So the news is out. One-million-year-old Roger Clemens gets to go to his team of choice amid much hoopla and money. And Kevin Garnett, despite his role in producing wins for his team, can't get any respect.
Is there anything we can learn from these sports scenarios about the economic value of individuals on teams, and the complex issue of "player productivity?"
In this context, I'm not referring to the way professional service firms compensate their top revenue producers -- typically by promotions and/or shares in a firm's equity. This time, I'm talking about the way professional service firms manage their professionals' "touches" with clients, and the impact on individual and company-wide "productivity."
Like many other heavily matrixed professional service businesses, it's challenging for marketers to know who's in touch with which clients, how often, when and with what content. Unfortunately, the tug of war between many gatekeepers, all trying to favorably position themselves with clients through a communication "touch," ends up making the whole firm look bad because so many others within that same firm are doing the same thing.
Actually, I think professional sports is onto something. Professional service businesses should do more to standardize their measures of individual professionals' impact on the firm's marketplace progress (beyond the obvious measures like "selling business").
How about a few new statistics and acronyms?
- CCPS (having a low Client Clutter Perception Score).
- CRMI (achieving a high Client Relationship Management Index).
- TLP (Thought Leadership Percentage; a high percentage indicates a significant amount of new intellectual capital developed).
Professional sports has made fascinating progress in assessing the economic value of individuals on teams. Professional service firms remain more subjective than they should. A little objectivity and structure could make the game at least more interesting.
Recent Comments