Tag Archives: change

The Value of Public Perception on Your Business

Posted on
Reply

The opponents of climate change do not seem to be as vocal, or numerous as they were.  The swing now is on the amount of media attention highlighting how little or how much change the climate is going through.

Whatever the cause or source for the focus on climate change, it has meant that all governments – local, state, national and international – are putting regulations and monitory in place.  One immediate benefit from this is that records are now being kept and as any Six Sigma proponent will tell you, it is only then that you can make informed decisions – either way. Without this information it is all emotion and hearsay.

BUT this will not absolve businesses from being aware of perception; a declining public perception will kill profits and eventually the business. I am not promoting or knocking Eviance, (a company that provides Environmental Enterprise Resource Planning software) but they have put out a white paper on this subject  “The Value of Public Perception: Transforming Environmental Efforts From Compliance-Driven to Risk Management”.

I like this paper as they are suggesting that following the regulations and making business calculations based on whether to comply or not, is like playing the game from the sidelines.  Customers, investors and competitors are now very savvy and review a companies environmental performance – and environmental plans – which means if you are perceived in the wrong light regards your environmental scorecard, you lose.

It is the pro-active steps that are taken regards the environment (not just climate change) that can push a company to the front of the pack. This is a common marketing theme – listen to your customer.  Even raising the awareness of customers, investors and competitors that your company is against particular regulations or perceived climate friendly initiatives will damage your reputation.

In summary, any SWOT analysis would indicate that it is in the company’s best interest – including long term financially – to go environmentally friendly, be ahead of the regulations, be perceived as being on the same side as other stake-holders. Yep, the tide is rising and as with the Danish King Canute, no commands or pleading will stop it.

Good Procedures – a business requirement.

Posted on
1

Procedures can be formal or informal, simple or complex but whichever you use they are there to minimise the guesswork and irregularity in the business.  The format of which should be standard throughout the company as far as possible (there are many templates on the web to build from), they should also be effective and efficient! I have worked with companies that are overburdened with procedures and those that literally rely on the information and experience of individuals.

Overburdensome procedures take away the ability to move quickly, to adapt to change before competitors.  This scenario is usually found in larger organisations (& Government) and colloquially called “bureaucracy”.

Whereas a lack of documented procedures can often facilitate a faster response, the problem that lies herein is that the improvements and changes are again not documented.  Thus there is confusion over the “correct” procedure to follow.  Plus, as is often the case without procedures, results and KPIs are not accurate and may even be guesses, if they are presented at all.

Either way, change is required with benefits found in both scenarios. Redesigning procedures can be seen as being easier due to the fact that they have already been written and only need “tweaking”, while in other situations documenting procedures from scratch can also be seen as being easier as there is a clean slate to work with.

The issue here is often not the need to redesign or design procedures; it is the perception of change. There are companies that state they are looking for change, to make the improvements they know they need to take their company to the next level. I just wonder how many people have found a company’s statements on change are not always congruent with their actions.

Some companies I have worked with see change as part of their business, continual improvement itself being a process that happens everyday. These are the companies that have realised change can bring a level of uncertainty or a period of moving backwards before improvement (but careful planning and testing will reduce any negative effect).  Yet there are others that talk about change but can only manage partial implementation, sometimes abandoning improvements that have been made. I have found there is also a correlation to particular industries as well.

I would welcome comments on companies that have good procedures and how they design/change them.

Next instalment – Failure to change