Archive for the ‘Business & Management’ category

The Ukraine War Showcases Value Destruction and Learning From It

May 2, 2022

Not one of us will disagree that there has been value destruction for countries, for people, for systems and so on during the Russia-Ukraine war.

Most of us look at the actual value destruction during the war. Very few look at the value destruction that led up to the war, and will continue after the war.

The value destruction was caused partly by:

  1. The desire of two super powers to become stronger
  2. The positioning and posturing before the war
  3. The lack of understanding of each other’s thoughts, needs and psyches. Above all a real desire to avoid war did not exist.

To avoid these wars, we have to look at the defensive (value creation) rather than the offensive and such posturing.

  • The desire of two super powers to become stronger

USA and Western Europe has been expanding into the hitherto Soviet territory or countries participating in the Warsaw pact (dissolved in 1991), and considered to be part of the Soviet Bloc. This included the Baltic states, Czechoslovak, Hungary, Poland, Rumania, Bulgaria, Albania and the Balkan states including Croatia and Montenegro, to name a few. Many, after the split up of the Soviet Union in December 1991, were recognised by the USA such as Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Armenia and Kyrgyzstan. The Baltic states were the first to move away from Russia. Many have become members of NATO including Poland.

Wiki says: Several disputed states with varying degrees of recognition exist within the territory of the former Soviet Union: Transnistria in eastern Moldova, Abkhazia and South Ossetia in northern Georgia and Artsakh in southwestern Azerbaijan. Since 2014, the Donetsk People’s Republic and Luhansk People’s Republic in far eastern Ukraine have claimed independence. All of these unrecognized states except Artsakh depend on Russian armed support and financial aid. Artsakh is integrated to Armenia at a de-facto level, which also maintains close cooperation with Russia. Prior to its annexation to Russia in March 2014, which is not recognized by most countries, Crimea briefly declared itself an independent state.

NATO had 12 founding countries. Today there are 30 countries as part of NATO. New entrants are Hungary (1999), Czech Republic (1999), Poland (1999), Slovakia (2004), Romania (2004). Slovenia (2004), Bulgaria (2004), Estonia (2004), Latvia (2004), Lithuania (2004), Albania (2009), Croatia (2009), Montenegro (2017), North Macedonia (2020). Turkey (1952) was an early entrant. The growth of NATO occurred majorly after the collapse of the Soviet Bloc.

You can see why Russia would become nervous. The Baltic states bordered Russia. Hungary. Poland and Romania bordered Belarus or Ukraine. Ukraine could have become the next NATO country adding to the perceived threat to the Soviet Union.

Would USA tolerate Mexico joining a Russia coalition? A communist Cuba was perceived as a major threat to the US.

Russia, has therefore been trying to control Ukraine, who was leaning towards the West and even conquer it as it did Crimea. It continues its bullying tactics, as it fights with Georgia, and postures against Finland.

In fact, short of annexing Ukraine, Russia wants to close Ukraine’s access to seaports and have Eastern Ukraine move into Russia at the very least.

  • The positioning and posturing before the war

Both the West and Russia, tried to show their independence and that they could withstand non-war moves by the other. They flexed their muscles much like kids who say “my father is stronger than yours”. Zelensky has proved to be a hero in spite of causing pain and countless tragedies for his country via Putin, who in his desire to have an ascendant Soviet state has put aside concern for human suffering and other damage he is causing. He has caused havoc with the global system.

USA and the West challenged Putin to war, while pretending to seek peace and threatened with a widening NATO and sanctions. Putin had also joined the peace wagon while openly threatening Ukraine and telling them not to join NATO. Today, Putin is putting his own sanctions, cutting off gas supply to Poland and Bulgaria!

All this will change the world’s power balance and well-established precedents and systems in the world: the dollar, the trading system, the alignment and re alignment of nations, a change in energy supply, transportation, to name a few.

  • The lack of understanding of each other’s thoughts, needs and psyche.

This perhaps is the worst lapse. In spewing rhetoric, countries tend to believe their own words and beliefs (what I’d like to see), and even look at the other as they would like to think and ignore reality. Think tanks are most guilty of this. Honest assessments are parked as “never will happen” etc. I have seen this on China. Around 2000, I was on an Indo US think tank conference. The American kept saying China will never be a super power. They stated that China does not have their own technology and steals technology. It was so much wishful thinking. That is what they would have liked to see and therefore have started to believe.

The West, Ukraine and Russia did not truly want to prevent escalation. It is almost as a proxy war between NATO and Russia. USA has been planning something like this from 2014 when Hillary Clinton spent time in Ukraine (maybe all this emboldened Zelensky). Today, it appears that Ukraine may follow how Russia allowed Napoleon and Germany to enter, but eventually weakened them and threw them out.

Do read Never by Ken Follett to see how the fallout of not understanding each other can cause catastrophic results.

Therefore, do not view everything like a chess game, moves, countermoves, obfuscation, deceit etc. As I said earlier, to avoid these wars we have to look at the defensive (value creation) rather than the offensive and posturing. We have to go out of the way to understand the others psyche, pander to it and build a relationship. Avoiding war is creating value, and so we have to do this.

India can start with China and build a broader understanding with it and of each other, each other’s needs, the psyche, the imponderables such as the path to internal power (pandering to voters or ensuring the military remains in your control etc). Ensure more open dialogs, start Track II and other means to move forward so that reliable and credible channels are opened to prevent war.

Value has been created for Russia by doubling its fossil fuel revenues. Value has been created for China as more Americans view it as a competitor and not an enemy Can we prevent the primacy of greed, selfishness, power and money? Do we want a bipolar or a unipolar world? Do we want to destroy value or create value?

Best, 
 Gautam Mahajan, President, Customer Value FoundationFounder Editor, Journal of Creating Value jcv.sagepub.com
New Delhi 110065 +91 98100 60368
mahajan@customervaluefoundation.com
http://www.customervaluefoundation.com
Twitter @ValueCreationJ
Blogs: https://customervaluefoundation.wordpress.com/
Author of Value CreationTotal Customer Value ManagementCustomer Value InvestmentHow Creating Customer Value Makes you a Great ExecutiveThe Value ImperativeValue Dominant LogicCustomer Value Starvation can Kill
Come to the Fifth Global Conference on Creating Value, September 2-4, 2022 at Japan
Join the Creating Value Alliance at creatingvalue.co

Technology as a Potential Value Destroyer

April 18, 2022

Technology is ubiquitous. It dangles many advantages such as costs, speed, fewer human interventions etc. Technology is taking over the CEO’s thinking, and influencing him/her.

Take for example, bank CEOs. However, in adopting technology, they should not forget that they are first and foremost bankers and not technologists; that they should not be lured by technology to think technology first, but must think of banking, customers, partners, delivery chains and society first. Stakeholders and banking must come over technology. Fundamental thinking is important. i.e., a focus on banking. Then technology becomes a slave and not the driver of their banking business. Technology can become a value destroyer when CEOs think they are running technology companies. This thinking has to be avoided, and banking traditional thinking must endure, using technology as a tool.

Bill Winters, CEO of Standard Chartered says that technology is delivering more products and that they have to be sure to understand the product is a banking product and not technology. If CEOs do not understand the banking product, technology cannot deliver the right solution.

Technology has become a business disruptor, giving rise to opportunities for many banks and start-ups. Artificial intelligence is also becoming a core function of technology, all potential value creators. Using Fintech and 3rd party software is often attractive for banks for apps, products etc. Blockchains, biometrics, cloud banking, chatbots and zero trust systems, are all being used now.

Technology inputs are dependent on human intervention, and often these technological wizards do not understand banking, customers, context etc. For example, my neighbourhood club requires a very complex login password, and I wonder why? Are the family jewels at risk? But the designer is not concerned, and has put in a most difficult to crack criterion when not needed. Or he decides your phone number cannot be used for more than 3 or 4 services, requiring you to get a second phone!

Focusing on your core areas and zero trust may be a starting point for managing technology.

Unfortunately, today, people are forgetting that products are meant for customers, and that the customer focus is more important than the product focus and definitely more than the technology focus.

Bill Winters focuses on customer convenience more than all the other factors a customer may value such as the product and understanding it and its cost, the relationship, the feeling of safety and not being taken for a ride.

Customers may not care for technology, unless the technology creates value for them, other than just a do-it-yourself solution. Very often net banking is much more cumbersome than paying cash, But paying cash requires people to get the cash, and keep it safely, and these trade-offs must be understood. On the other hand, paying of bills automatically, getting on line services for entering nominations, to transferring funds, for understanding financial products to using them are useful results of technology.
Value disruption with technology can include

  • Technology and Service Interruptions. These include service interruptions physically for customers visiting banks
  • Security and Identity theft Concerns. …
  • Limitations on Deposits.
  • Convenient but Not Always Faster. …
  • Lack of Personal Banker Relationship.

The scope of service is limited to what is on the menu and nothing else.

I deal with the State Bank of India and love the human interaction, and whenever there is something on the online systems I do not understand or do not work I get help from them. I have the best of both worlds! Unfortunately, two days ago at the Friends Colony Branch in Delhi I had an unpleasant experience, because technology was not working, and I needed human intervention which was so surly and reluctant. The combination of bad service and poor technology is the worst!

Big Technology is asking regulators for a level playing field with traditional banks, a level playing field required for fintechs, big technology and banks. Sure, big technology can improve efficiency and come up with new ideas. (source, Bill Skinner’s blog)

The full Regulator’s report can be found here, with the key takeaways being:

The introduction of the report begins: 

Technology firms such as Alibaba, Amazon, Facebook, Google and Tencent have grown rapidly over the last two decades. The business model of these “big techs” rests on enabling direct interactions among a large number of users. An essential by-product of their business is the large stock of user data which are utilised as input to offer a range of services that exploit natural network effects, generating further user activity. Increased user activity then completes the circle, as it generates yet more data.

Building on the advantages of the reinforcing nature of the data-network-activities loop, some big techs have ventured into financial services, including payments, money management, insurance and lending. As yet, financial services are only a small part of their business globally. But given their size and customer reach, big techs’ entry into finance has the potential to spark rapid change in the industry. It offers many potential benefits. Big techs’ low-cost structure business can easily be scaled up to provide basic financial services, especially in places where a large part of the population remains unbanked. Using big data and analysis of the network structure in their established platforms, big techs can assess the riskiness of borrowers, reducing the need for collateral to assure repayment. As such, big techs stand to enhance the efficiency of financial services provision, promote financial inclusion and allow associated gains in economic activity.

At the same time, big techs’ entry into finance introduces new elements in the risk-benefit balance. Some are old issues of financial stability and consumer protection in new settings. In some settings, such as the payment system, big techs have the potential to loom large very quickly as systemically relevant financial institutions. Given the importance of the financial system as an essential public infrastructure, the activities of big techs are a matter of broader public interest that goes beyond the immediate circle of their users and stakeholders.

There are also important new and unfamiliar challenges that extend beyond the realm of financial regulation as traditionally conceived. Big techs have the potential to become dominant through the advantages afforded by the data-network-activities loop, raising competition and data privacy issues. Public policy needs to build on a more comprehensive approach that draws on financial regulation, competition policy and data privacy regulation. The aim should be to respond to big techs’ entry into financial services so as to benefit from the gains while limiting the risks. As the operations of big techs straddle regulatory perimeters and geographical borders, coordination among authorities – national and international – is crucial.

And ends with a call to change how firms are regulated.
Traditionally, financial regulation is aimed at ensuring the solvency of individual financial institutions and the soundness of the financial system as a whole. It also incorporates consumer protection goals. The policy instruments used to achieve these goals are well understood, ranging from capital and liquidity requirements in the case of banks to the regulation of conduct for consumer protection. When big techs’ activity falls squarely within the scope of traditional financial regulation, the same principles should apply to them.
However, two additional features make the formulation of the policy response more challenging for big techs. First, big techs’ activity in finance may warrant a more comprehensive approach that encompasses not only financial regulation but also competition and data privacy objectives. Second, even when the policy goals are well articulated, the specific policy tools should actually be shown to promote those objectives. This link between ends and means should not be taken for granted. This is because the mapping between policy tools and the ultimate welfare outcomes is more complex in the case of big techs. In particular, the policy tools that are aimed at traditional financial regulation objectives may also impinge on competition and data privacy objectives, and vice versa. These interactions introduce potentially complex trade-offs that do not figure in traditional financial regulation.

You decide if technology is a value creator or a value destroyer for banks.

On another note, where value creation for one can be value destruction for another:

Putin must think his aggression in Ukraine has value creation potential for him and Russia, but it is a value destroyer for Ukraine, its people and the rest of the world.

Read more at:
https://cio.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/corporate-news/bank-ceos-now-think-they-are-running-tech-companies-bill-winters-ceo-standard-chartered/90291089

Founder Editor, Journal of Creating Value jcv.sagepub.com
New Delhi 110065 +91 98100 60368
mahajan@customervaluefoundation.com
http://www.customervaluefoundation.com
Twitter @ValueCreationJ
Blogs: https://customervaluefoundation.wordpress.com/
Author of Value CreationTotal Customer Value ManagementCustomer Value InvestmentHow Creating Customer Value Makes you a Great ExecutiveThe Value ImperativeValue Dominant LogicCustomer Value Starvation can Kill
Come to the Fifth Global Conference on Creating Value, September 2-4, 2022 at Japan
Join the Creating Value Alliance at creatingvalue.co

How Economics Creates Value

March 29, 2022

Hunter Hastings, General Partner, Bialla Venture Partners

Economics is the study of value creation.

This might come as a surprise to businesspeople (even including some who studied economics at University or Business School) who view economics as irrelevant or unhelpful.

Carl Menger, a professor at the University of Vienna, published his Principles Of Economics in 1871. This breakthrough book solved the problem of value in economics once and for all. Prior to the publication, economists had struggled with defining and understanding value. It had been thought that value was determined by the amount of resources that were inputs to a good or service (and this thinking led to the destructive labor theory of value that propelled Marxism). Menger established that value is subjective – it is a perception of, and entirely determined by, the consumer or end-user of the good or service.

Value is the importance allocated to a good or service by an individual in proportion to its perceived ability to meet a need of theirs. Value is a perception, an emotion, a felt experience. It’s not measurable in cardinal numbers. We can never determine that an apple is 2X or 3X or 4X as valuable to a person as a donut, or a CRM system is twice as valuable as a server farm.

People can, however, ordinally rank their needs: need A is more important to me (right now, in my current context, with my current knowledge) than need B, so with scarce resources, I’ll attend to Need A first before I attend to Need B. This is revealed by behavior (which good or service is chosen) rather than by stated intent (like answering a survey). Economics is a deductive science. Our data is human behavior, from which we logically deduce value rankings, intent, and emotion.

All economic phenomena and outcomes are determined by the individual actions of single human agents, interacting, and exchanging value in systems we call markets. This humanistic approach to the economics of value is the core of economics. It’s a human science.

Economics was diverted from its human course in the 20th Century. First, economics became a science of aggregates instead of people. Governments seized on economics to attempt to manage aggregate measures such as GDP and the total level of employment. Human economics became government economics. Partly as a consequence, and partly due to “physics envy”, economics became mathematicised. Academic economics departments developed modeling: the representation of aggregates as mathematical symbols acting on each other in equations to generate predictions about the future state of the aggregates.

Business schools were infected by this redirection of economics to teach business in mathematical terms of prediction and control: strategy and planning as exercises in spreadsheet management and forecasting.

This diversion has redirected attention away from the humanism of economics, but it has not replaced it. Carl Menger’s economics continues to inform business about how to create value.  

  • Value is realized by the customer; value is a feeling, and it can only be experienced by a customer.
  • Value is a learning process. The customer first identifies potential value (will this offering be valuable to me or not?); then appraises relative value (in comparison to alternatives); then exchange value (how much money would I part with to acquire this offering?); then value-in-use (did the offering keep its functional promise?); and ultimately assesses the value experience after-the-fact.
  • The customer initiates the value process through the expression of dissatisfaction with the status quo. It is the singular drive of customers to always want better. No hierarchy of customer needs is ever completely fulfilled forever (otherwise no economic activity would take place).
  • The co-creation force on the producer side is entrepreneurship. Menger identified entrepreneurship as the function of identifying customers’ unmet needs through empathic diagnosis – an entrepreneur is like an economic doctor – and imagining future arrangements in which the need can be met. The entrepreneur combines and recombines available resources in new ways in order to make a new value proposition to the customer, that they may or may not value. There is risk and uncertainty in entrepreneurship.
  • Customers take the lead in determining value and the signal they send is through buying or not buying. Firms are successful when customers buy at a price that is greater than the all-in cost to produce, and they grow when more customers buy and repeat.
  • Since value is a process, customers are always learning what to want, and value is always changing. Since entrepreneurship is rivalrous, firms compete to serve customers in the best, most value-generating way, teaching them what they can want, and competition is a positive force for good.

The most successful firms are those that listen best, to pick up signals of dissatisfaction and trends in the market towards new value types; and those who adapt best and fastest to the rates of change and to the feedback loops from consumers as they assess their value experience in the final phase of the value learning cycle. Constant change in value is the norm.

Menger also demonstrated that the worth of any asset on the production side of the producer-consumer exchange is imputed from the subjective value of the final good to a customer. The land on which the factory is built, the buildings and machines, the trucks and transportation, the people who work there, including the accountants and HR personnel, have economic value only as a reflection of the value attached to the final product by the end-user. Firms can assess the economic worth of their supply chain, and every element in it, only in reference to customer value. In the famous example, Blockbuster’s asset value shrank to virtually nothing once the customer’s feelings about subjective value shifted from the in-store experience at Blockbuster to the in-home streaming experience of Netflix.

The economics of value are the ultimate guide to business success.

Leaders are advised to lead, and lead from the front. However often this can be counterproductive and either destroy value or most certainly reduce value.

Let us give examples:

If you truly wish to have your people at the bottom of the pyramid or the frontline to really fire on all cylinders and take charge of the customer or their jobs, the leader should get out of the way and get these people to tell then what should be done and what they would like to do. Your role is to assure them of your support. True examples are the Customer Centric Circles, or Customer Circles for short (See my book Customer Value Investment. These Circles comprise of and are run by the front-line people to decide what to do for the customer. The leaders just supply support and listen. Listening and being supportive both create value.

These leaders just do not create a good business; they create other leaders who collectively build a better business.

Delegating makes you understand you cannot do everything yourself. We must overcome the feeling we can do things better than others! Not leading sometimes teaches you to create other leaders to support you. This is a way or developing and coaching others. It lets you empower and enable people, while creating autonomy and value.

Consultants have to learn to do this. They cannot be seen as leaders but must effect the change they suggest and get people to buy in. They have to remain on the side. They have to let others lead.

Examples at Godrej, Tatas, Coromandel etc. are shown in my books, Total Customer Value Management, Customer Value Investment. Do look them up.

The military is a classic example of when leaders do not lead. The military is a top-down organisation where soldiers and juniors are taught to be disciplined, to follow orders, not to question but to do.

During wars, often these troops are led by juniors, and not by the top and these people have to take charge and make things happen, not only to not being killed but to kill (to put it crudely). And they do this well and often come out with flying colours.
Thus, leaders must know when to let others run the show, while not giving up control. They must learn to listen, to keep out of the way, but their presence remains in their support. They must learn when to speak and when to listen.

Good leaders don’t lead; they let others lead. They can even become followers. And apart from being good followers they learn to create better followers who can create value.
Those followers that have to lead under these circumstances go from being powerless and ineffective to becoming effective. Take the example of an executive in administration who has got so used to following orders. He feels powerless. Making him lead causes him to take charge and become effective. This is a great way to change the thinking that change can only happen from the leader. People soon learn that they can be change makers and suggest and incorporate better way to do things. This is creating value, that is going beyond your expected performance and improving things. This means also going beyond functional thinking. People become leaders in their own sphere of influence and do not always wait to be told what to do.

People can examine their purpose and the purpose of the organisation. They learn to make connections to get the job done.

We are finding that many membership organisations do not have elected or other leaders, and no hierarchy. Each member can choose to take a leadership role is what interests him, otherwise they remain followers. Taking up the leadership mantle for a specific task and doing the hard work makes people better leaders. Leadership of this sort starts from the heart.
Sometimes people do not wish to lead and become leaders. This could be because they are afraid of losing interpersonal relations, or have an image risk. Also, some do not want to assume a blame risk. So, they prefer not to lead.

Leaders create value for such people by letting them lead under their guidance, and essentially by keeping out of the way. Leaders, then, create value for these people.
Leaders should know when to lead from the front, and when to play second fiddle or be out of the way. Good leaders create value in many ways where they are not leading from the front.

Any comments?

Best,

Gautam Mahajan, President, Customer Value Foundation
Founder Editor, Journal of Creating Value jcv.sagepub.com
New Delhi 110065 +91 98100 60368
mahajan@customervaluefoundation.com
http://www.customervaluefoundation.com
Twitter @ValueCreationJ
Blogs: https://customervaluefoundation.wordpress.com/
Author of Value CreationTotal Customer Value ManagementCustomer Value InvestmentHow Creating Customer Value Makes you a Great ExecutiveThe Value ImperativeValue Dominant LogicCustomer Value Starvation can Kill
Come to the Fifth Global Conference on Creating Value, September 2-4, 2022 at Japan
Join the Creating Value Alliance at creatingvalue.co

How SDL (Service Dominant Logic) and VDL (Value Dominant Logic) Overlap in Business

March 20, 2022

By Gautam Mahajan, gautam.mahajan@gmail.com

Christian Kowalkowski wrote an article “What does a service-dominant logic really mean for manufacturing firms?”, 2010, CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology, (3), 4, 285-292.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cirpj.2011.01.003

According to him the new purpose of a firm is Creating Value.

Kowalkowski wrote that SDL helps repurpose a firm to co-creation of value. He goes on to state that If value creation is the focus, the traditional distinction between goods and services is not relevant. I am not sure this is what SDL has in mind as there is a clear distinction between goods and services. The function of goods is therefore to deliver and be part of service. Kowalkowski is saying if the goal is creating value, what does it matter whether goods create value or service?

Woodruff and Flint in “Marketing’s Service Dominant Logic and Customer Value” (see https://books.google.co.in/books?hl=en&lr=&id=JczfBQAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA183&dq=value+dominant+logic&ots=Qo_Byyn045&sig=3XzGLGvwqNwPPTFFJpRbq37xe8c#v=onepage&q&f=false) are saying similar things. They state that in at least 3 points, Vargo and Lusch have used the word value many times because they believe the proposed paradigm shift of SDL has value as an end goal. Woodruff and Flint go onto state that for SDL to succeed, a greater understanding of customer value is essential.

These are seen in SDL’s foundation premises 1 (specialised skills have a value), 6 (co-creation of value by customer and service provider) and 8 (where a supplier is not only doing things for a customer but working with the customer to create value) all relate to value and why value is considered important. Also, their premises 10 and 11 relate to value. Premise 10, Value is always uniquely and phenomenologically determined by the beneficiary; and Premise 11, Value cocreation is coordinated through actor-generated institutions and institutional arrangements.

Woodruff and Flint go further to suggest that marketing is deficient in creating customer value. This is one reason for my talking about Value Dominant Logic to get business to focus on value creation.

While I disagree with the authors definition of value, in business apart from doing good, value is to enhance the worth of a product, service, person or institution, where worth is generally the benefits less costs or sacrifice.

In November, 2019, Hunter Hastings et al wrote an article, ‘Towards a Value Dominant Logic of Marketing”. (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337109161_Towards_A_Value-Dominant_Logic_of_Marketing)

Their paper focuses on marketing alone and compares Value Dominant Logic with SDL. My work on Value Dominant Logic (I wrote my article on Value Dominant Logic in 2017 (https://doi.org/10.1177/2394964317730655) and a book in 2018,

Value Dominant Logic, Helping Individuals and Their Companies to Succeed (Routledge, Taylor and Francis, 2018)) predates Hastings et al’s articles is more general though marketing, customers etc are also discussed in detail.
Hastings et al concluded that VDL was a powerful idea and that it is founded in solid economic thinking and can be applied to any kind of business.

I go beyond: that Value preservation, avoiding Customer Value Starvation shown in my book Customer Value Starvation can Kill, and value destruction are important aspects to keep in mind.

My take is more from a business angle than just from a firm’s viewpoint on how they could use SDL. I think the strategy of some firms has moved from selling goods and products to selling a service, which includes the product. Great examples are airline engine manufacturers not selling engines, but selling a service which includes the use of the goods, and taking care of the engine, which makes it much more efficient for the engine manufacturer than for the customer were they only to buy the engine.

This is happening in services such as lifts or elevators, cleaning systems etc. Airbnb provides a service, so does Uber. Here services have become more tangible rather than intangible. Thus the knowledge of the service provider is bundled with the goods.

Where, then does VDL fit in? The goal of all firms is to create value. The goal of SDL is value co-creation. Thus, there is no real mismatch in objectives.

Value Dominant Logic is focused on changing mind sets to create value. The role of an executive is to create value and not just be good performers in their jobs. S/he has to go beyond performance not only in action but also in thought process. People who reach the top do so by being seen as value creators.

Value creation is all about doing good and improving the well being of society, people, businesses, environment, partners, employees, customers and shareholders among others.

VDL emphasises that value extraction can only follow if you create value. It is important to create value for all stakeholders who in turn will create value for you. If stakeholders create more value for you, than you for them, then a positive value or a form of profit is created for you.

In short, you can only create so much value for yourself, more value coming from those you create value for. Thus, the importance of creating value for others. Businesses that understand this tend to create more value for themselves because they focus on creating value for others such as their stakeholders.

Businesses will sell a service (which includes their skills and knowledge) when it creates more value for them. If they learn to use SDL to co-create more value, they will do so.

This has been shown by my examples earlier, and customers and suppliers co-create value for themselves by using service.

Value Dominant Logic goes one step further. It goes beyond the process to mindset changes within managers and companies.    

Best,

Gautam Mahajan, President, Customer Value Foundation
Founder Editor, Journal of Creating Value jcv.sagepub.com
New Delhi 110065 +91 98100 60368
mahajan@customervaluefoundation.com
http://www.customervaluefoundation.com
Twitter @ValueCreationJ
Blogs: https://customervaluefoundation.wordpress.com/
Author of Value CreationTotal Customer Value ManagementCustomer Value InvestmentHow Creating Customer Value Makes you a Great ExecutiveThe Value ImperativeValue Dominant LogicCustomer Value Starvation can Kill
Come to the Fifth Global Conference on Creating Value, September 2-4, 2022 at Japan
Join the Creating Value Alliance at creatingvalue.co

To Create More Value, Leaders Should Not Always Lead

February 28, 2022

By Gautam Mahajan, gautam.mahajan@gmail.com

Leaders are advised to lead, and lead from the front. However often this can be counterproductive and either destroy value or most certainly reduce value.

Let us give examples:

If you truly wish to have your people at the bottom of the pyramid or the frontline to really fire on all cylinders and take charge of the customer or their jobs, the leader should get out of the way and get these people to tell then what should be done and what they would like to do. Your role is to assure them of your support. True examples are the Customer Centric Circles, or Customer Circles for short (See my book Customer Value Investment. These Circles comprise of and are run by the front-line people to decide what to do for the customer. The leaders just supply support and listen. Listening and being supportive both create value.

These leaders just do not create a good business, they create other leaders who collectively build a better business.

Delegating makes you understand you cannot do everything yourself. Not leading sometimes teaches you to create other leaders to support you. This is a way or developing and coaching others. It lets you empower and enable people, while creating autonomy and value.

Consultants have to learn to do this. They cannot be seen as leaders but must effect the change they suggest and get people to buy in. They have to let others lead.

Examples at Godrej, Tatas, Coromandel etc. are shown in my books, Total Customer Value ManagementCustomer Value Investment. Do look them up.

The military is a classic example of when leaders do not lead. The military is a top-down organisation where soldiers and juniors are taught to be disciplined, to follow orders, not to question but to do.

During wars, often these troops are led by juniors, and not by the top and these people have to take charge and make things happen, not only to not being killed but to kill (to put it crudely). And they do this well and often come out with flying colours.

Thus, leaders must know when to let others run the show, while not giving up control. They must learn to listen, to keep out of the way, but their presence remains in their support.

Good leaders don’t lead; they let others lead. They can even become followers. And apart from being good followers they learn to create better followers who can create value.

Those followers that have to lead under these circumstances go from being powerless and ineffective to becoming effective. Take the example of an executive in administration who has got so used to following orders. He feels powerless. Making him lead causes him to take charge and become effective. This is a great way to change the thinking that change can only happen from the leader. People soon learn that they can be change makers and suggest and incorporate better way to do things. This is creating value, that is going beyond your expected performance and improving things. This means also going beyond functional thinking. People become leaders in their own sphere of influence and do not always wait to be told what to do.

People can examine their purpose and the purpose of the organisation. They learn to make connections to get the job done.

We are finding that many membership organisations do not have elected or other leaders, and no hierarchy. Each member can choose to take a leadership role is what interests him, otherwise they remain followers. Taking up the leadership mantle for a specific task and doing the hard work makes people better leaders. Leadership of this sort starts from the heart.

Sometimes people do not wish to lead and become leaders. This could be because they are afraid of losing interpersonal relations, or have an image risk. Also, some do not want to assume a blame risk. So, they prefer not to lead.

Leaders create value for such people by letting them lead under their guidance, and essentially by keeping out of the way. Leaders, then, create value for these people

Leaders should know when to lead from the front, and when to play second fiddle or be out of the way. Good leaders create value in many ways where they are not leading from the front.

Any comments?

Best,

Gautam Mahajan, President, Customer Value Foundation
Founder Editor, Journal of Creating Value jcv.sagepub.com
New Delhi 110065 +91 98100 60368
mahajan@customervaluefoundation.com
http://www.customervaluefoundation.com
Twitter @ValueCreationJ
Blogs: https://customervaluefoundation.wordpress.com/
Author of Value CreationTotal Customer Value ManagementCustomer Value InvestmentHow Creating Customer Value Makes you a Great ExecutiveThe Value ImperativeValue Dominant LogicCustomer Value Starvation can Kill
Come to the Fifth Global Conference on Creating Value, September 2-4, 2022 at Japan
Join the Creating Value Alliance at creatingvalue.co

Whose Value is Top of Mind?

February 4, 2022

By Lynn Hunsaker

Customer value often refers to benefits a company receives from a customer, chiefly revenue, and secondarily referrals. We can call this company-oriented value. Alternatively, customer value refers to a brand’s value proposition to customers, or for the value customers receive relative to price. We can call this customer-oriented value.

Company-oriented value is the basis for evaluating executives and companies. So naturally, this perspective is top-of-mind for most companies. Accordingly, company-oriented value is top-of-mind for most groups within a company. This is evident when contact centers are encouraged to become revenue centers. It stands out in customer journey maps that emphasize buying, voice of the customer programs that focus on customer recommendations, and chief customer officers who double as revenue or marketing officers. It’s reflected through loyalty and customer success efforts and CRM discussions where the “R” is clearly for Revenue strength, not Relationship strength. It’s shown through strategy, assignments, policy, design, and continual improvement that aren’t based on customer insights. It’s apparent in pricing that favors new customers and bonuses emphasizing revenue growth.

What happens when company-oriented value is top of mind? Decisions and handoffs are based on industry norms, beating competitors, and reaping immediate gains. Ironically, costs skyrocket with this approach, as gaps widen between what’s promised versus delivered. Gaps are manifest by field-found defects and contact center call volume, returned materials, negative word-of-mouth, sales cycle delays, and significant enticements to buy and rebuy. It’s an expensive way to run a business!

Why aren’t investors and industry analysts tracking this waste? Think of the squandered value that could otherwise fuel much higher growth.

Signs of customer-oriented value are products, services, processes, and policies that prevent issues for customers. This means gaps between what’s promised versus delivered are minimal or non-existent. Customer-oriented value is apparent when trust and transparency internally are reflected externally. Company leaders who demonstrate strong trust in their delegation and policies are the impetus for strong customer trust of their companies. Internal accountability is important to the strength of internal trust. When accountability is strong internally – in people, processes, policies, and technologies collectively – there is less need for external policies catering to the lowest common denominator of customer behavior, because mutual respect becomes part of your brand essence.

What happens when customer-oriented value is top-of-mind? Costs are significantly reduced with severe declines in field-found defects, contact center volume, returned materials, negative word-of-mouth, sales cycle delays, and enticements to buy and rebuy. Precious resources that would have otherwise been forever dedicated to these remedial investments are freed-up perpetually for higher value opportunities.

This phenomenon is what I call customer experience annuities. Furthermore, revenue growth accelerates through greater positive word-of-mouth, faster sales cycles, and marketing that’s balanced across the end-to-end customer life cycle. A study by the London School of Economics indicates a 3-to-1 increase in revenue by reducing negative word-of-mouth versus increasing positive word-of-mouth. As you remove the pebble from your customer’s shoe, their attention and abilities are freed-up to do more, and in turn, do more with your brand. Imagine the potential when you’re simultaneously reducing negative word-of-mouth and increasing positive word-of-mouth. This is the recipe for highest organic profitability and revenue growth.

If investors and industry analysts monitored customer experience annuities as an indicator of on-going profit growth, imagine how companies and customers would benefit. Similarly, if customer lifetime value (cumulative revenue minus cost for the duration of a customer’s relationship with your brand) became prominent in business evaluations, imagine how managers’ mind-sets would shift. Perhaps the most stimulating index would be the customer value quotient. This index tallies transactions where your value proposition was delivered without creating an issue for customers, divided by transactions where the value proposition was compromised. A compromise is any instance where a preventable customer issue were generated. This index reminds managers that closing the gap between what’s promised versus delivered is the recipe for customer experience excellence, retention, and lifetime value. It’s a vital key to employee retention and business growth.

How can you prevent issues for customers? First, identify your core-growth customers. This describes the type of customer that is most likely to increase spending with your brand, with lower cost to serve. Second, identify why this group of customers seeks the type of solution you provide. This is their intended outcome, also known as job-to-be-done. It’s the reason they “hire” your solution, and conversely, the reason they “fire” your solution. Third, make a crystal-clear description of this intended outcome your company’s North Star. Accordingly, your C-suite’s discussions, decisions, and actions are shaped primarily by this North Star. Likewise, as your whole company and its ecosystem adopt this North Star to guide their performance, they’re setup to anticipate customers’ reactions, differentiate their approach to satisfying customers’ intended outcomes, and deliver to customers’ expectations. This minimizes the gap between what’s promised versus delivered. It generates much higher value for customers, and in turn, it produces much higher value for employees, communities, and investors.

In conclusion, customer-oriented value is the horse and company-oriented value is the cart. The horse fuels the cart. Keep the horse before the cart, and you’ll go further and faster, fabulously.

Lynn Hunsaker, CCXP, RTP
ClearAction Continuum
Experience Leadership Community

Best,

Gautam Mahajan, President, Customer Value Foundation
Founder Editor, Journal of Creating Value jcv.sagepub.com
New Delhi 110065 +91 98100 60368
mahajan@customervaluefoundation.com
http://www.customervaluefoundation.com
Twitter @ValueCreationJ
Blogs: https://customervaluefoundation.wordpress.com/
Author of Value CreationTotal Customer Value ManagementCustomer Value InvestmentHow Creating Customer Value Makes you a Great ExecutiveThe Value ImperativeValue Dominant LogicCustomer Value Starvation can Kill
Come to the Fifth Global Conference on Creating Value, September 2-4, 2022 at Japan
Join the Creating Value Alliance at creatingvalue.co

Money and Power: Motivators of Conscious or Unconscious Value Destruction

January 25, 2022

A case of the blind leading the pack. 

Notice, I did not say a case of the blind leading the blind, because often the people being led are not so blind. Maybe they are intellectually honest, or believe in their purpose. If purpose is just a set of words, with no or little honesty behind the words, then how can it work? In the minds of many, how can there be a higher purpose, other than money and profit and power? Fortunately, through the pronouncements of the Business Round Table and Davos, that there is a higher purpose. Companies are starting to reshape their purpose. 

An example is the textile company Patagonia based in the US and as a benefit corporation has frequently supported social causes. The company often supported ideas from the social context in light of improving the life conditions of a society. It strives for being positive continues and also contrasts negative views; indeed, the CEO Gellert stated that the company decided to cut ties with a business owner who gave a platform to ‘anti-democratic conspiracy theorists’”. They state:

Our Reason For Being

At Patagonia, we appreciate that all life on earth is under threat of extinction. We aim to use the resources we have—our business, our investments, our voice and our imaginations—to do something about it. https://www.patagonia.com.au/pages/our-mission

Indeed, someone from National Grid stated “that it’s not good enough for the business to wear its values on its sleeve” and that “it’s not about just saying it, it’s about presenting the evidence to support it”.

I had written in October 2021 an article called, Destroying Value with Intellectual Dishonesty https://bit.ly/2XGX6rY.

Here I said that the main two motivators are money and power (or the pursuit of success to get power and money).

I do not mean to repeat myself but to give examples of intellectual dishonesty.

In today’s newspaper in India there was an article that 14 of the US’s most famous universities had formed a price cartel. Exactly what they are supposed to teach not to do! See Federal Lawsuit Alleges 16 Elite Universities Engaged In Price Fixing https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaeltnietzel/2022/01/10/federal-lawsuit-alleges-16-elite-universities-engaged-in-price-fixing/?sh=745f209673ad

Recently I came across someone who claims he is HBS approved for his process on creating value, and I found the process flawed and a poor understanding of the concept of value. How can HBS approve such things. Is it lack of knowledge of the reviewer? Or are there other factors leading to such approval.

Another person came to me and asked us to get certified by someone who has no true knowledge of value. Such people will snarl unwitting people paying to get a stamp from such places to advance their customer value programs. Here the blind is truly leading the blind. And such people get the approval of HBS, NYT, Forbes by editors with less knowledge but an eye to sellability, and readership. Another case of intellectual dishonesty.

Articles that are accurate, and do not mince words, but are not sellable are discarded by the press and they go their merry way instead of introspecting. They allow “false” news to seep in.

A very common example is companies measuring customer satisfaction. This is certainly a good starting point. But it is not good enough. When customer value measurements come along the managers, while recognising the superiority of customer value measurement do not go to their bosses and say, here is a better way, let’s change. Instead, they hid behind having past data. They forget if the customer satisfaction is not measured against competition, it becomes a case of measuring yourself against yourself and not your peers.

An example of intellectual dishonesty is to pass off lower-level people’s voices as the CEO’s voice in a survey, because the name of the game is getting more responses. The company doing the survey turns a blind eye to this, so as to show more responses.

Kids today are more aware of ecology and technology and often they can pull up their parents on things not being done right.

An example is that Diwali crackers which polluted were being stopped by kids getting awareness from schools and from social media. Such a purposeful change did not start at home. For years, the Government or society were not able to prevent the use of crackers.

This happens in companies, where the Board members rubber stamp the management instead of saying what they truly believe in.

May I suggest, we speak out against intellectual dishonesty, and maybe this will reduce even marginally and thereby create value.

Best,

Gautam Mahajan, President, Customer Value Foundation
Founder Editor, Journal of Creating Value jcv.sagepub.com
New Delhi 110065 +91 98100 60368
mahajan@customervaluefoundation.com
http://www.customervaluefoundation.com
Twitter @ValueCreationJ
Blogs: https://customervaluefoundation.wordpress.com/
Author of Value CreationTotal Customer Value ManagementCustomer Value InvestmentHow Creating Customer Value Makes you a Great ExecutiveThe Value ImperativeValue Dominant LogicCustomer Value Starvation can Kill
Come to the Fifth Global Conference on Creating Value, September 2-4, 2022 at Japan
Join the Creating Value Alliance at creatingvalue.co

What is Real Value?

January 10, 2022

Nothing can have Value without being an object of utility—-Karl Marx  Too many people latch on to the meaning of value someone famous has coined, such as Value requires to be an object of utility, according to Marx.

Utility can mean useful, helpful, effective, convenient etc.

Utility value is defined in many ways by different people mostly taken from Google: 

  • Value is how much a person would be willing to pay for a specific level of utility. So, value is equated to price in this example
  • It is a measure of satisfaction an individual gets from the consumption of the commodities. In other words, it is a measurement of usefulness that a consumer obtains from any good. A utility is a measure of how much one enjoys a movie, favourite food, or other goods. Here Value is equated to Benefits
  • Utility value is how the task relates to future goals. While students may not enjoy an activity, they may value a later reward or outcome it produces (Wigfield, 1994). The activity must be integral to their vision of their future, or it must be instrumental to their pursuit of other goals.
  • Utility and value, in economics, is the determination of the prices of goods and services.
  • To find total utility value, economists use the following basic total utility formula: TU = U1 + MU2 + MU3 … The total utility is equal to the sum of utils gained from each unit of consumption. In the equation, each unit of consumption is expected to have slightly less utility as more units are consumed.

Use value is also defined in Marxist terms by Wiki: 

Use value or value in use is a concept in classical political economy and Marxist economics. It refers to the tangible features of a commodity (a tradeable object) which can satisfy some human requirement, want or need, or which serves a useful purpose. In Karl Marx’s critique of political economy, any product has a labour-value and a use-value, and if it is traded as a commodity in markets, it additionally has an exchange value, most often expressed as a money-price. This of course, is flawed, because with automation, the labor content falls, or with low cost labor, the labor content is lower, implying the value is lower.

Use value is “real” value, and only labor can create it.

So, one can surmise that use value is a sub-set of utility. Utility is potential value.

As a matter of economics, scarcity is the source of all value, even if it is a combination of ‘manufactured’ scarcity via monopoly control and relative scarcity due to the costliness of extraction and the preferences of consumers.” According to Marx

Marx develops a theory of value in which labor plays a crucial role, but “simply claiming that labor is the source of value,” as Kevin D. Williamson does in his measured analysis of Marx’s work, “misses out the dialectical and historical dimensions of Marx’s argument.”

But what is value? Is it an economic term? Or is it price, or is it more than that?

Most people use value contextually, in the context or situation they are in. They see a car and ask what is its value? (Price? Usefulness, Utility?)

They see a dress and ask what is its value. The value is what they perceive it to be. The value is what the dress is worth to them. In use, in utility, in benefits in usefulness, in style, in getting compliments, in ease of taking care of…. So ultimately, value creates some benefits for you, but there is a cost to the benefit: What you pay for it, the effort in buying and trying out the dress, the convenience etc. So worth or value in the context of the dress is derived if the benefits in your estimate are greater than the cost as defined above.

That is why we are willing sometimes to buy online, because the cost may be lower than going to a store and spending time and effort. Avoiding the cost of going to the store and your time makes it worthwhile to buy on line, the benefits include saved effort, saved time, more convenience; the benefits are lowered because you cannot touch or feel the dress. Hence an entrepreneur who can add this feature will create immense value to the customer and perhaps to the seller.

In a broader sense, going beyond business, value is doing good and improving the wellbeing of someone or some item. So, the dress can improve your well-being, or buying it may make you feel good. Or buying on line may increase the good to you.

For you, dear reader, Value is doing good and improving the wellbeing of someone or a product or a company. It could be potential or real, it could happen in the future. Most value comes from embedded perceptions and feelings, and therefore transactional value is deceptional. You may enjoy an ice cream but may never eat that brand again.

So long term value is based on embedded feelings of good or of one’s wellbeing or worth. Whether useful or not is also a perception, and a person takes all this together in deciding what is of value to him/her. Try it and you will realise why someone or some item creates value for you.

Best,

Gautam Mahajan, President, Customer Value Foundation
Founder Editor, Journal of Creating Value jcv.sagepub.com
New Delhi 110065 +91 98100 60368
mahajan@customervaluefoundation.com
http://www.customervaluefoundation.com
Twitter @ValueCreationJ
Blogs: https://customervaluefoundation.wordpress.com/
Author of Value CreationTotal Customer Value ManagementCustomer Value InvestmentHow Creating Customer Value Makes you a Great ExecutiveThe Value ImperativeValue Dominant LogicCustomer Value Starvation can Kill
Come to the Fifth Global Conference on Creating Value, September 2-4, 2022 at Japan
Join the Creating Value Alliance at creatingvalue.co

Trust Creates Value

December 21, 2021

As we approach the Christmas season, it is very important to re-establish trust between friends and members of the family and to create value for each other. Remember the most value you can create for yourself is by giving to and creating value for others. They will come back and create even more value for you.

You build trust first by establishing and strengthening relationships and bonds with your friends and family. This relationship is important for creating value for stakeholders and especially for your customers and employees.

Relationship and trust are built on transparency and caring. Giving for the sake of giving is not good enough to build a relationship. Giving something well chosen that the receiver will truly value is important. Giving so that we will receive is not what we are referring to.

Recently, in our attic we found a set of paintings I had bought from a famous painter, AW Hallet from Dharamsala. We could have sold them or given them away. We chose those that we thought would love and appreciate the paintings. Receiving a painting was most unexpected for them, with no ulterior motive. In return, we got love and affection. The paintings made unexpected gifts, and the thanks were genuine.

Trust is based on truth and established facts and not false information. Being truthful and factual increases transparency and trust and creates value for the receiver and therefore for the giver!

Just as important is to state that there is uncertainty in what you are saying and doing if that is the case. It is important for companies to use experts in resolving uncertainties. Creating value while living in uncertainty is an art and a science and must be cultivated. Take uncertainty seriously.

Communicating all this builds trust and therefore value. If you pretend there is no uncertainty, or if you pass of uncertainty as factual, you will diminish trust. Communication creates value.

Relationship and trust are further built by staying in your area of proficiency and skill. Pretending otherwise can make people say you are untrustworthy.

Relationship and trust are built on listening to all sides and trying to understand them.

Leaders and companies must imbibe these to build value and loyalty. Happy New Year!

Best,

Gautam Mahajan, President, Customer Value Foundation
Founder Editor, Journal of Creating Value jcv.sagepub.com
New Delhi 110065 +91 98100 60368
mahajan@customervaluefoundation.com
http://www.customervaluefoundation.com
Twitter @ValueCreationJ
Blogs: https://customervaluefoundation.wordpress.com/
Author of Value CreationTotal Customer Value ManagementCustomer Value InvestmentHow Creating Customer Value Makes you a Great ExecutiveThe Value ImperativeValue Dominant LogicCustomer Value Starvation can Kill
Come to the Fifth Global Conference on Creating Value, September 2-4, 2022 at Japan
Join the Creating Value Alliance at creatingvalue.co

How To Create Value In A Crisis?

December 14, 2021

Any serious crisis, at home or in business makes us examine our value systems or values, and what we consider value. It makes us scrutinise our options and our plans.

Crises can also be disruptive, and so we should look at them to become better at handling the possible outcome of the crises. Of course, the assumption is that we are the recipients of the disruption, and not the cause. If we are the cause, those impacted by us may wish to think of what to do using the learnings from this article.

In analysing our plans and strategy, we might find flaws and a new path to move forward with a change. This can also give us is a sense of purpose.

Purpose in life or in business is more than making a living or making a profit. It is the reason why we exist and what we want to achieve other than become rich or make money. Do we want to set up a caring company that takes care of employees and customers and ESG (Environment, Society and Governance)? Or do we want to improve the environment in which we do business? Let us say we are in the packaging business, do we want to reduce waste or ensure we do not increase the trash in your home, which eventually has to be thrown away. Or do we want to ensure we use recycled raw materials or from renewable sources. Or do we want it be easy for people to use the product because of the packaging, such as plastic bottles, or do we want to provide consumable packaging made from edible materials for edible items such as yoghurt?

So, do we say our purpose is one or more of these? Or that we provide ecological and society friendly packaging. All of these are reasonable purposes of our packaging business.

Our purpose could be to avoid imported material or to fight imports. There are many valid purposes different people will have.

As we re-look our plans, we have to assess risk in a better way and make our business less exposed to risk. We also need to be resilient. That means our way of thinking has to change and a modicum of caution should come into it. We have to study what far out ideas and happenings can impact us; are we ready for them? How do we react to them; and how do we rebuild ourselves? How do we take responsibility to reduce the power of the crisis and the disruption we are facing?

A good example is the article on Ghosts of Christmas Past­: What’s ahead for Greenbriar and other Atlanta Malls? by Mike Jordan. https://bit.ly/30rQqiO

How do we preserve the value (preservation is an important part of value) we are creating? Should how we look at value change?

The answer is our basic values should not change. We might wish to add courage and resilience in our values. We might want to look at the new value the business will provide, given the crisis, and see how we can increase the value. For example, we thought the best way to work and gain value from our employees was to put them in an office with close interaction. Work from Home has changed our thinking and our strategy? For how long depends on our values and what we value.

Always remember that human greed is a contributing factor in life. This means there are people with poor values and who value their own power and wealth over society’s could cause disruption and even chaos, as the financial world did in 2008. Greed is unlikely to change.

Second, people wish to move back from the new normal into a more known way of doing things. We are more comfortable with the old ways. So, work from home is slowly giving way to return to the office.

Lastly, people like to conform, and this conformist tendency makes us want to follow a well-set precedent. It is like wearing blue jeans. In India even in villages younger women are wearing jeans because they can belong and it gets them out of being in a particular class.

All this thinking helps preserve and even create value in a crisis or in disruption.

Best,

Gautam Mahajan, President, Customer Value Foundation

Founder Editor, Journal of Creating Value jcv.sagepub.com

New Delhi 110065 +91 98100 60368

mahajan@customervaluefoundation.com

http://www.customervaluefoundation.com

Twitter @ValueCreationJ

Blogs: https://customervaluefoundation.wordpress.com/

Author of Value Creation, Total Customer Value Management, Customer Value Investment, How Creating Customer Value Makes you a Great Executive, The Value Imperative, Value Dominant Logic,     Customer Value Starvation

Come to the Fifth Global Conference on Creating Value, September 02-04, 2022 at Japan Join the Creating Value Alliance at creatingvalue.co