My original “Solutions Focus” blog post is by far the most popular of any I have written, which at first surprised me … but then, not really. Over the years I have seen businesses and nonprofits struggle with how to define, create and market solutions. For example, I’ve met with many companies in the technology space that were preoccupied with selling software applications they had created—they called them “solutions.” The term is technically correct, in that “solutions” are answers to problems. And some companies or organizations did have problems for which these apps were good solutions.
So, there should have been a natural, organic meeting of the minds: solution seller and buyer connect, and everyone is happy. Sometimes this happened. More often it did not. The problem? Mismatched expectations. Sellers assumed that if they sold “solutions” they would be more successful in the marketplace. They defined success as … making more money, of course, but more than that: they wanted to be able to re-engage with their customers, to be seen as trusted advisors with valuable offerings. They also wanted to be able to sell more products and services. And this didn’t necessarily occur.
Why? Because, as it turned out, the real buyers (meaning, the decision-makers who controlled budgets and consideration of bigger-ticket items) were not being kept up at night by the problems for which the solutions were being designed and offered. They were concerned, of course—but they appointed others to address those problems. They worked on big-picture business questions, like profitability and accountability and efficiency. The “solutions” fit into these buckets, but they were solutions only in the micro sense of the word. They weren’t SOLUTIONS.
This insight led me to develop a process for structuring solutions that are focused on customer value.
The one potential obstacle, and for many organizations it’s a huge one, is that in order to do this well you have to know what’s important to the customer. I do not say this lightly or ironically. You have to either have data that suggests what customers want or need, or a hypothesis that you have something exceptional that they’re going to crave when they experience it.
By this I don’t mean “a commerce application that serves up related content as additional purchase options.” (I have intentionally chosen for this example something that has long been an industry standard—but at the time I started working on this idea it was new and very exciting.) This is surely something that customers would buy, and they did. Hard-working web developers and systems integrators did. But CTOs, CIOs and CMOs (i.e., the ones with the deeper pockets, if not the broader visions) were buying “an online commerce system that collects data on items viewed and sold, automatically cross-sells based on viewer/buyer preferences, and integrates with inventory management systems to create an efficient, state-of-the-art customer experience both on- and offline.” All this to say, they were interested in the big picture: data, cross-selling, integration, and a seamless customer experience.
How can you anticipate what is preoccupying your buyer? Read analyst reports, listen to your existing customers, talk to prospective customers, follow the trade press in your industry.
Now, assuming that you have some idea of the big picture, start by articulating it. On the first chart below, the big picture is called SOLUTION/VALUE. Most organizations, and businesses in particular, have at least one. Boutique firms may have only one. That’s fine.
Now, consider all of the kinds of things that your organization does or has at its disposal: widgets, programs, whatever. These are at the bottom of the chart. They are called ACTIVITIES.
In theory, these ACTIVITIES combine in various forms to create the middle tier, which are the CAPABILITIES. For example, Commerce would be a capability, as would Data Management.
Let’s pause and note here that some companies excel at selling their CAPABILITIES. There is a lot of money to be made at this level. It’s just not necessarily the level at which one creates relationships—that’s the SOLUTION/VALUE level. The math usually works out to suggest that one has to sell a lot of CAPABILITIES relative to SOLUTION/VALUEs. That’s more than sufficient for a lot of companies.
However, if once you look at the CAPABILITIES you notice that you can also combined them in various forms to create SOLUTIONS, just as you combined the ACTIVITIES to create CAPABILITIES, then you have something important and useful—and, in general, far more potentially profitable, to discuss with a client/customer.
Also, should you find that you have ACTIVITIES and CAPABILITIES that are being utilized a great deal, you have some data about how and where to invest (and price your services). On the other hand, if you have some that aren’t being applied very much, this exercise gives you the opportunity to reevaluate their relevance. You might think about new ways to utilize them, or sell them off, or discontinue them.
This is admittedly a bit abstract, so I’ve created an extremely simplified example that might apply to a boutique consultancy, or be a section of the chart of a large financial services organization (in which case “Wealth Management” might be in the CAPABILITIES row). Please note that this chart is EXTREMELY simplified; otherwise, it would be largely illegible. The chart does not begin to reflect the reality of the complex world of wealth management, and the combinations may be arguable. But the idea is to be able to see the combinations and permutations that create the “Wealth Management” solution.
A note: I created this blog as a vehicle to share my ideas and insights from my work. For this exercise I feel strongly that organizations need professional guidance. Outside perspective is really important, as is the capability to articulate the value message from the outside in. I don’t love to promote myself, but this is the core of my expertise. I have worked with many organizations, particularly in service industries, to develop solutions frameworks like this one. Each in its own way has led to something new for the organization.
I would be happy and honored to assist you should this be of interest.
Copyright (C) 2013 Carol R. Trager. All rights reserved.
Copyright (C) 2013 Carol R. Trager. All rights reserved.
