The difference that difference makes

Will we be hung?

Austalians elect a new federal government in two weeks. But, when I say ‘new’, it won’t be new - it’ll be one of the same two parties that have held power since Federation in 1901.

But, there are those pundits who believe we have a very real potential for a hung parliament. If you’re American or European, let me explain. In the Westminster system a parliament is ‘hung’ when neither of the two major parties gains a majority, and they rely on explicit support of minor parties, or independents. The very term implies something negative, but to see a truly hilarious, very cynical (and most definitely not child-friendly) explanation, take a look?here.

I happen to believe that a hung parliament could be a very good thing, as the necessity for a minority government to work with the cross-bench will force debated resolution of big issues that neither major party has a strong stomach to tackle alone: climate, energy, gender equality, water, political integrity.?

After all, in Australia generally, we're rapidly moving away from 'two party' thinking, in every area. 50 years ago, our dinner choices were lamb vs beef, our football was rugby or Aussie Rules, our cars Holden our Ford, our churches Catholic or Protestant, our groceries came from Woolies or Coles. These and any number of other binaries that are fast disappearing.

Question: What binary thinking in your organisation is outdated and requires deep debate?

Misjudging what people really value

What’s the biggest misstep you know of, where a company has simply failed to understand what its customers want?

You mightn’t remember famous tech fails like the Microsoft Zune (a competitor to the iPod), Google Glass (web-enabled spectacles) or even Apple’s own Newton (a primitive iPhone without the phone). But one we can certainly learn a lot from is what was to be India’s best selling car, the Tata Nano.

It was to be the tidal wave that got Indian families off overloaded scooters and into cars, and its cost was astonishing, a mere 100,000 rupees (about $2000 at the time). Such fanfare surrounded the launch in 2008, that sales of 250,000 a year were thought likely.

Instead, sales peaked at 70,000 and dropped from there.

Why? What was misjudged?

It was cheap, yes, and it looked that way. You got one windscreen wiper (not two), three lug nuts per wheel (not four), and no rear hatch (you got your luggage into the trunk via the back seat).

But, the cost-cutting?per se?wasn’t the problem. It was that it was marketed as ‘the cheapest car in the world’.

Indians, it turned out, don’t want ‘cheap’. They like a bit of pizazz and glitz, especially those the car was aimed at: the upwardly mobile and aspirational middle classes. They want cars, but not ‘the world’s cheapest car’.

The Nano sputtered on for 10 years before it was finally discontinued, at a huge loss.

Q: What is something you?think?your customers want, but you could be proven wrong about??

How can we be different, if we’re the same?

About 10 years ago, I worked on a strategy project with a water authority whose Chairman put the following challenge to me: “Andrew, we can’t choose our product (they had to supply water, and take away sewage). We don’t determine our customers (they have to supply everyone). We can’t even set our prices (these were set 5-yearly by government). What would a strategy achieve for us?”.

We ended up building a strategy to continues to this day that was focussed on community-centrism: they care for farmers, for townspeople, for businesses. These people were given a true say in how water reaches them, and were helped to see water, and its responsible use, as an integral part of living well.

Fast forward to today.

I’m working with a large faith-based healthcare?provider, who have the same dilemma — almost. Operating public hospitals, they can’t choose their product most of the time (they won’t do certain medical procedures for religious reasons), , they don’t turn anyone away, and government pays them non-negotiable activity-based pricing.

Their question was similar to the water authority’s: “How do we differentiate ourselves?”

Our work isn’t complete, but there’s a clear direction emerging. It’s in the italicised word above and involves ensuring that care is in healthcare. They are famous for helping those whom others won’t (family violence victims, people who are homeless, refugees), and for focussing deep care at times of greatest vulnerability (birth, major illness and dying). They have established trust (of community and government) in their relational abilities (their patients are not Medicare numbers, but humans), and their approach to human dignity has been a feature since their founding in the 19th century.

Are they perfect? No. Are there those who feel treated poorly? At times, yes.

But, we’re working on a strategy that helps them?systematise?what differentiates them: measurement of care, intake processes that care, getting workforces to care at scale, finding ways to care even in those services funded most leanly.

Q: How do you differentiate yourself when you can’t choose some (or all of) product, customers or pricing??

Please let me know you’ve enjoyed reading this week’s 5MSM by clicking 'like' below. And, of course, do tell others about this newsletter — you’re in the company of 4000 people globally who read each week.

See you next Friday,

Andrew