Bplans.com Palo Alto Software
 
 

Yes, it is true that plans are stories and stories drive plans, but that’s not stories as visions of the future and plans as managing and steering to make those visions true; we’re not talking about fairy tales. Make your planning real. Make it help your business. Make it help you control your destiny and manage better.

I believe in the just-big-enough business plan, where form follows function, and you plan as you go. Don’t include what you don’t need. For example, if you don’t have business reasons to describe your company and your management team to outsiders, then don’t bother with those descriptions as part of your plan. Don’t write to yourself what you already know and won’t use.

With that in mind, there are some things that should be in every business plan, no matter what. 

1. The review schedule.

If you don’t take an hour or two to review the actual results and compare them to the plan, then you’re not really planning your business. You’ve let it become a one-time exercise, to create a document, instead of planning as steering and managing your company. Set aside a regular time – in my company it’s been the third Thursday or the month for years – to review the plan. If you don’t add this into the planning from the beginning, people will be tempted to think of it as a one-time document. That was a fairy tale.

2. The sales forecast.

It’s hard not to write the cash flow here, because cash isn’t profits, and cash is the single most important resource in business. But what I’ve found is that while business-to-business and product-driven businesses desperately need to project cash flow in advance (because of not getting paid in cash, and having to generate inventory), all businesses need to project sales because the plan vs. actual impact of sales is the key to ongoing management in changing times. Your costs and expenses pivot on sales.

Yes, you should have cash flow; but in the day to day, the sales levels drive management activity. But only if you have that regular review. 

3. Concrete specific steps, milestones, and lookout points.

Blue-sky strategy is nice, it can be an invigorating intellectual exercise, but the measurable specifics are what drives business management. Every element of the business plan should have some way to see later whether or not it’s been implemented.

Go from vision and strategy to the steps to make it happen. What will it take?

From there, you develop milestones: dates, deadlines, and budgets, always with specific responsibility assignments. You want something you can track later so you can have the benefit of management of plan vs. actual results. Did things happen on time? Why, or why not?

And when I say lookout points, I mean things to watch, built into the plan, to alert you to progress, or lack of it. For example, did the site get released, and if so, is the traffic coming as projected? Did the restaurant open, and are we getting the business we’d hoped for? Plan for those key moments when you look for metrics to see whether or not you need to change assumptions. It’s like those stairway landings, halfway up the stairs, that you can use to put the box you’re carrying down and reassess.

  • Share/Bookmark

{ 0 comments }

Damn. It’s been a long day, some of my sites got hacked, a car didn’t start, and … well, you know how that goes. You have those days too. This will go up tomorrow morning but I’m mad as hell tonight, while writing it.

Just look at this picture:

What a damned shame. Who can blame her for shutting off comments? I don’t. I do blame the people who have about the same contribution to thought, writing, or culture as slash and burn vandals.

So here’s what happened:

I was settling in after dinner, checking some of my favorite sites, and I ran into Jolie O’Dell’s well researched, thoughtful women in tech: a realistic look at the numbers. This is an important subject, and she’s obviously done some real work digging into it. Like a journalist, I might add. I’ve been trying to cover this myself too, but she went beyond opinion, into some real numbers. It’s an excellent post.

I went to the comments, and WHAM, no comments. That’s disappointing. Then I discovered this, also by Jolie, a few days earlier: The Commenting Free for All is Over. At one point she says:

For the hundreds of nasty insults I’ve had to wade through, delete, or publish at my own peril, there have been only a handful of insightful comments that actually contribute to the conversation. In between the great comments and the crap ones, there are a sea of “me too” or “good for you” notes that, while encouraging, don’t necessarily justify having a comments section open to all.

You read a blog post, well written, well researched, and serious; and you get to the comments and welcome to real world ugly. Why is it that the gender inequality issues seem to heighten the stupidity underneath? Is that just me, or have you seen the same thing? And do I get the impression that this kind of trashing things behavior increases when the author’s a woman?

(Image credit: it was posted on Jolie O’Dell’s blog. You can click here for the original).

  • Share/Bookmark

{ 7 comments }

When Patents Are Patently Absurd

by Tim Berry on August 31, 2010

in Current Affairs, Technology

Is Paul Allen a patent troll now? The same Paul Allen that was Bill Gates’ partner in Microsoft? Paul Allen who is worth billions of dollars?

Oh no. Say it ain’t so.

Last week wired.com reported Paul Allen Files Patent Lawsuits Against Entire Web … Except Microsoft. Allen, Bill Gates’ original partner in Microsoft, and an extremely wealthy man, is suing nearly everybody who is anybody on the internet (“Google, Apple, Yahoo, Netflix, Facebook, AOL and eBay, among others”) because he has the patent. Wired said:

The four patents at issue allegedly cover basics of online commerce including recommending products to a user based on what they are currently looking at and allowing readers of a news story to see other stories based on the current one, while two others relate to showing other information on a web page such as news updates or stock quotes.

I am not one of those people who – quoting Joel Stein’s latest column in Time – “want everything to be free except what they happen to do to make a living.”

But I do think the patent system is broken. The system was unable to keep up with technology, so patents were issued that made no sense. And patent trolls take advantage.

Wikipedia defines patent troll:

a pejorative term used for a person or company that enforces its patents against one or more alleged infringers in a manner considered unduly aggressive or opportunistic, often with no intention to manufacture or market the patented invention.

Of course people should get to own their own work. If you invent something really useful, like a light bulb or a phonograph or a plane, or a disk drive or a new kind of scanner, you should get to make a ton of money with it.

But who issued these patents? Wasn’t this all fairly obvious? These are ideas, not inventions. And who the hell knows who was the first to have an idea? And do we reward the first to patent it, when it shouldn’t have been patented in the first place? That’s just dumb.

Disclosure: I’m biased. I’ve been close to two different stupid patent suits where somebody took obvious technology and connected it to some dumb old existing patent and sued. And it was cheaper to pay up than fight. So, business is business, the trolls won.

Also, I’m hoping Paul Allen is actually just intending to make a point. If I remember it right, amazon.com had a patent for one-click purchasing, and they brought it up, made their point, and then behaved like decent citizens (do I have that wrong? If so, please tell me.) And I think Compuserve had a claim on the GIF graphic format, and didn’t insist on pursuing it. Maybe that’s what’s happening here.

I hope so.

And I’d like to credit Read/Write Web and cartoonist Rob Cottingham for the cartoon here. It’s from Cartoon: So Sue Me on Read/Write Web.

(Image credit: from Read/Write Web: click here for that post.)

  • Share/Bookmark

{ 5 comments }

True story: there were six of us at lunch together on a beautiful late spring day in 1996. We sat on an outside table in the shade and discussed the next big growth spurt. Would we take this marketing-on-steroids proposal, at a high cost? Would it work? Could we afford not to?

I’m not sure any more which of us said it:

The status quo is great. This company is fun. The team works well together. Do we really have to grow?

I liked the idea, but didn’t fully buy it. My answer:

Yes. We’re a software company. We shrink or grow. There’s no alternative.

We did take the growth pill. Sales doubled in the following three years. Today, 14 years later, I still think that basic idea, growth or die, is true. Technologies change quickly. Trends and fashions change. Operating systems and the tools in software change. You don’t stop moving. Settle in, and you’re in trouble.

But is it that simple? I’m less certain than I used to be. And not just because of this recent piece, but still, I’m fascinated by Karen Klein’s Your Perception of Business Growth Is Wrong a few days ago on the businessweek.com site. She interviews Edward Hess, entrepreneur, author, and academic, who says, point blank:

What most business people think about growth, like “grow or die” or “growth is always good,” is not supported by research.

I do have to say that I am not as influenced by the “supported by research” phrase as I’m supposed to be. I’ve seen a lot of foolish notions supported by research. So I’m not that impressed by the results of a team of interviewers talking to CEOs of 54 companies, with average revenue of $60 million. Companies with revenues of $60 million are enormous to me. They have very little to do with the 95+% of businesses that have no employees, or just a few.

What does impress me, though, are the arguments Hess makes in the Business Week interview:

growth that’s not managed properly can lead to dilution of your customer value proposition and risks to your reputation and brand. I think you should approach growth not as an assumption but as a well-thought-out decision. Understand the difficulty involved and go into it with eyes wide open, knowing that you can stop at any time.

companies don’t necessarily have to grow or die, but they must improve or die, meaning they have to continuously improve their customer value proposition or risk going out of business.

if you take on too much growth, it can overwhelm your processes, people, and controls. What we recommend is managing the pace of growth with something like a gas-pedal approach.

Smaller, privately held companies usually don’t have the financial safety net to withstand quality control issues or negative publicity or a legal downside.

All of these arguments, taken from the interview, make sense to me. So I don’t know. What do you think: grow or die? Grow or shrink? Is it different in software, the web, and other high-tech businesses?

(Illustration: 3DProfi/Shutterstock)

  • Share/Bookmark

{ 3 comments }

Is Personal Branding Really Impersonal Faking?

by Tim Berry on August 27, 2010

in Weblogs

Don’t get me wrong: I think the thinking behind it, the advice wrapped around the idea of personal branding, is excellent. I’ve recommended, for example, Dan Schawbel’s personal branding book Me 2.0 and I’m sticking to it. Dan has a great collection of real-world suggestions in that book. But I’m beginning to think I hate the term. And maybe some of what’s behind it.

Last Friday I read Personal Branding is Bullsh*t (cowardly * by me, not her) by Arienne Holland, communications director of Raven Tools. She writes:

A person doesn’t need a brand. A person is a person whether or not there is paperwork filed with the government. A child doesn’t create a personality, she has one.

She also objects to a magazine article recommending personal branding for employees of large companies:

If you want to travel between companies, you don’t need a personal brand, you need skills and character and friends.

This was already on my mind before reading that because of a conversation I’d had a few weeks ago with my daughter Megan, marketing manager at Klout.com. At the time I was talking about some of Dan Schawbel’s recommendations, and Megan shared that she didn’t like the term. She explained that recently in Why I Hate the Term “Personal Branding” on her blog:

“Worse yet, there’s the idea that this is something new. Personal branding is just a new way to talk about reputation. Well, you know what? Reputation is a much better word for that.

Personal branding implies you should be fake to make it (if you disagree, do let me know). Before you tweet, interact, blog, or walk down the street you need to think if it fits with the image you want to portray. Well, you know what, if there’s only one facet to your personality you’re not an excellent brand, you’re boring.”

She’s not objecting to the things we do as personal branding, at least not if it isn’t faked; instead, she is objecting to the term we use to describe it.

There’s a lot that I like about the whole field of personal branding, particularly the emphasis on actual people and authenticity and humans communicating with humans. But I admit, I hadn’t thought of the underlying meaning of the term “brand.” It does carry a sense of artificial to it, doesn’t it? It makes us think of Mad Men, advertising, consumer opinion research, and expensive image advertising like insurance companies and such, on a very large scale.

Are you the same thing as your brand? If so, then what’s the point?

  • Share/Bookmark

{ 9 comments }

Remember the “your brain on drugs” commercials? You’d see the egg frying in the pan, and then the announcer’s voice would say “this is your brain on drugs.” What do you think of the Your Brain on Computers take on this?  It makes it sound almost as bad as your brain on drugs.

That brain on computers theme is from the New York Times piece earlier this week, with the full and scary title:  Your Brain on Computers – Overuse of Digital Devices May Lead to Brain Fatigue. This is not a pretty picture, but it’s the New York Times.  And it cites research. So we have to believe it. Have to.

Author Matt Richtel (of the San Francisco bureau, of course, part of the Silicon Valley … everybody is petting their phones constantly) notes how people fill every last minute with connection. Waiting in line, exercising, they are also checking email or linking somewhere on their phones. He warns (with research studies to cite):

The technology makes the tiniest windows of time entertaining, and potentially productive. But scientists point to an unanticipated side effect: when people keep their brains busy with digital input, they are forfeiting downtime that could allow them to better learn and remember information, or come up with new ideas.

Me, I hate waiting in lines. No, come to think of it, make that HATE waiting in lines, with more emphasis. If I get trapped waiting for something, anything, I’ve got my phone in an instant. If I run out of email, then there’s twitter, or, if I’m really desperate, that novel I’ve been reading. 

But studies, or so says this story, indicate that it’s not that simple. I should breath deeply and reflect on things, absorb things, maybe – God help us all – think. Here’s another quote:

Almost certainly, downtime lets the brain go over experiences it’s had, solidify them and turn them into permanent long-term memories,” said Loren Frank, assistant professor in the department of physiology at the university [of California], where he specializes in learning and memory. He said he believed that when the brain was constantly stimulated, “you prevent this learning process.

This would have worried me, if I’d stopped to think about it. Instead, I turned to my phone to check email.

(Image credit: Roman Sigaev/Shutterstock)

  • Share/Bookmark

{ 3 comments }

Trends? “Let’s develop a community,” they say, meaning an online community. Search google for let’s develop a community and you get 23 million hits. You tell me: is there a marketing meeting brainstorming web opportunities that doesn’t include an online community?

So, contrarian hat on my head, I want to list some reasons not to develop that online community you and your team have been talking about. I don’t want to be negative … but still …

1. So many communities already.

How many logins can anybody manage? We’re lost in a sea of communities. Each assumes we’re going to log in regularly, check messages, look around, see what’s new, respond to people, and interact. Realistically, though, how many times are you going to do that in a single day?

We’re dealing with several hundred already-established social media communities. There’s Twitter and Facebook and LinkedIn, plus all those others. And then there are those school sites, alumni sites, home town sites, media sites, fan sites, in sites, over sites, and hind sites … never ending. Who can deal with that?

2. Ning, a cool idea, grows up. And gives up Free.

Do you know Ning? One of Marc Andreeson’s brainchildren, it produced hundreds of millions of dollars for its founders, and countless similar-look-and-feel community sites that all did one version or another of community, with log-in, profiles, friending, posting, and so on.

I’ve had notice in recent weeks as one after another of those sites closes shop. Ning is focused on the corporate enterprise market, where there’s money to be billed. And all of those community sites were competing with all of the other ones for your and my limited time available. It wasn’t working.

3. Oh the spam! The never-ending spam!

I’ve been involved with maybe half a dozen serious efforts by major business media and related organizations to build an online community of entrepreneurs, small business owners, and assorted interested parties. I won’t mention names here because I’m involved with most of them, like the people, would like them to work; but they don’t.

The self-serving shallow sales message, some of them thinly disguised, most of them blatant, end up flooding these sites like sewage from a failed treatment plant. Who wants to look at messages when they’re all that? The supposed or alleged interaction, the likes and votes and all, are similarly polluted with commercial sludge. It’s a shame, but it’s also reality.

4. Those disappointing messages.

The business community sites are also flooded with messages that ask authors and experts to summarize, presumably in a couple of paragraphs or so, the thousands of pages already published on that same topic. I know these people mean well, and I like to answer questions. But it would be a lot nicer if they’d look at the site they’re on first, rather than just asking for a three paragraph summary of 50 good pieces already posted.

I get it. They’d like to have it all in a personal message. But it isn’t really that simple. It takes reading all the ins and outs and on the other hands. So that email doesn’t work. And the authors who get it are disappointed, because they thought they’d already answered that question, and put it on the web where people could get it.

5. The molten lava landscape is cooling into solid ground.

I doubt it’s coincidence that two of the three Ning sites I think of first are giving up the Ning model and moving over to Facebook like instead. It’s human ability to support so many different motifs that ends up pushing us all towards a few big ones. With Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn, we have consolidated logins, comments, links, suggestions, and updates.

It seems to happen a lot. The winners emerge, the also-rans fade, and the business landscape solidifies.

Please, don’t do that online community you were thinking of.

Do, however, focus on one or more of the already-existing online communities and make it work for you, and your business.

  • Share/Bookmark

{ 5 comments }

Actually my title for this post is a shortened version. It should have been:

In business, just as in physics, and in life in general, it’s easier to maintain momentum than to overcome inertia.

My two best examples are neither physics nor business: diet and exercise. spinning topYou know full well what I mean. Keeping the healthy routine, in either one of these, is easier than letting go and restarting. I’ve known this one from both sides. I’m sure. And I’ll bet nobody’s arguing.

I’ll bet that with those examples in mind you can think of a lot of examples in business. Of course there are the blogs, Twitter and Facebook presences, email campaigns, newsletters, word of mouth in general, awareness, branding, plus a lot of things related to tools and systems, plus teamwork, and even human nature.

Where I see it a lot, because of my special focus, is in business planning. To make planning work for you and your organization, it’s better to keep it going, keep it in mind, keep it easy to access, keep bringing it up and reviewing and revising. If your planning is about a document in a drawer somewhere, then it’s not very useful.

Don’t let down. Ease off if you have to, but don’t let down entirely. If you do, it’s too hard to get the momentum going again.

  • Share/Bookmark

{ 1 comment }

I posted Beware of What Used to Work But Doesn’t Anymore a couple of weeks ago on this blog, using a change in coffee shop trends to point out the danger of frozen assumptions. frozen timeThis is related to my fresh look idea, which is basically that you can become too familiar with your business, which prevents you from seeing what’s changed.

Key point here: The past doesn’t predict the present, much less the future.

And frozen assumptions is my term for the failure to question assumptions. It’s a kind of business complacency that comes with the passing of time and is part of human nature. It can be bad for business.

And maybe frozen assumptions isn’t as good a term as closed minds. The temptation to know things is very strong, indeed; and I can tell you, from experience, it gets stronger as you get older. But no, please, resist that. Here are five big clues you need to watch for:

1. We’ve been doing that for years, so we know it works.

This was the problem from that earlier post. When things change, you can get caught assuming status quo instead of looking at what’s happening. Just because it used to work doesn’t mean it still does. Danger!

2. We tried that. It didn’t work.

Things change. What didn’t work two or three years ago might work perfectly today. I’ve seen this kind of change for decades, as the businesses that get stuck in the past lose ground to businesses trying something new. I remember when Intuit was scared to death of online bookkeeping, which, at the time, wasn’t working for anybody. But they didn’t get locked into that, continued to experiment, and now it’s working.

3. We’ve always done it this way.

Yeah, right. You’re familiar with this one of course. Everybody in business is. You need to have an automatic alert that rings bells whenever anybody says this one. “Because we’ve always done it that way” is a bad reason to do anything.

4. Everybody else does it like that.

Maybe I spent too long as parent of teenagers. Do you recognize this faulty logic? That’s not a good reason to do anything. Help me in the comments here, please — I know there are a million examples out there, so please add some for me.

OK, there are some things that everybody does like that. But why? Are there good reasons?

5. Nobody else does it like that.

This one is just as bad: maybe nobody has thought of it right, or times have changed, situations have changed, and it’s time for your business to do something delightfully or dangerously different.  We call this disruption, and in entrepreneurship and startups we like it a lot, right? Do it differently. Do it better.

(Image credit: vladm/Shutterstock)

  • Share/Bookmark

{ 8 comments }

Business Insider tipped me on this post from Mark Suster on his Both Sides of the Table (investor and entrepreneur) blog. Especially the drawing below. Notice importance on the vertical, and urgency on the horizontal. At first glance, it seems to me like operating in the upper right quadrant is a good thing. You’re addressing urgent and important problems.

But that’s what makes the post interesting (or more interesting): in fact, if you live in the upper right, you’re suffering from urgency addiction. He’s paraphrasing Steven Covey in the book First Things First as he answers:

You retain less knowledge.  You take shortcuts.  You make too many trade-offs.  You suffer too many internal stresses.

Okay, I guess. I wasn’t entirely convinced, to tell the truth; and Mark himself notes that urgent and important is still pretty attractive. He says:

Actually, people with the “urgency addiction” thrive on the pressure.  We rise to the occasion as it stirs our creative juices.  There is something about the adrenaline rush of being under time pressure that excites us and teases out our creativity.

Don’t you want to join him there, in that upper right quadrant, when you read that? I do.

But then it turns out, reading even further, that I want to be in the zone of effectiveness. Do you think maybe that’s why they named it that? Here’s how Mark (again, paraphrasing Covey) describes it:

The examples that Covey talks about here are things like exercise and planning.  They can’t be rushed.  If you can carve out some time during your day to not sit in meetings but instead to dedicate to thinking about the longer-term, strategic initiatives that are important to you then you’ll do bigger things in life.

That sounds really good to me: Exercise and planning, and long-term thinking too. It makes me think twice about urgency addiction. If only there weren’t those urgent important matters to deal with first…

(Image credit: I took it from Mark Suster’s Both Sides of the Table. Click it for the original)

  • Share/Bookmark

{ 0 comments }