Показаны сообщения с ярлыком capability. Показать все сообщения
Показаны сообщения с ярлыком capability. Показать все сообщения

четверг, 5 октября 2023 г.

7 Required Capabilities for an Effective Strategy Review Cycle

 


by David Wilsey

I reconnected with a former client and learned that his team struggled with executing their strategy. Although they crafted a good strategy, they faltered in translating ideas into action. Effective leadership requires teams to skillfully assess, adapt, and enhance strategy execution for lasting success. This demands specific capabilities within organizations to facilitate a thorough strategy review process. In this blog, I’ll outline the seven key essential capabilities.

Process Discipline

To a certain extent, most organizations that are struggling with execution lack process discipline. Teams that execute well maintain cultures of continuous learning, leverage well-defined performance measurement or OKR frameworks, impose a regular meeting cadence that suits your organization’s needs, and think in terms of systematic problem solving over finger pointing and individual heroics. A regular and disciplined process prevents strategies from becoming stagnant and enables timely adjustments.

Engaged Leadership

It is essential for leadership to drive the strategy review cycle process. Leaders should actively participate, be willing to adapt to new strategies as needed, and prioritize the process over firefighting. This engagement communicates to the team that this is important.

Cross-functional Collaboration

Most strategy teams have by now gotten the message that strategy formulation should be a cross-functional conversation. But not all of them realize that execution benefits from the same approach. Cross-functional collaboration is crucial for getting diverse perspectives, insights, and expertise. It is also key to help teams get a more holistic understanding of the impact of their strategies.

Strategic Alignment

Strategic Alignment efforts don’t step after the cascading workshops end. For a strategy review cycle to be effective, there must be a constant effort to reinforce alignment between the strategies and initiatives being reviewed and the overarching goals and strategies of the organization. It is also important to constantly review and adapt strategic objectives depending on changes in the strategic situation. Constantly reinforcing alignment will confirm a sense of purpose and meaning to the work of the organization.

Performance Analysis

Nothing is more frustrating than attending a review session where no one understands the information being presented. Organizations that are good at strategy execution have the right skills to collect, analyze, and interpret data related to KPIs and other measures. Leadership teams should always be working to improve the art and science of data-driven decision making.

Use of Technology

Strategy review meetings are far more satisfying when the right technology is used to support the discussion. Performance dashboards, data visualization platforms, and collaboration tools streamline the review process and enable a far more engaging experience.

Change Management

Some clients think about change management during the planning process but then forget about it later. Principles such as clear communications, engaging key stakeholders regularly, fostering a culture of teamwork and accountability can ensure that the organization is better equipped to pivot when needed without too much disruption.

Conclusion

The effectiveness of your strategy review process can make or break your strategy execution success. By building out the capabilities above, strategy teams can ensure that their strategy review meetings are useful and drive the organization towards the breakthrough results that envisioned in the planning sessions.

https://balancedscorecard.org/

среда, 2 августа 2023 г.

Benchmarking your digital marketing capability

 

Using capability maturity models to audit your digital maturity and set targets to improve digital marketing effectiveness

We've been adding to our visual tools to help all members assess how well their businesses are adapting to using digital media and technology and to set targets to improve their results from digital marketing.

We have collected these visuals together in a single download so that you can easily review them and print the most relevant for you. We've designed them So members can use them for different scales of business and roles. There are more than 10 templates which cover:

  • Digital marketing for small and medium businesses using our RACE framework
  • Digital transformation for larger businesses
  • Digital channel marketing activities including SEO, Social media, email and content marketing

You can see one example, which I designed for reviewing digital marketing effectiveness with senior leaders in small and medium or larger businesses. The other templates are more granular looking at specific digital marketing activities using our RACE framework.


Members can also use our Capability graders, which are free, interactive versions enabling you to compare your score to other members (anonymously) and get recommendations on which resources can help you improve your score.

Of course, capability graders and improvement recommendations are most useful to businesses that are actively trying to improve their digital marketing strategies. If you're still looking for buy-in for digital marketing activities or optimization, you could start by reading up on '10 reasons why you need a digital marketing strategy'.

What is the 5 point benchmarking scale based on?

In this article I'll explain the background to these capability reviews - I have to go back a while since I first became aware of the benefits of doing this type of process benchmarking back in the early 1990s!

Do you know the Carnegie Mellon Capability Maturity model (CMM)? That's where my inspiration for benchmarking businesses for digital marketing originally came from. It’s likely that you don’t, if you work in marketing, unless your background is similar to mine.

I used to manage software development back in the day, before the web, yes that long ago…

Back then I used to manage small teams to create packaged software used by thousands of engineers worldwide, so it was important that we minimized defects when we shipped a new release. Of course, every major bug irritates customers and generates support and rework.

So the team leaders and I worked hard to implement a quality management system process for creating new software updates to minimize bugs - many who are involved with managing updates to web and E-commerce sites will be familiar with requirements specs, prototypes, and testing schedules, although this was before Agile and Scrum.

As part of trying to improve our development processes, we used to find it useful to apply capability maturity models to benchmark against competitors. They help you be more objective about your capabilities and know where improvements are needed. In the classic CMM model there are 5 or 6 clearly defined stages as shown below:



The story behind developing these digital marketing maturity benchmark tools

When I switched from software development to marketing to lecturing in the business school in the University of Derby around 1995, the web was in its infancy and there were a lot more problems with managing site performance and content than there are today. Remember those quaint “under construction” signs. Laughable now!

Many managing the adoption of digital technologies by their companies were based with a similar problem to the software developers. They needed to develop a robust, repeatable process that would enable them to deliver a service that was effective both for their customers and their commercial goals. Many still do. So this is where reviewing your capabilities can help.

If you're new to digital marketing, don't forget to check our top 18 recommended digital marketing techniques by asking 'what is digital marketing?'.

Using benchmarking or scoring of your digital maturity can help:

  • 1 Audit current approaches to digital marketing to identify areas for improvement;
  • 2 Benchmark against competitors who are in the same market sector;
  • 3 Identify best practice from more advanced adopters;
  • 4 Set targets and develop strategies and roadmaps for improving capabilities through time;
  • 5 Communicate the current situation to colleagues budget holders and highlight investment priorities in for different activities.

This need for well-managed processes is still the case, particularly with ongoing developments in the technology for delivering customer experiences across mobile and desktop and the need to integrate content and social media from multiple sources. Given that digital marketing is “Always-on”, it makes sense to benchmark the overall capability of digital marketing using a simple scoring system.

I used to participate in Workshops at Cranfield School of Management where capability models developed by Professor Hugh Wilson were reviewed with companies participating in a benchmarking group. This rang a bell, so it gave me the idea to apply what I had learned of CMM for software development and apply it.

Benchmarking frameworks for Smart Insights Business Members

I originally developed capability benchmark spreadsheets on personal consulting projects for brands like Barclaycard, BP and Mercedes Benz where I interviewed stakeholders asking them to assess their digital capabilities on a detailed scale.

A version of this was referenced later in the Econsultancy Managing E-commerce Teams reports I worked on in 2005 and 2008 and more recently have updated them to the Smart Insights Digital marketing strategy audit which is structured around the RACE Planning framework - it's where we recommend Expert members start their improvements to digital marketing.

We also have an online retail capability benchmarking audit by Chris Jones. I got in touch with Chris since I admired the auditing approach in his Multichannel Retail Handbook and we arranged to share it with Smart Insights members.

Free Interactive Benchmarking tool

After developing many digital benchmarking spreadsheets and marketing strategy audits, I wanted to take digital benchmarking to the next level by having an interactive tool that could be used to score a business digital marketing capabilities and make recommendations to improve.

That's what our interactive digital strategy benchmarking tool does. By scoring your business capabilities across all areas of the RACE planning framework you will be given a score and recommended resources and e-learning models to help you improve your business capability to use digital marketing effectively.

By Dave Chaffey

https://www.smartinsights.com/





среда, 29 марта 2023 г.

Duty of care, skill and diligence. Part 3. Governance capability development

 (Part 1 and 2 - https://cutt.ly/G04R1JA)

I suppose it is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail.”

Abraham Maslow

While it may seem obvious that non-profit directors require a set of skills to perform their duties, elections or appointments to these roles rarely involve scrutiny of the skill profiles or levels of individual candidates, or indeed the mix of skills across the board.

Associations are frequently bound by their constitutions to elect only members, with no guarantee that the members who succeed at the ballot possess any of the skills that might be objectively described as ‘sufficient’. To that extent, they can be at risk of being governed by boards that view everything through the relatively narrow lens of members’ business needs. These constraints don’t apply to commercial boards, which are obliged to appoint directors with the range and depth of skills required to effectively govern their organisation.

Charities more often tend to appoint or elect directors with an eye to their qualifications and skills (beyond being interested in the cause, or being a donor). From my observations, they are usually more careful than associations, despite which the ACNC reports of poor governance in various charities provide evidence that director skills were often lacking.

As noted in Part 1 of this series on the ‘Duty of care, skill and diligence‘, common law (determined by courts) dictates that in performing the ‘duty of care and diligence’, a reasonable person will exercise a level of skill or expertise commensurate with their responsibilities.

Competency frameworks

While various competency frameworks have been devised to describe the skills required of directors (see links below), I found the governance capability framework for community organisations developed by the Victorian Department of Health and Human Services offered the most relevant reference for the non-profits I deal with.


This framework is supported by resource materials which help explain the skills required for effective governance, and ways they may be utilised.

The header image above blends this governance capability framework with the prism of clinical competence developed by Dr G. E. Miller (slightly modified by me to separate ‘attitudes’ into ‘attitudes and beliefs’). Under Miller’s model, it is only in the ‘Does’ triangle that the doctor truly performs, and of course, that is just as true for non-profit directors.

The framework referenced by the AICD was devised by Prof. Geoffrey Kiel et al, and highlighted in their valuable reference Directors at Work. In that model, the key areas of competence are listed as:
• Industry: Experience in and knowledge of the industry in which the organisation operates.
• Technical: Technical/professional skills and specialist knowledge to assist with ongoing aspects of the board’s role.
• Governance: The essential governance knowledge and understanding all directors should possess or develop if they are to be effective board members. Includes some
specific technical competencies as applied at board level.
• Behavioural: The attributes and competencies enabling individual board members to use their knowledge and skills to function well as team members and to interact with key stakeholders.

Kiel G, Nicholson G, Tunny J A, Beck J, Directors at Work: A Practical Guide for Boards, Thomson Reuters Australia, 2012, p 203-4

Director development policy

A board comprised of directors who only possessed ‘industry’ skill sets would be like a tradesman with only a hammer at his disposal – everything would look like a nail. Decisions made by such a board would be more likely to serve ‘narrow sectional interests‘ than to take broader compliance, social and environmental considerations into account. Such a board may therefore be at risk if it failed to develop the directors’ skills in the other key domains.

Director development is therefore an essential aspect of good governance. Recognising that non-profit directors will have a range of governance experience and expertise, the developmental programs you offer your directors will desirably be calibrated to their individual needs. When framing your Director Development Policy, as well as outlining the competency framework applicable in your organisation, you may want to consider where each of your directors sits on the scale from novice to expert, and choose programs likely to promote skills beyond the foundation level for those with some experience. (As an aside – in my opinion, some of the competency frameworks promoted in the marketplace are designed as much to promote revenue generation from recommended course fees as they are an objective analysis of skills required for effective governance).

The ‘sledgehammer‘ of novice-level skills will not help your board to make complex strategic and risk management decisions, which require the ‘scalpel‘ of high level judgment and governance insight.

https://cutt.ly/B4BfFuz

воскресенье, 1 января 2023 г.

Capabilities and Competences

 


Capability vs. Competency

“Competency” and “capability” are two terms that pertain to human ability. They are often mentioned in many Human Resources related materials, as well as in career and job communications.

“Capability” is the term that describes the quality of being capable. It is the condition that permits an individual to acquire the power and ability to learn and do something within their capacity. “Capability” is also known as implied abilities, or abilities that are not yet developed.

A person with a capability has the potential to acquire a specific ability or skill that will be helpful in a task. The learned skill or ability adds to a person’s knowledge bank or skillset. Capabilities also improve the functions of a person, which can lead to more productivity. New skills and abilities make a person more capable to complete a certain task, which in turn makes them a more suitable candidate for certain job positions.

With time and practice, capabilities can develop into competence. Capabilities serve as the starting point of being able to do something and gradually becoming more adept in performing the task.

“Capability” is derived from the Middle French word “capabilité” and Late Latin word “capābili”. The word was first used in 1587; however, its meaning in today’s usage (underdeveloped skill or faculty) only evolved and was used starting in 1778.

On the other hand, “competence” is the state or quality of an individual’s work. A person and their work can be evaluated as competent if the performance is considered “satisfactory” but not “outstanding.” Competence can also be applied to the improvement or development of one’s abilities and skills for the benefit of the person and the group or institution they represent. The improved skills and abilities are applied to tasks or jobs.

Competence can also result in an increased quality of work or performance. In return, the work and performance will produce more satisfying and favorable results from other parties like clients, bosses, and other relevant individuals.

Competence starts as a person’s capabilities. In a sense, competence is the proven abilities and improved capabilities. Competence can include a combination of knowledge, basic requirements (capabilities), skills, abilities, behavior, and attitude.

“Competence” as a word has its origins in 1632 in the French word “competence” (meaning of sufficient living in ease) and further in the Latin “competentia” (which means agreement or symmetry). However, the modern meaning of the word (sufficiency to deal with a situation or  task) didn’t come into existence until 1790.

Summary:

  1. “Capability” and “competence” are two manifestations of human abilities and skills. Both words are often met in job advertisements or personnel assessments.
  2. “Capability” is the condition of having the capacity to do something. Within this condition there is a potential for improvement of skills. On the other hand, “competence” is the improved version of “capability,” and means the degree of skill in the task’s performance.
  3. Capabilities lead to competence. An individual with capabilities can acquire a new skillset or knowledge by learning and practicing. Competence serves as a result of the application of capabilities.
  4. Capabilities are seen as “generic,” while competence is more in the field of “specialist.”
  5. Both “capability” and “competence” are derived from French and Latin roots. Another interesting similarity is that both words have earlier meanings distinct from  their current, modern meanings; competence’s modern meaning only evolved in 1790, but the word was already in usage since 1632. “Capability” has been used since 1587, but it took almost 197 years to come to its new and modern meaning.

https://cutt.ly/w2pofnD

Capability-based strategies are based on the notion that internal resources and core competencies derived from distinctive capabilities provide the strategy platform that underlies a firm's long-term profitability. Evaluation of these capabilities begins with a company capability profile, which examines a company's strengths and weaknesses in four key areas:

  • managerial
  • marketing
  • financial
  • technical

Then a SWOT analysis is carried out to determine whether the company has the strengths necessary to deal with the specific forces in the external environment. This analysis enables managers to identify:

  1. external threats and opportunities, and
  2. distinct competencies that can ward off the threats and compensate for weaknesses.

The picture identified by the SWOT analysis helps to suggest which type of strategy, or strategic thrust the firm should use to gain competitive advantage.

Stalk, Evans and Schulman (1992) have identified four principles that serve as guidelines to achieving capability-based competition:

  1. Corporate strategy does not depend on products or markets but on business processes.
  2. Key strategic processes are needed to consistently provide superior value to the customer.
  3. Investment is made in capability, not functions or SBUs.
  4. The CEO must champion the capability-based strategy.

Capability-based strategies, sometimes referred to as the resource-based view of the firm, are determined by (a) those internal resources and capabilities that provide the platform for the firm's strategy and (b) those resources and capabilities that are the primary source of profit for the firm. A key management function is to identify what resource gaps need to be filled in order to maintain a competitive edge where these capabilities are required.



Several levels can be established in defining the firm's overall strategy platform (see figure).


 At the bottom of the pyramid are the basic resources a firm has compiled over time. They can be categorised as technical factors, competitive factors, managerial factors, and financial factors.


 Core competencies can be defined as the unique combination of the resources and experiences of a particular firm. It takes time to build these core competencies and they are difficult to imitate. Critical to sustaining these core competencies are their:


Durability - their life span is longer than individual product or technology life-cycles, as are the life spans of resources used to generate them, including people.

Intransparency - it is difficult for competitors to imitate these competencies quickly.

Immobility - these capabilities and resources are difficult to transfer.


References

Rowe, Mason, Dickel, Mann, Mockler; "Strategic Management: a methodological approach". 4th Edition, 1994. Addison-Wesley. Reading Mass.

Stalk, G Jnr., Evans, P. and Schulman, LE. 1992. "Competing on capabilities: the new rules of corporate strategy". Harvard Business Review, Vol.70, No. 2, March-April, pp. 57-70.

Prahalad, CK. and Hamel, G. 1990. "The Core Competence of the Corporation". Harvard Business Review, May-June, pp. 79-91.


https://cutt.ly/J2poTHc


суббота, 3 декабря 2022 г.

Competency vs Capability: What’s the Difference?

 


Capability-based strategies are based on the notion that internal resources and core competencies derived from distinctive capabilities provide the strategy platform that underlies a firm's long-term profitability. Evaluation of these capabilities begins with a company capability profile, which examines a company's strengths and weaknesses in four key areas:

  • managerial
  • marketing
  • financial
  • technical

Then a SWOT analysis is carried out to determine whether the company has the strengths necessary to deal with the specific forces in the external environment. This analysis enables managers to identify:

  1. external threats and opportunities, and
  2. distinct competencies that can ward off the threats and compensate for weaknesses.

The picture identified by the SWOT analysis helps to suggest which type of strategy, or strategic thrust the firm should use to gain competitive advantage.

Stalk, Evans and Schulman (1992) have identified four principles that serve as guidelines to achieving capability-based competition:

  1. Corporate strategy does not depend on products or markets but on business processes.
  2. Key strategic processes are needed to consistently provide superior value to the customer.
  3. Investment is made in capability, not functions or SBUs.
  4. The CEO must champion the capability-based strategy.

Capability-based strategies, sometimes referred to as the resource-based view of the firm, are determined by (a) those internal resources and capabilities that provide the platform for the firm's strategy and (b) those resources and capabilities that are the primary source of profit for the firm. A key management function is to identify what resource gaps need to be filled in order to maintain a competitive edge where these capabilities are required.



Several levels can be established in defining the firm's overall strategy platform (see figure).

 

At the bottom of the pyramid are the basic resources a firm has compiled over time. They can be categorised as technical factors, competitive factors, managerial factors, and financial factors.

 

Core competencies can be defined as the unique combination of the resources and experiences of a particular firm. It takes time to build these core competencies and they are difficult to imitate. Critical to sustaining these core competencies are their:

  1. Durability - their life span is longer than individual product or technology life-cycles, as are the life spans of resources used to generate them, including people.
  2. Intransparency - it is difficult for competitors to imitate these competencies quickly.
  3. Immobility - these capabilities and resources are difficult to transfer.

References

  • Rowe, Mason, Dickel, Mann, Mockler; "Strategic Management: a methodological approach". 4th Edition, 1994. Addison-Wesley. Reading Mass.
  • Stalk, G Jnr., Evans, P. and Schulman, LE. 1992. "Competing on capabilities: the new rules of corporate strategy". Harvard Business Review, Vol.70, No. 2, March-April, pp. 57-70.
  • Prahalad, CK. and Hamel, G. 1990. "The Core Competence of the Corporation". Harvard Business Review, May-June, pp. 79-91.
http://bit.ly/3UzpcfT


Both speak to human abilities, but what is the difference between a capability and competency in the workplace? 

In short, one is a measure of effectiveness and the other evaluates proficiency. The long story: A capability is a group of skills, knowledge and tools that get work done. Competency assesses how well those skills, knowledge and tools are used to get that work done.   

Still confused? We explain more—plus why capabilities and competencies both matter in the workplace—in this article. 

What is a competency?

Competency is a measure of how someone performs a set of knowledge, skills and behaviours to successfully carry out a task in the workplace. 

As a measure of an employee’s ability to perform the work expected of them in their job role and to the organisation’s standard, competencies are generally used to assess capabilities for succession planning and talent decisions. 

What is an example of a competency?

The Learning and Performance Institute (LPI) Capability Map has five measures of expertise: 

  1. No experience. Speaks for itself, you simply don’t have experience with the capability. 
  2. Foundational. You have use the capability with guidance. 
  3. Proficient. You can use the skill by yourself. 
  4. Advanced. You support others in developing the capability. 
  5. Strategic. You use the capability to set strategy and business practice.  
  6. These are assessed against what performance should look like in different job roles. The more senior the role, the more complex the skills, knowledge and behaviours expected of an employee. 

What is a capability?

A capability is a grouping of critical knowledge, skills, tools and behaviours that result in organisational success. In the workplace, it defines what is expected of employees in various job roles in order to achieve strategic business goals. 

What is an example of a capability?
 
Capabilities describe a tangible outcome. A few examples of a capability include: 

  • Deliver results 
  • Manage relationships 
  • Decision-making 
  • Service commitment 
  • Project management. 

Organisational capabilities vs competencies

Perhaps the biggest difference between capabilities and competencies is how they’re used in an organisation. Organisational capability usually starts with the CEO. When dealing with a new future of work, the CEO has to consider how their company can optimally use cash flow and people to carry out strategy. 

If the CEO uses competencies to plan for the future, they’re setting a fixed goal. There’s cap on competency, an upper limit to the standard the organisation is capable of. Not to mention competency can’t be a strategic driver since a) it’s limited to certain areas of expertise and b) competence needs an outcome against which it can be measured. Ergo, it’s much better as a measure of performance.  

But if they take a capability-led approach, the CEO can build a framework for performing in an uncertain future. This is because capabilities are stable and not impacted by the complexities of the business environment. They’re also made to measure for the ideal workforce, focusing on the tangible outcomes of each individual’s work. 

You want to focus on organisational and employee capability because it is the strongest link to the CEO’s focus (cash flow, people, strategy). Capabilities ensure we have the right combination and number of skills, knowledge and attributes—specifically in the right people and roles to deliver on high-level outcomes. 


Organisational capability vs employee capability 

There’s little difference in how capabilities look and are described at the organisational and employee level. It’s more about how they’re used. 

  • Organisational capabilities link directly to the CEO’s focus for the business. They’re talked about them in terms of resources for future-focused strategic workforce planning and business planning. 
  • Employee capabilities refer to the attributes of an individual. While still focused on future needs, it’s more about the needs of an employee in their role, team or career. 

Really, capability and competency are two sides of the same coin. An organisation can’t be successful if its employees aren’t competent, and developing employee competence will be negated by an organisation that isn’t held to standard. 

It’s easy to blame an underperforming employee. But the environment in which they are learning new skills and abilities is probably the root cause. Competitive advantage comes from developing and managing employee capability and competence to achieve organisational capability. 

Why are capabilities important to business?

Organisational capability focuses on the strategic use of certain resources to reach a defined outcome. Those resources are usually a combination of tools, processes and people. So, while people perform the capabilities, how the organisation manages their individual set of skills and knowledge to gain market edge is key.


Capabilities underpin any training and development program you offer. We say any training program, because all L&D activities in your organisation should have some kind of return on investment.  


You want L&D to be seen as a profit driver, not a cost centre, right? Consider some of the KPIs that business leaders want to see: Profitability, process improvement, agility and more effective teamwork to name a few. 


If capabilities provide a desired business outcome, then it stands to reason you should be building training programs to develop them. This has the added benefits of ensuring: 


  • Learning activities are prioritised by business impacts (say, capabilities you’ve found to be at risk in your workforce) 
  • You can replicate a successful development pathway or find the issues in one that didn’t yield results 
  • Training is proactively solving and/or reducing business issues in the long-term, not just reacting to problems after the fact 
  • You can show a quantifiable impact to not offering development. 


It also means employees have a guide of what is required for them to succeed in their job role, team and the organisation. There’s no arguing with feedback in performance reviews, because they are based on the skills, knowledge and behaviours that you’ve defined as crucial to success. Change management is also made much easier with this level of transparency, too. 


Why are competencies important in the workplace?


The measure of capability success is usually the less tangible, almost intangible part. That’s where competency comes in as a way to evaluate performance. 


Competencies define performance management 


Of course, the most common use of competencies is in performance evaluations. It’s the best gauge of an individual’s performance against what you want performance to look like. 


Managers can use competency to better understand the specific skills required for an employee’s role, as well as the knowledge and behaviours that will help them meet future job expectations. 


A competency model helps: 


  • Benchmark performance across capabilities and job roles 
  • Develop shared understandings of capabilities and performance 
  • Design timely interventions for undesirable behaviours 
  • Inform succession planning and workforce decisions. 


Competencies power self-assessments


Piggy-backing off performance evaluations, competency helps individuals assess their own work. We’re all human beings, which means there is a certain bias that we apply (positive or negative) to our abilities. 


Organisational competencies force us to see ourselves in an objective light. Say one of your capabilities is Demonstrate Accountability. We’d all like to think we do that. But if “take responsibility for own actions” is the foundational competence expected while “help develop effective systems for establishing and measuring accountabilities” is the advanced end of the spectrum, it gives employees more nuance with which to self-assess. 


That also means people aren’t just looking at their skill statements or prior learning experiences as evidence of their capabilities in practice, but rather the context in which these need to be applied and built upon. Regular self-assessments encourage employees to seek out informal learning opportunities, supporting a coveted self-sufficient learning culture within your organisation. 


Key takeaways


While they’re often used interchangeably, capability and competency have very different meanings and uses. A capability is a combination of behaviours, skills, processes and knowledge that affects an outcome. Competency is the measure of how a person performs a capability. 


Both can be developed, but only one has strategic impacts. Competence is best used to support employee development. Capabilities shape larger workforce and business planning tasks, like leadership development, recruitment and resourcing. 


http://bit.ly/3XRYW3s

вторник, 12 января 2021 г.

Enduring Ideas: The industry cost curve


In this interactive presentation—one in a series of multimedia frameworks—McKinsey director Rob Latoff offers insight into the industry cost curve, a business school classic for understanding pricing. By bringing discipline and a practical set of definitions to bear, this framework can be applied to real-world, competitive markets.

Producers of a commodity are generally willing to supply it as long as the price they can command exceeds the unit cost of production. Yet how do they determine which business units’ products can be priced competitively in which market segments? The industry cost curve—a standard microeconomic graph that maps a product’s available capacity incrementally in order of increasing cost—is fundamental for analyzing the dynamics of pricing.

Under many conditions, the level of demand for a product and the cost of the next available supplier’s capacity determine the market price. In theory, the industry cost curve allows companies to predict the impact that capacity, shifts in demand, and input costs have on market prices. In practice, however, a multitude of questions can muddy the waters. Do competitors have access to a number of markets? Will reinvesting profits in a product shift the market’s economics? Does the product’s real or perceived value differ among user segments? Faced with such complexities, before the 1980s many businesses relied on a gut-level approach to pricing.

 Interactive

Enduring Ideas: The industry cost curve

A narrated interactive on a business school classic for understanding pricing.

Introduction


Unit cost




Available industry capacity in order of increasing cost


Market demand




Excess capacity


Market price


Where to apply the curve


Applying the curve in a wired world




Early in that decade, McKinsey consultants started looking for ways to unravel the complexity. They defined the important variables involved in this curve and the methods for applying it to real-world, competitive markets. Linear programming helped to unscramble a number of options for products, users, and locations, yielding a series of simpler market situations for which the curve can be plotted. By weighing the trade-offs, a company can ground its strategy on the market’s predicted price and profit sensitivities, as well as its competitors’ actions.

The industry cost curve brings microeconomic rigor to pricing analyses, while still requiring some finesse in teasing out the most powerful insights. Ideally suited to commodity products, it is also applicable where real quantifiable differences in value exist—for example, the length of time for ocean transit. The cost curve’s enduring power is evident in its use in addressing climate change. By plotting the costs of various levers for abating carbon emissions, organizations can identify the most economically viable options.