The Service Economy is Here to Stay
Posted by J.P. Barela in Economics on January 25, 2012
The President in his State of the Union address stressed the importance of returning manufacturing jobs to the American economy. The only problem is that not only has the economy structurally moved away from manufacturing but economic goals have fundamentally shifted. The big new ideas like cloud computing are fundamentally about how to provide a service not having something.
MVPs or MVCs?
Posted by J.P. Barela in Innovation, Start-ups on January 23, 2012
One of the central problems with the speed of tech innovation is that increasingly the question is not “Can we do something?” but “Should we do something?”. Since the important questions for teams are not directly about technical ability but how to interface with world, the world is really only the proving ground. Hence the drive for talent acquisitions where a start-up is not acquired for the product but the product has proved that the team can deliver in the real world.
Pure talent acquisitions were the product is officially ended pose a further problem to the general culture of innovation: jaded users. Maciej Ceglowski highlighted the problem in a post in December. Few people want to spend a large amount of time working on somebody else’s glorified senior project. At the same time there are so many hypotheses to work out when starting a new company that start-ups should have the ability to work on a product first before firming up the financial development of a company. However, if a large group of early adopters took his advice to heart, product first development might disappear. If users start to become more like investors digging in to business models and sustainability before trying or committing to new products then minimum viable products(MVPs) become minimum viable companies(MVCs).
Whitherto Profit?
Posted by J.P. Barela in Economics, Managment on January 20, 2012
In a pair of posts last year, Steve Denning, argued that companies shouldn’t be profit maximizing but instead show focus on delighting customers.In his first post, he highlighted the need for customer delight over shareholder value. In his second, he noted that companies can only focus on only a single goal and that goal should be customer delight.
The economist in me naturally recoiled at the idea. Companies shouldn’t maximize shareholder value or customer delight but profits. But why profits? Profit maximization is based on a complex argument about how companies benefit society. Is it possible that the simpler delight customers is actually a better goal?
The most subtle reason for profit maximization is that it helps guide companies to “interior solutions”. The real world rarely sees companies going to extremes. The iPhone 4s may be the best phone on the market but Apple doesn’t charge a price well above other phones. Why? Profit maximization provides a universal objective function that measures the tradeoffs inherit in pricing and other decisions. Raise the price and the quantity sold will go down. If the profit in the new situation is less than before go back to the old price.
Could a company that was truly focused on focused on customer delight and its metric, net promoter score, find these interior solutions or does customer delight push a company towards extremes? By itself no. We can all think of products or services that delights us that would delight us more if it were cheaper or better in some way, ah a free iPhone 4s. But Denning has a reasonable response. Customer delight must be sustainable. Apple can’t just give away iPhones, an iPhone must cost enough not only to produce but also to provide Apple with resources to further delight customers.
This focus on sustainability leads to second leg up for profit maximization. Finding and delighting customers is hard work. While existing companies may be able to use revenue from current profits to provide the resources for further customer delight, if customer delight is the goal how does a new company start? Why would some one provide resources to a company that clearly does not provide customer delight because it is just starting and learning to delight customers? How does one value a company with a net promoter score of 50%? 70%? If a 10% price increase moves your net promoter score from 70% to 50% would that be catastrophic?
Similarly if a competitor has a high net promoter score in that range, why should you compete? The company is obviously delighting its customers. Sure there may be room to find other people who are not the company’s current customers but would you ever try to attract the competitor’s current customers if you were focused on delighting customers? A profit maximizer might. If the delighted customers are generating huge profits for a competitor, it makes sense to try to delight them more or maybe even just settle for cheaper product.
Profits still provide a better goal than delighting customers. Both goals provide for useful interior solutions that stop companies from running to extremes. Customer delight does not provide a good answer as to why the resources should be given to a new company. Nor does customer delight explain why we see competition in the marketplace.
Delighting customer does have some appeal as heuristic. Profit properly measured needs to include not only this quarter’s profits but this year’s profits and the next decade’s profits too. Understanding what the right decision that maximizes profit over all these periods is a challenge. Customer delight is easy to understand. Does this change make my customers happy without costing me too much profit? If yes, then do it because as Denning points out this seems to be a good marker for maximizing profits.
Financial Glossary Posted
Posted by J.P. Barela in Finance on April 24, 2010
With financial reform the hot topic, I have posted a new financial glossary. Let me know if there is something you would like posted.
Time for Insurers to Put Their Money Where Their Mouth Is
Posted by J.P. Barela in Health Care, Medicare Advantage, Risk Adjustment on January 24, 2010
With large scale health insurance reform looking doomed with Nancy Pelosi’s claim on Friday that she doesn’t have the votes to pass the Senate health care reform bill, it is time to return to the black board for incremental reforms. One of the most promising areas could be payment reform, particularly Medicare payment reform.
Payment reform was the unspecified part of the bill that was supposed to provide long term cost control. Unlike some backroom deal for the Nebraska Medicaid population, there was a valid reason for payment reform to be unspecified: nobody has a clear idea about what will work. The key problem is how do you measure non-events? How do you reward care providers for not having to perform services in the first place? Read the rest of this entry »
Not so simple Teresi
Posted by J.P. Barela in Health Care on October 12, 2009
While I believe a healthy dose of the free market is necessary for a well functioning health care system support a system, Amanda Teresi’s arguments miss a fundamental point: the free market can never solve the health care crisis. This does rest upon some concern about health care as a special moral good, although that certainly holds as well. No just by its very nature free market health insurance does not work.
The central contention in Teresi’s argument is if people will be able to purchase portable insurance in a free market than many of the current problems including coverage of preexisting conditions would disappear. What would be a free market in health insurance? Given some of Teresi’s arguments it seems to fair to suppose that a government regulatory agency would ensure the solvency of the insurance company. In addition I doubt that she would argue against a regulatory system that requires rates to have some basis in fact. For instance if a carrier wants to charge more to women than men it must provide data to support this. No mandates in the type of benefits offered. No restrictions on underwriting methods used. No limits on the rates offered. In other words a basic set of regulation to make sure that a carrier can keep its promises and isn’t discriminate bases on non-economic factors.
A Public Option for Failure
Posted by J.P. Barela in Health Care, Public Option on September 29, 2009
Up until this week, I had been rather agnostic about the public option. Before looking at the philosophical issues: should the government set prices in the health care market place? What level of competition should there be in the health insurance marketplace? Should a massive government entity be involved in the health insurance marketplace? There was always a basic question: would it work?
Read the rest of this entry »
The Drama of Perfection
Posted by J.P. Barela in Philosophy on September 23, 2009
The circus is in town again and the most remarkable thing happened: one of the acrobats missed. While trying to jump rope on high wire above the stage one of the acrobats missed and barely caught himself before falling into the safety netting. Rather than spoil the show, catching and then pulling himself back up on the wire were an added treat and as impressive as the rest of performance.
But shouldn’t we expect perfection? Don’t the acrobats work eight shows a week and rehearse countless months before touring? This isn’t dancing with the stars, this is supposed to be a professional show.
Read the rest of this entry »
Lost in the Humana Outrage
Posted by J.P. Barela in Health Care, Medicare Advantage on September 22, 2009
What has been lost in the outrage over Humana writing to Medicare Advantage members is that this type of dilema will happen more often if anything close to the current reform packages. One problem with public private partnerships is that corporations have not only the usual marketplace levers of competition prices, quality, and customer service, but also the levers of politics and lobbying as well. Will plans in the exchange need to sign gag orders to prevent them from informing members when subsidies are going to reduced?
Disclaimer: I am employed by Ingenix a subsidiary of United Health Group and these are my views and not the views of Ingenix or United Health.