we have no budget”.
What no budget? Will your upper management postpone a decision when all computers are hit by a new virus?
"Sorry, we cannot afford to fight this virus because there is no budget, try again in six months time".
Is the economic crisis not a kind of virus? How come companies blame the economy for missing orders but not spending better on economic information for example?
It is similar to consumers who stop spending which will not help the economy recover. When companies keep on using secondary tools to "understand" economic threats, waste hours on non core business research etc, is that helping?
Is it because economic information is not important or there is no better alternative available? It does not matter because the outlook remains uncertain?
Have you really tried and compared in terms of cost/benefits or it really does not matter costs remain higher in terms of labor and fees of ´we can only contribute in good times` providers.
Unfortunately due to the global crisis there are more losers than winners. Again, this is about working winners and losers.
Where in this cost driven business climate a search for more efficiency and the naturally cost cut is a priority most managers remain silent. What is the benefit of this hiding?
Almost every company turned into a cost cutting machine to remain profitable or keep losses controlled.
While this is an old trick it has to be done but it will not be the best way to prepare the organization for a recovery. It certainly should not be awarded.
What is more important are the smaller changes like for example the attitude of employees but also secondary expenses.
Would some one who after making an effort surprises his or her management with a contribution to the new corporate strategy in the form of a cost/time saving not be better off?
Of course size matters. Big charges will contribute faster than smaller ones but the effect on the long run (economic recovery and growth will take some years) is smaller.
After cutting the large parts it is time to look for smaller parts. But here is entered the domain of the mid and lower management where there are more losers.
To be more successful a company not only needs a restructuring from the outside (immediately visible for share and stakeholders) but also on the inside (not available to public domain). A difference in looking at short or long term results.
Changes on the inside of an organization can only be done by the managers. They have to search for new tools to help lowering costs but without creating disorder or sending wrong messages to their teams, like the upper management with their large cuttings.
To do that you have to be a manager that can operate in both good and bad times. Most managers now only think of their own situation, lesser about the organization and not at all about the colleagues.
They even consider leaving the company or already accepted another job. Sure, surviving is a priority but who guarantees your next job is save? Would it not be better to become a winner?
Who says it is not possible to gain from this momentum? Can you only perform when everyone is winning and loose when everyone is losing?
Should we all feel miserable and wait till the storm is over? Stop being creative and taking initiative? Not listen to what is available in the markets because there is no budget?
Is it really true when offering the board, the higher management or whoever is above you a solution that helps cutting costs, you will be ignored?
Is it more important to stop new spending because of budget restrictions or orders from the top instead of creating a long term synergy? Is it better only to contribute to a short one?
Managers who accept it is time to stop producing, to make no further attempts and wait for the next episode have a higher chance of losing. Not only jobs but around the corner there are always winners.
Managers who can convince their bosses certain changes do not affect negatively but positively business. Managers who for example come with a tool that demonstrates a welcome ROI after the first day, week or month.
These managers can demonstrate efficiency is out there and this is the best time to find and implement it. Even when an initial investment needs to be made. Making a change is not without investment.
Investments can be small but for sure can be done smarter. Why spending 100K when it can be done for 10K? Because it is easier or the ´we are so used to this provider`excuse?
Who would not accept a change from 100K to 10K? Who would not invest 10K when this would lower costs from 100K?
Only winners will accept and will make an effort. Not because it is impossible but because it is the best alternative.
Suscribirse a:
Comentarios (Atom)