People performance and potential model

a simple group-profiling matrix tool for teams and organizations

This elegant and simple model has been around in various forms for many years. Its precise originsare not clear. The model appears in different formats, with different terminology - and no doubt different titles of the model itself - although by implication the basic structure is constant, relying on a four-part 2 x 2 matrix, which is a common method of classification in management and beyond.

See also the pdf diagram, based on an interpretation kindly provided by John Addy, 2004.

The purpose of the model is to enable a simple assessment and representation of the mixture of types (according to potential and performance) within any work group or team, but it is a relatively blunt instrument and is neither designed nor recommended for detailed individual staff assessment.

The model provides a quick view or perspective of a group profile that often is elusive in complex human resources audits, and can assist in making investment decisions, although this apparently early purpose of the model should be approached with care given the more sophisticated expectations and considerations of modern organizational management.

It is therefore ideal for presentations and for reflecting a complex situation using a simple graphic. The model is not for individual counselling and development, other than for reference and interest alongside more accurate and objective individual assessment tools and processes.

The 'people potential performance model' (or whatever else it might be called) is especially useful in illustrating clearly and broadly the mix or profile of quite large groups of people within a human resources or organizational planning context. It's also helpful in understanding, determining, and explaining the different treatment that is appropriate for different categories of people with a group, according to local definitions and implications.

The model can also be used to show an ideal mix, and an actual mix, and thereby highlight the gapor difference, from an overall strategic viewpoint.

It can be a useful supplementary tool or reference point alongside more detailed and complexappraisals and training needs analysis processes.

The model also has a good training and educational value, which is why it's featured here. It can help managers and leaders to understand that people are different, have different needs, and can be helped in different ways and directions, appropriate to their situation.

people potential performance model

Bear in mind that the descriptive terminology can be adapted to suit the situation and it is likely that the terms below have been adapted from those used when the model was first defined. The notes in each quadrant are just a few examples of the sort of different responses and actions appropriate for each type.

	low potential	high potential
high performance	backbone >  high performance low potential Acknowledge effort and contribution. Utilize as coaches and mentors. Look for each person's hidden high potential, undiscovered passions, etc., and offer new challenges and responsibilities as appropriate, so these people too can be stars, to any extent they are comfortable.	stars  high performance high potential Agree challenging stretching work, projects, career development, responsibilities, or these people are likely to leave. Give appropriately stretching coaching, mentoring, training. Explore and encourage leadership and role-model opportunities, to set and raise standards of other staff.
low performance	icebergs ^ or >  low performance low potential Counsel, build trust, understand issues. Identify hidden potential. Facilitate more fitting roles, direction, purpose, opportunities, etc., linked with and perhaps dependent on performance improvement. Failing this, assist or enable move out of organization if best for all concerned.	problem children ^  low performance high potential Confirm and acknowledge potential. Counsel, build trust, understand issues. Explore and agree ways to utilize and develop identified potential via fitting tasks and responsibilities, linked with and perhaps dependent on performance improvement. Explore attachment to backbone or star mentors and coaches.

See the origins notes below about referencing the 'people performance potential model' (or whatever else it might be called). Precise origins are not certain. If you have information or evidence for the origins of this model please let me know.

using the 'people performance potential' model

The model can be used both to visualize or represent the ideal or required staffing profile of a group or organization, and separately, the actual staffing profile, according to the categories in the model, and thereby to see graphically and quickly the difference or gap between the two, i.e., in terms of staff mix, 'what mix do we need' versus 'what mix do we have'?

As such it is a powerful tool for reflecting, seeing a complex picture simply and quickly, and therefore for presentation too.

Since the model enables very quick easy illustration or demonstration of a complex set of people-related factors that are highly significant for organizational performance and development, the tool is very useful for executives and executive discussions, presentations, reports and planning documents, etc.

While the model provides a quick simple easily-understood snapshot, remember it is not in itself a sophisticated or precise instrument for individual assessment.

Scoring questionnaries can be developed and used (see the example questionnaire/templete for the performance/potential matrix below), or data may be used from performance appraisals and other assessment tools, however the model will always be a broad indicator and is not recommended ever to be used in isolation to make important decisions about people'd development and future careers.

As such, care must be taken when matching people to the categories. Ensure this is done consistently, and also ensure that appropriate supporting assessment methods are utilized for detailed action planning and to support discussions with individuals.

As with any assessment indicator, people have a right to see how they have been graded, and to be involved in the process at all stages. Accordingly great sensitivity is required when explaining the system, and efforts shopuld be made to temper potential disappointments with encouragements and opportunities to improve, with support as appropriate.

When using the model it is important to state any the assumptions, and the necessary criteria and measurement methods used in populating the categories.

You can adapt the model to suit your own situation, notably the terminology for the two axes and each quadrant, and also the criteria and definitions applicable to each quadrant.

If using a scoring system, the total scores for Performance and Potential equate to one of the four quadrant positions in the People-Performance-Potential Matrix. Scoring may also enable more detailed 'mapping' of positions of people within quadrants according to actual scores. Beware however of trying to make the model and assessment of people be overly sophisticated and detailed. It is a simple tool. Try to keep its usage simple and understandable too.

questionnaire for positioning people in the performance/potential matrix model

Here is a simple quick example of a questionnaire which can be used to match people to categories in the 'People-Performance-Potential Matrix', described above. It's an example. You can adapt it, simplify or expand it, according to your own situation.

It is very important that:

• assessments and scoring of people's performance and potential is conducted in a consistent and fair way, and
• explanations and transparency of the process are managed sensitively and positively - everyone can be developed.

'people performance potential matrix model' questionnaire - template/example Agree a score for each of these factors with each employee (using evidence and/or discussion as appropriate). Where factors are irrelevant remove them and adjust high/low total interpretation accordingly:
Scoring scale: 1 - 4. Scoring key: 1= needs improving, 2 = satisfactory, 3 = good, 4 = excellent. (Interpretation for model positioning: 1-2 = low, 3-4 = high.)	Score  (1-4)
1. Performance (factors relating to current job role - assess in detail as required, or import from appraisal/other assessment system)
1.1 Job skills
1.2 Job/product/technical knowledge
1.3 Attitude and behaviour (US-English: behavior)
1.4 Commitment and flexibility
1.5 Effectiveness and results (mindful of obstacles, mitigation, situation)
1.6 Working relationships
Performance total (up to and including 12 = low; 13 and over = high)
2. Potential (is there clear evidence of existing or developing [factors stated below] required beyond current role? N.B. scoring refers to evidenced potential, not to current level.)
2.1 Capabilities
2.2 Knowledge
2.3 Attitude/behaviour
2.4 Commitment and flexibility
2.5 Strategic awareness and effectiveness
2.6 Working relationships
Potential total (up to and including 12 = low; 13 and over = high)
The total scores for Performance and Potential equate to one of the four quadrant positions in the People-Performance-Potential Matrix. Conversion of scores to a matrix quadrant may simply be to a quandrant according to high or low classification, or may instead enable more detailed 'mapping' of positions within quadrants according to actual scores.
© Alan Chapman, Businessballs.com, 2013 - see model and explanation at www.businessballs.com/people_performance_potential_model.htm

N.B. The scoring rationale used in the questionnaire template above assumes that a grading of 'satisfactory' does not represent 'high' performance or potential. If your own organizational situation considers 'satisfactory' as a 'high' level of performance or potential then amend the scoring terminology accordingly.

origins of the people performance potential model

In terms of referencing the best I can suggest is that it is: Variously attributed to/claimed/adapted by Boston Consulting Group, George Odiome, Jack Welch, Doug Stewart, and Nicholas Barnes, c.1970-1996. The pdf diagram is based on an interpretation by John Addy, 2004.

If you have information or evidence of origins, or observations about the application of this model, please send them.

Since publishing the model as a pdf diagram on the website in 2004 (based on an interpretation initially provided to me by John Addy, who was also unsure of its origins) I have received the following suggestions:

Lori M Beevers suggested (Sept 2005) that the model appeared in a book by George Odiome in the 1970's and was credited to the Boston Consulting Group. The terminology was as above, except for these differences, which she suggested might have been updated to be less insulting, which seems a very reasonable observation: 'icebergs' = 'deadwood'; 'backbone' = 'workhorses'; and 'problem children' = 'question marks'. In other respects the model and its basic meanings were as above.

Chris Page informed me (Jan 2007) that he had seen a simplified version of the model attributed to Jack Welch (General Electric Company, business writer/guru). The names of the four quadrants were not featured, and in what would arguably be typical Welch no-nonsense fashion, the recommended action associated with the 'low potential - low performance' category was to question why these people remain on the payroll. Apparently in this version of the model, 'potential' was extended to 'potential to do a bigger job', which is (in my view) a far narrower meaning and by implication ignores utterly one of the main points of the model: that many people thought to have no potential actually have tremendous potential that has neither been uncovered or utilized, which is why they are not performing well.

Tony Thacker informed me (Feb 2007): "Re. people performance model... Doug Stewart, in The Power of People Skills, p185, John Wiley, ISBN 0-471-01187-8, uses a somewhat similar quadrant model, but using skill and motivation as the two axes rather than performance and potential..."

Dr Nicholas Barnes informed me (also Feb 2007): "Re. people performance model... I can make a claim to have invented it with my boss at the time (Brian Lewis) when we were working in HR for a Danish (by registration) company called Borealis sometime around 1996. We used it once a year when we did succession and experience planning and was used based on peoples performance reviews. As it was used all over Europe (at least 9 countries) by our HROD staff it would certainly have leaked out into the wider world via local consultants as we found it very useful and presumably so would they..."

Tony Perryman provided the following helpful information, which supports the view that the original terminology was Deadwood, Workhorses, Problem Children and Rising Stars, (July 2007): "You will find a full explanation of this model in the Havard Business Review - around the mid to late eighties. The authors developed a more sophisticated view than in your explanation. They suggest that as a businessman the choice of where to invest is determined on where the best return is to be found, which should be so with people. So Rising Stars are where to invest. Workhorses: maintenance investment or for motivation purposes; Problem Children: improve technical capability or knowledge; and Deadwood: no investment unless to be moved into a more appropriate role. I have been using this model since the early nineties, however because line managers become jittery about terms like deadwood, I just use A, B, C and D as a classification and sometimes D is the rising star!

B - Workhorses Individuals who produce effectively, however they have reached their level of competency.	A - Rising Stars  Individuals who have real potential for the future and are high performers.	hi  p  e  r  f  o  r  m  a  n  c  e  lo
D - Deadwood Individuals who have no potential and perform poorly. They are in the wrong role.	C - Problem Children Individuals who have potential but are not performing in their role. This may be because they are newly promoted.
low          potential          high

This simple method helps dictate where scare development resources should be spent:

• A - Rising Stars - Most investment. This is where the business is going to get the best return on there investment. Invest sufficient to keep engaged and grow for the future.
• B - Workhorses - Minimal investment. Invest only to keep motivated or to upgrade skills.
• C - Problem Children - Targeted investment. Action plan which includes giving them technical skills to perform at the required level. Any investment will only occur after full analyses of an individual’s motivation to move from where they are currently. If they do not respond move to another role or exit business.
• D - Deadwood - No investment. Action plan to either find a more appropriate role or exit business. "

(With thanks to Tony Perryman, July 2007)

Michael Burgess wrote (July 2007): "My understanding of the Productivity Potential model origins has always been that it was from The Boston Consulting Group (Boston Matrix) used to evaluate products in terms of their market share and their potential for market growth. It's self-explanatory how this applies to products and might go some way to explaining the rather harsh terminology when it was adapted by George Odiorne to describe employee performance."

Cash Cow  'milk' - maintain	Star  'shine' - develop	hi  m  a  r  k  e  t  s  h  a  r  e  lo
Dog  'shoot' - exit/divest	Problem Child  fix or divest
low         market growth or potential         high

(Thanks Michael Burgess, July 2007. See the detailed explanation of the 'Boston Matrix' in the business planning section.)

Jeffrey Cole wrote (February 2008): "... In 1987 I saw this [people-performance matrix model] in a USMC leadership training manual from, I believe 1967, which is probably still in the library either at Camp Kinser, Okinawa Japan, or at the Combat Service Support Detachment at Takegahara Garrison (Gotemba prefecture), Japan. Given that this was in a Government training manual I believe that would indicate that the diagram is probably older than the 1970s. The labels on that diagram did not have cutesy names, it was simply 'capability to learn' and 'willingness to perform' and the quadrants reflected low/high for each attribute. The mentoring recommendations based on the diagram were essentially (for the axes - willingness to perform / capability to learn):

high/high : coach 
high/low: teach 
low/high: father (discipline) 
low/low: remove as quickly as possible.

teach  this person	coach  this person	high     willingness  to  perform  low
remove  this person	'father' (discipline)  this person
low          capability to learn          high

(Diagram interpretation based on the above description provided by J Cole.)

If you have details, evidence or observations about the origins and application of the People-Performance model please send them.

authorship/referencing

This model has uncertain origins, being variously claimed by and/or attributed to the Boston Consulting Group, George Odiome, Jack Welch, Doug Stewart, and Nicholas Barnes, among others. The pdf diagram is based on an interpretation by John Addy, 2004. Clarification and evidence relating to authorship, ownership and origins are welcome.

© Alan Chapman 2007-2013

Разработка инновационных и прибыльных бизнес-моделей

Haдеждa Maслeнникoва, доктор экономических наук

Традиционный подход к построению бизнеса заключался в получении рыночной доли и достижения прибыльности благодаря удержанию этой доли. Новаторский же подход предполагает определение того, что важно для потребителя, выявления высоких зон прибыли, определения способов получения рыночной доли, а затем обеспечения ее защиты от конкурентов. Рассмотрим основные черты новаторского бизнеса, двенадцать успешных бизнес-моделей новаторов бизнеса, а также этапы разработки бизнес-идеи — миссии компании, когда старые идеи перестают работать.

Сравним традиционный и новаторский подходы к построению бизнеса.

Традиционный подход заключался в следующем:

• получение рыночной доли;
• достижение прибыльности как результат высокой рыночной доли.

Новаторский подход — другой:

• определение того, что важно для потребителя, т.е. у кого можно получить прибыль;
• выявление, где можно получить прибыль, где высокая зона прибыли;
• определение того, как можно получить рыночную долю на выявленном направлении;
• поиск способов организации, обеспечения и защиты высокой зоны прибыли.

Идею самой модели бизнеса и ряда компонентов бизнес-модели дала изданная в 2004 г. работа А. Сливотски и Д. Моррисона «Маркетинг со скоростью мысли». В модели Сливотски-Моррисона, отражающей основные черты опыта новаторского бизнеса, были выделены следующие базовые компоненты:

1. Выбор потребителей. Каких потребителей мы будем обслуживать и кто из них будет в наибольшей степени влиять на стоимость компании?
2. Продукция и деятельность. Какие продукты или услуги мы хотим продавать? Какие вспомогательные действия необходимо осуществить силами компании, какие — отдавать на субподряд или аутсорсинг?
3. Дифференциация и конкуренция. Каково наше основное отличие, наше уникальное предложение ценности? Почему потребитель будет покупать именно наш продукт? Как нам его позиционировать? Кто наши основные конкуренты? Насколько убедительна наша уникальность по сравнению с другими?
4. Вознаграждение и удержание созданной ценности. Как потребитель платит за ту пользу, которую мы ему приносим?

Развернутая бизнес-модель

В развернутой технологии создания новой модели бизнеса предусматривается решение следующих восьми задач: новое мышление и бизнес-идеи — вознаграждение (получение прибыли) — дифференциация продукции — потоки ресурсов и результатов — коммуникация — защита — деятельность: виды, масштабы, исполнители — знания по компонентам модели.

1. Новое мышление и бизнес-идеи. Предпринимательская задача — поиск и разработка бизнес-идеи. Все начинается с анализа зон прибыли. Анализируются тенденции в смещении зоны прибыли. Формулируются новые стратегии по поиску и переходу к новой зоне прибыли. Формулируется новая бизнес-идея.
2. Вознаграждение — получение прибыли. Маркетинговая задача — создание модели получения прибыли. Механизм получения прибыли будет изложен детально, а сейчас приведем лишь некоторые шаги по его созданию. Исследуется рынок и структура потребителей. Устанавливаются приоритеты потребителей. Создается новое видение продукта, определяется цепочка ценности и зоны прибыли. Выбирается метод получения прибыли. В результате мы имеем новую модель получения прибыли.
3. Дифференциация продукции. Конструкторско-маркетинговая задача — проведение дифференцирования, позиционирования и брендинга. Признаками дифференциации могут быть функциональные свойства и назначение, стоимость изделия, дополнительные устройства, услуги, сопровождающие изделие, инновационность. Рассматриваются основные конкуренты и их продукция. Уточняется уникальность собственного предложения. Затем решаются вопросы позиционирования и создания бренда изделия, имиджа производителя и продавца.
4. Логистика потоков ресурсов и результатов. Логистическая задача — организация эффективного потока продукции и услуг, потока вещественно-материальных и информационно-интеллектуальных элементов. Определяются: размещение потребителей, потоки и каналы распределения продукта. Организуется дистрибуция продукта. Устанавливаются требования к потокам сырья, комплектующих и продукции, информации. Создаются логистические центры при крупных научно-производственных комплексах и торговых сетях для разработки и координации функционирования логистических систем.
5. Логистика каналов и коммуникации. Вторая (после организации потоков) логистическая задача, решение которой состоит в организации каналов.
6. Стратегическая защита бизнеса. Задача стратегического управления — создание стратегических контрольных точек защиты зоны прибыли. Компания, создавшая модель прибыли, должна защитить ее от конкурентов. Если компания проектирует мощную модель бизнеса для обеспечения роста прибыли, одновременно с этим она должна выявлять стратегические точки защиты, которые должны быть контрольными точками. Они должны быть важными для отрасли.
7. Виды и масштабы деятельности, исполнители. Задача инновационного развития бизнес-процесса компании — установление видов и масштаба деятельности. Выбор исполнителей бизнес-операций. Чтобы модель бизнеса работала эффективно, надо прежде установить принцип: каждая бизнес-операция и бизнес-функция принятого бизнес-процесса выполнялась лучшим исполнителем.

Двенадцать бизнес-моделей новаторов бизнеса

Обобщая работы Сливотски-Моррисона, Кирнена, Хилла-Рифкина, выделим 12 успешных бизнес-моделей новаторов бизнеса. В каждой из них прослеживается производственная, маркетинговая и логистическая части.

1. Модель бизнеса на основе фактического стандарта. Цепочка ценности здесь может включать создание самого компьютера («железа»), создание языка, создание операционной системы или программных прикладных приложений. Отметим в этой схеме логистический признак: фактический стандарт определяет параметры движения потока инноваций — ускоряет или замедляет их, делает поток узким или широким, включает в поток механизм управления количеством участников, ставя барьеры или расширяя число участников, снимая барьеры. Имеются заинтересованные лица: поставщики базового оборудования — они создают эффект типа «толкай»; разработчики приложений и пользователи — они создают эффект типа «тяни».

2. Модель бизнеса «коммутатор». Некоторые рынки характеризуются наличием большого числа продавцов, взаимодействующих с большим числом покупателей. У тех и у других высокие операционные издержки. Появляется возможность создать полезного посредника, через которого начинают проходить различные коммуникации, т.е. свести множество взаимодействий к одному каналу, создав своего рода коммутирующий блок. Действие этой логистической схемы: чем больше продавцов и покупателей к ней присоединяются, тем более ценной становится система.

3. Модель бизнеса на основе потребительских решений. По мнению потребителей, основной продукт (компьютер, генератор, движущее устройство) требует многих действий, чтобы его можно было эффективно использовать. Это должен сделать изготовитель или продавец. Для этого основной продукт следует представить как комплексный продукт и включить в него комплектацию всевозможных дополнительных устройств и набор услуг по обслуживанию, в том числе торговые опции, логистическую цепочку доставки, передачу знаний, финансовые услуги. Иными словами, логистическую цепочку распространения продукта следует расширить и включить в нее не только доставку, но и решение задачи эффективного использования основного продукта.

4. Модель бизнеса на основе пирамиды продукции. Здесь самыми важными аспектами являются удовлетворение потребительских потребностей по стилю, цвету, цене и другим аналогичным параметрам. Пирамиду продукции можно создать на базе различий потребительских доходов и предпочтений. В ее основе лежат дешевые и массовые товары и услуги, а на вершине — очень дорогие продукты, выпускаемые практически поштучно.

5. Модель бизнеса на основе управления цепочкой ценности. Например, в отрасли прохладительных напитков цепочка ценности состоит из следующих основных этапов (компонентов основного продукта): производство сиропа, разлив напитка по бутылкам (бутилирование), логистика, дистрибуция, маркетинг и отношения с потребителями. Логистическая задача, например, при производстве и реализации прохладительных напитков, заключается в размещении центрального производства по производству сиропа —основного продукта, и размещении сети бутилирующих компаний (разливающих напиток).

6. Модель бизнеса на основе многослойной или мультипликационной прибыли. Выгоды получаются несколько раз за счет использования одного и того же продукта, его характерной особенности, торговой марки или услуг. Логистическая задача: исследование концентрации пассажиропотоков и потребителей любых услуг и предложение потребителям полюбившихся им образов.

7. Модель бизнеса отпочковывающегося (предпринимательского) типа. По мере того, как компании добиваются успеха и наращивают масштабы своей деятельности, они становятся все более формализованными структурами с большей удаленностью от потребителя. В результате скорость реагирования на запросы потребителей замедляется. Как противоядие, компании разделяют свою структуру на множество небольших центров прибыли, что позволяет им повысить уровень отчетности за конечные результаты и сохранять тесные контакты с потребителями. Логистическая задача: наладить каждому отделяющемуся предприятию свою эффективную логистическую систему.

8. Модель доступа к потребителю через особые каналы. Майкл Портер, рекомендуя стратегическое позиционирование бизнеса, рассматривал три подхода: удовлетворение особых потребностей через узкую специализацию, удовлетворение потребностей в особой марке товарной категории через ее широкий ассортимент, удовлетворение потребностей в особом обслуживании через доступ к потребителям. Модель доступа к потребителю через особые каналы хорошо иллюстрируется опытом компании «Dell», которая стала первой продавать компьютеры с доставкой на дом с высоким уровнем обслуживания и быстрой доставкой. Логистика сказалась в построении оригинальных каналов и организации складов.

9. Модель удовлетворения особых потребностей, имеющих индивидуальный характер (кастоминг, «частном марка»). Логистическая задача решается следующим образом: для потребителей, ориентированных на индивидуальный спрос, предлагается свой канал формирования потока продуктов и услуг. Чтобы облегчить движение потока товаров и услуг по этому каналу, можно ввести категорию частных марок.

10. Модель широкого ассортимента одной категории. На широте ассортимента одной категории продукта построена бизнес-модель специализированных супермаркетов. Поскольку в таком магазине сосредоточены товары одной категории, там обеспечивается гарантированное качество и приемлемые цены. Логистическая задача здесь состояла в следующем: создать канал для потребителей, которым требуется особый вид продукта данной категории, что сэкономит им время и деньги; построить внутреннюю логистику — снабжение, что позволяет создать исключительно эффективную закупочную систему, обеспечит развитую коммуникацию.

11. Модель дистрибуции с низкими издержками (модель «Wal-Mart»). Успех модели, как отмечает Адриан Сливотски, был обеспечен значительным сдвигом в приоритетах большого сегмента покупателей. В 1970-х гг. в США покупательная способность семьи со средним достатком существенно снизилась. Возникла потребность в экономии. Также значительно изменился образ жизни: пенсионный возраст увеличился, число работающих женщин удвоилось, время, отводимое на покупки, резко сократилось, и семья уже не могла ежедневно устраивать походы в магазин. Логистика «Wal-Mart», ее система закупок и постоянное стремление к доработке своей бизнес-модели полностью изменили мир розничных продаж.

12. Модель «специализации на аутсорсинге». С 1980-х гг. компании экспериментировали с выделением ключевых компетенций и ключевых видов деятельности (КВД). Те же виды деятельности, которые не могут быть оптимизированы или не влияют на конкурентные преимущества, можно отдавать на аутсорсинг. Так, крупнейший производитель обуви в мире «Nike» перешел на производство всей обуви на фабриках в Юго-Восточной Азии, оставив себе лишь разработку продукта и маркетинг.

Этапы разработки бизнес-идеи

Бизнес-идея играет роль миссии компании, когда старые идеи перестают работать. Ее разработка — сложная задача. Для упрощения ее можно разделить на ряд промежуточных этапов — прототипов будущей бизнес идеи:

• Этап 1 — анализ стратегической ситуации. Сначала проводится анализ исходной ситуации отрасли и компании, оценивается ее положение, т.е. стратегическая позиция, которую та занимает.
• Этап 2 — выявление проблем. Постепенно выявляются проблемы развития компании и отрасли в целом, выделяются важнейшие из них.
• Этап 3 — выяснение противоречий развития. Далее выясняются противоречия их развития, описываются противоположные оценки, мнения, подходы к решению.
• Этап 4 — аккумулирование и изучение сигналов решений. Аккумулируются и анализируются различные течения, различный опыт, различные направления, имеющие отношения к решению установленных проблем. Все это можно назвать сигналами решения.
• Этап 5 — зарождение идеи бизнеса. После этого начинает вырабатываться идея нового бизнеса, затем она формулируется.
• Этап 6 — разработка концепции реализации новой идеи. Это позволяет перейти к разработке концепции реализации бизнес-идеи.
• Этап 7 — формулировка бизнес-идеи. Формулировать бизнес-идею желательно после того, как намечены ориентиры ее реализации. Это последний этап разработки бизнес-идеи.

Модель прибыли в контексте модели бизнеса имеет семь составляющих:

• Потребители. Рассматривается классификация и исследование потребителей, а также их структура. Исследование проходит с позиции перехода к ориентации на потребителя и смены прежней ориентации на продукт, производство и технологию.
• Потребности. Проводится исследование потребностей потребителей, ориентации и приоритетов, их индексов. Особое внимание уделяется моменту смены потребности.
• Продукт. Проводится исследование продукта как объекта системной экономики потребителя и его комплексное представление. Рассматривается совокупность инициатив и издержек, связанных с эффективным потреблением основного продукта. Учитывается в схеме дифференциации.
• Цепочка ценности. Дается представление цепочки ценности. Особое внимание уделяется исследованию силы звеньев и моменту изменения силы влияния.
• Зона прибыли. Рассматривается механизм установления зон прибыли. Особое внимание уделяется моменту перехода в зону бесприбыльности и появлению новых зон прибыли.
• Доступ в зону прибыли. Рассматривается поиск способов вхождения в зону прибыли. В дальнейшем это учитывается при отыскании способов защиты зон прибыли от конкурентов и имитации.
• Знания о компонентах. Рассматривается также как базовый фактор система знаний о компонентах модели получения прибыли.

The Greiner Curve

Larry Greiner was a professor at USC focused on organizational development and growth. In the 1970s he proposed a model of growth phases for start-ups, based on the recognition that many entrepreneurial companies go through predictable cycles of growth spurts and crises. The model was originally based on five phases; he later adjusted it to include a sixth phase.

Phase 1: Growth through creativity
An entrepreneur is focused on creating new products and services. A small staff can be managed through informal communication and a shared vision. But as the firm grows, there is often a leadership crisis with the need to bring in professional management.

Phase 2: Growth through direction
With new management in place, growth continues. There is more clarity on what the objectives are. Budgets introduced, functions are more clearly defined, incentive schemes are established. This may result in a crisis of autonomy, with a need to define clearer structures and hierarchies to delegate tasks.

Phase 3: Growth through delegation
As mid level managers are freed up to pursue opportunities in their markets and improvements in their functions, growth continues. To management takes on more of a broad strategic role. The result is often a crisis of control: Managers whose directive approach was helpful at the end of Phase 1 find it hard to “let go.” A more sophisticated approach is needed to make sure the different parts of the organization work well together.

Phase 4: Growth through coordination and monitoring
Growth continues through better coordination, e.g. organizing previously independent groups along product or service lines. Ultimately, however, the complexity of the company’s bureaucracy creates a red-tape crisis.

Phase 5: Growth through collaboration
The formal control structure is relaxed to accommodate more flexibility for staff to group along the lines of specific projects or initiatives. Sophisticated information system support this new approach. This phase may well end with a crisis of internal growth, recognizing that opportunities may have to be pursued outside the firm.

Phase 6: Growth through alliances
This phase was added by Greiner later on, to recognize the fact that at some point, firms may need to pursue growth opportunities through alliances, mergers & acquisitions, outsourcing, or other partnerships.

Understanding the Crises That Come With Growth

© Veer
Alliance

Fast-growing companies can often be chaotic places to work.

As workloads increase exponentially, approaches which have worked well in the past start failing. Teams and people get overwhelmed with work. Previously-effective managers start making mistakes as their span of control expands. And systems start to buckle under increased load.

While growth is fun when things are going well, when things go wrong, this chaos can be intensely stressful. More than this, these problems can be damaging (or even fatal) to the organization.

The "Greiner Curve" is a useful way of thinking about the crises that organizations experience as they grow.

By understanding it, you can quickly understand the root cause of many of the problems you're likely to experience in a fast growing business. More than this, you can anticipate problems before they occur, so that you can meet them with pre-prepared solutions.

Understanding the Theory

Greiner's Growth Model describes phases that organizations go through as they grow. All kinds of organizations from design shops to manufacturers, construction companies to professional service firms experience these. Each growth phase is made up of a period of relatively stable growth, followed by a "crisis" when major organizational change is needed if the company is to carry on growing.

Reprinted by permission of Harvard Business Review. From "Evolution and Revolution as Organizations Grow" by Larry E. Greiner, May 1998. Copyright © 1998 by the Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation; all rights reserved.

Dictionaries define the word "crisis" as a "turning point", but for many of us it has a negative meaning to do with panic. While companies certainly have to change at each of these points, if they properly plan for there is no need for panic and so we will call them "transitions".

Larry E. Greiner originally proposed this model in 1972 with five phases of growth. In 1998, he added a sixth phase in an updated version of his original article. The six growth phases are described below:

Phase 1: Growth Through Creativity

Here, the entrepreneurs who founded the firm are busy creating products and opening up markets. There aren't many staff, so informal communication works fine, and rewards for long hours are probably through profit share or stock options. However, as more staff join, production expands and capital is injected, there's a need for more formal communication.

This phase ends with a Leadership Crisis, where professional management is needed. The founders may change their style and take on this role, but often someone new will be brought in.

Phase 2: Growth Through Direction

Growth continues in an environment of more formal communications, budgets and focus on separate activities like marketing and production. Incentive schemes replace stock as a financial reward.

However, there comes a point when the products and processes become so numerous that there are not enough hours in the day for one person to manage them all, and he or she can't possibly know as much about all these products or services as those lower down the hierarchy.

This phase ends with an Autonomy Crisis: New structures based on delegation are called for.

Phase 3: Growth Through Delegation

With mid-level managers freed up to react fast to opportunities for new products or in new markets, the organization continues to grow, with top management just monitoring and dealing with the big issues (perhaps starting to look at merger or acquisition opportunities). Many businesses flounder at this stage, as the manager whose directive approach solved the problems at the end of Phase 1 finds it hard to let go, yet the mid-level managers struggle with their new roles as leaders.

This phase ends with a Control Crisis: A much more sophisticated head office function is required, and the separate parts of the business need to work together.

Phase 4: Growth Through Coordination and Monitoring

Growth continues with the previously isolated business units re-organized into product groups or service practices. Investment finance is allocated centrally and managed according to Return on Investment (ROI) and not just profits. Incentives are shared through company-wide profit share schemes aligned to corporate goals. Eventually, though, work becomes submerged under increasing amounts of bureaucracy, and growth may become stifled.

This phase ends on a Red-Tape Crisis: A new culture and structure must be introduced.

Phase 5: Growth Through Collaboration

The formal controls of phases 2-4 are replaced by professional good sense as staff group and re-group flexibly in teams to deliver projects in a matrix structure supported by sophisticated information systems and team-based financial rewards.

This phase ends with a crisis of Internal Growth: Further growth can only come by developing partnerships with complementary organizations.

Phase 6: Growth Through Extra-Organizational Solutions

Greiner's recently added sixth phase suggests that growth may continue through merger, outsourcing, networks and other solutions involving other companies.

Growth rates will vary between and even within phases. The duration of each phase depends almost totally on the rate of growth of the market in which the organization operates. The longer a phase lasts, though, the harder it will be to implement a transition.

Tip:

This is a useful model, however not all businesses will go through these crises in this order. Use this as a starting point for thinking about business growth, and adapt it to your circumstances.

Using the Tool

The Greiner Growth Model helps you think about the growth for your organization, and therefore better plan for and cope with the next growth transitions. To apply the model, use the following steps:

1. Based on the descriptions above, think about where your organization is now.
2. Think about whether the organization is reaching the end of a stable period of growth, and nearing a 'crisis' or transition. Some of the signs of 'crisis' include:
   • People feel that managers and company procedures are getting in the way of them doing their jobs.
   • People feel that they are not fairly rewarded for the effort they put in.
   • People seem unhappy, and there is a higher staff turnover than usual.
3. Ask yourself what the transition will mean for you personally and your team. Will you have to:
   • Delegate more?
   • Take on more responsibilities?
   • Specialize more in a specific product or market?
   • Change the way you communicate with others?
   • Incentivize and reward you team differently?
   By thinking this through, you can start to plan and prepare yourself for the inevitable changes, and perhaps help other to do the same.
4. Plan and take preparatory actions that will make the transition as smooth as possible for you and your team.
5. Revisit Greiner's model for growth again every 6-12 months, and think about how the current stage of growth affects you and others around you.

What to Do and Say After a Tough Reorganization

Rebecca Knight

Surviving a corporate reorg can be tough. There is often a lot of confusion and uncertainty, and if colleagues were laid off, people might also be sad or angry. How can you make the situation easier for yourself and your colleagues? What steps should you take to protect your job? How do you stay positive? And how do you know when it’s time to move on?

What the Experts SayRestructurings may be an inevitable part of organizational life but living through them—even when you’re one of the lucky ones still standing—is challenging and stressful. On a personal level, “you have genuinely lost some friends” from the organization, says Kevin Coyne, the co-founder and managing director of strategy consulting firm Coyne Partners and a professor at Emory’s Goizueta Business School. And on a professional level, you’re likely to feel unsettled because it’s “unclear what life will be like under the new regime.” Reactions are typically varied, says Gretchen Spreitzer, a professor at Michigan’s Ross School of Business and coauthor of How to be a Positive Leader. “Some people are cynical—there’s this sense of ‘You fired my friends’ and ‘This reorganization is never going to work.’” Then there are: “the walking wounded who are fearful about the future and worried for those who were let go.” Even stars may have trouble staying positive. “If you’re a high performer, you may feel a loss of control and start to question your options.” But Spreitzer says it’s important to approach the changes with an “optimistic” mindset. “You want to be one of the active advocates who take initiative to make the reorganization work,” she says. Here are some pointers on how to do that.

Listen…Before you react to the news, Spreitzer suggests you “listen carefully to what senior leadership is saying about what’s happening, why it’s happening, and what’s the hoped-for outcome.” Management probably had good intentions for the restructuring—it believes the changes will cut costs, increase revenues, or improve efficiency. That said,  “don’t just take the party line and run. Ask lots of questions.” Do your best to ignore the office rumor mill. Don’t listen to the chatter and certainly don’t contribute to it. “The information in the gossip network is probably inaccurate; it will be highly emotional; and there will be lots of venting,” she says.

…And assessOnce you’ve absorbed the planned changes, you need to think about what they mean for your day-to-day responsibilities and your potential job satisfaction, according to Coyne. “After learning what the new game is, you must try to picture what your new job will look like in six to 12 months,” he says. “Then ask yourself some hard questions, such as, ‘Once I get beyond the temporary pain of this, will I still be proud of what this company stands for? Is my new role something I am equally happy and satisfied with?’” Even if you conclude that things have fundamentally changed, Coyne advises resisting the urge to quit immediately. “Don’t pull the trigger just yet,” he says. “You need more information,” and you can use the next several months to evaluate the situation.

Reach outIn circumstances like these, it’s important to show concern and empathy for the people  directly impacted by the reorg.  “Reach out,” Spreitzer says. “Express sorrow that you’ll no longer be working together.” Whether you call, email, or drop by their house with a bottle of wine depends on how close you are to them, she adds. “Put yourself in their shoes and think about how you would want someone to react if it happened to you.” When it comes to the right sentiment, less is more. “Say, ‘I’m sorry. This caught me off guard too. What can I do to help?’” Showing compassion is not only kind it’s also a smart career move, according to Coyne. You should stay in touch with departed colleagues “because those people are your advance warning” on what the job market is like and how you’ll fare should you decide it’s time to leave.

Help outIf you support the new direction your company is taking, it’s worth  letting your boss know, says Coyne. “To the degree that it’s true, tell your manager that you’re on board and that you want to see this reorganization succeed,” he says. That way, he “knows he can count on you—and that you’re not just being a good soldier.” Then follow up with actions that demonstrate your support. Spreitzer recommends seeking ways to “help the organization become more resilient” during the transition. Think about your skills and expertise in addition to your professional passions. Is there perhaps a new position you could grow into? Are there new responsibilities you’d like to add to your current role?

Align prioritiesReorgs are an opportunity for you to “take control of your career” says Spreitzer, but you must also make sure you and your manager agree on where you should be focusing. Priorities have no doubt shifted and if the restructuring means that you’re supposed to take on tasks previously done by others, Coyne recommends you “quickly get on the same page” with your boss about “which parts of your combined workload can be reduced” or gotten rid of altogether. “You need to figure out the most important and least important parts of your new job.” Remember your boss is likely to be stretched thin too so you should “go to her with a proposal” about how you ought to allocate your attention and time. “Be constructive,” he says.

Manage your stressIn the midst of change and uncertainty, “you need to look for things that help you manage your stress,” says Spreitzer. “Be sure to make time for the things you love.” Spend time with family and friends; keep at hobbies and volunteer activities; and of course make sure you’re eating well, exercising, and getting plenty of sleep. You might also try to “inject some levity” at the office to  “raise people’s spirits and getting them out of the moroseness they may be feeling,” she adds. Introduce a daily music break, bring in some fresh flowers, or start a cookie-baking contest every other Friday. “The goal is to create fun and reduce the seriousness of the situation.”

Look for purposeIn addition to offering momentary mood-lifters, you can also work to boost long-term morale among your co-workers by focusing on your shared mission. ”Remind people why they are there in the first place,” Coyne says. If you’re a manager, this is even more critical. Have one-on-one conversations with your people to communicate that “what they do matters,” he says. “Help them see the nobility and purpose of their jobs of their jobs” and convey to them that “they are part of something they can be proud of.” Whenever you feel yourself struggling, Spreitzer suggests “looking for the little rays of light in your workday that give you meaning,” whether they are helping a colleague or interacting with a customer.

Give it time, but don’t hang on too longIt’s fair to “give management the benefit of the doubt” in the weeks and months after the reorg is announced, but if you remain skeptical of the changes after some time has passed, treat it as a sign. “Keep the periscope up,” says Spreitzer. “It you’ve tried to see the light at the end of the tunnel and it’s been 60 to 90 days, it’s time to ask yourself,  ‘Is this an organization I want to stay in?’ If not, you might need to start looking at your options,” she says. “You don’t want to be hanging on if you feel the company is moving in the wrong direction.” Coyne concurs: Once you’ve lived through “the short-term misery” of the restructuring and “gained perspective” about where the company is headed, you are in a better position to make a decision. “If the company is not doing something you feel proud of, you need to go to your contingency plan,” he says.

Principles to Remember

Do

• Listen to and absorb what senior leadership says about why the reorg is happening
• Show compassion for colleagues directly affected
• Seek opportunities to use your skills and expertise to help your organization through the transition

Don’t

• Give in to the doom and gloom—remind yourself (and others) of the nobility and purpose of your work
• Neglect your wellbeing—make sure you’re eating well, exercising, and getting enough rest
• Hang on too long—if you don’t believe your organization is moving in the right direction, look elsewhere

Case Study #1: Reframe your new responsibilities as an opportunity for growthKarin Hurt had been working as an HR director at Verizon in Baltimore for more than a decade when a confluence of circumstances—including the company’s imminent merger with Bell Atlantic, her coworker getting fired, and her boss retiring—led to an enormous leap in the scope and scale of her job. The solution, according to management, was to reorganize the $6 billion business unit and give her HR responsibility for it.

The catch: She would not get an official promotion because she was unable to relocate to corporate headquarters in New York. “At first I was mad,” she says.  “I thought, ‘Wait, I’m not going to get the job, but I’m going to do the job?’”

But it didn’t take her long to rethink that initial assessment. “This was a really good opportunity to sit at the strategic table and get exposure to senior leadership, and I decided I should embrace it,” she says. “I needed to trust the process.”

In her new role, Karin reported to the president of the business unit so one of her first moves was to ask him where he wanted her to focus. “A lot of priorities were changing and so we would talk on a regular basis about which ones were most important,” she says. “We often spoke on the phone at 7AM when it was quiet for both of us.”

The office environment was stressful both for Karin and for her team. She buffered her direct reports from the “politics and commotion” related to the merger by reminding them that their work had meaning. “I told them we were a part of something big, something historic,” she says. “With this merger we had the opportunity to put the right policies in place” to make sure the company was on solid footing.

Her good work caught the eye of the senior vice president of customer service. “He took me aside and said, ‘You’re young in your career to focus on only HR. Are you interested in doing other things?’ As a result, I took on a series of field assignments and that led to promotions. It catapulted my career.”

It also gave her the confidence and contacts to start her own firm. She left Verizon in 2014, and today she is the CEO of Let’s Grow Leaders, a consulting company. “When I look back on my time there, I feel grateful,” she says.

Case Study #2: Understand your organization’s new goals and align your prioritiesSid Savara was six months into his job as a lead engineer at a Department of Defense contractor in Hawaii when he started hearing rumors that funding for his project would soon be cut. “I tried not to take part in [the gossip] and just do the best job I could,” he says.

The uncertainty continued for another six months until a VP from the company’s Virginia headquarters showed up unexpectedly at his office one day to announce strategic changes. “He said, ‘Finish what you’re doing. This project is ending. We’re going to restructure and move people around,’” Sid recalls.

Sid’s fate was unclear at that point, so he asked the VP a lot of questions: What is the timeline of the restructuring? What is the new direction of the company? What is the business model for other projects?

He was unnerved by the answers he received. “I wasn’t sure I would enjoy the new projects. Some customers are nicer to deal with than others, some projects are more interesting than others,” he says. “I started to look for a new job and even had some telephone interviews.”

A week later Sid found out he was being reassigned as a team leader for a new project. Half of his prior team was let go. “I decided I was going to give it a chance. I didn’t want make a rash decision to leave,” he says.

On the first day of his new job, Sid had a “proper sit-down” with his new boss to learn about his role in relation to the business. “He explained to me what was going on, how the division works, how we make money, and that helped me align our team’s efforts with those goals.”

This helped him to understand his boss’s most important goals and think about new business opportunities and potential partnerships. “I changed our priorities as I learned more about the business. I understood the roadmap better, and I developed a stronger sense of where developers should be spending their time.”

Sid ended up staying at the company for another four years. Today he is a technical manager at the University of Hawaii.

What's at the heart of Project Management?