Recently an article in Reuters indicated the desire of furniture company, Restoration Hardware to seek a stock market listing (IPO) in 2011.
Restoration Hardware seems to have a small problem - namely a lack of inventory of the hardware which it seeks to sell an eager customer base. A second time around customer of Restoration Hardware, I ordered furniture which I was led to believe could expect to have delivered in a couple of weeks back in September 2010, which is now drifting into mid-December 2010 - leaving me decidedly unfulfilled.
The disconnect between the sales & marketing operation and 'customer fulfillment' becomes even more clear when engaging with the curse of the early Twenty-First Century, known as "customer service". Customer service in this instance will not actually inform customers of delivery dates unless you question them like an attorney - and on a repeat basis. Either they are part of a scam to misinform customers or else they are left carrying the can without adequate management information to inform. Bad position.
I think the senior management, who obviously stand to gain from an IPO personally, need to get their operations right. Prospective stock analysts need to think seriously about the inventory disconnect - it may make for a good graph regarding forward orders to sell potential investors in the stock. However, the reality is that the thick glossy catalogue of furniture is not matched by an ability to buy.
Perhaps Restoration Hardware intend to stick it to institutional and smaller investors by creating a fake demand curve, fulfilling it and then cashing out without having concern for the long-term viability of their company ? Another implication of having the corporate headquarters in California could be to inculcate a laid-back culture - precisely when the management needs to be hard-hitting and engaged. Not time for trips to the wine country...
Recently I overheard a restauranteur complaining he had bought and paid for a display piece of furniture for a hot new restaurant and has been left waiting for delivery. Frustrated, he threatened to send his team into the local branch to remove the sample whilst brandishing the paid for receipt. The staff indicated they would call the police - and who would be at fault ?
Whilst the Restoration Hardware idea, product and design is hot, the execution is not. Try harder.
Thursday, 28 October 2010
Tuesday, 19 October 2010
Editorial: Commentary on the unveiling of SDSR Resource outcomes
Editorial: Commentary on the unveiling of SDSR Resource outcomes
October 19th, 2010
Prime Minister David Cameron unveiled the outcome of the Spending Review for the Ministry of Defence in the United Kingdom earlier today.
A scorecard approach to the key points covered by the BBC News website runs as follows;
* "8% cut in real terms" - Does this exclude the MoD running over budget by approximately 10% ? If not, then the cuts are approximately 20% and this exercise represents political theatre.
* "RAF and RN numbers to be reduced" - For the RAF closing bases reduces headcount and is desirable - in the end aircraft availability is the only criteria for size. For the RN it is a little more problematic (as outlined below).
* "HMS Ark Royal will be decommissioned four years early" - The issue for the RN is how will they staff properly the new carrier(s) when they finally come down the slipway ? As usual there is more 'lust' in terms of wanting the capability than there is through-life management.
* "Surface fleet cut from 24 to 19" - A graph drawn for me a few years ago during a meeting a main building showed the trend in the fall of the Fleet since the 1960s - the logical outcome was a surface fleet of 16 - you read it here first ! The key question is how do you protect the carriers and replenishment vessels - with a couple of ships (best case) in dry-dock at a time seventeen ships covering 70% of the Earth's surface is challenging.
* Astute untouched - VERY good news as they will be key for special operations, surveillance and producing effect.
* "Trident delay" - Tolerable as long as the Astute drumbeat can be synchronised to ensure minimal loss of manufacturing skills (and pressure from the supply chain to maximise profit). The reduction in warheads is interesting and suggests cutting the numbers to fit a stretched Astute SSBN design. Vanguard has 16 missile tubes, each capable of carrying 8 warheads (under the START Treaty) implying each missile has 3 warheads. 40 warheads implies 10 tubes each with four warheads and associated shrinkage of the vessel's length (plus some simplification in terms of engineering and obviously, cost). That said Personally this Editor would favour stretching Astute acquisition using nuclear tipped Tomahawk TLAM missiles.
* Closure of RAF Kinloss and Nimrod to be retired - Sad news for the Scottish community - and no doubt the lack of Conservative support was an issue. Nimrod is technologically being outpaced by the likes of the Global Hawk UAV, and time needs to move on. Political pain around the tragic loss of a Nimrod in Afghanistan likely contributed to the decision to retire.
* Harrier retirement and Tornado part retirement - RAF should shed themselves of Tornado at a faster rate than Harrier. This move smacks of a play by the Air Marshals given Harrier is a joint force. Losing Harrier substantially ahead of JSF introduction will kill the skill level of the Fleet Air Arm operating from the new CVF. Very shortsighted from a joint perspective, good play by the perfidious Royal Air Force.
* Extra Chinook helicopters - Simply excellent news - bringing these to bear quickly is essential.
* reshaping the Army - the loss of 7,000 troops is obviously headline grabbing though difficulties with recruitment made the 100,000 target unobtainable. Rethinking the balance between 'ordinary' soldier and SF generation is crucial to ensuring UK usefulness to its Allies given numbers are simply not happening.
* The fall from six deployable brigades to five leaves only two brigades deployable (on the basis of a third in training, third on deployment, third preparing for Ops) - unless defence planners are treating the three Royal Marine Commandos as a sixth brigade - retaining their own independence in return for playing ball with the Army's deployment schedule ?
* MBT Tank and Heavy Artillery reductions - UK needs to retain skills for high intensity warfare even if it is not on the immediate horizon. A sensible move given the FRES programme was superceded by incremental acquisitions. Replacing Challenger is a big issue and how.
* Reductions in MOD civil servants - challenging insofar as the defence community is increasingly concentrated in areas which have little alternative employment - internal political manoeuvring is going to water this down unless the Government moves fast or keeps its eye on the ball.
October 19th, 2010
Prime Minister David Cameron unveiled the outcome of the Spending Review for the Ministry of Defence in the United Kingdom earlier today.
A scorecard approach to the key points covered by the BBC News website runs as follows;
* "8% cut in real terms" - Does this exclude the MoD running over budget by approximately 10% ? If not, then the cuts are approximately 20% and this exercise represents political theatre.
* "RAF and RN numbers to be reduced" - For the RAF closing bases reduces headcount and is desirable - in the end aircraft availability is the only criteria for size. For the RN it is a little more problematic (as outlined below).
* "HMS Ark Royal will be decommissioned four years early" - The issue for the RN is how will they staff properly the new carrier(s) when they finally come down the slipway ? As usual there is more 'lust' in terms of wanting the capability than there is through-life management.
* "Surface fleet cut from 24 to 19" - A graph drawn for me a few years ago during a meeting a main building showed the trend in the fall of the Fleet since the 1960s - the logical outcome was a surface fleet of 16 - you read it here first ! The key question is how do you protect the carriers and replenishment vessels - with a couple of ships (best case) in dry-dock at a time seventeen ships covering 70% of the Earth's surface is challenging.
* Astute untouched - VERY good news as they will be key for special operations, surveillance and producing effect.
* "Trident delay" - Tolerable as long as the Astute drumbeat can be synchronised to ensure minimal loss of manufacturing skills (and pressure from the supply chain to maximise profit). The reduction in warheads is interesting and suggests cutting the numbers to fit a stretched Astute SSBN design. Vanguard has 16 missile tubes, each capable of carrying 8 warheads (under the START Treaty) implying each missile has 3 warheads. 40 warheads implies 10 tubes each with four warheads and associated shrinkage of the vessel's length (plus some simplification in terms of engineering and obviously, cost). That said Personally this Editor would favour stretching Astute acquisition using nuclear tipped Tomahawk TLAM missiles.
* Closure of RAF Kinloss and Nimrod to be retired - Sad news for the Scottish community - and no doubt the lack of Conservative support was an issue. Nimrod is technologically being outpaced by the likes of the Global Hawk UAV, and time needs to move on. Political pain around the tragic loss of a Nimrod in Afghanistan likely contributed to the decision to retire.
* Harrier retirement and Tornado part retirement - RAF should shed themselves of Tornado at a faster rate than Harrier. This move smacks of a play by the Air Marshals given Harrier is a joint force. Losing Harrier substantially ahead of JSF introduction will kill the skill level of the Fleet Air Arm operating from the new CVF. Very shortsighted from a joint perspective, good play by the perfidious Royal Air Force.
* Extra Chinook helicopters - Simply excellent news - bringing these to bear quickly is essential.
* reshaping the Army - the loss of 7,000 troops is obviously headline grabbing though difficulties with recruitment made the 100,000 target unobtainable. Rethinking the balance between 'ordinary' soldier and SF generation is crucial to ensuring UK usefulness to its Allies given numbers are simply not happening.
* The fall from six deployable brigades to five leaves only two brigades deployable (on the basis of a third in training, third on deployment, third preparing for Ops) - unless defence planners are treating the three Royal Marine Commandos as a sixth brigade - retaining their own independence in return for playing ball with the Army's deployment schedule ?
* MBT Tank and Heavy Artillery reductions - UK needs to retain skills for high intensity warfare even if it is not on the immediate horizon. A sensible move given the FRES programme was superceded by incremental acquisitions. Replacing Challenger is a big issue and how.
* Reductions in MOD civil servants - challenging insofar as the defence community is increasingly concentrated in areas which have little alternative employment - internal political manoeuvring is going to water this down unless the Government moves fast or keeps its eye on the ball.
UK SDSR Defence Review outcomes - a matter of arithmetic - 18% or 8% ?
UK SDSR Defence Review outcomes - a matter of arithmetic - 18% or 8% ?
Monday 18th October, 2010
There is much being trailed as to the release today by Prime Minister David Cameron as to the outcome of the review of resources devoted to the Ministry of Defence. Traditionally the Conservative Party are keen to be seen as strong and safe on defence and foreign policy. In an environment where substantial cuts are being made across government showing a grip on the issues, especially for a new administration is key.
Which probably explains why the Departmental minister has been sidelined by No.10 which has taken strong control (through the Cabinet Office) of the defence review process. press sources are already trailing the following adjustments to UK force structure;
* Retirement of the VSTOL Harrier (known as the AV-8B by the US) jump jet (CityAM)
* Retirement of HMS Ark Royal (Aircraft carrier and flagship of the Royal Navy) (BBC)
* Reductions to the strength of the British Army of the order of two brigades (7,000 troops) (CityAM)
The consensus which appears to have been trailed to the UK media and which seems uncontested by the Opposition is that cuts to the budget will amount to some 7-8% versus some 20% in other Government Departments (excluding health).
Given that insiders acknowledge off-the-record that the MOD budget has been running some 10% beyond its resource level this would imply a 10.0 + 8.0% = 18.0% reduction.
Hence the need for the PM to lead this announcement. What this means for UK 'Grand Strategy' remains to be seen as the National Security Strategy (NSS) seems to be headlining on the threat to UK global interests from cyber attack.
Monday 18th October, 2010
There is much being trailed as to the release today by Prime Minister David Cameron as to the outcome of the review of resources devoted to the Ministry of Defence. Traditionally the Conservative Party are keen to be seen as strong and safe on defence and foreign policy. In an environment where substantial cuts are being made across government showing a grip on the issues, especially for a new administration is key.
Which probably explains why the Departmental minister has been sidelined by No.10 which has taken strong control (through the Cabinet Office) of the defence review process. press sources are already trailing the following adjustments to UK force structure;
* Retirement of the VSTOL Harrier (known as the AV-8B by the US) jump jet (CityAM)
* Retirement of HMS Ark Royal (Aircraft carrier and flagship of the Royal Navy) (BBC)
* Reductions to the strength of the British Army of the order of two brigades (7,000 troops) (CityAM)
The consensus which appears to have been trailed to the UK media and which seems uncontested by the Opposition is that cuts to the budget will amount to some 7-8% versus some 20% in other Government Departments (excluding health).
Given that insiders acknowledge off-the-record that the MOD budget has been running some 10% beyond its resource level this would imply a 10.0 + 8.0% = 18.0% reduction.
Hence the need for the PM to lead this announcement. What this means for UK 'Grand Strategy' remains to be seen as the National Security Strategy (NSS) seems to be headlining on the threat to UK global interests from cyber attack.
UK Releases NSS review document: A Strong Britain in an Age of Uncertainty: The National Security Strategy (Cm7953)
UK Releases NSS review document: A Strong Britain in an Age of Uncertainty: The National Security Strategy
October 18th, 2010
Ahead of the release by the Prime Minister of the outcome of the SDSR Defence Review in the House of Commons at 1530hrs GMT (0930 EST) came the release of the foreign policy-led component known as The National Security Strategy (Command Paper Cm7953). A few comments jump off the page at first pass;
The foreword at the outset refers to Britain being both more secure and more vulnerable then ever before which seems to automatically question the logic of cutting resources to security needs. If national security assets are an insurance policy then Britain seems to be going down the "third party, fire & theft" route.
Page four sees The United States of America listed atop that of the international network of alliances, followed by the EU and NATO.
Page five refers to equipment acquisition rooted in the mindset of the Cold War.
KEY POINT: Page nine, a definition of the National Security Strategy of the United Kingdom, "to use all our national capabilities to build Britain's prosperity, extend our nation's influence in the world and strengthen our security. The networks we use to build our prosperity we will also use to build our security".
Page eleven identifies the top four threats in the next five years to UK security; terrorism (including CBRN (i.e. WMD) usage) and interesting flags Northern Ireland as a flashpoint, cyberattack, military crises and major accident or natural hazard.
Page thirteen identifies withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2015 - towards the end of the next US Presidency, and to the end of the first term of a Cameron Government, should the Government go the full five years before seeking re-election.
page fifteen (section 1.15) identifies the need to broaden out UK relationships beyond dependence on the USA and the world becomes more multi-polar.
page twenty-two (section 2.11) reaffirms the UK view of the Special Relationship - "Our strong defence relationship with the US... is exceptionally close and central to our national interest".
page twenty-seven - illustration of a 'risk register' of 15 major risks - which will be reviewed and updated biannually. The methodology (which is a two-by-two "impact:likelihood" matrix standard to any management consultant) is printed on page 37 for those unfamiliar.
October 18th, 2010
Ahead of the release by the Prime Minister of the outcome of the SDSR Defence Review in the House of Commons at 1530hrs GMT (0930 EST) came the release of the foreign policy-led component known as The National Security Strategy (Command Paper Cm7953). A few comments jump off the page at first pass;
The foreword at the outset refers to Britain being both more secure and more vulnerable then ever before which seems to automatically question the logic of cutting resources to security needs. If national security assets are an insurance policy then Britain seems to be going down the "third party, fire & theft" route.
Page four sees The United States of America listed atop that of the international network of alliances, followed by the EU and NATO.
Page five refers to equipment acquisition rooted in the mindset of the Cold War.
KEY POINT: Page nine, a definition of the National Security Strategy of the United Kingdom, "to use all our national capabilities to build Britain's prosperity, extend our nation's influence in the world and strengthen our security. The networks we use to build our prosperity we will also use to build our security".
Page eleven identifies the top four threats in the next five years to UK security; terrorism (including CBRN (i.e. WMD) usage) and interesting flags Northern Ireland as a flashpoint, cyberattack, military crises and major accident or natural hazard.
Page thirteen identifies withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2015 - towards the end of the next US Presidency, and to the end of the first term of a Cameron Government, should the Government go the full five years before seeking re-election.
page fifteen (section 1.15) identifies the need to broaden out UK relationships beyond dependence on the USA and the world becomes more multi-polar.
page twenty-two (section 2.11) reaffirms the UK view of the Special Relationship - "Our strong defence relationship with the US... is exceptionally close and central to our national interest".
page twenty-seven - illustration of a 'risk register' of 15 major risks - which will be reviewed and updated biannually. The methodology (which is a two-by-two "impact:likelihood" matrix standard to any management consultant) is printed on page 37 for those unfamiliar.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
