Search posterous

Search all posts and users. Type a name, type a favorite song title, whatever! See what comes up.
  

More posterous blogs











More recommended blogs »

Here are posterous posts filed under differentiation...

My 20-something daughter yesterday was telling me about the challenges faced by her "Trophy Generation" (aka Millennials, Gen Y, Echo Boomers).

The label Trophy Generation comes from kids growing up getting trophies for pretty much everything (like showing up) -- inadvertently teaching them that they are always entitled to awards, effort is synonymous with success, there is no such thing as disappointment, and constant praise is the norm. As a dad and former rec soccer coach, I was guilty of telling kids "good job" when it really wasn't, or "you did your best" even if they didn't. A Wall Street Journal story tells what's happening when these "trophy kids" go to work and how they and their employers are dealing with the unfamiliar "compliment deficit" these young adults face.

So how do we market to this generation? 1) The obvious strategy is to lavish praise, target their entitlement zone and focus on instant gratification. Instead, try the truth. Explicitly acknowledge that false praise can feel meaningless. If they can do better or be better, tell them. That will speak to their hearts and distinguish you as someone they can trust. 2) Do not assume all twenty-somethings are trophy kids. While it may be a common affliction, a significant proportion are driven by different values. 3) See the good underneath the need for praise. We (my generation) gave trophies to make our kids feel good and let them know they are seen. Now as grown-ups, let them know in real ways that they count. 

 

Filed under: differentiation

Alpha says...

Your browser is not able to display this multimedia content.

A beautiful, beautiful tvc. Absolutely evocative shots cutting in one after another.

Then the last shot reveals that they're selling a MacBook knock-off.

It's not, of course. It's a Sony Vaio. I have great respect for Vaio. (On a related note, I think the Vaio logo rationale makes it one of the most amazing logos around.) If you were to put a gun to my head and yell, "Buy a Windows machine! Buy it! Buy it now!" I'd buy a Vaio. (Contrary to what you might have heard, I won't die for Apple.)

Why then did its designers see fit to take design cues from MacBook and MacBook Pro? It doesn't do justice to Vaio, to this tvc, to humanity, to the divinity of art.

Stop the insanity. Invent something new.

On the other hand, it is crazily difficult to improve on minimalist designs. (Perhaps that's the genius of Apple design.) But it's still possible to differentiate. Remember when all computers were beige boxes? Remember what Apple did with the juicy, fruity iMacs?

("Yum.")

They look gaudy in hindsight, but they *differentiated*. They *innovated*. They *created*.

Now, non-Apple designers, please, go do the same. It's been 11 years since the iMac, after all.

...

A similar rant on HP:
http://alphalim.me/pix-hp-confirms-it-i-scream-you-scream-we-all

Filed under: differentiation

Andy says...

User-centric EA analyzes problem areas in the organization and uncovers gaps, redundancies, inefficiencies, and opportunities; EA uses this information to drive business process reengineering and improvement as well as to introduce new technologies to the enterprise.

According to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-130, Management of Federal Information Resources, business process reengineering needs to take place to achieve the benefits of new information technology: “Moreover, business process reengineering should accompany all attempts to facilitate a transaction through information technology. Often the full benefits will be realized only by restructuring the process to take advantage of the technology. Merely moving an existing paper based process to an electronic one is unlikely to reap the maximum benefits from the electronic system.”

In the book The 21st Century Organization by Bennis and Mische the authors explain how organizations can reinvent themselves through reengineering.

What exactly is reengineering?

Reengineering is reinventing the enterprise by challenging its existing doctrines, practices, and activities and then innovatively redeploying its capital and human resources into cross-functional processes. This reinvention is intended to optimize the organization’s competitive position, it value to shareholders, and its contribution to society.”

What are the essential elements of reengineering?

There are five:

  1. A bold vision
  2. A systemic approach
  3. A clear intent and mandate
  4. A specific methodology
  5. Effective and visible leadership”

What activities are involved in reengineering?

  • “Innovating
  • Listening to customers
  • Learning
  • Generating ideas
  • Designing new paradigms
  • Anticipating and eclipsing competitors
  • Contributing to the quality of the workplace and the community
  • Constructively challenging established management doctrines”

“Reengineering the enterprise is difficult. It means permanently transforming the entire orientation and direction of the organization. It means challenging and discarding traditional values, historical precedents, tried-and-true processes, and conventional wisdom and replacing them with entirely different concepts and practices. It means redirecting and retraining workers with those new concepts and practices...The very cultural fiber of the enterprise must be interrogated and redefined. Traditional work flows must be examined and redesigned. Technology must be redirected from supporting individual users and departments to enabling cross-functional processes.”

What are the goals of reengineering?

  • “Increasing productivity
  • Optimizing value to shareholders
  • Achieving quantum results
  • Consolidating functions
  • Eliminating unnecessary levels of work”

Reengineering seeks to increase productivity by creating innovative and seamless processes…the paradigms of vertical ‘silo’ tasks and responsibilities is broken down and replaced with a cross-functional, flatter, networked structure. The classical, top-down approach to control is replaced with an approach that is organized around core processes, is characterized by empowerment, and is closer to the customer....Reengineering constructively challenges and analyzes the organization’s hierarchy and activities in terms of their value, purpose, and content. Organizational levels and activities that represent little value to shareholders or contribute little to competitiveness are either restructured or eliminated.”

What is the role of EA?

EA is the discipline that synthesizes key business and technology information across the organization to support better decision-making. EA develops and maintains the current and target architectures and transition plan for the organization. As OMB recommends, in setting enterprise targets, EA should focus first and foremost on business process reengineering and then on technology enablement. If the organization does not do process reengineering first, the organization risks not only failing to achieve the benefits of introducing new IT, but also causing actual harm to the organizations existing processes and results. For example, adding a new technology without reengineering process can add additional layers of staff and management to implement, maintain, and operate the technology instead of creating a net resource savings to the organization, from more efficient operations. Similarly, without doing reengineering before IT implementation, the enterprise may actually implement IT that conflicts with existing process and thus either require timely and costly system customization or end up adversely impacting process cycle time, delaying shipments, harming customer satisfaction, and creating bloated inventories, and so on.

Bennis and Mische predict that in the 21st century “to be competitive, an organization will have to be technology enabled…the specific types of technology and vendors will be unimportant, as most organizations will have access to or actually have similar technologies. However, how the organization deploys its technological assets and resources to achieve differentiation will make the difference in whether it is competitive.”

Filed under: Differentiation

aliceayel says...

(download)

"Learning a foreign language is much more than learning a number of sentences, a certain amount of
vocabulary or a number of grammatical rules. It means being able to interact in a new cultural context
that will enable us to function in a society different from our original one."
from the Spanish ab initio Syllabus (IBO)

This is why it is very important for my students to learn about Spanish and Latin American culture. Because they are learning how to describe people and about likes and dislikes, discovering the world of Mafalda, a comic strip written and drawn by the Argentine cartoonist Joaquín Salvador Lavado (pen name Quino) perfectly fitted into the unit.

At my new school, technology is very scarce: there are no interactive whiteboards and only a few video projectors are available from the library. Then, because we don't have our own classrooms (German custom: students stay in a classroom, teachers move from class to class), this means we have to carry a laptop and a video projector from class to class. So, I have become a bit lazy and decided to do without technology most of the time!

For the Mafalda's lesson, the easiest would have been to show my students a PowerPoint presentation about Mafalda and the main characters in the comics. Because of the technical issues I have mentioned above, I decided to print out each PowerPoint slide and to laminate them. When I started the lesson, I stuck each laminated slide on the wall in different parts of the classroom. I asked my students to go around the class and read each card, a bit like you would in a museum I guess :) As they were going around, I asked them to stop anytime they crossed another students and to explain to each other what they had read on the card. Because they are Spanish beginners, they could explain in English but most of my students tried in Spanish which was great. I then asked them to go back to their seats and we went through true and false statements about the cards. Students really enjoyed standing up and discovering each character at their own pace. I actually think this lesson was far more exciting than if I had gone through a boring PowerPoint and it was more focused on differentiation as each student could read at their own pace.

In a way, not having technology makes you think about more engaging and differentiated options! And by coincidence, I just happened to be reading Isabelle Jones' really interesting  post about Naked Teaching and reflecting on the use of technology in the classroom.

What about you? do you have any great ideas to teach without technology in the classroom?

Filed under: differentiation

white says...

There are lot of concepts that rely on the grounds of choosing the right market as well as clearly describing your position there.   If you're making a mistake here, the whole strategy applied later can fail even if executed extremely well.

So what are the possible markets to address?

You can be either creating a new market or entering an existing one.  And while creating a new market is something sounding more straight (nonetheless, very hard and timing process), entering an existing market is not a one-way option, as it can be done in different ways.  So this is when the question of market differentiation and segmentation comes up.

So what is market segmentation?  This means choosing a very clear, unique, important spot in the existing market, when you product has a very clearly articulated value for customers as well as it really solves an important problem for them.  Market segmentation divides the market into distinct groups of people who have similar problems, while still residing within the same market.  Members of two different groups have different needs, clearly stated and important to them.  Imagine car dealership that sells SUVs and sedans.  Two different segments.  Two different needs.

And what does market differentiation do?  A lot of people mistakenly think it to have the same meaning with segmentation, and this is wrong.  Differentiation comes into play when you need it if you plan to sell something very much the same as other 1,000 of companies do, but you need to buy the interest of a customer with something.  Something, that makes a difference between you and all those 1,000.  Better service, better value, broader range of products, etc.  You're not hunting for the different group of people here.  Imagine grocery store, that have the same food as everywhere, but gives you a chance to try it before buy.  Same price, same clients.

P.S. Market segmentation and differentiation is something that is way more complex that what I described here.  I just tried to cover the difference of concepts between two terms.

Filed under: differentiation

Now that white papers have become as common as websites, how are you going to create a unique differentiation for your organization? If you think creating some inexpensive 'all text' white paper is the answer then guess again. This article will provide you with some ideas on how you create a unique and compelling way to differentiate your white papers from those of your competition.

Here’s the link:  http://bit.ly/F7tYf

Filed under: differentiation

Now that white papers have become as common as websites, how are you going to create a unique differentiation for your organization? If you think creating some inexpensive 'all text' white paper is the answer then guess again. This article will provide you with some ideas on how you create a unique and compelling way to differentiate your white papers from those of your competition.

Here’s the link:  http://bit.ly/F7tYf

Filed under: differentiation

Here are some of the links that were shared during the Differentiated Learning workshop this morning. I also added a couple links that are technology centric. What can I say? I’m a techno-nut.

Preventing Reading Difficulties: A Three-Tiered Intervention Model

http://texasreading.org/3tier/

Differentiated Instruction – Collection of links for planning, theory, learning styles, and sample units/lessons

http://internet4classrooms.com/di.htm

Technology Empowers Differentiated Instruction – eSchool News article

http://www.eschoolnews.com/news/top-news/index.cfm?i=57064

Using Technology to Differentiate Instruction – a professional development workshop

http://www.lausd.k12.ca.us/lausd/offices/di/Burleson/workshops/differentiate/index.htm

One last thing, I have a small but growing library of books in my office that deal with technology integration, differentiation, learning styles, Marzano and technology, etc. Please feel free to come by and “check one out” if you are interested.

Filed under: differentiation

"In order to be irreplaceable, on must always be different" ~Coco Chanel 

t7xi2fyc49

Filed under: differentiation

Andy says...

This week Microsoft said they had a big announcement, and that it wasn’t about Yahoo! It turns out that Microsoft decided to reveal some of their technical documents for Microsoft Vista, Office, and other applications.

Why would a company like Microsoft reveal their technical secrets to partners and rivals alike? How is this decision a good architecture move, especially by the master architect himself, Bill Gates?

We all know that companies strive to achieve strategic competitive advantage and that one major way to do this is by product differentiation. The goal is to develop a unique product offering that customers want and need and then build market share. In some case, this results in a situation like Microsoft’s virtual monopoly status in desktop operating systems and productivity suites.

So why give up the keys to the Microsoft kingdom?

Well they are not giving up the keys, maybe just giving a peek inside. And an article in The Wall Street Journal, 22 February 2008 tells us why Microsoft is doing this:

  1. Internet Revolution—“For 30 years, Microsoft has…tightly held onto the technical details of how its software works… [and] it become one of the most lucrative franchises in business history. But Microsoft traditional products aren’t designed to evolve via add-ons or tweaks of thousands of non-Microsoft programmers. Nor can they be easily mixed or matched with other software and services not controlled by Microsoft or its partners. Now the Internet is making that kind of evolution possible, and transforming the way software is made and distributed.” As Ray Ozzie, chief software architect of Microsoft states: “The world really has changed.”
  2. Do or die—Microsoft’s prior business model was leading it down a path of eventual extinction. “The more people use these applications [free technologies and shareware], the less they need they have for Microsoft’s applications.” Microsoft is hoping to maintain their relevance.
  3. Antitrust ruling—“Last September, an appeals court in Luxembourg ruled against Microsoft in a long-running European case that forced Microsoft to announce a month later that it would drop its appeals and take steps to license information to competitors.”
  4. Interoperability—“Microsoft announced in July 2006 [its “Windows Principles”]…such as a commitment to providing rival developers with access to interfaces that let their products talk with Windows.” The key here is customer requirements for systems interoperability and Microsoft is begrudgingly going along.

Is this fifth such announcement on sharing by Microsoft the charm? I suppose it all hinges on how much marketplace and legal pressure Microsoft is feeling to divulge its secrets.

So it this the right User-centric EA decision?

If Microsoft is listening to their users, then they will comply and share technical details of their products, so that new technology products in the market can develop that add on to Microsoft’s and are fully interoperable. The longer Microsoft fights the customer, the more harm they are doing to their brand.

At the same time, no one can expect Microsoft to do anything that will hurt their own pocketbook, so as long as they can successfully maintain their monopoly, they will. Not that Microsoft is going away, but they are holding onto a fleeting business model. In the information age, Microsoft will have to play ball and show some goodwill to their users.

Filed under: Differentiation