Skip to main content

When you left your job, what did you leave behind?

What kind of resources and capabilities did you create at your former employer – that others will enjoy long after you left? Do we have a business tool to figure this?

We know that companies with superior resources and capabilities not only produce products and services more efficiently, but deliver better customer benefits than their competitors. But not every resource and every capability, say Dranove and Marciano in Kellogg on Strategy. To translate into competitive advantage, you need resources and capabilities that are scarce, immobile, co-specialized, and scopable.

Personal case to illustrate

As an example, here are the characteristics of the resources and capabilities I created at a former employer.

Scarce: Possibly around 75 people got trained in my two business units between 1996 and 2007. Half a dozen of them were given the capability to use a crude and vendor-oriented precursor of the oil drilling model, which is a strategy-driven method for software discovery and design. The rest of them were trained to use a business process centric approach to designing UI for business applications. So the company's key resources had capabilities not available anywhere else in the world.

Immobile: Some of the other resources and capabilities I created are owned by the company. They are therefore immobile in the sense I could not take them with me when I left the company! For example, the India-first usability lab I set up in 1999 AND the brand I created through innovation, publishing, speaking, conference-hosting, etc.

Co-specialized: Here's what I believe this concept means (let me know if you have a better description). An asset such as human resource is said to be co-specialized with another if the two are "bilaterally dependent." The folks I left behind had become a product of their co-specialization with assets owned by the company such as the unique training they received, the lab, etc.

Scopable: Scopability comprises 3 things that enable the firm to leverage scarce/immobile resources and capabilities for long-term growth and profits: Untapped markets (potential unlocked by the new method I introduced), reproducible production process (the process-centric methods I introduced has been used in scores of global software projects), and capital (company provided).

How good is that checklist?

Like most management tools, the view of resources/capabilities as determinants of competitive advantage has been debated. You will find companies that meet all the criteria, yet struggling financially. You will also find a few companies with mediocre resources and capabilities that keep growing – for a while. However, when combined with the right business model, etc, resources/capabilities with those 4 characteristics are more likely to create long-term competitive advantage for a company (just the way it has happened to my employer). So, go ahead and try this tool to evaluate your impact ... you can figure what you left behind, you can share it with your future employer, and of course you can use it for strategic planning in your current job!

PS: This is the 200th post in the Business & Technology blog!

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Explorer mentality Vs conqueror mentality

A fixation on competitors and on beating them is evidence of what Amazon's Jeff Bezos calls a conqueror mentality. In contrast, people waking up in the morning thinking how to innovate for the customer -- and having intense fun innovating -- is evidence of an explorer mentality.

The explorer mentality resulted in Amazon allowing negative reviews of its products. Reacting to this, a book publisher objected, saying "You make money when you sell things." But Bezos thought, "We don't make money when we sell things; we make money when we help customers make purchase decisions." So explorer mentality also demands a willingness to be misunderstood for long periods of time.

During his 16 years as CEO, Bezos' Amazon has delivered shareholder returns of 12,266% (industry-adjusted), and the company's value has grown by $111 billion. More in HBR Jan-Feb 2013.

M&A perspective: IT staffing Vs IT consulting

This report is a simple analysis by HT Capital -- a boutique investment banking firm in New York. It basically makes the point that being a staffing company (Vs consulting company) does not provide adequate returns to most investors, especially from an M&A perspective.

Peter Rozsa, co-author of the report, is a Senior Managing Director at HT Capital. He was also my "classmate" at a Columbia Business School executive education program. I have Peter's permission to make the report available here.

Click to download PDF report.

Leading Change Vs. "Leading" Status Quo

Change and Status quo can be as far apart from each other as a butterfly is from a caterpillar ...

Or ... as an Amazon.com is from a K-Mart ... Or ... as a BMW is from a Hyundai ... Or ... as laying a runway is from paving a cow path ... Or ... as a solution is from a product ... Or ... as experience is from service ... Or ... as customer success is from customer satisfaction ... Or ... as a distinct brand-you is from a me-too employee ...

Change can be triggered by innovation. Change can happen in corporate culture. And so on. There is a leader "behind" every Change. If you consider the corporate world, people like Lou Gerstner, Michael Dell, and Jack Welch may come to mind. Actually, there are scores of other lesser-known and unknown leaders that make change happen in their organizations.

Here's my question: What are some differences between those who lead change and those who "lead" the Status quo? Oh yes, we know about the staggering percentage of Change i…