513: Signet Jewelers EVP & Global CIO Howard Melnick discusses
Among a variety of other topics.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | Android | Podcast Index | Deezer | Youtube Music | RSS | More
497: Cushman & Wakefield CIO & CDO Adam Stanley discusses
416: Aaron’s CIO John Trainor discusses the benefits of operating in a product mindset, rather than a project mindset. John’s team avoids the “throw it over the wall” approach to IT. Instead, the company strives to deploy working software into production as soon as possible. John argues that this product mindset leads to more cohesive teams and eliminates separate interests within the organization. We also discuss the tech landscape in Atlanta, John’s take on blockchain, the importance of having a fail-safe environment, among other topics.
Our client struggled to adapt to market changes and meet customer needs quickly, due in part to a project-focused mentality and “Waterfall” development practices that included long delivery timelines for technology projects.
A large retailer struggled to meet customer needs quickly and adapt to disruptive market changes. The company realized that its existing “Waterfall” development practices hindered its ability to deliver products and solutions quickly, which negatively affected the customer experience. The company also realized the need to build a stronger partnership between IT and business units in order to develop products more effectively. The company hired Metis Strategy to help it develop cross-functional teams, train the teams on Agile development methodologies, and coach the teams to develop an Agile mindset, which focuses on rapid, iterative delivery of software to create customer-centered experiences. Metis Strategy led the Agile transformation effort for 200 employees across business and IT.
Metis Strategy worked with the business to lead an enterprise IT Agile Transformation to increase customer focus and speed the pace of innovation.
Metis Strategy’s Agile coaches worked with the company for two years to develop an Agile Transformation strategy and build cross-functional Agile product teams. To get there, Metis Strategy took the following actions:
The company established “squads” of product teams and increased software development throughput by 300%.
After Agile teams had been established and trained, the client increased software throughput by 300%, improved transparency and visibility across the organization, and adopted a product-focused mindset for software delivery. Teams reduced their release cycles from multiple months to two weeks. That allowed business units to provide feedback earlier and ultimately led to higher-quality products.
Price matters, a lot. In an era of hyper price transparency, the subtlest price discrepancies will drive consumers to purchase on channels with the lowest price. Often consumers make buying decisions in two steps: first, what they want to buy; second, where they will buy. Especially for goods and services that are not substantially differentiated in terms of quality or features, your average consumer will naturally gravitate towards the lowest price. This has been felt in an especially acute manner for retailers such as Best Buy, where consumers go to window shop, but complete their purchases on lower priced ecommerce alternatives (i.e., Amazon, eBay, Jet, etc.). Best Buy has since woken up to the fact that without differentiating the customer experience, they were unable to create stickiness to convert foot traffic. When selling a commodity, or a good/service with a comparably substitute, price parity is arguably the most important driver in decision making. The challenge, of course, is that the manufacturers of a good, or a provider of a service, don’t always own the end touch point with the consumer. Many companies rely on a network of distribution partners to help market and sell their products. While this approach allows companies to scale revenue without the risk of building a massive salesforce, it also means that the manufacturer/provider will not be able to control all the variables that influence consumer’s buying decisions.
To strike the right balance, many companies develop a distribution strategy that comprises two dimensions: direct and indirect sales. Direct distribution focuses on selling directly to customers, while indirect distribution depends on intermediaries to complete a transaction. A distribution strategy needs to be married with a robust approach to inventory management, which may mean different things to a manufacturer than a service provider. Manufacturing firms typically have robust Sales & Operations process (referred to S&OP), during which they forecast sales and ensure there is enough inventory produces and physically distributed to distribution centers or shelf space to meet consumer demand. Service providers tend to look at inventory as an expiring asset: once time has passed, you can no longer sell that service (e.g., once a plane takes off with an empty seat, or a tee time passes without a foursome teeing off).
Although hospitality was one of the first industries to create robust distribution channels and networks through Online Travel Agencies (OTAs) to capture additional business, one of the consequences of that arrangement is that customers were conditioned to view hotel rooms as a commodity where price was the primary decision factor. While OTAs let reviews and minimal merchandising try to differentiate hotels, consumers also got lost in the noise of the difference between one chain versus another.
Over the past 5 years, intermediaries successfully crafted a narrative that they had the consumer’s best interest at heart by negotiating with the hotels, and only the OTAs could be trusted for the lowest price. Some of this was true; you could find lower prices for last minute deals, and there was benefit to both the OTAs and hotel operators that did not want to see a bed go empty. However, as OTAs further influenced the customer experience, and ate into profits with a greater share of bookings, the hospitality, airline, and other industries recognized that they would have to take decisive action to remove price disparity as the primary reason a consumer would purchase products or services on any indirect channel.
One compelling example is Icelandair and El Al who have begun experimenting with displaying sample prices of their competitors on their own websites, to show how competitive their direct prices are, and to hopefully prevent customers from “clicking” away to competitors and other price aggregators. With the explosive growth of options in the online distribution environment, there are two primary factors that companies should concentrate on: Price Integrity and Price Parity.
Price integrity is the concept of a customer being confident that they are purchasing a product of a certain value. While a customer may be willing to pay more or less, depending on the time and place of their purchase, there is a psychological range that they base their expectations on.
Price parity is the practice of maintaining a consistent rate for the same product across all distribution channels, including both owned and partnership channels. Nothing destroys trust more than being able to find a cheaper price on another website, or worse, when a company’s website is cheaper than its stores.
For industries that rely both on direct channels and distribution channels, there is a “co-opetition” relationship in which it is not uncommon for a firm to be competing with their distribution partners for sales. On the one hand, if a consumer wasn’t going to come to AlaskaAirlines.com, they would be more than happy with a referral from KAYAK, or a booking through Expedia to fill an empty seat. But if there was a chance that customer could have booked directly with Alaska Airlines, they would have fought hard to win that booking.
Hospitality and travel companies are in the middle of an ongoing competition with their distribution partners (OTAs and Metasearch engines – METAs) for the future of guest bookings. According to Hitwise, hotel direct booking only made up ~30.56% of online booking market share in 2017, at the same time OTAs continued to eat away further at market share, growing 60 basis points from 2016 to 2017.
While OTAs and METAs have become an invaluable component of hospitality marketing and distribution campaigns, there are contractual violations that stress the trust necessary for heathy “co-opetition” Some OTAs and METAs may display available prices that undercut contracted prices. Often these discounted prices are provided to the OTAs and METAs by wholesalers in violation of price-parity contracts, but the complex web of distribution relationships and flash-speed of online pricing engines makes it difficult for hospitality companies to really hold their distribution partners accountable.
Despite the challenges, companies must maintain a vigilant eye on how inventory and experiences are being displayed by distribution partners to ensure that consumers that may have the inclination to purchase on direct channels are not actively dissuaded from doing so. A successful distribution strategy must be aggressive and can quickly be implemented and maintained by following these six critical steps:
Metric tracking allows you to better understand if your chosen distribution partners are worth their distribution costs. For example, “NRevPAR” (Net Revenue per Available Room) is the industry standard in hospitality for calculating the revenue generated per available room, net of any discounts or commissions paid to intermediaries. Through the re-evaluation of their NRevPAR, hoteliers can evaluate their current distribution partnerships across their current distribution channels to ensure that their distribution costs are harmonized with their expectations for each partner. A significant drop in a key metric is a telltale sign that it is time to either renegotiate with your current distributors or start looking for replacements.
It is imperative that you monitor how and where your inventory is displayed across your distribution partners’ platforms. You want to have the ability to confirm that your partners are playing by the rules as well as ensuring that your offering is not appearing unofficially on other public channels with rogue prices that undercut you and your partners. If a partner determines that your inventory is floating around the public space at prices that undercut their contracted prices, it won’t be long before you observe your inventory being pushed to the bottom of their display pages—if they don’t remove you altogether for being out of parity.
Andrew Sheivachman of Skift pointed out that in 2017, global digital travel sales were projected to reach $189.6 billion in 2017, of which 40 percent was to be attributed to purchases made through mobile (4% gain over 2016). With such a rapid rise in the adoption of mobile booking and shopping, you cannot let your mobile channel development lag. You must work proactively with your distribution partners to refresh user interfaces and user experiences to optimize their mobile shopping experience. Rich content, descriptions, and high-quality photography also allow you to differentiate your product when it is sitting on a digital shelf with comparable products.
Dynamic yield pricing allows you to base your pricing relative to demand and other variables. Dynamic pricing is being employed across various industries to match supply and demand to move expiring inventory: preventing waste in grocery stores, ensuring that there are enough drivers on the road for ride-sharing platforms, or driving loyalty by generating customer-specific fares for airlines. Within the hospitality industry, dynamic pricing allows for inventory to be priced appropriately in response to the timing of a booking, local events, or any occasion that could cause fluctuating demand. Just make sure that your dynamic price is not undercut by a distribution partner or cached by that distribution partner and out of date when prices go back up.
While channels you directly manage (a website, a social presence, in-store), may not be the first point of interaction between you and your prospective consumer, you still can convert customers to complete their purchase through your owned direct purchase channels as you get to know them and earn their attention. In 2015, of booking journeys that were initiated on OTAs – over 34% of bookings were completed through supplier websites. Bolstering your available offers for customers through loyalty programs, subscription email campaigns, and social media can help drive customers from your distribution partners to your direct-booking channels.
Legacy backend systems may cause you millions of dollars in system outages and will almost certainly inhibit your ability to proactively adjust your distribution network. These legacy platforms cause transactional friction during the process in which a supplier’s prices are sent out to the systems of distribution partners, which in turn forces revenue managers to spend hours a day manually validating that prices and inventory are being migrated accurately to various distribution channels and partners. Rate monitoring platforms are now available that allow for revenue managers to monitor the behavior of their distribution partners using automation. The use of these platforms also increases transparency of your distribution partners’ networks. These platforms can be used to not only monitor the integrity and parity of pricing for your own inventory, but they can be used to quickly determine if you are competitively priced across the globe. With our earlier example of Icelandair and El Al, technology can also automatically allow revenue managers to know when their rates are being advertised by competitors (either accurately or inaccurately).
While your distribution partners can help you reach new customers and markets, you must ensure that their role as an intermediary does not equate to them “owning” the customer. It’s the incentive of your distribution partners to provide you revenue, but they are unlikely to share customer information that can be used to convert a customer into a loyal patron (i.e. personal email address, mailing addresses, etc.). Providing an amazing customer experience is the best way to overcome a consumer’s bias to make decisions based on price. If a company can pair a differentiated customer experience, with an enticing loyalty program that rewards purchasing goods or services through direct channels, there is still hope to maintain a balanced distribution strategy.
12/5/17
By Chris Davis and Brandon Metzger for CIO.com
Technology is transforming our world at an unprecedented rate. New technologies like virtual assistants and augmented reality are changing consumer expectations faster than ever. The impact of cybersecurity breaches is intensifying. And digital enablers are allowing upstarts to steal market share from incumbents in a matter of months or years, rather than decades.
While it is tempting to believe that these disruptive times will eventually stabilize, our analysis suggests that the rate of technological progress will only accelerate. If this year indeed represents both the fastest rate of change we ever haveexperienced, and the slowest rate of change we ever will experience—as many experts have posited—then this raises a critical question for executives in all industries:
How do I understand the consequences of accelerating technological change, and position my company to capitalize on the opportunities presented by emerging paradigms?
To accomplish this, companies can develop innovation systems that consist of a variety of methods and processes, ranging from strategic foresight to a portfolio of corporate innovation programs. One such program — innovation labs — is gaining steam in corporate America, with some of the biggest and best-known companies opening new outposts focused on developing and scaling breakthrough technologies, processes, and business models.
Through Metis Strategy’s work with Fortune 500 companies and rapidly growing businesses alike, we have identified seven critical factors to consider when creating such a corporate innovation lab.
The charter is a concise description of the innovation lab’s objectives and its method for achieving them. But a charter is not just lofty PR: many of the best innovation labs use their charter as a guiding light that provides a deeper sense of purpose and direction. Subsequently, the charter should also clarify what the lab is not focused on.
Consider the differences between the charters of Lowe’s Innovation Lab and of Bayer’s U.S. Innovation Center and Science Hub:
While Lowe’s focuses on identifying and utilizing new technologies to enhance the retail experience, Bayer’s priority is forming partnerships to accelerate drug discovery. Given their differences, it should be no surprise that these innovation labs utilize different metrics, governance models, funding sources, and innovation ecosystems to accomplish their objectives.
Large companies thrive when business conditions are certain and their targets are clear. While execution metrics can measure the performance of existing business models, they are less capable of accurately quantifying progress at innovation labs, where the work is sometimes less precise, longer term, or more conceptual. Kyle Nel, Executive Director of Lowe’s Innovation Lab, has noted that “it does not make sense to apply mature metrics to something in its nascent form.”
Innovation labs can develop a portfolio of innovation metrics to measure not only the results of the innovation effort, but also the preconditions and innovation process itself.
With this focus on measuring both process and progress, innovation metrics help labs assess their innovation maturity, but may also bolster the support of their executive sponsors, especially in the early days. For example, Harvard Business Review notes that “revenue generated by new products,” an output metric, is the metric most commonly used by senior innovation executives. By establishing a portfolio of innovation metrics that also includes input and development metrics, the conversation can shift from focusing solely on results to focusing also on the maturing evolution of the innovation capability. This ability to develop unique innovation metrics has helped Nel push back when Lowe’s executives expect significant revenue growth from new and disruptive products.
Innovation is as much a cultural attitude as it is a business process. A generic approach to innovation may begin by defining the customer and uncovering their unmet need, formulating a hypothesis on what product or service the company can offer to meet that need, and validating the hypothesis by using customer feedback to rapidly experiment and iterate. Further, to foster the right mindset, innovation labs should:
That said, many of the best labs develop unique processes influenced by their charter. Consider Lowe’s Innovation Lab (LIL), which uses a narrative-driven approach to identify and articulate opportunities. First, LIL conducts market research, compiles trend data, and collects customer feedback on unmet needs and pain points. Next, LIL shares this information with science fiction writers who create strategic documents in the form of comic books, which follow characters through a narrative arc that illustrates a new solution to the character’s problem. Then Lowe’s executives use the comic books to make prioritization decisions, and, finally, LIL works with its partners to create the solutions introduced in the comics.
Another example of an organization employing a unique process is X, Alphabet’s “moonshot factory,” which is charged with creating world-changing companies that could eventually become the next Google. X adheres to a three-part formulafor identifying opportunities: (1) it must address a huge problem, (2) it must propose a radical solution, and (3) it must employ a relatively feasible technology.
Using this formula, X has spun out numerous subsidiaries under the Alphabet umbrella. One of those companies is Waymo, the autonomous vehicle pioneer that Morgan Stanley recently suggested could be worth $70 billion.
If companies believe an innovation lab will help them more effectively navigate the waters of disruption, it is essential that they recruit for passion and cognitive diversity, rather than just skill. Labs often include a wide range of technical and non-technical roles, from data scientists and designers to experts in anthropology and psychology. Breadth and depth of both skill set and mindset are essential components of a successful innovation lab that creatively explores new technologies and business models.
Ideal job candidates should be innate risk-seekers, strong questioners and connectors, and comfortable with failure and restarts. Deloitte Center for the Edge Co-Chair John Hagel described people who have these traits as personifying the “passion of the explorer.”
Organizations searching for these passionate explorers will find advantages and disadvantages in looking both internally and externally. Internal employees may more deeply understand the customer, but they also may have difficulty looking at problems from a different perspective. External hires may bring new viewpoints and skills, but recruitment may prove challenging.
Companies can use several tactics to attract talent. Buzzfeed’s Open Lab for Journalism, Technology and the Arts, for example, targets specific individuals and groups based on their past projects. Recruitment efforts have been successful, in part, because Buzzfeed offers company resources that support their creative freedoms. Alternatively, companies can be deliberate in how they share their innovation initiatives with the public. For example, Airbus has a blog that reports news from the company’s A3 innovation lab, Airbus Ventures, and from other teams across its innovation ecosystem. This type of focused communication both targets and attracts an audience of individuals who are the most knowledgeable and interested in innovation currently taking place within the industry, and, in so doing, Airbus can create an informal pool of potential new hires.
The process for establishing a funding source will differ depending on the company. For example, Allstate CIO Suren Gupta has described how a formal Innovation Council evaluates ideas and allocates funding. At other companies, if the innovation ties closely to a particular business unit, then funding may come from that group’s budget.
Though the specifics will vary, a generic process for establishing funding may include
The actual size of the budget depends on whether a lab is building the technology itself, partnering with other organizations, or acquiring a company, product or talent. Amazon and Google have spent millions of dollars developing parcel delivery drones. Meanwhile, companies like UPS and Daimler AG have opted to partner with—and make strategic investments in—established drone makers. This lowers both the risk and the cost of innovation while still allowing the company to develop new capabilities.
Regardless of how funding is established—or the size of the budget itself—it is critical to measure how much money was spent at each stage of the process: preparation (i.e. percentage of capital budget allocated to innovation projects), development (i.e. R&D spending at each phase of development the innovation process), and results (i.e. percentage of sales from innovation projects). As with the portfolio approach to general innovation metrics, the use of financial metrics across the innovation lifecycle reduces the focus on ROI, which can cripple innovative projects in the early stages.
Silicon Valley is the quintessential innovation ecosystem. The region’s unique characteristics undoubtedly make Silicon Valley the right innovation ecosystem for many labs—particularly those charged with discovering and/or acquiring startups, or gaining business and technical intelligence about emerging technologies.
Other locations should not be overlooked, however. Cities such as New York City, Austin, and Chicago in the U.S.; London, Paris and Berlin in Europe; Tel Aviv in the Middle East; and Singapore, Shanghai and Tokyo in Asia all offer rapidly maturing innovation ecosystems, each with their own unique advantages and disadvantages.
To determine the ideal location for an innovation lab, consider which ecosystem characteristics (such as those highlighted in the adjacent visual) best support the objectives defined in the charter.
For example, former ADP CTO Keith Fulton (now CIO of Bank Systems with Fiserv) has described how ADP’s innovation lab is focused on creating “best-in-class user experiences.” Accordingly, ADP opened its second lab in Midtown Manhattan, since the proximity to top visual design and creative firms provide high concentrations of the right skill sets.
There is one final challenge, even for innovation labs that successfully deliver results in accordance with their charter: integrating the innovation with the core organization. From Kodak’s invention of the digital camera to Xerox pioneering the GUI, there is no shortage of companies that failed to capitalize on their innovations.
To be sure, innovation integration is the culmination of an innovation lab successfully delivering on its charter, so the way in which the company captures the value of the innovation very much depends on decisions that were made along the way. We recommend that executive sponsors and innovation leaders discuss early and often what successful innovation integration looks like. Here are a few key questions to consider:
While there is no set template for innovation integration, a definable, well-articulated vision of what the desired success will look like should be a primary priority, not an afterthought.
More than ever before, established companies are struggling to keep up with both the deployment of new technology by their competitors and consumers’ rapidly changing expectations. Careful consideration of these seven factors can empower companies to build an innovation lab that fosters energetic challenges to preconceived notions, creative experimentation with new technologies and business models, and thorough exploration of potential products and services that will enable it to survive—and thrive—amidst the accelerating forces of disruption.
Gurmeet is the Senior Vice President, Chief Digital Officer, and Chief Information Officer of 7-Eleven. As Chief Digital and Information Officer, Gurmeet leads 7-Eleven’s full stack digital and technology transformation, and is responsible for digital product management, big data, digital user experience, digital partnerships, digital marketing, digital technology, enterprise technology, and R&D.
Prior to 7-Eleven, Gurmeet was Head of Direct to Consumer Auto Finance at Capital One where he grew the digital consumer tripled the revenue of the business in less than two years. Before Capital One, Gurmeet led product marketing at Intuit as a Director. Before Intuit, Gurmeet was a Managing Director at FedEx. Gurmeet began his career as a consultant with McKinsey & Company.
Gurmeet received a Bachelor of Technology from the Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur, his Masters of Science in Engineering from Texas A&M University, and his PhD in Engineering from Rice University.
Pawan is the Executive Vice President and Global Chief Information and Technology Officer of Foot Locker, the $7.7 billion footwear retailer with 3,310 stores in 24 countries. As CIO and CTO, Pawan oversees the global information technology functions and infrastructure, and provide leadership and vision to align technology with strategic business initiatives. He is also responsible for digital marketing and the customer experience across touchpoints, optimizing the supply chain to meet changing customer expectations, and creating memorable experiences that promote customer loyalty.
Prior to joining Foot Locker, Pawan was Vice President of Digital and Marketing Technologies and Services Platforms at Target, where he led the eCommerce, Mobility, Cloud and API Platform teams. Before Target, Pawan spent a decade at Verizon Wireless, most recently as Senior Director of Architecture and Product Engineering.
Pawan received a Master’s of Science in Software Engineering and Computer Applications from the Government College of Engineering, Aurangabad, and an MBA in Strategy and Management Information Systems from Kent State University’s Graduate School of Management.
Among other topics, Johnson discussed the following issues with Metis Strategy:
Clay is Executive Vice President of Global Business Services and Chief Information Officer of Walmart, a nearly $300 billion company that is both the world’s largest employer with 2.3 million employees and the world’s largest company by revenue with approximately $480 billion in 2016 revenue. Since joining Walmart this past January, Clay has led a global team of over 10,000 people focused on driving operational efficiencies, lowering costs and accelerating growth.
Prior to joining Walmart, Clay was the Chief Information Officer at General Electric Power. While at GE, Clay drove digital transformation efforts as a member of the Information Management Council and was also the executive sponsor of GE’s Veterans Network. Prior to GE, Clay held multiple leadership roles at The Boeing Company, including Vice President of Information Technology and Director of IT Manufacturing and Quality Systems, Director of Cybersecurity and Director of Finance and Human Resources Information Systems. He also served as an executive leader for Boeing’s Accelerated Leadership Program. Prior to joining Boeing, Clay was Director of Information Technology at Dell. Clay started his career as a software developer at FedEx.
Clay served five years in the United States Coast Guard, where he held numerous leadership positions. He holds a bachelor’s degree in computer science engineering and an MBA from the University of Texas.
