The Difference Between Success And Failure: Less Than 10%
By drapeau on Aug 12, 2005
(okay, before I go on, I just gotta include a link to some crazy
drumline warmups, to give you an idea of what a top percussion line
eats for breakfast. Go here and
listen. If that doesn't mess up your head enough, try this one.
This is not uncommon in many areas; in professional sports, a winning
margin of less than ten percent, when done consistently, is often
interpreted as dominating. And you don't even have to win all the
time in order to dominate your competition. Tiger Woods doesn't
win every golf tournament he enters (in 2005 so far, he has only won 4
out of the 14 tournaments he has entered, and only been in the top 10
finishers in 8 of those tournaments), but he's the most dominant golfer
in the men's sport (he made over $6M in winnings so far this year).
My question is: how can one be so dominant with such a narrow margin of victory over time, or even with a relatively low winning percentage?
My answer: the question is a distraction, the thing to learn from these examples is that you can be highly successful by improving just a little bit. If you can improve yourself operationally only ten percent, you can see huge improvements in results.
Starbucks works on shaving seconds (literally seconds) from the time it
takes to process each customer. One thing they do to shave a
little time is to shorten the time taken for credit card payments; they
don't bother with the long validation cycle if your purchase is less
then $20. It saves less than a minute per customer, but those
savings pile up, reduce the size of lines, and therefore make each shop
more appealing to customers, which helps them grow their customer base.
I think about this a lot at Sun, worrying that people think we need to make huge changes in order to become robustly successful again. But I don't think that's true. If everybody (or not even everybody, but a decent portion of Sun's population) did a few things better each week, we can be a much better company.
It's easy to do, too, although takes discipline. For example, if
you're in a meeting and it's clear that somebody needs to take some
action, make sure it's clear who d takes the action, and then instead
of waiting six days (the day before next week's meeting) to begin
working on getting that action done, do it now, or the next day.
Chances are, the reason you took that action in a group meeting is
because somebody else is dependent on your completion of that
action. The sooner you can get it done, the sooner you unblock
somebody else from continuing that work, and the sooner your project
gets done, which probably means either saving money (resolving a
customer issue, maybe) or making new money (shipping product).
We don't need to be worrying about strategy; execution is what makes the difference between success and failure more often than not. Do one thing each week more quickly than you would. Cut one meeting from its full hour to 45 minutes by being more crisp about how you conduct yourself in the meeting and asking others to stop rambling and get to the point. You've just saved the company 15 minutes times however many people were in that meeting, giving you all time to do something else productive for that 15 minutes.
Okay, enough ranting about small performance improvements resulting in
huge results. Here
is a video to give you a small taste of what drum corps looks
like. Keep in mind that it's from a long time ago, and the
activity has advanced a great deal since then. Scroll to the
middle of the page to see it. You'll need a Flash plugin to view
the video, but you don't need to be running Windows; I watched it just
fine on my Java Desktop System notebook computer.