By Francis Moran
An excellent, if low-key, presentation at last week’s OCRI Zone5ive shed some interesting new light on a pervasive issue we on this blog and many other technology-company watchers have commented on before. Canadian tech ventures take a distant back to seat to their American competitors when it comes to marketing their products and services. And, I can tell you from working on both the transmitting and receiving ends of the marketing efforts of a number of British and European outfits, those guys also regularly best the Canadians at engaging with, and reaching out to, their markets.
Conventional wisdom says the Yanks, and maybe the Brits, are simply more brash than we are; natural-born salespeople, they are simply louder, more confident and more aggressive. Perhaps there’s some truth to that; certainly, I have never come across anything more doggedly relentless than a British ad-sales guy trying to get me to buy space in his publication. But putting poor Canadian performance down to our supposed more docile domestic character prevents us from recognizing a more systemic issue that Peter Hanschke, the product-management specialist who presented at Zone5ive last Thursday, brought to light in his examination of agile product development and how it encourages — even demands — a very tight fit with marketing and early customer engagement. (You can see Peter’s slides here.)
Agile product development is not a new process; it’s been around for nearly a generation. But it is particularly well suited for this era that increasingly embraces concepts like minimal viable product — swiftly develop the bare bones of a product and get it out in front of customers who will equally swiftly tell you whether they like it or not so you can decide whether to enhance or kill it. Agile product development allows for such iterative and ever-evolving product-development cycles that are highly responsive to equally dynamic market forces.
But here’s where Peter’s presentation got really interesting for this marketing strategist.
In order for the process to be effective, agile product development must embrace marketing at every stage. How can you decide what the market wants and will value if you haven’t engaged your potential customers at the very outset? How do you know if you’re meeting customer specifications and requirements if you don’t show them your still-in-development stuff and get their feedback and input? Under an agile regime, product releases are based on having created value for a customer, and how do you parse that without talking to the customer?
More interestingly, it’s not just a case of marketing contributing to the process; we marketers also gain massively. Imagine, Peter told us in a scenario that got the attention of every one of us more accustomed to last-minute demands to go market the hell out of a finished product scant weeks or days from launch, if we were able to build the entire marketing piece alongside, and in lock step with, the product itself? And because customers are inherently and intimately involved along the way, agile product development kicks out early customer references for use in media and analyst relations programs.
All music to my ears until one attendee threw a large bucket of freezing cold Canadian ice water on the whole thing.
How many people here, he asked, have ever actually worked in or for a company that used such a process? Asking for a show of hands, he found his one of the very few hands in the air.
And that’s the real issue that can’t merely be chalked up to our alleged more-demur national character. It is my consistent observation that too many Canadian technology companies are engineering-centric, rather than customer- or market-centric. Engineers love to build what they love. Regrettably, this is, far too often, a great distance from what the market would love to buy.
Peter protested that engineers hate to build things that people don’t use, and I’m sure that’s true. But he himself sharply identified a tendency whereby products are developed according to an internally produced specifications sheet and then, fully finished, are tossed over the transom to sales and marketing to go flog. He called it the old way of doing things; I’d call it far-too-persistent, even today.
This is not to say every Canadian technology venture is a solution in search of a problem. With a colleague, I have just finished a strategic marketing plan for an Ottawa company that was sharply market- and customer-focused from the outset. Consisting of a cadre of brilliant ex-Nortel optical engineers, this gang did not look at its collective capabilities and ask, as so many do, “What could we build?” Instead, they researched a number of sharp and immediate pain points within optical networking and selected a few around which huge value could be created if the right solution was developed.
Working with them was a novel experience. Unlike with most of my clients, I was not handed a finished product and told to develop the marketing plan for it. Rather, in what was sometimes a difficult process with which to keep pace, the product and its feature set were constantly in flux; every time we got together with these folks, we needed an updated briefing. Indeed, by the time we finished the plan, it was exclusively in support of a new product that didn’t even exist when we first engaged with them just a few months prior. The first product they had showed us no longer needed immediate marketing support because it had been completed and OEM’d into a major optical equipment manufacturer — the customer! — where it was perfectly meeting that customer’s requirements. (And, not incidentally, generating real revenue that was underpinning the company’s growth and its development of the next products.)
It sounds a bit chaotic but it really wasn’t. At every stage, we could evolve our thinking to make sure our analysis and market research, to say nothing of the go-to-market strategy, continued to synchronize with the product under development and the customers for which it was intended. The product closes a painful network-management gap between the optical layer and application-level IT management tools and so, for example, it posed a critical channel question: Should it be sold on a per-node basis by equipment vendors or on a per-seat license basis by the IT tools vendor? Or both? With eager channel partners in both camps, only an openly collaborative culture that embraced the feedback and input of those channels and of the end customer allowed the client to conclude which approach would best serve the market, and them.
If Peter is right and engineers want to build products that people actually use, then even the most engineering-centric technology company should embrace agile product development methodologies and the close knit with marketing that is stitched in with them. In his experience, he told me after the presentation, it is never a case of engineering resisting marketing once it has embraced agile. If so, marketers should become agile’s most overt evangelists.
By Francis Moran
Most of this blog post ran on DangleTech last week, a general technology and management blog to which I make the occasional contribution. I am running it here on our own blog not just to get extra mileage out of it but because it continues the conversation I started a month or so back when I told you that I and the rest of the crew at inmedia were looking at where else we could apply our tech market knowledge and skills. In the process of doing so, I have been giving a lot of thought to the nature of professional specialisation.
My introspection on this subject stems from this recent decision of ours to move beyond the highly specialised public relations services that have been the core of our professional services offering for the past more than 10 years. That move has been prompted by a realisation that public relations has become an over-competitive, highly commodified proposition where a small agency such as ours faces relentless competition from both large agencies trying to keep their infrastructure funded through the current downturn and one-person shops of often-quite-well-qualified practitioners who used to work at agencies or on the client side. Add to this a widespread lack of any kind of objective framework within which agency searches are conducted – they often amount to little more than glorified beauty contests or are managed by very junior staff simply unqualified to make such a judgement – and you have the very epitome of what statisticians and management consultants W. Chan Kim and Renée Mauborgne have characterised as “a bloody ‘red ocean’ of rivals fighting over a shrinking profit pool.” They argue that “tomorrow’s leading companies will succeed not by battling competitors, but by creating ‘blue oceans’ of uncontested market space ripe for growth.”
For an individual or a consulting firm, such an approach means offering the marketplace a unique set of capabilities that, for a given situation, are not to be found elsewhere. My search over the past four or five months for my own personal blue-ocean strategy has dovetailed nicely with a growing understanding that the age of the specialist may well be behind us. Consider the following quote, taken from a recent edition of the CBC’s excellent series examining the nature of work:
“You have this long list of professional trades, and they’re all speaking different languages and they all have some sort of compartmentalized knowledge and that’s the challenge. That’s where the future is, in having a knowledge. The separation of design and build, the Ford model of assembly-line production – we are through that and we’ve entered into almost an older evaluation of skill where people have a sense of the general picture, the big picture and be able to bring together all the different specializations required. And that’s a new way of looking at problems. But it’s also a very old way of looking at problems.”
You might think the person who said the above words was a management consultant, maybe a systems analyst. But although he likes to use that latter term to describe himself, Jonas Spring is, in fact, a rooftop gardener, who needs to pull together many different and heretofore disparate and unconnected specialised professions and trades in order to plan, plant and maintain a rooftop garden.
Although our specialty at inmedia for the past dozen years or so has been very narrow – we did media and analyst relations and little else, and we did it for B2B technology ventures and no-one else – our skill set is far more diverse than might be immediately apparent, even to me.
For example, a recent assignment that came to me from well beyond the normal ambit of my PR agency was to help a Montréal systems integration company bid to be the Canadian value-added reseller for a U.S. software vendor. What the heck, you might well ask, does a PR guy know about any of that?
Well, as I broke down the requirements with the help of the certified management consultant who brought me in on the assignment, it became quite clear that what I might have seen as quite specialised capabilities could be far more generally applied.
In the first instance, we had to determine if there was a market in Canada for the software company’s product. That’s the sort of straightforward market-sizing research that needs nothing more than an objective definition of the target customer – size, sector and so on – and a good database that can be used to identify which and how many companies meet the criteria.
Then we had to make the case that our client, the systems integrator, was the right fit for the software company’s requirements. Well, that’s the sort of thing we do in PR all the time – develop, pitch and defend the story that says our clients are the right fit for a certain requirement.
The next step was to demonstrate how, should they get the nod, the systems integration company would go about pursuing the market opportunity and bringing in sales and revenue. Well, that’s a sales and marketing strategy, the sort of thing I had been doing before starting the PR agency and continued to do even while running the agency.
Finally, the whole thing had to be wrapped up in a well-written, persuasively argued proposal to the software company. And if I am not a writer, I am nothing.
I have gone on to other assignments over the past few months where I might have got my foot in the door thanks to a particular specialisation but where the client has swiftly seen that, in the right situation, I possess the exact mix of skills that are required. Presto – I have a blue-ocean opportunity with that client and face no competition, no qualification round and no pricing pressure. In almost every case, my value has not been a narrow specialisation but, rather, the requirement to apply generalised skills across a broad area. In today’s increasingly complex world where formerly disparate systems and processes must come to work together, this is the future of work.
Our thinking in these two areas – the rise of the generalist and building a personal blue-ocean strategy – has progressed to the point where we are about to formalise a market-facing entity to build a business around it. As these plans are unveiled, I will, of course, keep our readers up to speed on what’s happening.
By Francis Moran
For the first time in practically the decade-long lifespan of this technology-focused PR agency, I did not attend any part of the Ottawa Venture and Technology Summit held last week at the Chateau Laurier. Actually, that’s not quite true; I went to a packed StartUp Drinks in the Byward Market on Wednesday night and from there popped briefly into the thinly-attended Young Venture Capitalists OVTS networking event that was happening just a few doors away. But the point is, I didn’t see any of the company presentations, hear any of the speeches or, most importantly, glom onto any of the corridor scuttlebutt that is usually the most interesting aspect of these things.
In the days since, I have heard various reports from attendees from across the investor-entrepreneur spectrum and I have read what little reportage made the public record. Very little of what I’ve heard or read left me terribly hopeful that a new crop of exciting Ottawa technology ventures was about to get funded any time soon. The most consistent sentiment seemed to be contained in the comment VG Partners managing general partner Pat DiPietro made in an Ottawa Business Journal story on the fact that the OVTS and a similar event in Banff had a scheduling overlap. “But on the other hand there are no VCs investing, so it doesn’t really matter right now,” DiPietro said.
This caused me to wonder if venture fairs have passed their sell-by date. Can anyone remember the last company that could claim to have met at one of these things the connection that led to successful funding?
Then my pal James Smith weighed in on his newish blog, Startup Great White North. Unlike me, James not only attended the Ottawa venture fair, he also winged out west to the Banff shindig. Despite the fact he there witnessed “institutional investors focused principally on shaking off modest Thursday night hangovers and cradling Blackberrys and iPhones like long-lost friends” rather than paying attention to the entrepreneurs’ pitches, he decided in the end that investors don’t regard those pitching companies “with the attention my mini-van driving wife might give to passing picked-over roadkill on the road to our cottage.”
I’m not sure I’m as persuaded as James but he does go on to provide a solid list of techniques that serious venture-seeking entrepreneurs can deploy to improve their outcomes from such an event.
While we’re on the question of the utility of VC fairs, we might as well start asking questions about the utility of the VC model itself. We have begun work on a series of articles about this very question. We will look at who is actually funding startups in Canada, the U.S. and Europe. We’ll ask experts which pieces of the model work and which don’t. And most importantly, we’ll examine the state of the ecosystem beyond VCs that needs to be in place to help companies, especially those that will never be VC-fundable, bring their technology to market. We’ll look at the proliferation of new government funding here in Canada and compare it with what’s in place in other markets. If you believe you have a perspective on this, we’d love to hear from you. You can email me at fmoran (at) inmedia.com.
By Leo Valiquette
When Iain Christie, president of Neptec Design Group, took the stage this morning as the keynote speaker at OCRI’s first Technology Executive Breakfast of the fall season, he made one thing clear: he wouldn’t presume to tell his audience how they should run their business, since it was challenge enough to run his own.
Nonetheless, as he shared anecdotes of the lessons learned over Neptec’s almost 20-year evolution from a one-trick pony whose continuance relied on the “stroke of a bureaucratic pen” to a more diversified technology play, it was clear that certain fundamentals crucial to business success apply no matter the industry; they simply manifest in different ways.
Neptec’s big break came in the early 1990s, when it developed an Advanced Space Vision System for NASA to help astronauts assemble the International Space Station. While this crucial contract for the company generated spinoff business, by the start of this decade, Neptec was challenged by the simple fact that it was still living from program to program with one dominant customer — obviously not the best way to build a sustainable company over the long term.
And while additional opportunities have come from NASA, not the least of which is the 3D Laser Camera System now used to inspect the Space Shuttle exterior for damage after launch, Neptec has diversified its expertise in intelligent three-dimensional data collection and processing for multiple applications in the defence and industrial automation markets.
Iain shared the following lessons that have come of the company’s growing pains and emphasized that it is still far better to learn from one’s own experience than from the mistakes of others:
1. Always have a backup plan. Before you jump in and claim to have the solution to a problem, make certain you have a complete understanding of its dimensions and its constraints. “You’ll get a lot further ahead.”
2. Never let them see you sweat. “Amateurs talk about technology, professionals talk about process.” Technology is great, but if there is not a proven process to govern implementation and operation, and effectively troubleshoot any problems, the best technology in the world will not yield the desired result. You must be prepared for the unexpected.
3. The Perfect is the enemy of The Good Enough. In one instance with NASA, Neptec went from concept to a fully realized system that flew in space in only 16 months. The key from the outset was having a clear and unambiguous objective statement of what they had to achieve. The team had to refrain from the temptation to exhaust time and resources on making something that was already good enough even better. It was an exercise in distinguishing the “truly important” from the “merely urgent.”
4. Stick to your strengths. When the Neptec team embarked on its campaign to diversify its customer base, the key was not to chase after what the market wanted, but to instead remain true to its core strengths and focus on opportunities where it could deliver value to the customer. In other words, find problems they could solve with a solution the target market was willing to buy and could afford, rather than attempting to muscle in where larger and better-funded competitors were already well-established.
5. What gets measured gets done. Case in point: Iain was swimming against the current with his management team trying to argue in favour of expanding the workforce. The central issue was Neptec’s utilization rate: how much of each worker’s time was actually being applied to billable client work. Iain put the spotlight on it, but his managers on their own initiative tackled it and staff efficiency shot up in a matter of weeks. Which led to his next point: as the leader, his job is to ensure the management team is focused on addressing the right problem, set goals, then get out of the way and let them figure out the solution. He should not get bogged down in the day-to-day operational stuff, but . . .
6. Stay focused on what’s next. Change isn’t always desirable, but it is inevitable. While it is easy to fall into the trap of never looking past the end of the current project, or the current fiscal quarter, the person at the top must have their attention focused on what’s just over the horizon to maintain growth and profitability.
