Is the traditional lighting business model dead?

[Darren T. Kimura]

We spent the day talking about the lighting maintenance industry.
There was a lot of talk about the way things were which included long
term lighting contracts, mass and planned relamps, fixed costs and
hiqh quality service. Today's business is about fast service, low
quality and poor product selection. Is the model of old dead?

[Ed]

If the model you describe is not already dead, it is probably in the
process of decay. This is because most business models are organic and
like any organism, will die if not nurtured. You need look no further
than the business models of Polaroid and Kodak. One was in the instant
picture business, the other in the film business. One was a threat to
the other. Yet these once leading American companies are now mere
shells of their former selves due to digital photography.

IBM is an example of a business model (mainframe computers) that
managed to change itself to a service orientation. Xerox is no longer
known for copiers, but for document management. Apple Computer was a
laggard in personal computers but is now the dominant player in
personal music management.

Similarly, we in the lighting maintenance business have to continually
perform a strategic review. Are we in the sign erection business or
the imaging business? Are we in the light bulb replacement business or
in the "green energy" business. I am sure there are many more variants
of how we may describe ourselves which will alter our approach to the
marketplace and change our value proposition to the customer.

Low quality and poor product must have costs associated with them. We
have to articulate the total cost of ownership to the customer. If
that cannot be done, then perhaps the "low and poor" alternative is
the better one. But if that model increases the frequency of
maintenance or presents safety hazards, then these costs have to be
explained to the customer.

Any business managed can become comfortable with what has worked in
the past. We have to make ourselves uncomfortable and continually re-
examine, challenge and modify the business model as required.

This is a quick answer to a very complex and interesting question.
Seminars have been devoted to this. I look forward to more discussion.




On Mar 25, 9:37 pm, "Darren T. Kimura" <darren.t.kim...@gmail.com>
wrote: