Posts Tagged ‘Productivity’

NZ Institute describes our economic hole – a guide to why NZ needs to walk the talk to escape

BigCake’s four big themes have been:
1. Economically we are in a hole
2. We need to recognise we are in a hole
3. We can extricate ourselves if we get our act together
4. NZ is still a pretty sh!t hot place, so while climbing out of the hole, we need to protect what’s great about living here.

Regarding numbers 1 and 3, the NZ Institute thinktank has been a major influence.

Following up on yesterday’s post.  Below I’ve cherry picked facts from the institute’s latest paper, A goal is not a strategy, to show that NZ is in a hole. Many challenge the way we like to think of ourselves:

Innovation and education
• New Zealand has the highest proportion in the OECD (equal with Ireland) of highly skilled people living in other OECD countries.
• None of the 10 MBA programmes offered around the country focuses on developing the skills needed for international business success.
• In New Zealand innovation is often confused with inventiveness. As a result there is a tendency to think that if R&D output is increased then innovation will increase. Unfortunately for New Zealand, which is quite good at inventiveness, innovation also depends on successful commercialisation of the new way of doing things, and New Zealanders are not so good at this.
• New Zealand’s innovation and business sophistication score is low relative to the scores for many other advanced economies indicating there is great potential to improve innovation, and that doing so would lift economic performance substantially.

Agriculture
• In 1990 New Zealand had around five hectares of agriculture and forestry land per person; today it has less than three hectares per person. Population growth will reduce that further.
• Productivity per hour worked in agriculture is not very different between New Zealand (NZ$40) and Denmark (NZ$50). But in New Zealand the productivity of agriculture is around 83% of the average for the whole economy (NZ$48) whereas Denmark’s agricultural productivity is only around 47% of Denmark’s overall average productivity (NZ$106). Despite outperforming New Zealand in agriculture, agriculture is not the powerhouse of the Danish economy.
• Denmark and New Zealand have almost identical food and agriculture, beverages and tobacco exports per capita. However, New Zealand uses a greater share of its total workforce (6.8%) than Denmark (2.6%) to achieve the same result.

Entrepreneurship
• Two-thirds of New Zealand entrepreneurs are home based and tend to be ‘solo’ operators with few employees. Many of these people are satisfying their desire for independence, to be their own boss. These small independent businesses are likely to have quite low productivity. The relative abundance of these small businesses is therefore likely to be contributing to low overall relative productivity.
• New Zealand has too few highly skilled entrepreneurs targeting international business success. The shortage means the product of New Zealand’s inventiveness – large research output, inventions, and new business opportunities – is not being converted into international business success.

Exporting
• New Zealand’s exports have grown much more slowly than the OECD average partly because global trade in commodities (where New Zealand exports are concentrated) has grown more slowly than trade in differentiated goods and services.
• New Zealand’s most important sectors for exports are tourism, agriculture, and manufacturing. All three have average or lower than average productivity so simply growing these activities without also substantially lifting productivity would not lift GDP per capita materially.
• Commodities are well known for their cycles, and reliance on them would mean New Zealand would continue to be exposed to volatility and price shocks.

General
• New Zealand and Denmark have similar small populations yet the institute calculates that Denmark’s GDP per worker (NZ$170,386) is more than twice New Zealand’s GDP per worker (NZ$83,842).
• New Zealand’s manufacturing labour productivity is the same as that of agriculture, at NZ$40 per hour worked. In comparison, Denmark’s manufacturing labour productivity is almost 90% higher than New Zealand’s, at NZ$75 per hour worked.
• Despite strong doses of economic liberalisation, New Zealand’s GDP per capita remains lower than the OECD average and much lower than Australia’s. New Zealand’s private economy labour productivity is 57% of Australia’s.
• New Zealand scores relatively poorly on measures of infrastructure development, placing 35th in the world with the quality of roads, railways, and electricity ranking worse than the OECD average.

It’s a pretty big hole, but it’s one that we can get out of if enough of us accept we are in a hole. We also need to accept that something more needs to be done to get us out our hole than we are seeing at the moment.

In A goal is not a strategy, which everyone interested in the above issues should read, the Institute again sets out the case for change and the bare bones of an economic growth strategy. It says New Zealand needs to:
• Focus on the internationalisation of high value,differentiated export sectors
• Prioritise labour productivity improvement efforts on these sectors, and
• Reallocate resources from low to high productivity sectors.

[Photo credit - horslips5 via Flickr]

Crap management (4) – supply and demand the problem?

There’s no shortage of training programmes for NZ managers with a mind to improve their leadership skills to tuck into.

A MED report in 2009 identified 546 programmes run by 59 organisations.

On the demand side there is also quantity wise no problem. In a Massey University survey more than 80% of small business manager/owners said they saw managerial skills and leadership as key to company growth, performance and competitive advantage. (2% didn’t see any relationship)

But as a University of Technology Sydney (UTS) report points out many larger business owners (and most likely smaller ones as well) are delusional about their abilities – they think they are better than they are.

So judging by the fact that at best our managerial quality is marginally improving, though still mediocre by international standards, somehow supply and demand are not connecting.

And this disconnect has been known about for sometime.

But not all the issues behind NZ’s poor management performance can be fixed bv sending managers back to the classroom. A big factor is that NZ’s economy is dominated by small businesses and it’s hard for these business’s owners and managers to find the time and capacity (though too often also the inclination) to do some training.

Other issues not amenable to a training fix include:
• The best managers leaving.
• Difficulties in getting rid of bad managers.
• Lack of ambition.

The Government has a Skills Strategy, one stream of which is improving management and leadership capability. This includes trials of training partnerships between tertiary organisations and industry along with a commitment to streamline government training activities and improve links with the private sector.

Government agencies offering training include Trade and Enterprise, MED, FoRST, the Department of Labour, the Tertiary Education Commission, the Ministry for the Environment, the Ministry of Social Development, Te Puni Kokiri, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and Treasury.

Hah, but this issue is primarily the responsibility of businesses and their representatives to fix, though there’s also an argument that there’s a market failure going on here.

Spanning the public and private sectors is the Business Capability Partnership which represents government, businesses and unions.

In the private sector trainers include Business NZ, Employers and Manufacturers Associations, Chambers of Commerce, the NZ Institute of Management, the NZ Council of Trade Unions, ITOs etc etc

The 546 programmes teach:
• Communication skills – 228
• Leadership skills – 196
• Employment relations – 122
• Influencing skills 110
• Team building 94
• Workplace culture 63…

Funnily enough given the above’s focus on soft skills, our managers do most poorly in people skills according to the UTS report.

And while we do relatively well in process skills in that report, on the ground there’s a dearth of training programmes that focus on this.

So …maybe the training market is sorting itself out, though no one seems to have a clue about the how effective many of these programmes are.

admin, 28th May 2010 | Filed under: Kiwi growth, Leadership Tags: , , ,

Crap management – the elephant in the office (3). More evidence of the size of the problem, but maybe what we are ignoring is not the problem, but the solution

When BigCake started this series on the disastrous state of business management in NZ, he thought of the elephant as being a problem.

Which it is. A report out yesterday shows more of our firms are poorly managed than well.

But maybe a better way to view our beast in the office is to think of him as a solution. That’s what we have really been ignoring.

And in terms of kicking business growth up the arse, it’s bigger than tax cuts.

A report commissioned by the MED indicates that basic improvements to management leadership, capability and skills would be massively more beneficial to business productivity than big increases in staff numbers or capital.

And our managers are delusional about their management skills. The report found managers consistently overrate their firms’ management performance. Also their self assessments “do not align well” with an external tests.

The report, Management Matters in New Zealand – How does manufacturing measure up? Findings from the New Zealand Management Practices and Productivity global benchmarking project, shows that NZ business managers are a lot like our school kids – at the top as good as anybody, but with a long ‘tail’ of mediocrity.

It was written by University of Technology Sydney using methodology developed by the London School of Economics and McKinsey & Company that is in use in 16 other countries. It was paid for by NZ Trade and Enterprise, the Department of Labour and Treasury.

The authors point out businesses and managers themselves must take primary responsibility for upgrading their management skills and improving their practices.

Based on a survey of management practices in 152 medium and large sized manufacturing firms in NZ during mid 2009, the report shows the average New Zealand business, in terms of management performance, is below the top 59% of Australian, 64% of Japanese and 75% of the US manufacturing firms.

That’s three of our top four export markets. Our average business is also below the top 30% of Indian and Chinese firms taken together.

The report’s findings suggest that firms would need to increase labour by 41% or capital by 77% to increase their output to match a lift in their management score from the 25th to the 75th percentile of the other 16 countries.

Surprisingly what mostly lets us down is our managers’ people skills. They are not so bad at operations and performance management.

The key drivers behind this situation according to the report are:
o Firm size – larger New Zealand firms significantly outperform smaller firms. BTW – The New Zealand economy is dominated by small and medium sized firms.
o Ownership – multinational corporations adopt and spread better management practices compared to domestic firms. Publicly listed companies are also better than privately owned firms, family owned firms and cooperatives. Family run firms tend to under perform.
o Higher levels of education and skills among both managers and non-managers makes a difference.

The results show better managed firms are likely to be more productive, larger, and have greater sales.

Other survey results include:
o We rank 10th out of the 17 countries for operations management.
o In performance management, New Zealand comes 9th out of 17.
o In people management we’re on par with France, Ireland, Italy and developing counties such as Brazil, India and China

There’s interesting stuff on which sectors do better than others:
o Overall petroleum, coal, chemical and associated product manufacturing perform significantly better than other sectors.
o Machinery and equipment manufacturing is tops in operations management.
o Printing, publishing and recorded media and other manufacturing are the worst in people management practices. (Haven’t seen any mainstream media coverage of this report!)

Still to come – what’s being done to fix all this.

admin, 27th May 2010 | Filed under: Kiwi growth, Leadership Tags: , , ,

Crap business management – the elephant in the office (2). Where’d he come from?

Probably the bowls club. The bad manager elephant we like to ignore at our cost is likely to be male, and an old one at that.

Woman and the young (well, under 55 – nice to be called young) are more inclined to improve their management skills than anyone else, according to a Massey University study into management capability in NZ’s small businesses.

Nearly everyone who took part in an associated survey said they didn’t do much formal management training (with woman doing slightly more), but when it came to the more popular “informal” and “incidental” training, woman were much more committed.

Same for age. The so-called young were into it, those over 55 markedly less so. The age thing is concerning because a large percentage of our managers and owners (62% for larger business) are “old”.

If our managers were as crap as everyone else in the world, it wouldn’t matter, but they are, despite apparent improvements of late, at the back of the field.

There are reports of international business deals falling through because of a lack of confidence in the New Zealand management end. New Zealand businesses are seen as having low business capability and acumen by their foreign counterparts according to New Zealand Trade and Enterprise research into perceptions of New Zealand businesses in leading international markets.

So why so bad? In no particular order or attempt at completeness (basically just what BigCake finds interesting):

• Do it yourself: The predilection for informal and incidental training – good old Kiwi DIY – must be part of it. According to the Massey survey, 61% of small business owner-managers learn by doing and being a bunch of tight wads spent an average $1000 a year on developing their managerial skills. The Massey report comments that this cold-shouldering of formal training in large numbers is of continuous concern for policy makers, but it adds the informal stuff also needs to be acknowledged.

• The best managers leave. Too many of the most competent, most ambitious, most forward thinking just scarper. This is mostly anecdotal, but BigCake’s seen it in many enterprises. The best leave and all too often, because the talent pool is so shallow, are replaced by lesser mortals. New Zealand is seriously haemorrhaging managers. Specialised managers topped a list of occupations of Kiwis heading for Australia by 30%.

• Businesses can’t get rid of bad ones. Even “reasonable” employers shy away from sacking incompetent managers because of the fear they’d lose any challenge to the dismissal. Most small businesses don’t have the resources to put up a fight, so they just suck it in.

• The 3Bs. I’ve got my boat, BMW and bach so ‘why the hell would I need to go to the trouble of doing any training?’

Soon I’ll look at what our managers are bad at.

admin, 25th May 2010 | Filed under: Kiwi growth, Leadership Tags: , , ,

Crap business management – the elephant in the office

Are our business owners and managers deserving of the faith – and dosh – the Government handed over in last week’s Budget?

Don’t think so. There’s stacks of evidence that too many are just not very good at running their businesses.

Of course there are some great managers out there who’ll repay the Government’s faith and others will have more reasons to get their act together. In many cases though, it’ll be trust,expectation and money down the tubes.

A screed of reports and surveys show many of our bosses can’t foot it internationally, though there is evidence that the situation is improving.

For some reason this issue largely gets ignored in debates about how to drag this country out of its economic rut.

Evidence of the problem includes:
• “Few firms have yet to match leading international benchmarks – no more than 2-3% of firms appear to be approaching international standards of performance on practices such as strategic planning and leadership, supplier relationships, employee performance management and benchmarking, or actively pursue strategies of innovation.” (MED)
• “New Zealand suffers a dearth of high quality managers and entrepreneurs. This lack of managerial talent could be affecting both a firm’s ability to internationalise and also the average firm’s ability to identify new opportunities and grow.” (Treasury)
• “[Despite some good news] the downside is that the Canadians have now joined a slowly growing list of countries whose managers outperform ours.” The New Zealand Institute of Management.

We also rate poorly in international surveys such as the World Economic Forum’s Global Competitiveness survey.

And then there’s the circumstantial stuff:
• “What is holding New Zealand back is a widespread lack of management and leadership skills among SME owners, which translates to disengaged workers and low productivity,” (Grant Hally, chairman, Independent Business Foundation)
• “The low productivity is mostly from significant mismanagement: The greatest differences identified here are in: GroupThink; “number 8 wire and not learning from others”; hostility to constructive criticism; discounting of formal qualifications; ignorance of both quantitative management and systems-approach management; “the old boy network”, and many more.” (2025 Taskforce)
• “Something I have noticed peculiar to New Zealand is a lack of commercial impetus due to dire motivation. I am frustrated by the isolatory and timorous attitude of NZ’s senior management who appear closeted within a fall-out shelter of “tried & tested” cladding, as if sticking their heads above an imagined parapet would render them terminally radioactive.” (UK immigrant to New Zealand commenting on the NZ Institute’s NZ Ahead website)

Over the next few days I’ll post on what may be behind this situation and what’s being done to fix it.

admin, 24th May 2010 | Filed under: Kiwi growth, Leadership Tags: , , , ,

Auckland Supercity – another oxymoron?

BigCake has friends and family in Auckland, so Aucklanders don’t take this personally…but pull your finger out.

Your country needs you, as the country’s largest city by far, to be an accelerator not a handbrake.

In most countries, the leading city you know…leads.

But not Auckland. As BERL Chief Economist Dr Ganesh Nana says, there are “few signs that the Auckland economy is leading the nation into recovery. On the contrary, the picture for Auckland seems to follow that of nation.”

Business as usual then for New Zealand’s property and consumer hub.

Throughout the world, leading cities are the motors of their country’s and region’s economic growth. Economically they’re more dynamic and productive than other secondary and third tier cities.

Sound like Auckland? Not much.

Here’s a grab bag of evidence of the Supercity’s under achievement:
• Wellington’s even got a better value add per worker than Auckland (NZIER work for Committee for Auckland)
• “International evidence highlights the importance of having at least one outward facing, global city to lead a nation’s economic development. Auckland doesn’t yet play this role to the extent that major cities do in other economies. (MED)
• Auckland export-to-gdp ratio is lower than other New Zealand regions (Auckland Regional Council)
• Auckland’s productivity is 15% below that of major Australian cities (AREDs)
• “…it has been suggested that most – if not all – of the gap in performance between New Zealand and Australia in recent years can be attributed to Auckland’s performance compared to that of Australia’s leading cities. (MED)
• Internationally leading cities have an economic performance about 25% higher than their share of the population. Auckland, however, is about on par with the rest of New Zealand. (From Computerworld mag, but not sure of original source of this one)
• The Blues (‘nuf said).

The last government had a wishfully named programme (Auckland – an internationally competitive city) to fix all this, but it looks like this has disappeared under the umbrella of the Supercity project.

Of course one of the aims of this project was to improve Auckland’s economic performance.

But a lot of interesting work that Labour had its officials doing on fixing Auckland appears to have now disappeared, as signified by its consignment to the netherworld of the MED’s website’s archives.

A transformed Auckland, the programme’s publicity said would “become the home of globally competitive firms supported by a first-class pool of skilled labour. Auckland will be seen as one of the best places in the world to live, do business, and visit”.

The programme identified the barriers to this:
• Top of the list – lack of effective leadership that could put together and deliver a vision and plan for the city
• Fixing infrastructure problems
• Attracting or growing more globally competitive businesses

To be fair, the Government is getting stuck in to fixing the first two of these.

But last word to Dr Nana. “…looking beyond the short term, with New Zealand’s export revenues increasingly concentrated in primary commodities and associated processing, the question of the role of the Supercity within such an economy needs to be urgently addressed.

“Auckland could continue as a property and consumer-oriented economy operating as a transport hub for New Zealand. Or, it could look to truly lead by providing that point of difference for NZ Inc to leverage. Such a transformation has proved elusive for some time, and there is little sign that we are any closer to finding that export and wealth-generating leader for the nation.”

So Auckland, where the bloody hell are you?

admin, 25th March 2010 | Filed under: Leadership Tags: , ,

Innovation – well sort of

Innovation maybe the single most important talent that will get us out of our economic growth quagmire, though we are not as crash hot at it now as we like to think we are.

But BigCake worries (based on the work of two Government taskforces) that we once again maybe taking a blinkered view of  growth opportunities, this time in innovation.

As mentioned earlier (What the hell’s ‘good economic growth’?) any increase in the size of our economic cake has to be smart.

Applying innovation to New Zealand’s natural resources – frozen meat, aerial topdressing, the herring-bone milking sheds – helped make (and for a long while keep) New Zealand as one of the world’s wealthiest countries.

Disconcertingly we may not now be as good at innovation as we imagine we are.

An Innovation Index produced by IBM and the University of Auckland shows our overall innovation record has flatlined for the past decade, rising 13% between 1998 and 2000, then levelling off and dropping in 2008, no doubt recession induced.

Ummm, that’s what happen when you, in the words of think tank the New Zealand Institute, don’t make “as much effort as other small countries that are seeking advantage from innovation”.

BTW – the usual advice for companies in recessions is to increase their innovation spend. It may hurt, but will pay off latter.

Anyway, the Government has recognised the importance of innovation to economic growth, and that dread word productivity, by indicating it will make science and innovation a “priority” for new spending in this year’s Budget. Remember most of the public sector will be (in fact are) on starvation rations.

But there appears to have been a couple of gaps in thinking about the innovation issue when ministers commissioned taskforce reports into lifting our economic performance.

First up, Brash’s 2025 taskforce report only makes passing mention of innovation, mostly along the lines of: “What markets do best is to encourage innovation…”

Surprisingly the report does give a plug for Government intervention in the venture capital market – one of the big drivers of business innovation – through taxpayer investment in the NZ Venture Investment Fund.

The other oversight is raised by commercial lawyer Andrew Simmonds in an innovation perspective on the Capital Market Development Taskforce’s report.

He says the taskforce’s focus was “unduly narrow in two important areas”:

1) the report concentrates on the publicly funded elements of the innovation sector (universities and crown research institutes) and overlooks the large and vibrant private innovation sector and
2) the taskforce put “too much emphasis on growing innovation companies with NZ capital… In many situations, NZ innovation companies will be better served by offshore capital…”

This is a touchy area, but Simmonds is right and New Zealanders need to get over their reflexive attitude that overseas investment in our companies is bad.

It maybe so, but most of the time not, particularly for our exporters.

It’ll often come down to a choice between having a small New Zealand company that exclusively finances itself locally, or the opportunity for the Kiwi company to grow into a business of truly international scale.

This is not just about money. What international investors bring to the party include access to offshore markets, management experience and local knowledge in offshore markets.

Do we want 100 percent of a biscuit or half of a cake?

admin, 28th February 2010 | Filed under: Innovation Tags: , , , ,