TODAY’S GLOBAL BUSINESS TRENDS: THE AFRICAN BUSINESS EQUATION



By Charles Kofi Fekpe
United Kingdom

Trends are powerful. They are just like sea waves. If you swim in the same direction as the waves, you will get ashore quickly and with minimal damage. If you swim against the waves…. I will leave that to your imagination

In the 1980s and 1990s when the information age started, those that saw the trend early and rode their businesses on the trends prospered a great deal and those that sat down and said to themselves, we’ll change later….. well, most of them have either collapsed or become “beggar-companies”.

My hope with that in this article, is to introduce you to some ideas that have become strong business trends. Some you may already have heard but didn’t really understand, others may be new to you. In all, I’ll be talking very briefly on 6 of them. This is NOT a detailed university lecture, it is simply an introduction to these business concepts. My greatest hope is that you will be able to take one or more of these trends away, investigate it further and begin to ask yourself, how it may help improve your business and add a few more zeros to your profit line.

Thirty or so years ago, businesses that succeeded were those that had secret information that nobody else had and also the resources to do something with such information. In other words, thirty years ago, information was the competitive advantage for the companies that succeeded. When the internet became a communication Revolution, one of the things it did was to make information readily available. Eventually, there was so much information available that it became very cheap and no more a competitive advantage to have just information.

The next step was to do something with that information, which is what we call Knowledge. Little by little organisations that were able to use such information to their advantage became more successful. This is how we moved from the information age, to the knowledge age. Then eventually the internet made knowledge readily available. In other words; apart from making information available, it also made available knowledge on how to use that information. As a result neither Information nor Knowledge was a competitive asset anymore. They both became very cheap and very available.

The next step in this evolution of the world economy was “Innovation”. In Order words, businesses that can now turn the available information, and knowledge into “new ideas” had a greater opportunity to become more successful. I have a construction engineer friend who was sharing with me a month ago how their company was now able to produce concrete that was less heavy, stronger and less expensive. Now that is innovation and we can all see how good it sounds to their profit margin. The information they needed was not new, the technical knowhow was not new either. All they really did was to think about how to do things in a different and new way.

Innovation is really not the same as invention. An invention is coming up with something that has never been done before – that’s invention – it involves new information and new knowledge. Innovation is more like using the information and knowhow that you have to generate new ideas. The keyword is ideas. Innovation means generating new ideas always and not only when your company starts facing competition. Innovation means generating new ideas before anybody else does.

Innovation is generating ideas that add value to your company in the short run and long run. Innovation means getting everybody in your organisation to come up with new ideas, not just the people at the top. And finally, innovation is the process of generating ideas about an organisation’s products and its internal processes. So in effect innovation is finding new and better ideas on how to run your organisation, new and better ideas about how to make your products, new and better ideas on new products, and new and better ideas about making your customers satisfied. Innovation simply equals successful ideas.

The second business trend I want to bring to your attention is “Social Media”. And without doubt I can imagine some faces have lit up with the expression “Ahahh! Facebook”(I hope you also bought your Facebook shares). With the rise of information, came about a problem. You see, before the information age, you needed people (human beings) to be in the picture for you to get access to information. And if you think about knowledge being the way in which information was used, you’ll realise also that in the past, every business needed real people to teach them how information could be used.

In the past also, you needed a customer to be physically present in order to transact a business. With the information and knowledge age happening through the internet, business became more and more divorced from people. After so many years of the information age, the world has realized that human beings are indeed social animals and then …knock! Knock! Knock! Enters Mr Social media.

Social media is simply an attempt to re-connect people who were divorced during the information and knowledge booms. It’s a way of adding back the “human factor” to the already booming information and knowledge age – Mark Zuckerberg, the founder of Facebook was one of the pioneers in adding a human and social dimension to the information age – and this is a typical example of innovation. The information he used wasn’t new, the internet technology was not new, the people who use Facebook were also not new to using the internet – the truth is he just had an innovative idea on how to connect all three components.

Social Media age has meant that whereas in the past we only had access to information everywhere, now, we have access to people everywhere. So you have platforms such as Facebook, blogs, Twitter, Linkedin, Skype etc. and they all give you access to people everywhere.
For businesses, this is a brilliant opportunity – In the past, if you were physically located in say Kenya, it meant you were very restricted from finding potential customers in say Ghana and Namibia, unless you had a physical office in Namibia or Ghana or you placed an expensive advert in their national newspapers and Televisions and Radio. These days you can make yourself available on Social Media sites, and customers themselves will find you.

Every business undisputedly thrives on people. The more people you can reach means the more customers you can find, and the more customers you can find means the more money in your…. I’ll leave that to your imagination. The point I am trying to make here is that if your business can make itself available in the social media, it provides an opportunity for customers and potential customers to relate to you in a way that makes them feel part of a society.

Social Media, undoubtedly is changing the face of business – it is an opportunity for businesses to meet with their customers every day, where they want to be met – think about the advantage it brings. Averagely every Facebook or Twitter user logs unto their account at the least twice a week – try imagining physically meeting with all your clients and potential clients at least twice each week at a fraction of the current cost. Now, think about the advantage your business has if your customers start seeing you as part of their own social family. Think carefully about it.


The whole idea about marketing is that it is meant to tell your customers what you have to offer, for how much, where, when and how. Currently, marketing by most African businesses broadly falls in two categories – carry out a marketing analysis and then put out an advert hoping that it will entice customers to buy your products and services OR you put out a promotion so that customers win prizes for buying products or services.

Today, we can safely call these methods traditional methods of marketing. Two of the biggest shortfalls of these methods of marketing are that (1) It’s a one way road – you offer something to the customer and the customer either buys it or leaves it. There is no opportunity for the customer to offer you anything, even if it is for free (2) these traditional methods of marketing fail to recognize the fact that customers change all the time, their desires change, their tastes change, they are always changing but the question is, does your marketing change at the same pace as your customers.

Interactive marketing as the name suggest is marketing alright – except that you give your customers and yourself an opportunity to relate and interact with each other, more frequently. And as a business, your greatest ally in achieving this is Social Media. Its interesting how this works – Social media, because it is now available on the internet, mobile phones, televisions etc gives you an opportunity to market yourself to customers and potential customers in a way that they can connect with you, discuss with you and feel a part of your company, your product and your services – now this is true marketing.

It is the kind of marketing that makes customers see your company and products and services as people that they can relate to. And the good thing about it is that you can reach them everywhere, not only through the traditional TV or radio or billboards. Today, you can reach them even when they are at work or on holiday.

An advantage of Social marketing is this – when your customers start feeling that they are being heard, if they feel they are a part of your organisation and more than just your customers, they may even start giving you innovative ideas, which if you listen and develop into a product or service, these same customers will turn around and buy. That’s how the term crowd-sourcing came about. It really is the ability of an organisation to interact with its customers in order to find new ideas.

Crowd sourcing comes in different forms – I have seen companies that have idea submission sites where their customers submit ideas on what the new products should be and some of those ideas have become successful products that the customers are proud to buy – why? Because it was their idea in the first place and they are proud of it. Other crowd-sourcing approaches have involved customers submitting ideas and other customers voting on what the best idea is.

The good thing about all of this is that you don’t have to physically meet your customers in order to market to them effectively or strengthen their loyalty. I am not saying your company necessarily has to be on Twitter or Facebook or Linked in or any other social network. No. That’s a choice for you to make – But at least I can tell you that a lot of organisations I know are benefitting from it.

The former CEO of Xerox Anne Mulcahy once said that in today’s business world you either partner with someone or you perish without anyone – and she is right! How do I know? Because I am married, and sometimes I still can’t figure out if the marriage is a takeover, a merger or an acquisition – but I am excited there is a working partnership. Almost every business in Africa wants to grow. The shareholders, the directors, the employees all want the organisation to grow. They may all have different reasons for wanting such a growth but the bottom line is they all want the growth.
Every business grows by either increasing its share in the existing market or finding its way into new markets. There are many ways of achieving these but traditionally, there are only two ways. 1) by building the growth. This is the hard method where everybody in the company has to work very very hard to grow the company internally. No 2) is to buy the growth – through a merger or an acquisition. Even though Mergers and Acquisitions appear to be the easiest option – there is a hard truth, two hard truths in fact.

he first hard truth is that when you acquire or merge with another company, you don’t only take on its good side; you also take on the cancer infected parts too. The second hard truth is that mergers and acquisitions take very long, they are exhausting, and the integration process can go well or wrong but the biggest truths of all is that over the years, it has become overwhelmingly accepted that mergers and acquisitions generally don’t work.

Now, lets welcome “Strategic Alliance”. Others choose to call it “Strategic Partnership”. Whichever way you choose to call it, it is the route which allows you to enjoy all the benefits of a merger or an acquisition without the related troubles and failures. As businesses, you need to realise that you don’t have what it takes to satisfy every single need of your customers. It is impossible.

A Strategic Alliance is a very simple agreement between two parties to pool resources together to achieve a specific goal. I remember some years back whilst in a firm called Pannell Kerr Forster, we engaged in a strategic Partnership with Deloitte and Touche (also another firm) to carry out a job for the National Bank – my firm presented me as a specialist in Internal and Accounting Controls whilst Deloitte presented a specialist in Banking Operations. Now this is a strategic alliance between two complimentary firms – but it gets wider than that.

It is possible too for an organisation to have strategic alliances with customers, or with its suppliers, or even with its competitors or with Academic and research institutions and last but not the least, with government. The beauty about strategic alliance is this – you don’t have to get involved with the other party’s entire organisation – just the part that is of interest to you. Japan’s mobile internet market is dominated by an alliance between a company called NTT and another called DoCoMo and together they own 50% of Japan’s mobile internet market. So for example in a marketing alliance two parties can come together and share each others customer database with the result that both can sell to each other’s customer – the benefit is that the number of customers you can both reach now increases and you didn’t have to work hard to win those customers.

A FLAWED COURT IN NEED OF CREDIBILITY

May 21 2012
By RICHARD DICKER

Ten years ago, when the treaty creating the International Criminal Court took effect, the prospect of holding heads of state and powerful warlords to account for mass slaughter seemed like science fiction.

Today the signs carried by Syrian protesters demanding “Assad to The Hague” are powerful testimony that the court is making its presence felt.

But as the I.C.C.’s influence grows, its promise of impartial justice for the world’s worst crimes is at risk of being undercut by international politics.

The I.C.C. has committed its share of missteps. Some are performance problems of its own making. At the same time, it runs the toxic risk of appearing to be used to advance the political objectives of powerful states.

For a court with a mandate to investigate and prosecute genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, the political stakes are inherently high. Its current suspects include two heads of state, a former vice president, a defense minister, a state governor and rebel commanders. The court is also authorized to charge suspects during ongoing armed conflicts, a power that some argue can make it an obstacle to peace.

But the United Nations Security Council’s authority to empower the I.C.C. to look into atrocities in countries that have not become members has significantly increased the risk of political taint, because judicial legitimacy depends on independence from government interference.

The council’s role, which helps to extend the court’s writ to mass crime scenes where it would otherwise be barred, is granted by the I.C.C.’s statute. Nonetheless, the court’s problems are compounded by the dominance of the council’s five permanent members. Three of these — the United States, Russia and China — have not joined the court. Through their nonratification and veto power, they have insulated themselves from the I.C.C.

They have also shielded the leaders of certain “client states.” While the Security Council has referred Sudan for the situation in Darfur to the I.C.C., Syria embodies this “above the law” status. President Bashar al-Assad is effectively immune from I.C.C. prosecution on account of Russia’s protection.

The list of Security Council-guaranteed “accountability-free zones” extends further. It includes Sri Lanka, Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories.

The use of this shielding power affects the global terrain on which the I.C.C. works, scarring it with an ugly unevenness where the same law does not apply to all. Some leaders literally get away with systematic murder, and this undercuts the court’s credibility.

Strong supporters of accountability, in righteous rejection of the obvious double standard, vent their frustration at the court.

Leaders of repressive governments, at the instigation of states like Sudan, cynically denounce political bias when what they really fear is the growing reach of the rule of law. These countries often talk about the importance of national trials, but most often they don’t prosecute at all. When they do, it is frequently in a seriously flawed court.

The political unevenness is also exacerbated by some powerful states that sometimes champion justice, initiate Security Council referrals, then drop the court like a hot rock when the political circumstances change.

In looking over this flawed terrain, committed proponents of justice need to draw attention to the double standard, along with shortcomings at the court, and work to correct them.

At the same time, neither justice nor victim is served by making the perfect the enemy of the good. Denying justice to those who have suffered unspeakable crimes in Darfur would provide no comfort to victims in Gaza who are denied access to the I.C.C.
Some short-term steps could minimize the offensive double standard.

First, the 121 countries that have ratified the I.C.C. treaty — nearly two-thirds of the U.N. General Assembly — need to put pressure on others to join the club. Further moves toward universality might shame more of the diminishing circle of holdouts into joining. Additional ratifications would also mean less impunity all around.

Second, countries that care deeply about justice should press the Security Council to end the hypocrisy and to make I.C.C. referrals based on the severity of crimes — and not on the allegiances of the perpetrators. This would raise the political cost of a veto at the Security Council.
Third, countries need to use their domestic laws to prosecute those on their territory who may be responsible for serious crimes committed elsewhere.

Unprecedented headway has been made in limiting the impunity long associated with the most serious international crimes.

But the changes at stake are nothing less than tectonic. Evening out the playing field for accountability won’t be easy, but bringing credible justice to the world depends on it.
Richard Dicker is the director of Human Rights Watch’s International Justice Program.

THE NHIF SAGA-KENYA'S HEALTHCARE DEBATE

By Prof. Anyang' Nyong'o
Minister for Medical Services
Government of Kenya
May 20 2012
Over the last two weeks, the National Hospital Insurance Fund (NHIF) has dominated the news headlines. Along with it has been the parent Ministry of Medical Services which I head.

At the center of this controversy has been the insurance cover for civil servants, the disciplined forces and the police which the Ministry of Public Service contracted the Fund to implement from the beginning of this year. It has been alleged that this scheme has been mismanaged and possibilities of fraud may exist.

Some time last year, the Cabinet approved a program whereby this insurance cover was to be implemented by private sector insurance firms. When the Ministry of Public Service floated the tender, however, the private insurance firms declined to offer services, stating that the amount of money offered for a cover of a family of four was too low for them.

The government's offer was 2850 shillings while private sector players wanted between 6000 to 15000 shillings. The government was therefore left with NHIF as the only other alternative. Discussions then ensued between the Ministry of Public Service and the Fund on how best this scheme could be rolled out. These discussions started in December last year.

About Christmas time last year, the Ministry of Public Service informed the Fund that the scheme had to begin by the first of January since time was of the essence. Doing all it's best the Fund complied. The scheme was hence implemented under great hurry, and it was bound to run into administrative and managerial problems just like the cost-sharing scheme, initiated in our health facilities in 1989, went through such teething problems of implementation until 1991.

In the contract between the Ministry of Public Service and the Fund, it was agreed that the Fund would contract health care service providers to provide out-patient treatment to the government personnel at the rate of 2850 shillings as mentioned above. This would be done on a capitation basis.

The word "capitation" has led to a lot of misunderstanding in the media and among the public in general. It is actually very simple. It simply means that a health provision firm, like Meridian, is given money ahead of time for a fixed period of time to provide out-patient care for a fixed number of the NHIF clients, i.e. the civil servants. Most people undercover their medical expenses with insurance firms in this way.

For example, when you go to buy milk in a super market, you pay for the milk first before you drink it. When you go to buy shoes at a Bata shop, you pay for the shoes first before you wear them. When you travel to London, you pay for the ticket first before you arrive in London a day or so later.

There are, however, a few exceptions: when you eat in a restaurant, you get the service first and then you pay for it; when you go for a hair cut in a saloon, a similar experience occurs. God, likewise, is very generous: he gives you life and then you answer for your deeds on earth after you have enjoyed the life.

But health insurance, like many other insurance arrangements, is very interesting. If you pay 2850 shillings to cover your family for a year and your family does not fall sick during that year, do you claim your money back? Of course you don't! The insurance company simply asks you to pay again the next year if you want to continue to be covered.

There is a risk therefore that both parties to this insurance contract take. The company runs the risk of paying more money than the amount you paid should you fall sick and be covered for more than the premium you paid. You also run the risk of not getting any service if you don't fall sick.

The controversy at the center of this particular civil servants insurance scheme is because an impression has been created that the service providers were supposed to be reimbursed on a case by case basis. Not at all. The contract did not say that. We need therefore to ask ourselves whether NHIF has implemented the contract as was envisaged.

Another misunderstanding is that the service providers were supposed to offer services to civil servants at all their facilities, whether already existing or still under construction. This is also not the case. The civil servants were supposed to choose where they preferred to be treated. The service providers were to give NHIF a list of all their licensed facilities where services were available. Was this really done and are the beneficiaries happy with the arrangement?

Again a lot of misunderstanding arose from the very beginning regarding whether civil servants could or could not change the out-patient facilities from time to time in accordance with their convenience. Both the Fund and the service providers sought to clarify this to the clients and this information has been availed to the media so that the public can be enlightened from facts rather than from fiction.

What needs to be made quite clear is that each service provider was to be given a lump sum of money to cover a lump number of clients agreed ahead of time between the Fund and the service providers.

Any over payment by the NHIF or any false claims by the service providers would, of course, constitute offense. These are the issues that the Caretaker Board will have to look into and clarify to Kenyans.

As the minister in charge of policy guidelines to all state corporations under me, I have sought during the short period of implementing the scheme to ensure that it succeeds since our goal is to give all Kenyans comprehensive social health cover. The Fund has sought to address these issues of implementation as they arose.

Both my Permanent Secretary and the Director of Medical Services sit on the Board of the NHIF, and both have been diligent in attending Board meetings. Since the DMS is the Registrar of the Medical Practitioners and Dentists Board which licenses health practitioners and facilities, I believe he has done his best to guide the Board in terms of quality assurance among the service providers for this scheme.

I have been extremely disturbed by allegations that I influenced the choice of service providers. This could not have happened since I was not at the Ministry at that time. In any case, procurement procedures in government are now very clear and there are competent government institutions that should oversee these procedures in every ministry.

Let it be noted that at the time the Ministry of Public Service brought in the NHIF to implement this scheme, I was away in the US for my health review. By the time I came back on 6th of January, 2012, the scheme had already been rolled out. My colleague Hon. Dalmas Otieno, Minister for Public Service was then acting as Minister for Medical Services and did a good job running both dockets at that time. I supported his initiative and took over where he left on my return.

In William Shakespeare's play "Julius Caesar", the ordinary citizens of Rome got very angry when their ruler, Julius Caesar, was assassinated by some conspirators. They therefore organized to move around in town looking for the assassins so as to deal with them. When they met a man called Cina, they asked him whether he had any notion who the assassins were. He denied but the mob insisted that he had to be in the know otherwise he had no reason to be walking about in town at that hour of the night. On protesting that he was only a poet he could not be associated with assassins, the mob decided to lynch him for his bad verses anyway.

in like manner, I have seen sections of the press calling for my resignation because I must have aided and abetted wrong doings at the Fund over this scheme whatever the facts show. Some have even gone as far as saying that time has come "to deal with me anyway" due to other positions I hold in public life. I would not like to face the fate of Cina the poet; it is neither just nor fair.

Finally I would like to appeal to Kenyans to understand that this civil servants scheme is different from the normal health insurance cover that NHIF has been giving since 1966 for in-patient care for all contributors. That scheme continues separately from this particular one. Its membership, according to the current Economic Survey, has increased tremendously over the last two years. Meaning that Kenyans are becoming more aware of its advantages. Makurueini Constituency leads all constituencies in the number of residents rolled as contributors to the NHIF.

Over the last three years, we have been working on giving contributors both in- patient and out- patient health cover. This requires increasing the rates which were last revised 20 years ago. As soon as we can end the controversy over these revisions, the rest of Kenyans will get the kind of cover the civil servants are now getting.

Members of Parliament know how urgently we need a universal health care coverage in this country. We have carried out A Strategic Management Audit by the International Finance Corporation (IFC) and Delloitte which has shown that NHIF can role out such a service while undertaking certain management reforms to-day.

The feed back that we get is that civil servants are very happy with this scheme. They would like all problems sorted out so that Kenyans can all move together towards universal health coverage. END
 
Copyright © Ohladye Blog. All Rights Reserved.
Blogger Template designed by Big Homes.