For a long time, I had been a proponent of textbook styled strategies, methodologies and principles on business administration and leadership. In big corporations, no initiative would be approved or considered unless it has supporting business case and matrices to prove the viability of the opportunity. Quite often, inordinate time passes before the opportunity could finally and favourably be considered. Many a small business entrepreneur may be unable to spare such investment in time.
Having little time to spare doesn’t mean SMME entrepreneurs choose to be flippant about conforming to business administration “basics” and ascertaining viability of prospects. Many entrepreneurs are not always driven by accounting and economic matrices alone in their decision making, but other considerations too such as having and relying on a hunch and a little faith among others. SMME entrepreneurs are more agile than their corporate counterparts owing to their low overheads, fewer “touch-points” and division of work.
Though many SMME entrepreneurs may find it onerous and eventually stop compiling important matrices, they should at least do some informed study on their customers to improve their understanding and offerings accordingly. Every product design embodies inherent assumptions after all, whether deliberate or implied, about the target market. Such assumptions have a direct and significant bearing on the uptake of the product. By Nimroth Gwetsa, 29 February 2020.
A designer stressing the simplicity of the product is already making assumptions about customers targeted. Whatever shape the simplicity takes, be it about usability, the look and feel or number of inputs or steps it takes for an instruction or transaction to be started and completed, it already gives clues about the profile of customer targeted.
Not all customers may prioritise simplicity over other important considerations. Some may value diversity of custom-tailoring allowed, features enabled and choices made available, among others. Others may simply value having peace of mind over all other considerations, while others may be more interested in fit for purpose and value for money of the offering. Thus, one cannot just look at a product and simply criticise or heap on praises without first considering and having an improved understanding of the target market.
Some companies do well by conforming to the “norm”. Others do well being different, even if their sales volumes may not match other popular brands’. Others may appeal because of their exclusivity. Motor vehicle companies and many clothing designers, among others, have mastered their understanding of customers in their business model and product designs.
SMME entrepreneurs need to also have deep regard for the target market of their offerings to avoid prolonged sales cycles and frustrations from poor uptake. Sometimes technical prowess may not be what customers are looking for. Having a simple and effective product to meet customer needs may be all they want. Simplicity may be insufficient for more technically knowledgeable customers interested in making own choices. All these, point to extent of diversity of customers and need to clearly understand their needs to tailor offerings accordingly.
Though a generalisation, customisation often increases the complexity of the product than simplicity would. When there are fewer items deviating from the “norm”, it would appear obvious that there would equally be fewer things going wrong. But simplicity can also increase complexity as it may result in “overloading” or over-bundling of functionality on fewer available media used. For instance, a device with less, if not fewer, buttons may result in those few buttons being overused to access many functionalities using toggle switches to access them. And such integration may complicate the usability of a product than a product with many keys providing direct and dedicated functionality for each key used.
The look of having many buttons may be undesirable and considered clutter, but when one breaks, you would not lose many other bundled functionalities linked to that single button. Other functionalities can be accessed through other dedicated buttons.
Once, we were given a brief to build a basic solution to address an opportunity envisioned. Despite our many probes and requests, the client was reluctant to give us more information about the target market, much less, “mock-up” designs or user stories to further explain the opportunity. We were only given a quick verbal description of the problem and little time to work on the “solution”. Throughout the engagement, we were given insufficient opportunities to ask more questions for clarification and confirmation of the problem, requirements and envisioned solution.
Ideally, development or creation of a solution starts with parties agreeing on the definition of the problem, understanding its impact and requirements of the envisioned solution, and parties also agreeing to the envisioned solution as “answering” the problem experienced. Because in our case, none of these steps were taken, we were keen to walk away from the opportunity. Nevertheless, we resisted the temptation.
Though we usually adopt “agile” and iterative solution facilitation methods in our approach, the client afforded us no time interacting with us. We knew then that we were heading for trouble. We decided to ask for some collateral before proceeding with the deal.
Desperation denies many an opportunity to foresee such dangers and find ways to mitigate the risks. Proceeding or not is equally a gamble. I’m no gambler. So, we decided to charge deposit to ensure killing of two birds with one stone: one about mitigating our risks and another about “forcing” cooperation from the client to ensure we were working on an assignment the client prioritised, officially mandated and considered important.
This method worked well for us because it separated chance-takers from real clients who took themselves and us seriously. Many failed to pay the deposit, wanting us to prove ourselves, yet we had as we presented other work we completed. Their reluctance to pay deposit made us suspicious of their intentions and we felt good turning down the opportunity. Others readjusted their requirements when the request for deposit was made. Consequently, we secured more acceptable and reasonable requirements.
SMMEs do not always have the luxury to negotiate much without the threat of “losing” the deal. Many customers, especially those from bigger corporations, take advantage of SMMEs. It may be better, sometimes, losing such a deal than going ahead only to face increased frustrations and ruined reputation afterwards. I do not mind taking on a deal without deposit if it is less complex. I would take on a complex initiative without a deposit if I could find a way of building a small and simplified unit of work the client would appreciate and give us an interim payment afterwards. The risk of loss would be reduced should the client become disinterested afterwards.
It’s impossible planning for all possible scenarios and outcomes. Sometimes, a little segmentation and improved understanding of our clients and prospects may go a long way in soothing our pain.
Society is changing for the better on many fronts nowadays, from exposing and eradicating “toxic masculinity” and other social ills to being more empathetic. The business community needs to catch up too and eradicate bullying and exploitation of SMMEs for a better and improved business climate. South Africa needs everyone contributing to improve the performance of our economy.
Wishing SMMEs strength, hope and encouragement as entrepreneurs patiently work on growing their businesses. And when they become big corporations one day, may they too, break the cycle of abuse against smaller SMMEs and build a better world enjoyable by and profitable to all.