<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Talking about strategy &#187; transformation</title>
	<atom:link href="http://kimwarren.com/tag/transformation/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://kimwarren.com</link>
	<description>with Kim Warren</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 10:00:48 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
		<item>
		<title>Business model innovation: BMI</title>
		<link>http://kimwarren.com/strategy/business-model-innovation-bmi/</link>
		<comments>http://kimwarren.com/strategy/business-model-innovation-bmi/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Jan 2010 11:22:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kim Warren</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Strategy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[BCG]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[BMI]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[business model innovation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[transformation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.kimwarren.com/?p=894</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A clear and practical paper from BCG explains nicely what a business model is, what &#8216;innovating&#8217; it means, and when and how to do it. The only caveat is the superior total shareholder returns it claims comes from BMI innovators vs. traditional innovators &#8211; it likely excludes BMI innovators who failed. So by all means <a href='http://kimwarren.com/strategy/business-model-innovation-bmi/'>[...]</a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A clear and practical <a href="http://www.bcg.com/documents/file36456.pdf" target="_blank">paper from BCG</a> explains nicely what a business model is, what &#8216;innovating&#8217; it means, and when and how to do it. The only caveat is the superior total shareholder returns it claims comes from BMI innovators vs. traditional innovators &#8211; it likely excludes BMI innovators who failed. So by all means check it out, assess whether BMI is appropriate for you, but if not, get back to driving performance in your existing business model.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://kimwarren.com/strategy/business-model-innovation-bmi/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Beware divesting core business</title>
		<link>http://kimwarren.com/strategy/beware-divesting-core-business/</link>
		<comments>http://kimwarren.com/strategy/beware-divesting-core-business/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Jan 2010 11:09:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kim Warren</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Strategy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[core business]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divestiture]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[free cash flow]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[growth]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ROIC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[transformation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.kimwarren.com/?p=888</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[AÂ rare example of clear and useful academic research fromÂ Emilie Feldman at Harvard [but treat it with care - see below].Â Emilie &#8220;investigates â€œlegacy&#8221; divestitures, the sale or spinoff of a company&#8217;s historical core business. Firms appear to divest their legacy businesses within the context of larger efforts to reshape their identities. I find that operating performance <a href='http://kimwarren.com/strategy/beware-divesting-core-business/'>[...]</a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>AÂ rare example of clear and useful academic research fromÂ <span style="font-family: CMR12;">Emilie Feldman at Harvard [but treat it with care - see below].Â Emilie &#8220;<em>investigates â€œlegacy&#8221; divestitures, the sale or spinoff of a company&#8217;s historical core business. Firms appear to divest their legacy businesses within the context of larger efforts to reshape their identities. I find that operating performance deteriorates <span id="more-888"></span>in the years following legacy divestitures, and this decline appears to be linked to a loss of intangible resources embedded in the legacy businesses, as well as to the disruption of synergies between legacy businesses and other units within the divesting firms. These results illustrate the challenges associated with divestitures that impact firms&#8217; resources in unexpected ways and shed light on the difficulties firms may experience when they attempt to overhaul their identities</em>.&#8221;</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: CMR12;">Warning &#8211; its an academic paper, butÂ get it <a href="http://www.people.hbs.edu/efeldman/Legacy%20Divestitures.pdf" target="_blank">here</a>.Â And .. it&#8217;s another finding based on answering the wrong question. It&#8217;s entirely possible that these divestitures decrease profitability, but <em>increase</em> growth in free cash flow, which is what investors actually value, because the firms immediately start spending to exploit growth opportunities that will deliver future cash flows whilst holding down short-term profitability. It is even probable that the divested core business was making OK returns [ROIC] because it was mature and [a] didn&#8217;tÂ justify anyÂ spending on growth and [b] could be sold at a good price in a consolidating industry. </span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: CMR12;">Nevertheless, it should give cause to think carefully before buying into a transformation. Remember, strategic transformations are <em>very</em> rare, and even more rarely successful.</span></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://kimwarren.com/strategy/beware-divesting-core-business/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>&#8230; but some transformations are vital</title>
		<link>http://kimwarren.com/strategy/but-some-transformations-are-vital/</link>
		<comments>http://kimwarren.com/strategy/but-some-transformations-are-vital/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Nov 2009 10:35:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kim Warren</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Strategy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[strategy+business]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[transformation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.kimwarren.com/?p=807</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[There&#8217;s no question transformationÂ is sometimes powerful or just unavoidable. You will find a more thorough, professionalÂ case showingÂ how to think it throughÂ in Reinventing Print MediaÂ from strategy+business.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There&#8217;s no question transformationÂ is <em>sometimes</em> powerful or just unavoidable. You will find a more thorough, professionalÂ case showingÂ how to think it throughÂ in <a href="http://www.strategy-business.com/article/09308?pg=1" target="_blank">Reinventing Print Media</a>Â from <strong>strategy+business</strong>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://kimwarren.com/strategy/but-some-transformations-are-vital/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>More &#8216;transformation&#8217; hype</title>
		<link>http://kimwarren.com/strategy/more-transformation-hype/</link>
		<comments>http://kimwarren.com/strategy/more-transformation-hype/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Nov 2009 10:27:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kim Warren</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Strategy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Harvard Business School Publishing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Netflix]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[strategic management]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[transformation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.kimwarren.com/?p=803</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Just had to pour some cooling water over another bit of hype on this issue. Harvard Business Publishing just promoted &#8216;Constant Transformation Is the New Normal&#8216; by Scott Anthony. See below for my reponse: Please be careful about this kind of journalistic hype! There are plenty of less-thoughtful folk out there who will just pick <a href='http://kimwarren.com/strategy/more-transformation-hype/'>[...]</a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Just had to pour some cooling water over another bit of hype on this issue. Harvard Business Publishing just promoted &#8216;<a href="http://blogs.harvardbusiness.org/anthony/2009/10/constant_change_is_the_new_nor.html" target="_blank">Constant Transformation Is the New Normal</a>&#8216; by Scott Anthony. See below for my reponse:<span id="more-803"></span></p>
<p>Please be careful about this kind of journalistic hype! There are plenty of less-thoughtful folk out there who will just pick up the headlines and set off doing dumb things urged on by discussions like this.<br />
&#8216;Transformation&#8217; is about the most exaggerated and over-sold concept in strategy these days. The reality for most organizations is that they should &#8211; boring though it may sound &#8211; just press on with continuous improvement and careful business development. Getting their top management worked up about transformation risks distracting them from the critical task of actually running the business and building strong performance.<br />
Many examples that get this kind of hype are either glaringly obvious or modest adjustments to existing business. Netflix is hardly being a strategic genius in seeing it needs to deal with streaming, and plenty of companies see benefits in focusing on specific niches without claiming it&#8217;s a &#8216;total transformation&#8217;.Â<br />
Unfortunately, a tranformational approach to an otherwise decent business can do extreme damage &#8211; anyone fancy selling a few sub-prime mortgages? .. how about another Enron? .. or maybe eBay should hook up with Skype and transform the way their buyers and sellers transact?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://kimwarren.com/strategy/more-transformation-hype/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Successful transformation</title>
		<link>http://kimwarren.com/strategy/successful-transformation/</link>
		<comments>http://kimwarren.com/strategy/successful-transformation/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2009 09:11:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kim Warren</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Strategy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[failure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mckinsey]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reinvent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[transformation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.kimwarren.com/?p=628</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Readers will know I&#8217;m no fan of the obsession with &#8216;transformation&#8217; in strategy, but it&#8217;s sometimes essential or advanageous. In Corporate Transformation under Pressure, McKinsey report a less than 40% overall success rate, especially when used in an effort to get out of trouble &#8211; as they say, &#8220;this finding seems to contradict the common <a href='http://kimwarren.com/strategy/successful-transformation/'>[...]</a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Readers will know I&#8217;m no fan of the obsession with &#8216;transformation&#8217; in strategy, but it&#8217;s <em>sometimes</em> essential or advanageous. In <a href="http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/Organization/Change_Management/Corporate_transformation_under_pressure_2308" target="_blank">Corporate Transformation under Pressure</a>, McKinsey report a less than 40% overall success rate, especially when used in an effort to get out of trouble &#8211; as they say, &#8220;<em>this finding seems to contradict the common wisdom that it is hardest to transform a company when it lacks an acute and apparent need for change</em>&#8220;. As I&#8217;ve said in previous posts, when you are in trouble is a bad time to reinvent yourself &#8211; most often better to focus on getting back to the basic, core business model that works.</p>
<p>Helpfully, the article goes on to offer tactics that, when used together, seem to make transformations more successful, depending on the purpose of the effort.</p>
<p>NEW: j<span style="font-size: small; font-family: Calibri;">oin </span><a href="http://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=1688847&amp;trk=anetsrch_name&amp;goback=%2Egdr_1241274078373_1" target="_blank"><span style="font-size: small; font-family: Calibri;">strategy dynamics on LinkedIn</span></a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://kimwarren.com/strategy/successful-transformation/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>When a new business model is essential</title>
		<link>http://kimwarren.com/strategy/when-a-new-business-model-is-essential/</link>
		<comments>http://kimwarren.com/strategy/when-a-new-business-model-is-essential/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Dec 2008 09:04:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kim Warren</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Strategy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Apple]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bands]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Coldplay]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[EMI]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[harvard business review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[HBR]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[iTunes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[live music]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[music industry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[new business model]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Professor Clayton Christensen]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[strategic innovation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[strategic management]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[transformation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.kimwarren.com/?p=411</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The music industry is a great example of where &#8216;changing the business model&#8217; &#8211; aka &#8216;strategic innovation&#8217;Â  or transformation &#8211; has been essential. So although I have poured cold water on this idea for almost all firms at almost all times, it&#8217;s worth looking at this case. Apple&#8217;s development of iTunes of course features strongly <a href='http://kimwarren.com/strategy/when-a-new-business-model-is-essential/'>[...]</a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The music industry is a great example of where &#8216;changing the business model&#8217; &#8211; aka &#8216;strategic innovation&#8217;Â  or transformation &#8211; has been essential. So although I have poured cold water on this idea for almost all firms at almost all times, it&#8217;s worth looking at this case. <span id="more-411"></span></p>
<p>Apple&#8217;s development of iTunes of course features strongly in demonstrations of the concept, as in <a href="http://discussionleader.hbsp.com/hbreditors/2008/11/should_you_reinvent.html" target="_blank">Christensen et al in HBR</a>. Music was going digital, so what a great idea to give consumers a neat device to play music that you had to buy through a central online store. Question is &#8211; what on earth were the music production companies doing &#8211; sleeping?!</p>
<p>I like Coldplay, who are signed up with EMI, so what do I actually want? &#8211; just the music by the band, produced by the company. So surely I just key &#8216;Coldplay&#8217; into Google which takes me to an EMI web-page where I can sample a track and buy it? Being quite bright, I might even just key &#8216;<a href="http://www.emi.com/coldplay" target="_blank">www.emi.com/coldplay</a>&#8216; into my browser and get the same. No chance! [try it for yourself, the URL is actually <a href="http://www.emi.com/page/emi/Discography_UK/0,,12641~931488,00.html" target="_blank">http://www.emi.com/page/emi/Discography_UK/0,,12641~931488,00.html</a>].</p>
<p>So I find what I want &#8211; now can I buy it? no. Why not? Why does there have to be anyone else involved in this transaction? I quite understand that 10 years ago the record companies wanted to protect their CD sales, but surely the writing was on the wall for that business model years ago. It looks like the smart players in this situation were the bands themselves, who realised they could offer something that neither Apple nor the record companies could take from them &#8211; live shows, worth millions and just great for the fans. Recorded music for the bands now looks like a promo give-away to drive demand for tickets that will make them very, very rich.</p>
<p>Can the record companies still take back control of their own product? Maybe &#8211; and maybe they can exploit Apple to do so. There&#8217;s plenty of potential added-value content &#8211; extended length tracks, video and so on &#8211; so Apple could keep selling the basic content and the record companies develop the facility to sell direct to us all the really good stuff. My friend in the industry tells me that they have been able to do much of this for over 5 years, but instead of taking charge many have instead stumbled from crisis to crisis as Apple at one end and the bands at the other have stolen all the value.</p>
<p>More on strategy at <a href="http://www.strategydynamics.com/mystrategy" target="_blank">www.strategydynamics.com</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://kimwarren.com/strategy/when-a-new-business-model-is-essential/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

