Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
Conjuring Belief
16SEP
There are two schools of thought for innovation.
The old school of thought believes that an idea it...
Was the intention to salvage the factory?
Or
Was the intention really to cater to customers need and increase bottom line?...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

of

Conjuring Belief Slide 1 Conjuring Belief Slide 2
Upcoming SlideShare
What to Upload to SlideShare
Next
Download to read offline and view in fullscreen.

0 Likes

Share

Download to read offline

Conjuring Belief

Download to read offline

Related Books

Free with a 30 day trial from Scribd

See all

Related Audiobooks

Free with a 30 day trial from Scribd

See all
  • Be the first to like this

Conjuring Belief

  1. 1. Conjuring Belief 16SEP There are two schools of thought for innovation. The old school of thought believes that an idea itself must be so compelling that the entity knows that it HAS to back it. The new school of thought likes ideas, but insists on returns, low risk and predictability that can be assured. What really does this predictability mean? Interestingly, its not only about the bottom line but a multitude of factors that has a role to play. For example, a leading player in the tyre market of India was struggling to get one of its factories to be sustainable. The factory was the result of an idea – to capture a greater share of a customers wallet space. How? By providing him with an option of a retreaded tyre when his first tyre wore out. Given that this was a common practice by transporters a business model with a state of the art factory sounded like a great idea. Super. The factory was made, land got, the equipment shipped, the people recruited, everything was geared to perfection, save one hitch, the tyres supply was missing. For some reason it the great idea wasn’t working, at all. Stated reason- supply choke, there are inadequate tyres in the market. On a deep dive the nuggets of reasons began to emerge. The company was selling a second hand tyre, from a new tyre dealers outlet. The dealer as a matter of prestige did not want to be associated with a good that traditionally belonged to the ‘kabbadi’ wala cadre. It was a matter of pride. To please the company the dealers never said no, they took the tyres and shipped it to the back. Net impact- Tyres sent, tyres not shown. The factory in turn, was very delighted with the brand markings and colours that they imposed on the packed almost new second hand tyre. The mark represented a guarantee that the tyre would perform. To provide this guarantee, it was essential that the tyres accepted into the factory were the very best available. Net impact- from the glut of tyres available in the market, the factory only accepted selected few, from hundreds of tyres, single digits were accepted. The customers in turn, where very clear. They wanted their own tyres to be retreaded and returned to them, ideally with a pick up and drop facility. Getting their own good back gave them a sense of surety. They knew the product, what it was capable of, and what it could undertake. The ‘guarantee’ that they needed was only that the work was properly done. Right. So lining up the nuggets, the question itself seemed to undergo a change.
  2. 2. Was the intention to salvage the factory? Or Was the intention really to cater to customers need and increase bottom line? A solution for the former, was a force fit. A solution for the latter was wholistic, sustainable and even better created an entire new branding option. Simply put, it envisaged the company launching a new brand in the second hand market, providing a one stop solution to all the second hand needs of the customers, and provide second hand solutions to the second hand market, instead of first hand options to the second hand market. In principle it sounded perfect. In discussions the novel idea fell flat. No not because it wasn’t profitable – that it was. No wasn’t because there was no need for it- that there was. It was vetoed, because the company could not see itself performing the tasks of a kaddadi wala; their brand value could not be diluted that way. The assurance that this team was seeking was not provided for. The assurance that a new brand would not harm the existing goodwill they had strived to create. Fear is a great motivator, if deployed well. If not, it can be the biggest restraint to impede a project. In this case, the team was so scared of igniting the wrath of the senior management, that the idea died its death then and there. This example was a simple way of showcasing – Assurance seeking behavior. It appears in countless forms arising from belief that its impossible, too complex, needs too huge a mission, its not in my capacity.A challenge daunts most by its mere presence. If that’s true, and has been seen demonstrated in action, the need of the hour maybe to deconstruct a challenge in a manner where is easily digested by the latter. The big aspiration seems to be failing in its duty to fuels action. Maybe then, for action to be generated one needs some other ignition key to be turned. The solution may be simple. Talk to them in a language they understand. Show them the potential of an idea in numbers, in possible revenues, in cost. Translate an aspiration to a model- it allows the company to chew challenges in a language of comfort. Of assurances and returns.  

Views

Total views

19

On Slideshare

0

From embeds

0

Number of embeds

6

Actions

Downloads

0

Shares

0

Comments

0

Likes

0

×