If you haven’t read Focus to Drive Growth, let me summarize a bit to set the stage for Step 1. I often find that firms dilute their business development efforts, which leads to lackluster growth and discontent among professionals and staff. Most often this situation can be attributed to a lack of laser focus on a company’s business objectives and the commitment to making the hard decisions that come with declaring a company’s targeted-market strategies. 

The first step in a strategy to grow revenue is focusing on one objective. The objective could be for the company as a whole, an industry or practice group, geography – whatever segment of the business you are trying to develop. Note however, if you are focusing on something other than the company as a whole, your objective should support and complement the company’s objective.  

Focus on one objective

While this may be hard to do or deceptively simple, articulate in measureable terms your ultimate goal in one or two sentences to provide a beacon by which every proposed strategy and tactic is measured. Following are three real-life examples:

• Move up the ranks (in size and reputation) of the country’s midmarket firms by becoming more sharply focused and better branded.
• Collect $200,000 in revenue within 12 months by attracting 10-15 new clients and landing 3-5 repeat engagements.
• Clear $25,000 in revenue within 12 months by doubling the number of programs delivered. 

Note that all of these succinct objectives are measureable, such that you can ask and answer: Does a proposed expenditure of time or money have a high probability of moving the firm toward its stated objective? If so, it’s worth considering. This is how you prioritize your marketing budget. 

What’s more, the sample objectives are easily understood, not lofty fluff. Their understandability lends them to being good overriding focus statements. The objectives are not all inclusive statements which are often designed to make everyone happy. The old adage is true — you can’t make everyone happy, so don’t even try. Rather, get there by making the business unit you are working on successful. Remember everyone owns success, while everyone disowns any participation in a failure. Focusing on one objective is powerful. 

In the next posting we will talk more about focusing your offerings to drive growth.

I’ve made the assertion that the electromagnetic field, consisting of an electric field and a magnetic field, is a single unified quantity (hence it’s called the “electromagnetic field”).  Maxwell’s equations, plus the Lorentz Force Law, describe this E&M field completely.  I’ve also asserted that any magnetic field is produced by a Lorentz transformation (a Special Relativity calculation of the effects of relative motion) and so is linked inextricably to the electric field.  Maxwell’s equations in vector notation do make it obvious that electric and magnetic fields are intrinsically related and inseparable, essentially two parts or aspects of the same phenomenon.  However, certain aspects of the relations between the electric and magnetic field parts of the E&M field are not obvious from the usual vector notation way of expressing these laws of physics.  For instance, with Maxwell’s equations expressed as vectors it’s not obvious from the form of the equations whether there is anything about the E&M field that remains fundamentally unchanged under a Lorentz rotation (a change in velocity in Special Relativity).

Yet, a fundamental principle of physics is that the laws of physics must be the same (i.e., have the same equations) in any inertial frame of reference.  This is called “Lorentz invariance.”  It turns out that the laws of electromagnetism – Maxwell’s equations and the Lorentz force law – are Lorentz invariant even though it’s not obvious from the equations.

But is there another way to write the equations that would make their invariance obvious?  Of course there is!  In fact, there are at least two ways.  They both involve using a somewhat different mathematical formalism than vector calculus, as well as expressing the laws in a form that’s intrinsically four dimensional.

I don’t want to get heavily mathematical here, so I’ll try to summarize.  The first trick is to write all the electromagnetic quantities explicitly as four-dimensional (3 space dimensions plus time) quantities and then to use the mathematics of matrices, in particular of tensor calculus, to describe them.  For instance, consider the electric current density.  In 3D this is a vector with three components, the three spatial components of the direction and magnitude of the current density.  How do you add the fourth or time dimension to an electric current vector?  It turns out that the fourth dimensional component of the current is the charge itself – normally a scalar quantity in 3D.  Added to the 3D vector current in the right way, namely, as a component that points in the time direction (that exists in time), then you get a “four-vector” of the electric current density.  This “four-vector” has the three space components of the electric current density vector plus the sources, the electric charge density, existing in the time dimension.

In the end, the electromagnetic field can be represented by a 4×4 matrix (for the four dimensions of spacetime), usually called the “Faraday Tensor” and Maxwell’s equations become a single equation instead of the usual four.  The Faraday Tensor contains the components of the electromagnetic field – three components of the electric field vector and three components of the magnetic field.  This tensor explicitly demonstrates the unity of the electric and magnetic fields, as parts of a single unified ‘thing.’  More than that, because of the details of how the components of the Faraday Tensor are arranged, it becomes clear that the electromagnetic field is “Lorentz invariant,” as it is required to be.  This means that Maxwell’s Equations state a law of physics that is true for all observers, and that the electromagnetic field “object” is unchanged in 4-dimensional spacetime when measured by different observers.

This unity of electric and magnetic fields shows deep unities in the world both between electric and magnetic forces and between space and time.  It also helps us to understand how the magnetic field originates, in a rotation of an electric field in spacetime caused by observing the electric charges in motion.

Everspin has had a technology called Toggle MRAM in production for some years, and now is the first company to begin sampling the new STT-MRAM technology.

More details can be found at The Memory Guy blog (http://thememoryguy.com/everspin-samples-first-stt-mram/#more-453 ) and at Everspin’s website on http://www.everspin.com/PDF/ST-MRAM_Press_Release.pdf  and in a technical brief (http://www.everspin.com/PDF/ST-MRAM_Technical_Brief.pdf ) and presentation (http://www.everspin.com/PDF/ST-MRAM_Presentation.pdf ).

By Ed Murdock
10/26/2012

Manufacturing equipment must be capable of producing the intended parts within the specifications for that step in the manufacturing process.  In a broad sense, this means that the output of the equipment must meet the requirements of the customer or particular in-process specifications.  Whatever the key metrics are for the equipment (e.g., the dimensions of a part, the amount of liquid put into a bottle, the magnetic properties of a material, etc.), those metrics must fall within desired specification limits and the fraction of parts out of spec must be less than a specified level.  A mistake that is sometimes made is in either not defining the process capability requirements or in not adequately measuring it.  If you don’t both specify and measure what quality a process step must produce then you are subject to defective parts later in the manufacturing process and identification of the cause of the defects is made more difficult.  In other words, your scrap will be too high.  In the worst cases, the problem will be found by your customers – really not good!

First, a little tutorial.  Note that when I say “capable” I mean it in a Six Sigma sense.  That is, the variation in the measured metric for the process output (its statistical sigma) must be sufficiently smaller than the specification range to guarantee the desired level of out-of-spec parts at that step in the process.  In addition, the process equipment must be adjusted so that the mean value of the key metric is centered in the specification limits window.  Figure 1 below shows an idealized distribution of a measured property with its variation as well as the impact of a shift in the mean of the distribution.  This graph illustrates an example found in the NIST website, http://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/pmc/section1/pmc16.htm, where the distribution of parts is technically within the capability of the process but, because the mean is not centered in the specification window, there would actually be a large number of out-of-spec parts (defects).  The mean=16, sigma=2, USL=20, LSL=8.  Parts can fall outside the specification limits (USL/LSL for upper & lower limits) either because the variation is too wide or because the mean shifts.

Process capability is quantified by several ratios comparing the specification range with the variance of the process (sigma) and/or the value of the mean.  (These ratios can be found and explained on many websites, incl. the two noted at the end of this post.)  To be considered process capable, the equipment must demonstrate two things.  First, its natural variability of output measure is small compared to the allowed specification window (ideally, the process sigma or standard deviation should be less than 1/6 of the specification window).  Second, the drift of the mean must be sufficiently slow and controllable that the normal long term drifts in process mean don’t cause a rapid increase in defective (out of spec) parts.  The conventional definition for the capability of a process takes the +3s values as the upper and lower process capability limits.  In this case, 99.73% of the parts will fall within the +3s window that defines the capability of the process.

Figure 1:  Illustrating the example from NIST, showing the conventional +3s spec limits that define the process capability of a centered distribution (dashed line).  However, if the process drifts so the distribution is no longer centered (blue line) then its tails fall outside the limits and the number of defects rises very rapidly.

However, this definition does not take process drift into account.  Drift in the process mean over time is inevitable.  The process must be controlled to keep the mean as close as possible to the target and the process must be adjusted so its variability (sigma) is small enough relative to the spec limits that drifts don’t cause major increases in scrap loss.  Figure 2 shows schematically how this can be done.  Ideally, the process sigma should be reduced to 1/12 of the spec window (for a two-sided specification) or +6s around the target, and the drift should be controlled to stay within no more than +1.5s around the target.  Then the number of defective parts per million from this process will stay at 3.4 DPPM or less.  The process is said to be six sigma capable.

Figure 2:  Illustration of a six sigma capable process.  The process has been adjusted so the sigma is narrow enough to allow plenty of margin for some drift in the mean (1/12 of the specification window or +6s), and the drift is controlled to stay within +1.5s of the target (center of the window).

The only way to know whether your equipment is capable of the process desired is to measure it over both short and long periods of time.  An initial capability study may take a few days, and long term capability can be taken from regular manufacturing data over weeks or months.  Short term studies will mainly measure the process variability (or sigma) and the present value of the mean, while longer studies will assess gradual drifts in the process mean.  This data allows predictions of the number of defective (out of spec) parts.  It also can be used to target what to fix with a given process step.  Failure to measure, then to monitor and control your process equipment’s capability means you have a big unknown in your process flow and it can bite you.

By the way, there are many fine websites that cover the principles of Six Sigma in detail.  Two that I have found helpful are:

National Institutes of Science & Technology (NIST):
http://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/pmc/section1/pmc16.htm

Brecker Associates, Inc.
http://www.brecker.com/six_sigma.htm

The truth is not every line-of-business, division or manager is equal or deserves the same resources in executing strategies. Some will deliver a much better ROI for the company as a whole than others. And, while you may be operating in a distributed environment, the business requires prioritization. 

Following are 10 areas where focus is required to drive growth.  

1) Focus on one objective

Articulate in measureable terms your ultimate goal in one or two sentences to give the company a beacon by which every action is measured. Does a proposed expenditure of time or money have a high probability of moving the company toward its stated objective? If so, it is worth considering. 

2) Focus your offerings

If you want to drive growth, then you need to put all your eggs into a few baskets. Identify the top performing lines of business and invest more into them. These products or services are more than likely what you are known for and are easiest to sell. From that focused platform, set an expectation that management and sales staff will cross-sell other non-core practices to keep building/cementing client relationships.

3) Focus on a few industries

Almost all the surveys say clients buy industry specialization first. No matter how you organize yourself internally, face the market by industry (although aligning internally with a client industry focus will avoid disconnects.) For the sake of credibility, focus on only market opportunities in those industries in which you really have deep expertise and are committed to being an involved leader.  

 4) Focus on a few strategies

Once you have an objective (for the company or division), you should focus on only three to five strategies.

 5) Focus your tactics

Focusing on too many easy tactics leaves everyone feeling scattered and dilutes your efforts in the market—and it’s an ineffective marketing method. The shotgun approach works in very few situations, consumes a lot of resources, is hard to measure and unsatisfying for everyone. Instead, while your volume of tactics may be large, prune them with an eye toward repeatability; quality and quantity of the audience; punch for the effort; and commitment internally to own the effort and follow through.  

 6) Focus on your rainmakers of tomorrow

Your company’s rainmakers already know how to bring in business and they need support—continue to give it to them. However, it is your next tier of professionals, the ones who have the potential to be tomorrow’s rainmakers that you need to focus on to drive growth. Business development/sales training and management support will go a long way toward helping them succeed.

7) Focus on measuring ROI or ROO

While not everything is measureable, that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try to measure either return on investment, or return on objective. Need I say more? As you build your tactics, ask yourself how you will  measure return. If you can’t measure the return, question the tactic.

 8) Focus on your brand

Building your brand externally through traditional marketing approaches such as advertising and public relations has the benefit of paving the road for your professionals to sell. An unknown company or firm is a risk for any prospect (non-client) to engage with. Being known for your core products/services and industries will complement your business development efforts.

 9) Focus on your culture

To be consistent with your company’s focus, your employees and especially sales professionals need to understand the company’s positioning statement and what the company is known for. Build your brand internally, as well as externally. Key to this is continuous, consistent communications from all levels of management. Your employees are your community- and client-facing ambassadors, the most trusted referral sources for your company. 

10) Refocus

The world is not static, tactics are not always successful, things change. Therefore, plans and efforts need to be adjusted, realigned to meet the market as it is. It is the wise man who can change course when the winds shift. Go with the flow.

Kathleen Leach is the Director of Marketing for Technology In Enterprise and a marketing and business development consultant to professional services firms.  Her in-house roles also include marketing leadership positions with two of the Big 4 and two AmLaw100 firms.

In 1861-1862, James Clerk Maxwell, a prominent British natural philosopher (physicist), published a four part paper in the Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science[1] in which he laid out the theoretical foundation for the unification of electricity and magnetism.  This science is called electrodynamics.  Over time, with his own continuing efforts and the efforts of other prominent scientists such as Heaviside, Lorentz and others, plus the development of the vector notation for calculus, Maxwell’s equations were cast in their current form.  Cast into modern vector notation, the unification of electric and magnetic fields is obvious.  For instance, the rate of change of the magnetic field is related to the electric field (the curl of the electric field, actually – how its rotation changes from place to place), and vice versa.

However, with the development of the Special Theory of Relativity came the principle that fundamental laws of physics should be “Lorentz invariant.”  In other words, the equations should look the same to two observers in relative motion, even though relative motion is now known to include genuine changes in measures of distance and time.  It turns out that the standard modern form of the equations is NOT obviously independent of an observer’s state of motion.  Yet, they must be!

Einstein solved that problem in the same paper in which he developed the theory of Special Relativity[2].  It required recognizing that the real world is actually a four-dimensional world, not a three-dimensional one, in which time itself becomes a fourth dimension that is related to the three space dimensions in a certain way.  In consequence, Maxwell’s equations of electrodynamics must properly be expressed in a four-dimensional way (space+time).

This is a little difficult to do using normal vector notation because that notation is inextricably spatial or three-dimensional.  However, the mathematical notation of tensor calculus allows a proper mathematical representation (see Jackson[3]).  This mathematical notation shows not only that the equations of electrodynamics are Lorentz invariant (“covariant” in mathematical terms) but that the electromagnetic field is one unified quantity.  This quantity is often called the Faraday tensor and it shows that the electric and magnetic fields E and B are components of a single four-dimensional quantity or object.

This is critical for understanding where the magnetic field comes from.  In my next post, I will introduce an amazing mathematical notation – called “geometric algebra” – that makes this unity completely obvious.

http://www.storagenewsletter.com/news/tapes/ibm-lto-6-ts1060

LTO-6 as IBM has implemented it will have a tape cartridge with 2.5TB native (uncompressed) capacity and a data rate of 160MB/sec.  The IBM system supports 2.5:1 compression for up to 6.25TB capacity.  The press release gives more details, of course.  StorageNewsletter has an interesting comment section at the bottom of the article that has both more details about the LTO history and roadmap and their opinions about it.  If you are interested in the tape storage world you should read their comments.

http://www.storagenewsletter.com/news/tapes/ibm-lto-6-ts1060#analysis

One of the earliest and most preventable errors that can lead to poor manufacturing yield comes from designing product or parts that are difficult to manufacture.  This often involves the design team not understanding the real limits of the manufacturing process and designing without proper attention to process variabilities.  The result is parts or assemblies that experience a lot of rejection as scrap because of the high variability of the individual parts relative to the design.

An early design team I managed ignored the limits of manufacturability and ended up designing parts for a layered recording head where the edges of the layers had to line up exactly or the parts wouldn’t work.  Normal process variability didn’t allow for this, except in a small percentage of parts.  The designers had to be taken into the factory and see for themselves what the problem was before they could understand how to fix the design.  This can apply to any kind of manufacturing process or device, whether parts have to fit mechanically, in layers, electrically or magnetically.  The design team must be up to speed on what the manufacturing capabilities are, as well as what improvements are coming along in order to create a compatible design.

There is a large body of literature on Design For Manufacturability so it is an area that is widely understood.  (for instance, some online links are: DRM Associates, http://www.npd-solutions.com/dfm.html   and in Desktop Engineering online magazine, http://www.deskeng.com/articles/aaakfb.htm   )  Application of the principles to any particular product and manufacturing product has to be customized, of course.

Ed Murdock

IBM researchers at Almaden Research Center in San Jose, the Max Planck Institute and the University of Basel have demonstrated the storage of data at a near-atomic scale.  One bit was stored in 12 atoms and was shown to be stable for several hours at cryogenic temperature (0.5K).  More details can be found in the articles linked to here.  Basically, a Scanning Tunneling Microscope was used to move Fe atoms into two adjacent lines of six atoms on a surface.  The Fe atoms used were, of course, and their interactions created an anti-ferromagnetic alignment pattern.  It was shown that this arrangement could be reversed (e.g., from +-+-+- to -+-+-+ in each row) by using the STM tip to reverse an atom at the end of a row.  Groups of such islands of 12 atoms could be arranged in an array on a surface (similar to the bit-patterned media concept);  because each island is anti-ferromagnetic, they will be non-interacting with even a small space between islands.  The resulting recording density (and resulting hard disk drive capacity) is potentially about 100X greater than today’s disk drives, meaning it would be between 50-100 Terabits per square inch, and what is today a 1 Terabyte drive could hold up to 100 TB!

Of course, this is a proof of concept for the storage and is very far from a commercial possibility, at present.  (For instance, you can’t put a scanning tunneling microscope in a disk drive, nor operate at -272.5◦C.)  Still, that’s the way most new technologies start life!

Ed Murdock

Technical Paper:

“Bistability in Atomic-Scale Antiferromagnets,” Loth, et al., Science, 196-199 (13 January 2012)

DOI:10.1126/science.1214131

Abstract:  http://www.sciencemag.org/content/335/6065/196.abstract?sid=bee32136-8030-4897-afb4-e4e17ece2291

Basic online articles: 

http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/36473.wss

http://m.ibm.com/http/www.ibm.com/smarterplanet/us/en/smarter_computing/article/atomic_scale_memory.html?goback=.gmp_3992318.gde_3992318_member_167160535

More Details:  http://ibmresearchalmaden.tumblr.com/

You Tube:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpKMShooDBo

4^th International Conference

Nanotechnology, Medicine, Biology

Krems/Austria

http://www.bionanomed.at/   and   http://www.bionanomed.at/index.php?id=10

Sounds interesting!  -EM

– the exclusive Know-How-Transfer meeting for scientists, researchers, engineers and practitioners from Natural Science, Medical Science and Engineering Subjects throughout the world.

The congress in organized in  program tracks based on related technology topics.

Topics

- Novel Nanomedical Solutions – Advances in Nanomedicine

- Regenerative Nanomedicine

- Nano- Bio-Technology based Diagnostics

- Nano- Bio-Technology based Therapy

Thematic Sessions

- Aspects of NanoSafety

- Nano- Imaging-Technologies in Medicine

Panel Discussion

- Nanotechnology in Pharmacy – Future Perspectives?

Special Symposium

- Nanotechnology in Artificial Organ Support

  (Organized by ESAO – European Society for Artificial Organs)

Exhibition

BioNanoMed 2013 serves as an excellent platform to present your company/institution, to promote your product portfolio and to establish direct links to a broad audience of experts.