What A Year...

Good grief, it has been a long time since our last blog and that's mainly down to my colleagues and myself being busy on various projects. Erica has been, and indeed still is at Thomas Pink as interim COO whilst Mike has been programme managing a major programme with M&S.

My time has been a bit more varied with a number of different projects as I have branched out and tried new avenues.

Rewarding but also hugely emotionally challenging...

The first and biggest achievement for me has been becoming a volunteer counsellor at Childline, the journey started Xmas 2014 when I saw Esther Rantzen on TV talking about Childline and saying that they were always looking for volunteers to work on the switchboard. I thought to myself 'surely I could do that' and I determined there and then to apply to Childline and become a switchboard operator. Well this set me out on a 10 month journey from application through completion of training over a 3 month period to the point of becoming not a switchboard operator but a counsellor and October 2015 saw me taking my first unassisted session. I have now completed a year counselling with Childline, the whole experience has been amazing, exceptionally rewarding but also hugely emotionally challenging. On some level, I expected all of that but what I had not considered and could be the most special thing about Childline is that everyone at Childline is so lovely. My previous life experiences have been that wherever you are be it at work, at your club or just going about your daily business, you meet a variety of individuals and invariably that will include a number of people that may be bullies, gossips or just generally uncaring and unkind. Well at Childline you just walk into an environment where everyone is just so lovely, kind and gentle and it is so refreshing and enlightening.

Fancy offices, company cars and expense accounts?

My other change in direction has been the project management work at my Golf Club. My contract with XPO being a part time contract left me with the time and financial ability to give some time to the Club to project manage their new website implementation. This presented its own challenges, in a huge shift for me from working on projects with budgets of several million pounds to a project with a budget of less than £25k. Working with small to medium sized suppliers has been an eye opener for me in the quality and level of support received which easily compared if not bettered that I had previously experienced with some of the top tier major Suppliers. It has left me questioning how do those big Suppliers justify their costs where is all that money going? - maybe fancy offices, company cars and expense accounts?! Working with the very small team at the Club has also been hugely rewarding and an eye opener for myself as to how much I do have to offer in terms of experience and 'how to' approach all aspects of project management and Supplier relationship and where needed get down and dirty in to the nitty gritty stuff. In addition it has also been refreshing to be working in an environment free of corporate politics and red tape. Maybe one of the biggest challenges has been with the Members and anyone who is a Member of a private Golf Club will understand exactly what I am saying. But the new public site is now life and its still safe for me to go in to the members bar!

So what next you say, well I am hoping that I can continue working for small medium sized business such as the Golf Club, maybe a new start up or even a charity. Watch this space...

JEM Newsletter - March 2014

So the hugely advertised and long anticipated Retail Business Technology Expo (RBTE) 2014 held at Earl's Court on the 11th and 12th March is now over. JEM were there on stand 492 and we met with some great people who had interesting and sometimes unique retail businesses. The technology suppliers were also there in force with new and innovative offerings especially in the personalised shopping arena.

The website for the RBTE reports that this was the most successful event to date with record visitor numbers and a wide range of technology to explore. All visitors to the JEM stand were entered into a prize draw for the fabulous Stella and Dot necklace and the lucky winner is Aine Beatty - congratulations Aine!

Amongst the many exhibitors JEM stood out as being the only specialist consultancy. This was a great opportunity as we were able to give independent advice to retailers with a very diverse range of business requirements, as well as talk to suppliers about the strength of their products and the types of retail operation they are targeting. This really supported our agnostic approach to suppliers as it puts us in an ideal position to identify the best solution for each retailer's unique requirements.

Jane gets on her bike!

One such business was a London based bicycle retailer with a genuine passion for their product. Having recently expanded their already successful operation and moved to new premises this retailer is seeking a robust, functionally rich store system to manage their operation today and for the future. A key focus is on delivering a very personal CRM experience consistent with their brand identity.

Advice from Erica that is fit for purpose!

Amongst the more unusual conversations was a retail proposition demanding surgical precision! Started by a leading orthopaedic consultant with a flair for the entrepreneurial this unique business aims to capitalise on the potential for growth in the health sector created by the privatisation of the NHS and the awarding of contracts to independent providers. The result is a combination of retail space with treatment rooms and an exercise studio.

JEM launch start-up support.

Following the amount of interest at the RBTE from both start-up operations as well as those experiencing growing pains, JEM have decided to add to our services by providing consultancy aimed specifically at these requirements. Keep an eye on our website www.jemconsultants.co.uk for more information.

Written by Jane Fransen-Hale: Director JEM Retail Consultants

Is It Time To Reshore Retail Manufacturing?

It's London Fashion Week again which inevitably leads us to discuss the dilemma of having fabulous UK Designers but nowhere in the UK to manufacture. But is this still true? For large volume brands the answer, sadly, may well be "Yes" but is it time the big "super" brands had a re-think about their source of supply?

 

The land that gave the world the Spinning Jenny (a means of multi-spooling cotton that kick-started the Industrial Revolution in this country) was in the ascendancy for hundreds of years. One by one, however, the great manufacturers fled to Asia where production and staffing costs were lower.

In 2000 Courtaulds closed in Worksop. In 2007 Burberry closed its Rhondda factory. Now we find ourselves exporting the machinery to manufacture rather than the garments. The sad fact is that 90% of the clothes we wear are manufactured outside the UK with a nett import value of £12.5 billion. The business of actually making clothes seemed dead.

So are there signs of a revival? It would seem so. Marks and Spencer are producing a " Best of British" range, although it is currently a very small number of designs. This collection is made in Hinkley with around 20 other factories actually manufacturing here.

Apart from flying the flag for Britain, this makes sound commercial sense as the lead times are so much shorter and the cost of logistics significantly reduced. Speed to market is key in fashion and shorter lead times make it possible to purchase "little and often" improving cash flow and reducing the amount of cash tied up in stock. My colleague Mike is passionate that retail Distribution Centres should do exactly that, distribute, and this greater responsiveness makes it possible to reduce the requirements for warehouse space.

In my role as a Retail Consultant I have analysed the supply base of many retailers, both big and small. I have looked at country of origin and supplier / factory performance and in most cases the nett profit of garments manufactured in the UK and the rest of Europe is vastly superior to buying from the Far East and India once all the costs are taken into account. I'm shocked how often the measure of profitability of an individual buyer is "intake margin". The cash generated by a garment has to be viewed with transparency of true costs of logistics and cash invested in stock over time. My findings have always come as a surprise to CEO's who can forget that as always "Retail is about the Detail".

Kate Hills has set up makeitbritish.co.uk bringing production back to the UK. In June she will launch the first trade show for buyers, brands, factories and makers, bringing them all together at the Old Truman Brewery in East London. It's a great chance to quantify what's out there. Hills says she has a database of around 1,000 factories and units, but nobody knows for sure what's left of the industry. We are missing some things entirely: Component makers for lingerie; shirting producers for men's formal shirts; a maker of high-heeled women's boots and general lining makers. "Things are coming back, but slower than they should be" concedes Hills. "We still lack infrastructure".

A note of warning to these factories is not to put all their eggs in one basket. It's great that M&S are pushing British products, but remember they were one of the biggest culprits in the demise of UK manufacturing and the suppliers that made solely for M&S went out of business.

Ultimately the health of British fashion manufacturing may well rest on whether we can develop the skill base we need fast enough. That and the fact that the majority of people who work in manufacturing are over 40 so we need more young people in the profession. There are some great schemes being set up: ASOS have established a stitching school. The British Fashion Council has set up "Fashion Enter" to offer apprenticeships.

However it is currently the case (and may always be) that the UK cannot compete for the lower end of fashion who manufacture in Bangladesh, where prices are low and large volumes can be manufactured cheaply, but we must be able to compete at the higher end. John Miln, Chief Executive of the UK Fashion and Textile Association said: "In the UK manufacturing industry for menswear, formal wear continues to be strong. Unlike the high street where business is tough, formal wear and tailoring is holding its own. There is plenty of fabric production in the UK from locations such as Yorkshire where there are some great suppliers, particularly of wool, operating well".

John Smedley produces from the world's oldest working factory - manufacturing began in 1784 just 20 years after Hargreaves' invention of the Spinning Jenny - and employs about 400 people across 3 factories in Derbyshire and Yorkshire. Ian Maclean, the brand's Managing Director, is the eighth generation family member to run the business and has big plans. The group makes about 400,000 garments a year, of which 60% are exported. Japan is its biggest export market, followed by Italy, Germany, France and Russia.

Mulberry has long made its products in the UK and is a rare example of a British luxury brand continually investing in the production of leather goods in the UK. A second Somerset factory will open later this year beginning a new chapter in a manufacturing story that is local in impact but global in reputation.

So there are definitely signs we may become a significant manufacturer again, but it is likely to be vastly different from the past. The luxury brands who claim to be "British" in particular should now show that they support manufacturing here and customers need to play their part by demanding to know where garments are made. It's no longer a legal requirement to label garments with country of origin but if it doesn't say "Made in Britain" then it probably isn't. If we can take some of the £12.5 billion away from imports and into UK infrastructure we will have a viable industry, which can invest in training and make this a choice of profession desirable to young people.

"Make it British" is launching the first and only sourcing event exclusively for British clothing, textile and leather goods manufacturers this summer, called "Meet the Manufacturer". This major 2-day event, held at The Old Truman Brewery in London's East End on the 11th and 12th June 2014, will showcase the best British manufacturers in the fashion and textile industry.

Let's hope the leaders of our fashion brands go along and start placing orders!

Written by Erica Vilkauls: Director JEM Retail Consultants

2 Down, 10 to Go!

My New Year's resolution in 2014 was to take part in a 10k event every month (notice I don't say run in a 10k event). January was a rainy seafront in Cleethorpes, this month it was a beautiful, if rather cold, morning at Catterick in Yorkshire. How did I get on?

As I lined up at the start line with 218 other people my heart sank a little when I heard the race Marshall describe the course as "undulating at best." He turned out to be a master of the under statement!

The, admittedly scenic, route through the Yorkshire countryside took in several hills that proved more than a challenge for my mediocre level of fitness, the second of which at around the 6.5k mark reducing me to a forward (just) stumble that couldn't be described as "running" by even the most generous of onlookers.

The event started at the Phoenix House Recovery Centre based at Catterick Garrison and was held to raise money for the charity Help for Heroes. Phoenix House is run by the charity and forms part of the Defence Recovery Capability. Their aim is to "inspire those who have suffered from life changing injuries or illnesses while serving our country and enable them to lead active, independent and fulfilling lives."

One of 4 specialist centres in the UK offering support in the form of education, vocational training, welfare, sport and vocational training even visiting Phoenix House and reading about their lives is simultaneously uplifting and humbling. Read some of the Hero Stories on their website and you'll see what I mean.

That hill, rising 50m in little more than half a kilometre, then continuing to rise gradually for around another 700m proved my undoing and it took me a disappointing 67 minutes to complete the course, finishing an inglorious 203rd out of 219 participants.

But I am undaunted! 2 months gone and 2 events completed. Just hope the next course is a little flatter!

Written by Mike Gamble: Director JEM Retail Consultants

Omni-Channel - The People Issues

"Multichannel retailing is the use of a variety of channels in a customer's shopping experience, including research before a purchase. Such channels include: retail stores, online stores, mobile stores, mobile app stores, telephone sales and any other method of transacting with a customer. Transacting includes browsing, buying, returning as well as pre and post sales service." So says Wikipedia!

Since our last blogs about retailers potentially seeing systems to manage the omni-challenge as a panacea to their trading problems, I'm heartened to see at last that a few people are starting to get a sense of perspective about what this truly means.... and that's NOT a great IT system alone. I am not, of course linking our small contribution to any change of understanding amongst retailers and analysts! For previous articles take a look at "Why Retail Can Never Be Led By Technology" and "What Does Omni-Channel Mean and Can Every Retailer Deliver It?"

The whole omni-channel way of working is not about a system, it's about a retail business putting customer needs first and letting them buy what they want, how they want, and acquiring it from a store, a delivery, or via click and collect. Omni-channel retailing allows (ideally) a totally seamless journey of the product to the customer. To do this, retailers must look at how they operate internally. The traditional silos of Buying and Merchandising for bricks and mortar stores, teams for online, operations departments just for stores, separate international teams, wholesale teams, franchise teams - all these have to go! How many retailers are brave enough to do that?

This is highlighted in Retail Week by Martin Newman from Practicology: "....most customers don't think about the organisational structures of the retailers they buy from when they are crossing channels, switching devices and updating their social media feeds on their latest purchase." And why should they?

I know of a number of "Business transformation" projects about to start but guess who is running them? The IT Directors! No offence to them at all but the technical side comes further down from the start of any such project (the give away is the word "Business"). First should be the strategic direction and process, then how the organisation should be structured to successfully deliver this strategy. Are the capabilities even there? What type of people are needed and with what skills? Conventional Buyers and Merchandisers may need to "up-skill". Who really has the luxury to have both digital and bricks and mortar specialists? In reality it shouldn't be difficult to improve skills - despite those in the digital world portraying what they do as some higher level of intelligence! Those businesses who scoop up people who can work across sales channels will win against those who keep channels separate.

Ian Geddes, Head of Retail from Deloitte says "business strategy skills, creativity, and knowing how to deliver technology in a more agile way are also necessary." I couldn't agree more. The 6 major challenges identified by Deloitte to successful omni-channel retailing (from start to end) are:

• Supply Chain and Cost to Serve
• Consistent product offer
• Single view of the customer
• Operational / functional silos
• Culture, measures and incentives

It seems to me that far too many projects have started without the people skills and structures being considered and defined (as well as costed!) together with the long term strategic goals of the business being clearly defined and used to ensure projects will deliver what they need to deliver.

From my experience it's not rocket science to pull together a multi-channel, international business process (lengthy possibly if you want to keep it simple, and you should) and select the correct IT system and system provider. But, changing traditional internal structures with all the various egos and power plays that go on can be really difficult and is hugely disruptive to day to day trading.

That is when it's worth investing in consultants who can guide you through and provide best practice untainted by any other agenda. The consultants must take all the teams with them and the only person who can ensure all this works successfully is the CEO of the business. How many are brave enough to  tackle what needs to be done to make their business truly omni-channel? Far more, I feel, will stop short of this and retain their silo structures.

No IT system on it's own, however sophisticated, can achieve the true omni-channel experience for customers. This year will be very interesting!

Written by Erica Vilkauls: Director JEM Retail Consultants

The Networker

As you leave the house for your morning commute to work, the early bird Networker will already be ensconced at his breakfast meeting tucking into a full English breakfast and copious cups of coffee. Later that same day as you sit back on your sofa with a glass of wine and maybe tucking into your evening meal while watching your favourite soaps, the night owl Networker will have just arrived at his local meeting place and be supping his first glass of cheap wine from a plastic cup whilst surveying his surroundings and searching out his new prey.

 

So who is this Networker, what does he do, and does it work? Well, in the second half of 2013, in an attempt to promote an independent venture with little or no marketing budget, I became a Networker somewhat by chance and somewhat by design. The design part being to take the advice of fellow independent business owners, which went along the lines of....

"Oh you don't want to spend your money on printed advertising or even a website. You must get out there and Network."

Of course I googled "Networking" and put in my location and "Good grief!" I was amazed at the choice and possibilities open to me. I could join up to a networking / or meet-up group for every interest I could possibly have and those I hadn't even thought of. Ploughing through: KENS Events, Italian Food Lovers, and a Ladies Lap Dancing group, I signed myself up for what sold itself as a business networking group which met in the local synagogue.

With some trepidation I arrived for my first evening thinking "I'll just do this one, chat to some people, get some contacts and that will be that." How wrong was I? Very soon I was approached by Networkers inviting me to their "other" groups and naively taking up all invitations from this and subsequent meetings I found myself attending either a morning or evening group twice a week for the following 6 weeks! On my travels I come across a few hard core Networkers who must be spending 40% of their working day at Networking do's and soon came to establish that these people were picking up 70% - 90% of their new business through Networking in this manner.

There are many different and varied business Networking groups. Each will follow a slightly different format and have various levels of formality and, I have to say, different levels of success. In all of the meetings everyone is given between 30 seconds to 3 minutes to stand up in front of the group and talk about what they do and what they are selling. This becomes a skill in itself, to promote your business and services in this brief time frame, and your success here determines how many people will subsequently approach you during the "mingle" session afterwards. For the evening meetings assume you are at a business cocktail party and have plenty of business cards with you. The Breakfast meetings are not a favourite of mine, purely because I am definitely not a morning person and struggle to find my voice and charisma over breakfast.

The big tip for Networking is "follow-up". If you meet someone who could be useful to you, don't let it drop - contact them after the meeting and follow-up.

There are national and international groups and there are some profit making groups with heavy subscription fees. These normally come with rules and regulations around joining and participating and possibly have their own handshake that as a guest I didn't get to experience. There are groups that are not run for profit with a small fee payable in advance or on the door to just cover the expenses.

There is no shortcut here. You must go to several different meetings until you find the one for you with the right level of formality and process to get you the referrals and business you are seeking and enough interest to keep you going. For me, I like the meetings where there is an interesting speaker and have learnt a great deal about Networking that relates to both small and large businesses.

The all important ingredient here is the other Networkers at the meeting. Are they right for you and your business? A wide range of people from all types of organisations go Networking and these people themselves may be good for you, or know someone who knows someone. Remember you are only ever 5 people away from Royalty etc etc. The Networker is there to Network for themself, but is there to help you too - Networking works both ways.

I expected the majority of my fellow Networkers would be individuals with small, independent businesses, with maybe 1 - 5 employees at the most, but this is not necessarily the case. As marketing and advertising costs soar and social media and online sites such as LinkedIn flourish, "Networking" is becoming more and more popular and relevant for the medium and even large sized businesses looking to win business off testimonials, word of mouth and goodwill instead of expensive, glossy advertisements in trade magazines.

So before you next go to print, think again. Think "Network!"

Anyone looking for a friendly, informal and informative Networking groups, with great speakers in North West London, try out the NW London Business Network on LinkedIn or at www.nwldn.co.uk.

Written by Jane Fransen-Hale: Director JEM Retail Consultants

Blunkett vs Brand

In the keynote address at the first Good Society Lecture of 2014 held by The Centre for Social Justice (CSJ) David Blunkett argued that the "rantings" of comedians like Russell Brand are dangerous as they may deter young people from voting. How right is he? Is this really the thing that discourages us from voting or is it the politicians themselves?

According to Brand politicians are "untrustworthy and irrelevant." He claims "I'm angry because for me it's real. This is what I come from.... There is going to be a revolution." So says the multi millionaire with a house in California, but even his inquisitor Jeremy Paxman thinks he has a point, describing the political choice in this country as "unappetising" and adding "It won't be a bombshell if very large numbers of the electorate simply don't bother to vote. People are sick of the tawdry pretences."

Blunkett claims that Brand risks "undermining democracy" by encouraging people not to vote, but is he really that influential or does the solution lie elsewhere? I have some alternative ideas as to why people might stay away from the ballot box but first a few facts: In the last 50 years voter turnout in the UK has fallen from 77.1% to 65.1% although this is an improvement on the low of 59.4% in 2001. This compares unfavourably to 79.5% in France and a European average of around 70%. So why don't more of us exercise this most important of democratic rights?

For most people there may seem little point. In 2010 there was a 5.6% swing from labour, one of its worst ever results, but only 118 of the 532 contested seats changed hands i.e. the people living in less than a quarter of all constituencies actually determined the result. The elected MP had a winning majority of less than 6% in just 111 seats. I experience this myself as I live within a very safe Conservative seat. Even in the days of the large Labour majority my local politician won by over 4,000 votes so does my vote matter? If I don't want to vote Conservative should I tactically vote for UKIP despite my abhorrence for their political viewpoint? Unappetising indeed.

This is something that is unlikely to change for at least a generation. The two largest political parties will not support electoral reform, not because they don't think it would be more democratic, but because it is not in their interests, and if I start on the issue of an unelected second chamber then it will be me ranting!

Politician fatigue. The expenses scandal - claims for duck houses, clearing moats and tuning pianos amongst other things - showed politicians to be the amoral, self-interested, profiteering low lifes that most of them are. Their routine defence? They didn't do anything outside the rules. Well, maybe not, but surely they can see that didn't make it right? Don't think this has stopped either. Figures show that MP's claimed a total of £98m in 2012/13 a big increase on the £95.4m in 2008/09. "Snouts" and "troughs" spring to mind.

More soundbite than substance. The immediacy of social media, particularly Twitter, make the snappy one liner more important than ever before. So important in fact that it may be difficult for a politician to be successful without mastering this aspect of their performance. Is this at the expense of there actually being something behind the rhetoric? Watching PM questions I suspect so.

The rise of the career politician. Speaking personally I want to feel that our politicians have lived and worked in the real world before being elected. I'm very uncomfortable with the number who have never worked away from the political arena as "Special Advisers". In it together? I think not.

"Lies, damned lies, and statistics." Mark Twain had it right. Why can't they give a straight answer to a question or express a personal opinion? Instead they quote statistics at each other or fall back on claiming that however bad things look, they would look worse if the other party was running things. Tiresome. This might explain why Boris Johnson is so popular. He may seem ridiculous on occasion but at least he actually says something and lets you know what he thinks.

Is it symptomatic of a lack of engagement in society in general? I'm not sure "the good old days" ever actually existed but are we now less likely than before to see ourselves as part of a larger society or community? Would we break up a fight or check on elderly neighbours? No doubt opinions vary.

Technology. Why can't we vote on-line? We already do so many things on the internet that depend on establishing our identity, such as banking or completing tax returns. Why can't we add voting? I've no idea if this would improve the turnout or not, but surely it couldn't hurt?

Whatever the reason, however pointless it may seem, I would argue that the opportunity to vote is both a right and a social responsibility and irrespective of political persuasion would urge everybody to have their say in who governs our country. Even if they do vote for the Monster Raving Loony Party!

Written by Mike Gamble: Director JEM Retail Consultants

So What Could Mike Do For Debenhams?

Amidst the announcements of Christmas trading results Mike Ashley's Sports Direct announced that it had sold its 4.6% stake in Debenhams less than a week after acquiring it (netting a profit of £4.5m) in a move that could see them increase it to 6.7% in the future. Confused? You will be!

 

Despite eschewing most forms of publicity Michael James Wallace "Mike" Ashley is well known for liking a bet (as well as a drink and decorating his house with Christmas lights) and with a potential £64m exposure should it go bust Debenhams would seem to be his latest flutter. Now obviously I don't know what his plans are, but I'd like to share my own vision as to what he could do.

Before I do, back to that arcane derivatives deal. Sports Direct has acknowledged that it is betting with a third party about how far the shares will fall with the said (unknown) third party believing that the shares will fall further. Simon Neville from The Independent reports that "Under the deal Sports Direct is paid a fee for agreeing to buy the shares at a preset - and undisclosed - strike price in the future. If the shares fall below the strike price, it will buy a 6.7% stake in Debenhams at the agreed price, or pay the cash difference between the share and strike price. If the share price continues to rise then the deal is off and Sports Direct pockets the fee from the third party."

Clear? No? Well you're not the only one but it would take a brave person to bet against him as the self styled "Northern club" of David Hughes and Dave Whelan will tell you. It might not be the prettiest retailer to look at, but Sports Direct entered the FTSE 100 in September and is worth more than £4bn. Rather more than be said for Allsports and JJB!

The Telegraph's analysis ran as follows: "Sports Direct may well be the craziest business on the high street. Not only is it run by Mike Ashley, a pantomime villain in Newcastle, but it has publicly fallen out with one of its two biggest suppliers, employs the vast majority of its workers on zero hours contracts and has stores that resemble a jumble sale. And yet, while Sports Direct may be unconventional, it has also been hugely successful. Last year its shares rose 86% and its sales were up more than 20%. This means that now, Sports Direct is also the craziest business in the FTSE 100."

Ashley's strategy, in broad terms, has been to get customers through the doors by selling products from the brands he owns (Donnay, Lonsdale, and Dunlop Slazenger) at a cut price alongside those from Adidas and Nike.

I have read that his team benefits from his passion and enthusiasm. If he can bring this energy to Debenhams then that's the first point in his favour. There is commentary about "sharing brands" between the two businesses but I would assume that Mr Ashley's plans are bigger than this. It should not be forgotten that he has bought Flannels as a foray into the luxury market. USC then Republic, was interested in Debenhams and, I believe, Nicole Farhi.

So, in my imaginary world Mr Ashley would....

Divest the Debenhams chain of some stores and use selected others as "value" stores for his own sports brands and Debenhams own brands.

Set up no more than a dozen Debenhams stores as true upmarket Department stores to rival, and better, House of Fraser. These would house established and new affordable luxury UK and international brands. He also has the cash to support new British designer talent in a way other store groups can't. The problem with achieving all this is him himself. His relationship with suppliers is not great and prestigious brands may be wary of doing business with him.

He would need to invest in store improvements to the tired Debenhams chain, but all is not yet lost at Debenhams. Aside from my ideas above, Mike Ashley can make immediate improvements by using his extremely slick logistics function. Moving stock around and making it available has been a key to his success and this platform could improve customer experience straight away.

Debenhams needs to be "re-energised" and energy is one resource Mike Ashley has in abundance. It seems to me that he needs an expert in managing suppliers to help relationships across all of the brands in which he has a stake. This may be his Achilles heel and if he really wants to succeed in the more upmarket end of retail he needs to change people's perception of him and trust someone else to build this part of his empire.

But even if he just sorts out the Debenhams store estate and gets a new senior team on board, plus use his logistics operation, Debenhams will still benefit hugely from his involvement.

Written by Erica Vilkauls: Director JEM Retail Consultants

Do We Judge All Books By The Cover?

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it's got to be a duck. Right? How about if it looks like a platypus? Does someone have to look the part in order to be taken seriously?

On the Daily Politics programme comedian David Schneider suggested that Ed Miliband is unelectable on the grounds that he looks like a "human platypus". Is he right? If such shallow considerations are likely to influence who will be the next leader of the country what effect does appearance have on other walks of life such as retail?

Like it or not the reality is that we all make an initial judgement of people in the first few seconds of meeting them, long before characteristics such as leadership skills and empathy have had a chance to show themselves, before even the demonstration of the obligatory strong handshake.

This is sometimes referred to as the "halo effect" or the "physical attractiveness stereotype". According to Dr Gordon Patzer human beings are hard-wired to respond more favourably to attractive people: "Good-looking men and women are generally regarded to be more talented, kind, honest and intelligent than their less attractive counterparts." He contends that "controlled studies show people go out of their way to help attractive people - of the same sex and opposite sex - because they want to be liked and accepted by good looking people."

But is appearance as important away from the public eye? It would seem so. One report by 20 20 Skills states that "physically attractive job candidates whose qualifications are similar to those of less attractive candidates are more likely to be hired for the same job." It is no surprise that there are some occupations in which this is true, would you use an overweight personal trainer for example? But Professor of Psychology Comila Shahani-Denning agrees that it is important even when irrelevant to the nature of the work: "There is considerable empirical evidence that physical attractiveness impacts employment decision making, with the result that the more attractive the individual, the greater the likelihood that the person will be hired."

Perhaps selection interviewing should copy "The Voice" and prevent those responsible for making decisions from seeing the candidates!

The advantages of being attractive also continue after recruitment: Forbes reports that "A landmark study from Cornell University found that when white females put on an additional 64 pounds, her wages drop 9% and according to a 2007 paper from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, there is a significant "wage penalty" for overweight and obese white women."

So is this an example of male chauvinism? Actually no, as there is plenty of evidence that good looks are important to both men and women in the workplace. In one study 61% who rated their male bosses as attractive also found them competent, compared with 41% for those thought "average" looking and just 25% considered unattractive. According to Ken Siegel women may even have the upper hand as they have a higher awareness that looks sell, while "men don't realise it's an important dynamic."

For someone in the public eye dress alone is not enough. If your picture is going to be splashed across the media the public demands that you must look the part. We want to have pride in our politicians as ambassadors for our country and therefore they have to ooze charisma. If you bear an unfortunate resemblance to a muppet (one of the scary ones) when your picture is taken from the wrong angle, you can be sure that this is the image the camera will capture every time. Sorry Ed, human nature can be tough!

While looks have little to do with actual ability I do believe that to be taken seriously in any chosen line of work you have to dress and walk the part. After all, to get people to listen to you means that you first have to be heard and image can be all important. Regardless of attractiveness everyone can have a good haircut, clean teeth and nails, wear good fitting, appropriate clothing and hold themselves well. If you don't take a pride in these things then can you really expect others to believe in you? (Although I still think ties are unnecessary!)

The beautiful people among us should also be aware that the stereotype can be a double edged sword. They are also more likely to be perceived as vain, dishonest and manipulative. I guess you just can't win!

Written by Mike Gamble: Director JEM Retail Consultants

How To Make CPD Work

I have been a little dismayed at the media coverage of Labour's plan to introduce licensing for teachers as part of Continuous Professional Development (CPD) as it is being portrayed as a method of making it easier to "get rid" of under performing members of staff. Isn't this missing the point of CPD?

 

I passionately believe that the first responsibility of leadership is to provide people with the opportunity, support, encouragement, guidance and advice to allow them to develop.

In this context I use the word "allow" with care as while I think it is something that everyone is capable of people must want and choose to do it. You can't "develop" others as if they are some kind of photographic negative (for younger readers this is what we used before digital imaging) and this means that you can't threaten anyone into learning new skills, much as you can't beat them until morale improves. Although many have tried!

I've no idea if this is any kind of established training doctrine, no doubt my friends at Training for Advancement (TFA) would be happy to tell me, but in my experience there is a simple truth that affects almost everyone's willingness to learn, and that is that we all enjoy doing the things that we are good at. These are the activities that bring us recognition, they confirm our place in the team and provide us with a feeling of validation and security. They are safe.

By definition these are things that we have done before. That's how we know we are good at them. It also means that we are less inclined to enjoy things that are new to us. How do we know if we are going to be any good at them? Participating in something unknown therefore becomes unsafe, inherently high risk behaviour that is to be avoided if at all possible.

Education is probably a unique environment in this regard as learning new things is the whole point. The "thing we are good at" and therefore enjoy doing may be (ought to be) learning itself. The workplace is very unlikely to resemble this as most of us are employed to complete tasks. We may know that the way in which we are doing this is flawed, but they are are our flaws, and we have come to understand and to love them.

As a Project Manager I encounter this attitude towards change all the time, but is it unavoidable? Well, only if the environment created by leadership fails to encourage and promote personal risk. If, when introducing a new approach to CPD you do so in the context of making it easier to get rid of people that perform poorly it seems to me that this failure is almost guaranteed. Personal development demands acquiring new skills and putting them into practice and this will almost certainly involve a degree of failure. Leadership must accept and embrace this rather than threatening to punish it.

Take project management as an example: you can send someone on a Prince2 training course but it would be unrealistic to expect them to return to the workplace transformed into an expert Project Manager. This is not going to happen. At best they have been provided with a set of tools, rules and guidelines. To learn how to apply these in practice they need experience and support when they make mistakes as this is an inevitable part of learning. It is also particularly true of projects as by their very nature they can't be rehearsed.

If your fledgling Project Manager's first mistake (or second, or third) is met with "I thought you'd been trained" they are likely to run for the hills. Trust me, they already feel whatever the error is more keenly than you can imagine and even spoken in jest these words can destroy any remaining confidence.

I feel I must make the point here that this is not necessarily, or even mostly, about attending courses. I once took over an under performing site as General Manager. One of the first things I did was interview every member of the management team on a one-to-one basis. When asking about CPD I was initially baffled by the response of "I haven't done any because I don't know what courses are available." Surely training needs should define what courses are made available rather than the other way round? It seemed that CPD had become a box ticking exercise. There was no mentoring and no thought as to how people could develop in the workplace. Small wonder the site was failing!

I have had the good fortune to work with and for some exceptional people. My partners at JEM, Jane and Erica, are amongst them as are the likes of Martin Fletcher, now working with my erstwhile colleagues at Teva, and David Smart, currently being tall, dark and haggard in his native Scotland.

These are very different people but in addition to being very good at what they do they have three other things in common: they respect and value you for what you are good at; they challenge you to add to what you are good at by learning and practicing new skills; and they treat failure constructively, with understanding and support. What more can you ask?

My balance on this soap box is getting a little precarious. I freely admit that I'm no saint and that I can get it wrong like anyone else. I can, and do, misread situations, misunderstand motivation and misjudge people with the best of them. I am also highly goal oriented and can be demanding and difficult to live wth when that goal is put at risk (or so I am told!)

That said, I feel my greatest achievements have been the achievement of others and my role in providing what support I could to the likes of Steven Allen and Kris Read is the thing that keeps getting me out of bed in the morning.

Well, that and the need to pay the mortgage!

Written by Mike Gamble: Director JEM Retail Consultants

Does Your Distribution Operation Have The X-Factor?

Over the last 7 years I have been asked to consult over a number of ailing distribution centre operations that required a variety of different solutions. Here are some ideas as to how to recognise if your DC is in need of some TLC.

 

Not surprisingly I have never been asked to get involved with a Distribution Centre operation that already had a reputation for being well run, highly productive and consistently providing an excellent level of service. Here are 5 questions to ask to establish what is wrong and suggest some ideas as to what can be done about it.

What are your first impressions?

You generally know within 30 seconds of walking through the door whether or not the building is well maintained and if the team take a pride in their environment. In truth businesses may have to take the lead here. 5 "S" initiatives can achieve a lot but I have worked in DC's that have suffered from years of neglect. If the roof leaks like a sieve and the welfare areas are woeful there is a limit as to what you can expect from people.

The second thing indicated at first glance is the attitude to work. As my colleagues John Wilde and Peter Woodward (Productivity Solutions Limited) explain performance is the outcome of pace, utilisation and method. People obviously shouldn't be running around but neither should they be standing about and a certain amount of hustle should be obvious. If it isn't then looking at the resource level and how it is used is a high priority. If you're not sure then benchmark with a Rated Activity Sample (RAS). I'm sure John would be happy to help!

How do the team plan their activities and communicate with the rest of the organisation?

Generally speaking warehousing and distribution is a people business. However sophisticated your system platform work still gets done because there is ultimately a pair of hands doing it. This makes resource planning a key activity to support both service and productivity and planning depends on information. If there isn't a strong relationship in place between the DC team and the more commercial parts of the Company this isn't going to work.

What does "good" look like?

Recognising good performance is as key to motivation as identifying under achievement is to continuous improvement but this means that the team must have an understanding as to what is important (and why it is important) that is endorsed by key stakeholders. There must also be a robust way of measuring it otherwise "performance" becomes very subjective and key performance indicators fall into disrepute. I asked this question of a team I worked with recently and was told that they knew they were doing well when their Director didn't shout at them. Strangely they didn't find the avoidance of pain particularly motivating especially as they had no clear understanding from one week to the next what was expected of them.

Are costs properly understood and reported?

DC wage costs fall into 4 main types: Direct; Indirect; Consumables; and Facilities. The last two of these are usually pretty clear but I am constantly amazed about the reporting of wage costs and the lack of understanding of these two very different things. "Direct" costs are variable and flex to volume as they pay for the people actually doing the work. More work, more cost (the opposite should also be true but, sadly, sometimes isn't). That is why the only way to properly understand this spend is in the form of a cost per item / unit. "Indirect" costs are fixed and consequently should be understood as a cash spend.

I am always infuriated when FD's castigate hard working DC teams for overspending (in cash terms) on direct costs when volumes are higher than forecast. What did they expect to happen? When the team have worked their socks off to achieve a great service level at a cost per item at or below budget despite having a highly inaccurate forecast, do these people have any idea how demotivating it is to then be asked to justify this "overspend"? I could rant for some time on this topic but it would become boring!

One final word on costs: I have never really understood why people tell me that achieving a higher level of service will cost more money. Generally speaking the opposite is true as eliminating waste (look for departments that start with "Re" or "Mis") is a prerequisite for both efficiency and service. Do things once and do them right and you won't have much to worry about.

Do the team always say "Yes"?

This is a big red flag for me. I have a very clear understanding that warehousing and distribution is a service industry but having a "can do" culture has become almost a macho thing in some operations. Part of the "service" we provide should be to point out when things don't make sense and will ultimately result in either an unacceptable level of cost or, worse, damaging the reputation of the business by providing poor customer service. This doesn't mean being negative but we need to recognise how, and when, to negotiate. Separating interest from position is also key as frequently what the business wants to achieve can be done but the way they have asked you to do it ought not to be attempted.

Is that all there is to it?

In a word "No". I could talk at length about organisation structures, value added process design, and space utilisation amongst other things but a) my colleague Jane told me to be brief and I do as I'm told (most of the time) and b) you wouldn't really expect me to put the experience gained over nearly 30 years into a blog would you?

Written by Mike Gamble: Director JEM Retail Consultants

Who Did and Didn't do Well Over Christmas (and Why)

In Retail Winners and Losers in 2014 I made some predictions as to who would do well, and less well, this year. How are these looking in the aftermath of the critical Christmas and New Year trading period?

Department stores John Lewis and House of Fraser have emerged as two of the biggest retail winners this Christmas, but the fact that John Lewis saw its sales growth halve and House of Fraser's success came after heavy discounting showed that there is still a chill in the air even for those who appear to be doing well. Who is wrapped up warm and who is catching a cold?

NEXT: Sales up 12% on last year for the period from 1 November to 24 December. Britain's second largest clothing retailer reported sales "significantly ahead of expectations" in the run up to Christmas. The Company raised its pre-tax profit forecast for 2013 to £684 - £700m and announced a special dividend of 50p per share. Shareholders showed their appreciation by sending the share value up 10%.

The retailer has cleverly benefited from a series of self-help measures that offset any impact of the heavy discounting and reduced footfall so bemoaned by struggling rivals. They have a consistent offer with good size availability and great delivery options. A retailer that is trusted on product, quality and its management of multi-channel (I won't give my views on the product itself, apart from observing that M&S used to stock this sort of merchandise in the days when it sold clothing well). Chief Executive Lord Wolfson said that they also saw a rise in shoppers leaving their on-line sales until the last minute as confidence grew in the next-day delivery service.

John Lewis: a 7% rise in like-for-like sales in the 5 weeks to 28 December. JL was boosted by a 22.6% increase in on-line sales bringing it to almost a third of total sales over this period, but sales in stores were also up by 1.2% as shoppers snapped up last minute presents on the high street.

Shoppers have a comfortable and welcoming environment and are served (in the main) by enthusiastic and well-informed assistants. I'd be interested to know the profit number year on year as clothing is now highly dominated by Brands who discounted from early December. I was also faced with waiting 10 working days to have 2 in stock items delivered. Why? I went to AO.com and had them delivered next day. John Lewis cannot trade on reputation alone. From now on the customer must be King and established supply chains must develop or adapt or the story may well be different next Christmas. (Still think the advert was worth the cost?)

House of Fraser: Like-for-like sales for the 3 weeks to 28 December were up 7.3% with on-line sales up 57.7%. Apparently this surge in on-line sales helped HoF to have its best ever Christmas trading period, although having used the website I have to say I am amazed at this!

The store environments have improved (unlike Debenhams) and if only they did not discount so often I'm sure that more aspirational brands would stay with them. My view would be "decide who you are and stick with it". Prestigious brands do not need to discount and currently being in House of Fraser is not seen as a good option to sell through.

Debenhams: Underlying sales rose by 0.1% in the 17 weeks to 28 December despite a 27% rise in sales on-line. Gross profit margin fell by up to 1%.

We were warned that pre-tax first half profits would be 26% down on last year at £85m after hopes for a late surge in December were dashed.

My prediction last October was that Debenhams would fail in 2014 and if their current strategy of discounting continues then Debenhams will not survive as there is no point to it any more. This strategy always had a limited shelf-life and they are now neither mid-market or value.

Very odd that the CFO was chosen to fall on the proverbial sword. That seems more than unfair when a change of strategy led from the top is surely the only way forwards, although perhaps the CFO was behind the (grasping at straws) tactic of demanding that its suppliers pay a 2.5% discount just 8 days before Christmas.

It seems it's been good news for all those clothing brands with great, distinctive product who held their nerve on discounting. Next, Fat Face, Boux Avenue, JLP own brand, Zara, Reiss, Jigsaw, and Ted Baker.

Retailers can't directly affect confidence in the economy but if you have a great product and manage stock well then you are much more in charge of your own destiny. Those that really understand their customers and put their needs first will win in 2014.

Written by Erica Vilkauls: Director JEM Retail Consultants

A Promise Kept

On the first day of 2014 I lined up with over 400 other people to keep a promise I made to myself over 6 months ago by taking part in my first 10k for almost 4 years. But could I finish?

New Year's Day on the seafront at Cleethorpes. Cold, wet, windy. Mildly hungover and wearing shorts I have just one thought going through my mind "am I completely insane?"

Actually I was there to fulfil an objective I set myself around May of last year after discovering I had become so unfit I couldn't jog the quarter mile to my local pub (a route, as you might have guessed, that is extremely familiar to me). Totally disgusted with this I set myself the objective of getting fit enough to participate in 10k events again by the end of the year.

This has not been entirely plain sailing. Somehow nearly 4 years have elapsed since the last time I was running on a regular basis and starting again has been a painful experience. Despite taking things very gradually I have gone through a back problem as well as straining various leg muscles and I was about to answer the question "Was it all worthwhile?"

Well I'm happy to say it has been as I managed to get round the 10k course without stopping. At over 63 minutes I was pretty slow and finishing 386 out of the 433 finishers is probably not something to normally be proud of, but for me it was. After all, I can now get to the pub much more quickly!

As I have found before there was a great sense of camaraderie amongst those taking part. People you have never met before chat freely and everyone is very encouraging of each other whatever their level of ability. There always seems to be a mutually supportive atmosphere of participating in a shared experience at these events.

The Romans began each year by making promises to the God Janus, after whom January is named. Well, in the year I turn 50, my New Year's Resolution is to try and take part in a 10k event every month. My next one is in Dewsbury in early February. Perhaps I can break the 60 minute barrier!

More immediately I am subjecting myself to the Dryathlon again this year. 31 days without an alcoholic drink. This may be more painful than the running!

Written by Mike Gamble: Director JEM Retail Consultants.

Fashion's Shame

In its September issue British Vogue reported that nearly 70% of designers incorporated fur pieces with their Autumn collections, yet in the early 90's the editor of American Vogue had a dead raccoon dumped on her plate in a New York restaurant for refusing to give up wearing mink. So is the wearing of fur back to stay?

According to the RSPCA over 95% of people in the UK would still refuse to wear real fur, so what makes some people, including young British designers like Christopher Kane, think it's ok to wear the coat of an animal farmed in such barbaric conditions?

There are probably two answers: the first is "I don't care", the second people who are ignorant of the production methods.

Kate Moss would seem to be a good example of the first group. Despite her friend Sadie Frost recently launching a high profile anti-fur campaign, Moss was recently seen draped in fox furs. Her response "I don't care what Sadie thinks. She has her own mind and I have mine. I wear what I want to wear."

People with this amoral attitude are already lost to humanity. Any education will fall on deaf ears (or at least the void between those ears).

The second group can be reached by positive messages which get the point across without the "turn off" factor of gruesome pictures. I think people turn away from these, rightly repulsed and revolted, in a nano second and will not re-engage again.

So what can be done? Maybe we will never eliminate the fur requirement of the "elite" in this country, but we can reach out to the majority that may be tempted to use "lower end" fur such as rabbit and chinchilla.

The most effective way to deal with this trade is for CEO's of fashion chains to take an ethical stance and enforce a ban on fur products and wool produced in inhumane conditions and killed in the most painful ways in the way that Top Shop has with the truly barbaric methods employed in China.

The editors of Vogue will never care and will continue to glamorise fur, but CEO's have to appreciate that people increasingly expect companies to take responsibility for their supply chain and to take a stand on moral grounds. You only have to look as far as the coverage of some of the tragic events in Bangladesh, or, in the food industry, the horse meat scandal earlier this year.


Provenance in fashion is now as important as it is in food. When it becomes apparent that CEO's are either not in control, or simply turn a blind eye, people will shop elsewhere. Leaders who ignore the wishes of the customers do so at their peril, a lesson learned by Kurt Geiger several years ago when their stores were picketed by people demanding an end to the use of rabbit fur.

One example to be careful of is faux fur produced in China as they find it easier to use dogs and cats than to produce faux, so check the country of origin.

In 1994 five supermodels posed nude to protest against the wearing of fur. I don't know why the likes of Naomi Campbell, Kate Moss, and Eva Herzigova disagree with this, any more than I understand why Graham Norton would inanely comment "Fur campaigners are so dull. Why don't they just lighten up and find a new topic to bore us about."

What I do believe is that their attitude is to their shame, as it is to the whole of the fashion industry if this recent trend continues.

Written by Erica Vilkauls: Director JEM Retail Consultants.

Win a Kindle Fire HD

To celebrate reaching 4,000 page views of our blogs, JEM Retail Consultants are giving you the chance to get 2014 off to a great start by winning the latest Kindle Fire HD

My colleagues and I at JEM Retail Consultants have enjoyed writing blogs over the last few months on subjects as diverse as delivering omni-channel retailing, using personal networks or agencies when recruiting and the winners and losers of the Christmas advertising campaigns.

Judging by the 4,000 page views we have had, as well as the comments and messages, at least some people have also enjoyed reading them. We want to begin 2014 by writing about the subjects that you are most interested in. This could be related to the retail industry - we are, after all, retail consultants - but could also be anything that matters to you.

If we like your idea and plan to use it as the subject of a blog we'll enter your name into a draw to win a Kindle Fire HD 7". We'll conduct the draw on December 31st and publish the result on New Year's Day, so you could start 2014 by winning one of these fantastic gadgets. Take a look at our blog site to see what we have posted about in the past: www.jemretailconsultants.blogspot.co.uk

So come on, let us know what you want us to write about, we can't wait to hear your ideas.

Written by Mike Gamble: Director JEM Retail Consultants.

Ban The Celebrity!

The expression "famous for being famous" should apply equally to those that achieve celebrity status despite the absence of any discernable achievement and people whose fame is wildly disproportionate to their degree of talent. Who would you most like to see removed from our TV screens in 2014?

Thankfully common sense appears to have finally prevailed at ITV who say they have "no plans for Katie (Hopkins) to appear on This Morning at this present time." Or at any other time I hope. This is hardly surprising when a petition to ban her from TV gained 87,000 signatures following her awful Tweet about life expectancy in Scotland. Personally I would have done it much sooner in response to her equally ridiculous, but rather less offensive, views on children's names and parenting in general.

What other celebrities, or even programmes, would you like to see consigned to the scrap heap of fame?

I had some disagreement with my colleagues at JEM over the answer to this, but top of my personal list is Jeremy Clarkson. This is partly because he dismisses everyone that doesn't have a political viewpoint somewhere to the right of Genghis Khan as a "leftie", but is mostly because I am sick of his disdain for every car that doesn't possess a massive petrol engine and do 0 - 60 in less than 5 seconds and contempt for drivers who don't own such a machine. The fact that this criteria for motoring happiness is irrelevant to almost all of us seems to be lost on both him and the makers of Top Gear.

A close second for me would be Keith Lemon. A fictional character portrayed by the "comedian" Leigh Francis, whose "flamboyant" personality, ludicrous clothes, and grotesque face pulling I am sure I would have found hilarious when I was 10. I know my former colleague Kevin Annables disagrees with me, but there isn't a character on television that has me reaching for the remote faster.

Next there is Russell Brand. I'll be honest and say that I have never found this guy funny but until recently I did find him fairly easy to ignore. He has now, however, decided to appoint himself as some kind of political campaigner appearing on programmes such as Question Time and Newsnight to express such balanced and intelligent views as "They're like snickering little posh people, sort of w***ing into their sock. I think if your job is to look after the country and you don't care about the people who need it most, you're out of order. And you're a dirty, filthy, posh w***er." I must admit I could take him more seriously as a people's champion if he wasn't happily pocketing $10m a film and living a lifestyle to which very few people can ever aspire.

Well that's the top 3. Jonathan Ross was a close runner-up but didn't quite make the cut amongst such illustrious company.

So, who would you like to see off our screens? Should Ant and Dec (which one is which anyway?) stay in the jungle? Is the X-Factor, X-Factor-less? Let us know.

Written by Mike Gamble: Director JEM Retail Consultants.

What A Cracker!

The Christmas Cracker is almost as traditional as holly, mistletoe and eating too many mince pies. When did they first appear at our dining tables and what are your favourite jokes?

What is Santa's favourite pizza? One that's deep pan, crisp and even!

Little could Tom Smith have imagined, when he invented the cracker in 1847, that it would become such an integral part of British celebration and tradition, let alone an industry worth £120m a year.

In 1840 Tom Smith, a baker and confectioner from Clerkenwell in East London, came across the "bon bon" - a sugared almond wrapped in a twist of tissue paper - on a trip to Paris. He decided to sell the bon bon from his shop and boosted sales by hitting on the ingenious idea of including a small love motto in the tissue paper. It was the crackle of a log as he threw it on the fire that inspired him to develop a "pop" caused by friction when the wrapping was broken and ultimately resulted in the cracker we would recognise today.

It was Walter Smith, Tom's youngest son, who introduced paper hats and toured the world to find novelty items to include such as bracelets from Bohemia and scarf pins from Saxony. He also replaced the love motto with a topical note. I wonder what he would have made of the jokes included today? Here are 10 of my favourites:

Who says "Oh, Oh, Oh?" Santa walking backwards!

What do you call a bunch of chess players bragging about their games in a hotel lobby? Chess nuts boasting in an open foyer!

What's furry and minty? A polo bear!

Why can't Santa go down chimneys this year? It is against Elf and Safety rules!

Who delivers Christmas presents to cats? Santa Paws!

What's round and bad tempered? A vicious circle!

Where do frogs go if they have bad eyesight? The hoptomotrist!

Why did the moth nibble a hole in the carpet? It wanted to see the floor show!

What did the fish say when it swam into a wall? Dam!

What's white and goes up? A confused snowflake!

Why not give us a laugh on a cold Monday morning by sharing the ones that make you groan.

Written by Mike Gamble: Director JEM Retail Consultants.

No Smoking Gun!

In "The Truth Behind The Click" Panorama promised to shock us by uncovering working conditions at Amazon that have been condemned as amongst the "worst in Britain" but did they succeed?

 

Amazon is not only a massively successful retailer, it is also a huge employer of people in the UK providing work for 20,000 people on the run up to Christmas. As fantastic as that is it doesn't provide them with any excuse for creating working conditions that put people's health at risk or for setting unreasonable targets. The trouble is that I felt Panorama failed to show much evidence of either.

So what were the main arguments? Much was made of people being "treated like robots" and "racing a computerised clock." This is all very dramatic but actually describes the use of a hand-held terminal (HHT) to guide a picker where to go next and give them an indication as to how long each task should take. The work rates were compiled from historical performance levels. Apparently the mental health of the picker was put at risk due to the sound the HHT made when they scanned the wrong pick location or item.

This is all very standard technology. I have been working with HHT's in similar environments for at least 25 years and given the size of the picking area and number of items I'm not sure that there is much alternative to using them to guide the picker. As for the work rate, surely it is reasonable for any employer to set productivity targets and encourage people to achieve them? Ok, I would have expected the targets to be set using work study data rather than past performance and the "encouragement" was a little on the threatening side for my liking but I wouldn't have thought either of these things out of the ordinary.

If the undercover journalist was scanning the wrong thing with so much frequency that the error "bleep" was keeping him awake at night then this probably had much to do with why he was struggling to hit the performance targets on the grounds that if you waste time doing the wrong thing you have less left in which to do it right. And why was he scanning the wrong pick locations so often? They looked clearly enough labelled to me.

The distance walked was also mentioned repeatedly with 11 miles covered in a 10.5 hour shift. Again, having worked in similar environments I would have thought this neither unreasonable or out of the ordinary. After all a brisk walking pace is closer to 4 miles an hour.

So what about the legality of the shifts? Well to my knowledge the regulations demand that night workers do an average of 8 hours in any 24 hour period. Amazon comply. Only if the work "involves special hazards or heavy physical or mental strain" must they be restricted to 8 hours work in 24. Although I'm quite sure that the work is tiring (work tends to be) I really can't see that this applies to what we were shown.

The programme also showed us the impact Amazon has had on a smaller retailer. They might as well have talked about the effect of the Internet on HMV or the supermarkets on corner shops. The retailer talked about "if you can't beat them, join them" but surely therein lies his problem. He can't join them. To survive he has to offer something different, the kind of product knowledge, personal service and outstanding shopping experience that Amazon can't provide.

Anyway, what did this have to do with working conditions in the distribution centre?

Referring to the pressure people are under Paul Kenny from the GMB said that he has "never seen anything like it" and Martin Smith claims that the TU has been "driven underground and has to operate like the French Resistance." Again, we weren't shown anything to suggest that this is any more than sheer hyperbole. I think the TU would have much more to say if Amazon decided to invest heavily in automation, something I am surprised that they haven't already done.

To be honest I really didn't like the way a points system was used to control absenteeism and would suggest that there are better, and more effective, ways to achieve the same thing but that aside all I saw was an extremely large scale business being well, if toughly, managed and run.

In other words, pretty much what I expected.

Written by Mike Gamble: Director JEM Retail Consultants.

Consultant Speak With Forked Tongue!

At the end of the day, when push comes to shove, most professions have their own lingua franca designed to make communication easier. Management consultancy may have the dubious distinction of one that purposely does the opposite by creating a vocabulary of confusing expressions that usually have a different meaning to the actual words used. So which ones make you as sick as a parrot?

 

Having worked both with and as a consultant I often feel that the jargon used, particularly the dreaded three letter abbreviation (TLA) is designed to confuse and exclude the uninitiated who feel too embarrassed to ask for an explanation. Change programmes abound with ERP and WMS, flirt with MMS and WCS and get positively obsessed by EDI and VPN.

As annoying as this can be, at least this shorthand does actually have a specific meaning and failing any other source of information Google can usually provide. Far more sinister is the use of consultancy jargon. I recently worked with a well known IT and e-commerce Director who, faced with any challenge to his preferred way of working, would justify it as "this is just standard good governance practise". This was very clever as although the expression actually means very little (and wasn't true anyway) it places anyone wanting to disagree in the position of refuting a mythical body of opinion that has established the "standard". People tended to stand around and nod wisely in agreement.

Some of my other "favourites" include:

"I just wanted to touch base with you." While superficially expressing a desire to communicate, it usually means one of two things: "I need to ask for something and I know you won't like it"; or "I want to tell you this so that someone else gets to share the blame".

"Let's take this off line." Used by the chair of a meeting to bring an end to a discussion they either don't like or have lost control of. Just be aware that it will probably never be talked about again.

"I'll ping you the deck." Just means "I'll send you the PowerPoint slides (and there are no doubt many of them) by e-mail." Why not just say that? Do these people know how ridiculous they sound?

"Granular" or "granularity." Again, if more detail is required why can't people just ask for it? I suspect that this pseudo technical expression actually means "I can't decide so I'm going to ask for more information I suspect people can't find as a delaying tactic."

"Let me play this back to you" or "What I think you are saying is...." Be warned! This will not be followed, as you might expect, by a paraphrased version of what you have just said to check understanding, but instead by what the speaker wishes you had said, thinly veiled by using a few of your words. If you're not careful then whatever rubbish is about to be uttered will become yours by association.

"We need to keep this on the radar." Lovely expression. Generally means "I don't know what to do about this, but I figure it will come back to bite someone so I'm going to make sure it's you."

"I think we should push back on this." Or otherwise "I disagree violently but desperately want to avoid a confrontation that I know I will lose."

So, consultants are likely to use the language in a truly horrible and generally misleading fashion, but do they do more than borrow your watch to tell you the time (and then keep the watch)? Well under the right circumstances (and, I am bound to say, using the right consultants) then "Yes." Here are some of the benefits:

Focus on the project or programme. The consultants are around to achieve a particular objective, have no day job to distract them and no agenda other than that set by you (i.e. they tend to stay outside office politics).

Wide range of experience and of what "good" looks like. Consultants can bring a greater breadth of knowledge and experience of what can be achieved than that possessed by your permanent team gained from working with lots of clients and in varied circumstances.

They aren't trying to take anyone's job away. Generally speaking people work as consultants because that is what they want to do. They don't represent a threat to people.

Delivery will be on time, within budget, and to the required level of quality (or it will be if you work with JEM!)

I'd love to know from you why you do or don't bring consultants into your business, so please take part and leave your comments in response to this blog. I'll even follow up by adding more entries to the Consultants Dictionary!

Written by Erica Vilkauls: Director JEM Retail Consultants.

 

Falling Standards Or Systemic Failure?

In October 2013 the Guardian reported that "Out of 24 nations, young adults in England (aged 16 - 24) rank 22nd for literacy and 21st for numeracy. England is behind Estonia, Australia, Poland and Slovakia in both areas." This year the overall pass rate at GCSE fell for the first time in the exam's 25-year history as well as the proportion being awarded top grades falling for the second consecutive year. So is our school system failing us?

 

Why would someone who works as a retail consultant be writing about our education system? Well, for a very good reason. Warehousing and distribution is primarily a people business and whether it is to run an operation or deliver a project, I have had the responsibility for putting a team together on many occasions. In my experience it has become increasingly difficult to recruit people that possess the skills in literacy required to write a decent report, and the standard of arithmetic necessary to create a basic spreadsheet.

This impression is backed up by the findings of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) who found that in England adults aged 55 - 65 performed better than 16 - 24 year olds at foundation levels of literacy and numeracy. The OECD warns that the "talent pool of highly skilled adults in England and Northern Ireland is likely to shrink relative to that of other countries."


Most people in this country are still educated in a comprehensive school, a system that was introduced from 1965 as parents increasingly revolted against the 11-plus examination and in response to expectations in education that could not be met by a process of dividing children at the age of 11, sending one lot to grammar schools, from where they could continue to university, and the rest to secondary moderns with much more restricted opportunities.

The introduction of comprehensive schools was about more than education, as ending the practise of separating children at so young an age was also aimed at social reform. It is therefore disturbing that other figures from the OECD report that Britain has "some of the lowest social mobility of the developed world" and that in some ways mobility is worse now than it was in the 1970's. "For every one person born in the 1970s in the poorest fifth of society and going to university, there would be four undergrads from the top fifth of society. But if you were born in the 1980s there would be five."

I reported in a previous blog, "Are Our Bosses Worth It" that 15% of total UK income is now in the hands of the top 1% compared to less than 6% in the late 70s. So has the comprehensive school system been a two time failure addressing neither standards of education or social mobility? I put this question to a close friend with vast personal experience of state schools. His answer was clear and I have repeated it here in its entirety:

"My support for the comprehensive system arises primarily from an abhorrence of any system which sets out to divide young people at the tender age of 11 (or indeed at any age) into sheep and goats with all that implies for their self-esteem and their image in the eyes of other people with effects that are likely to be lifelong, and to do so, moreover, by means that have known faults and short-comings."

"On top of that I am opposed to any "system" that awards or condones unearned privilege, including that which allows parents to buy, through schooling, easier access to higher education and to opportunities denied to other young people in the professions and positions of influence."

"You refer to the "Comprehensive School system's failures." I would have to challenge that on the grounds that the comprehensive system has never been tried in this country."

When 32% of MPs, 54% of FTSE100 directors and 70% of judges were part of the 7% of the population educated in private schools you can see his point.

So what are your views? Most of the people reading this will have experienced this country's education system, either personally, or as a parent, or both. Is it time for a radical overhaul?

Written by Mike Gamble: Director JEM Retail Consultants.