Goals, Measures and Balanced Scorecards – December 2012 Strategy Topic of the Month

Posted on by

Our final strategy topic of the month for 2012 focuses on what law firm management is doing relative to setting objective measures for their strategic plans. Peter Drucker famously said, “you can only manage what you can measure.”  The question is, do law firms measure progress against the key elements of their own strategies (i.e., are they measuring what they are managing)?

Kaplan and Norton put systematic rigor behind measuring key elements of strategy with the Balanced Scorecard. The essence of the balanced scorecard involves adopting a set of measures that allow management to track whether strategies (and strategy implementation) is working.  We take a particularly keen interest in the topic, having written a book for Ark Publishing/Managing Partner on applying balanced scorecard principles in law firms.  A generic balanced scorecard adopts measures in four broad categories.

 Balanced Scorecard Graphic

This month we explore the extent to which firms are using measures in these categories and the extent to which they are linking those measures to strategic goals.

As always, the survey is very brief (should take less than two minutes to complete) and all responses will remain confidential.  If for some reason you do not see the survey in the window immediately below, click this link to be taken directly to the survey.  Deadline for responses is end of business PST on December 21, 2012.  Questions can be directed to info@sterlingstrat.com.  Thank you for your insights and candor.

Partner Development Strategy – November 2012 Strategy Question of the Month – Survey Results

Posted on by
Our strategy topic for the November 2012 focused on where the future leaders of law firms will be coming from.   There is a simple industry wide issue relative to generational demographics.  A very large cohort of baby boomer partners will be retiring over the next 20 years.  In fact, by 2020 (eight years from now) half of the boomer cohort will be 65 or older.  If you look at the broader demographics, the generational cohorts create something akin to a roller coaster.
 
 
  • Baby Boomers are a large cohort of over 80 million people
  • Generation Xers  are a smaller cohort of roughly 60 million people
  • Millennials are a large cohort of over 80 million (similar in size to the boomer generation – with many still in high school)
So, how do you overcome the overall industry (and societal) demographics to ensure you have strong people across all generational cohorts?  Our findings point emphatically to the value of hiring and developing ‘lifers’ (i.e., people who stay with the firm they join at the entry level).  In other words, the best path to ensuring you have great people across the generations is to hire and develop your own!  To quote a  couple of respondents:
 

  • “We are blessed with strength throughout the demographic ranks, as well as a culture that is attracting like minded star/potential star laterals. We highly value having high quality lawyers at all levels (including entry level), training and mentoring, and making it such that all who work here can, if they do their parts, make a career at our firm.”
  • “(Our future leaders are) most likely from “lifers”.  We have a good group of them.”
Firms who reported that 50% of more of their current attorneys are ‘lifers’ (let’s call those firms ‘high lifers’) are dramatically more confident in the future prospects of their young people.  Asked the importance of various generational cohorts in future succession (i.e., who are most likely to produce business developers and leaders over the next 10 years):
.
  • ‘High lifers’ are three times as likely to consider their current associates to be a very or critically important source of future leaders (compared to ‘fewer lifer’ firms).
  • Similarly, ‘high lifers’ are 3.5 times as likely to have confidence in associates that they ‘plan to hire and train in the next ten years.’
  • ‘Fewer lifers’ on the other hand only truly have confidence in their mid-career (over 45) and younger equity partners.
 
More broadly, no one expresses much confidence in the ability of future lateral hires to be key players in 10 years.   However, there were firms anecdotally expressing great confidence in their laterals.
.
  • “We have grown over the last 10 years 200%, mainly from lateral hires. It is from this group that we see our future leaders.”
  • “(Our future leaders will be) highly successful laterals that subscribe to our business philosophies and firm culture.”
In addition, there is not much confidence in the future prospects of younger (under 45) non-equity partners.  While not entirely surprising, the lack of confidence in non-equity partners raises enough questions about their long term role(s) to fill its own blog post.

.
Hiring at the entry level has been consistently lower across the industry – as compared to pre-recession levels.  The following pie chart explains why that condition persists quite clearly.
 
Finally, a couple of respondents looked into the proverbial crystal ball and offered predictions about where the future generation of law firm leaders will emerge.
.
  • “They will come from the middle tier of law schools, they will have worked their way thru college and law school, they will have started working early in their teens and understand how to make a dollar.  They will display a high level of emotional intelligence and a majority will be women.”
  • “From those who have a business/entrepreneurial bent as opposed to simply applying a legal analysis to a set of facts.”
As always we thank those who took the time to share their insights with peers and colleagues.  Comments are open and we welcome your emails and phone calls as well.
…

Partner Development Strategy – November 2012 Strategy Question of the Month

Posted on by

The demographics of the legal industry are clear – a very large cohort of baby boomer partners will be retiring over the next 20 years. In fact, by 2020 (eight years from now) half of the boomer cohort will be 65 or older. While it is certainly true that productive people work beyond age 65, there will clearly be a need for a new generation of highly capable partners to develop and manage client relationships, to train and mentor future partners, and to lead their firms and practices.

If you look at the broader demographics, the generational cohorts create something akin to a roller coaster.

  • Baby Boomers are a large cohort of over 80 million people
  • Generation X  are a smaller cohort of roughly 60 million people
  • Millennials are a large cohort of over 80 million (similar in size to the boomer generation)
There are clearly cultural differences between (and within) each generational cohort – something demographers have studied and documented.  However, simply looking at the size of the cohorts underscores the challenge facing law firms over the next 10-20 years. A large generational cohort has begun to retire and will continue to retire over the next 20 years.  Meanwhile, the generational cohort behind them is smaller (and we see many firms with fewer equity partners from this generation).  The Millennial generation represents a new, large cohort (boding well for the long run), but the oldest Millennial is still an associate today – and many are not even out of high school yet.

The question then is, “where will law firms’ future leaders come from?”

The very short survey below should only take two or three minutes to complete.  Your individual responses will remain anonymous and confidential – collective input will be published here at the end of the month.  Please complete the survey by the close of business (PST) on November 28, 2012.  If for some reason you do not see the survey in the box below, click this link and you will be taken directly to the survey.

As always, thank you for your willingness to share your experiences with your peers in the legal industry.

Survey Results – The Value of Client Feedback – October 2012 Law Firm Strategy Topic of the Month

Posted on by

October’s law firm strategy topic of month was the value of client feedback. Our initial rationale for exploring this topic grew as a by-product of our June 2012 strategy question of the month. June’s survey focused on best practices in the strategic planning process. We found that one of the key factors that distinguished highly successful planning processes from their less successful counterparts was the incorporation of client feedback into the process. Specifically, we found that firms that reported having “very successful” planning processes were 45% more likely to have solicited client input than were firms that reported disappointing results.

So, we thought it would be worthwhile to build a deeper understanding of what law firms are doing more broadly vis-à-vis gathering and using client feedback. What approaches are they taking to gather that feedback and what outcomes are they experiencing?

Approaches to Gathering Client Feedback

Interestingly, no single approach is used consistently by more than a third of law firms participating in this month’s mini-survey. Roughly 30% of firms report they consistently have their managing partner (or his/her counterpart) conduct structured interviews with a cross section of clients. Similarly, roughly 25% of firms report they have their senior marketing or business development people conduct structured interviews with a cross section of clients. Note: in some cases, both the managing partner and chief marketing officer conduct the interviews jointly.

When you include firms that report using a given approach – but who do so less consistently – the most prevalent approach to gathering client feedback is having the managing partner conduct informal (often one-off) interviews with clients. Roughly three-quarters of all firms report that their managing partner (or his/her counterpart) conducts periodic, informal interviews with clients. However, those interviews are not conducted across a cross-section of the clientele – and, they are not structured to ensure key topics are covered consistently.

Written surveys of all kinds (e.g., randomized, major client focused, and/or end of matter surveys) have fallen by the wayside. That approach was fairly common in the 1990’s, but fewer than 20% firms report using written surveys (web or paper) at all.

The following table presents the full range of responses relative to approaches firms are using to gather client feedback on a regular and/or irregular basis.

USE OF CLIENT FEEDBACK APPROACHES BY US BASED LAW FIRMS

As is always the case with these monthly mini-surveys, participants were generous in sharing some of their practical experience in the open-ended section of the survey. Among the practices and insights law firm leaders shared were the following.

  •  We require annual meetings with top 100 clients on an annual basis. The meeting is structured and performed by supervising attorney. Top 25 clients are also contacted by firm managing partner on at least an annual basis.
  • We spend a lot of time educating/helping our senior attorneys develop disciplined, regular communications with their clients…we emphasize that all our attorneys need to know their client business/industry well.
  • (Our) client teams develop a (tailored) method that fits the client’s culture and relationship to evaluate how the firm is performing. (Examples include) team meetings with the various client contacts; in-person meetings between the key contact at the client and the (lead) attorney; and various contact attorneys reaching out to their respective contacts in the client organization…assessing our performance as the defined purpose.

It should be noted that there is still resistance in some quarters… “I’ve not yet been able to convince the Management Committee, who all have great relationships with their clients, that some client feedback system is necessary.”

Results and Outcomes from Gathering Client Feedback

Obviously, it is always helpful to have a sense for what our peers are doing to manage their respective firms more effectively. More importantly, however, it is critical to understand what results can and should be expected from pursuing any given management practice. In the case of gathering client feedback, the key benefits can be summarized in four points (reflecting five sets of insights firms report gaining more than half the time – either always or often).

 

  • First, over 70% of law firm leaders report gaining genuine insights into how to manage their client relationships more effectively.
  • Second, over 60% of law firms gain new insights into how their clients view the firm’s strengths and its opportunities to improve (i.e., its weaknesses and shortcomings).
  • Nearly 60% reported that the client feedback process always or often produces opportunities to do more of the type of work the firm is already doing for that client (i.e., to deepen the relationship).
  • Over half reported that gathering client feedback always or often produces opportunities to do new types of work for clients (i.e., to broaden the relationship.

In addition to the points above, it should be noted that a number of law firm leaders said that the process itself tends to generate goodwill. Further, it creates a dialog that grows the relationship in the context of the client’s needs rather than in a ‘selling’ mode. One law firm leader summed up both points quite succinctly in an open-ended comment, “(The process creates) great client satisfaction that we even take time out to spend time with them and more importantly “care”. Also learn how much many clients “hate” the “cross-selling” pushes.”

A complete summary of the outcomes firms experience via client feedback gathering processes is captured on the following chart.


Closing Points

Given the fact that structured, formalized client feedback processes are only pursued with high levels of consistency at somewhere between a third and half the firms surveyed, it strikes us that this type of outreach can still be a source of competitive advantage for law firms. It is certainly a factor distinguishing more successful strategic planning processes from the rest. And, our anecdotal experience confirms what we learned more systematically from this survey. Namely, asking clients for their feedback generates goodwill; it often creates new work (sometimes, entirely new work in new areas); and it provides valuable insights into what the firm does well, how it can improve, and how it can manage client relationships more effectively.

At Sterling Strategies, we tend to gather structured client feedback in the context of strategic planning assignments (though we do so as stand-alone engagements on occasion). However, our friends at the Wicker Park Group focus intensively on the client feedback process. They even publish a continuing series of client Q&A summaries you might find interesting.

As always, the comments section is open – and we always welcome your calls and emails.

The Value of Client Feedback – Law Firm Strategy Topic of the Month – October 2012

Posted on by

Our June 2012 strategy question of the month focused on best practices in strategic planning in law firms.  One of the principle factors that distinguished the firms reporting the most success with strategic planning from those reporting the least success was the use of client feedback in the strategic planning process.  Specifically, firms that report having “very successful” planning processes were 45% more likely to have solicited client input than were firms that reported disappointing results.  Remarkably, a similar survey conducted a month later by ALM and Lexis/Nexis largely overlooked the value of client feedback in the strategic planning process (perhaps viewing it as an element of “Client Relationship Management” and therefore skipping it as a specific focal point).

Frankly, we see broad value in gathering client feedback.  Certainly, it is incredibly valuable the the strategic planning process.   But, it can also play a valuable role in ongoing relationship management, in client service planning, in business development and marketing, in innovation, in pricing, and in quality management.

What we see here at Sterling Strategies is anecdotal.  Yes, we see and work with many law firms.  But, these monthly surveys (short and focused though they may be) give us all some real data on what is working and what is not working in the real world of law firm management.  This month, we have an opportunity to learn what approaches firms are using to gather client feedback.  And, more importantly, to learn what results firms are getting from their efforts at gathering client feedback.

The survey below should take less than five minutes to complete.  Results will be posted back on this blog at the end of the month.  Deadline for completed surveys is the end of business (PDT) on Friday, October 26, 2012.  As always, individual responses will remain entirely anonymous and confidential.  Please direct any questions you might have regarding the survey to John Sterling at jsterling@sterlingstrat.com or at (312) 543-6616.

If for any reason your web browser is not showing the survey in the box below, simply click this link and you will be redirected to the survey host.  Thank you for sharing your own experiences with client feedback with your peers.  It is valuable and widely appreciated.

 

IMPROVING THE BUDGET PROCESS – September 2012 Strategy Question of the Month

Posted on by

Our September Law Firm Strategy Question of the Month focused on the budget process. Specifically, this month’s quick survey identified the budgeting practices that are most useful in real world settings in law firms. As in past months, we also looked for differences between firms reporting the greatest effectiveness in their respective budget processes from those reporting less success.

Unlike previous Strategy Questions of the Month (see for instance the June survey on strategic planning or the February survey on practice group management), there was not a tremendous difference between the most effective budget processes and others’. That may in part be a function of the generally high level of effectiveness law firm leaders reported in their respective processes. As you can see from the chart below, very few firms consider their budget process to be ineffective (or even of limited effectiveness).

To the extent there were differences between the “very effective” firms and others, the differences were very much on the margins. For instance, the budgeting approaches rated “absolutely essential” at firms with the most effective processes, were similarly rated “absolutely essential” by their peers in firms experiencing somewhat less success in the budget process. Nevertheless, there were a few notable differences (again, on the margins):

  • The most successful firms were more likely to build-up budget projections at the practice group level (in addition to doing so at the individual attorney and administrative department levels);
  • The most successful firms were somewhat more strongly focused on ensuring the budget reflected growth plans, whereas less successful firms were moderately more focused on ensuring their budgets reflected cost cutting commitments;
  • Finally, the most successful firms were more likely to focus leadership attention on aligning the budget with strategy (at the firm and practice group levels).

Firm leaders were asked to share how they approach the process philosophically (intentionally conservative, aggressive or “as accurate as data and projections will allow”). Roughly 80% of firms are striving for accuracy (over 90% of the most successful firms’ intent is to develop as accurate a budget as possible). We view that as a positive sign for the industry as a whole. In the depths of the recession (fall of 2008 and again in 2009), a majority of firms were taking a decidedly conservative approach to budgeting. The swing toward developing accurate budget projections is a healthy sign that leadership has greater confidence in the future.

The core question this month focused on which practices and approaches were most useful and helpful in the budget process. The top three approaches (each considered “absolutely essential” by over 60% of respondents) were:

  •  Building-up projections at the individual attorney level (i.e., salaries, draws, working attorney receipts, etc.);
  • Developing administrative department projections from agreed upon priorities and strategies; and
  • Reviewing all attorney, practice and/or departmental projections via a comparison with the previous year (budget and/or actual).

A relatively high percentage of firms do not even try to build-up projected revenues at the client level (e.g., projected revenues from the top 100 clients) or at the practice group level. Slightly more than half of all firms build-up client level projections and fewer than three-quarters of firms develop practice level projections.

Finally, while the distinctions between the most effective budget processes and the moderately successful processes were only found at the margins, law firm leaders shared a number of important ideas, insights and advice in the open-ended comments. Among the most insightful input were the following:

  • Accuracy is important to us…final result of budget is cash flow to partners (who) plan their own lives around the draws and distributions. Also, variance explanations that are based on inaccurate budgeting rather than on real differences from our expectations are viewed with suspicion.
  • (We) do intensive capital expenditures budget, plus detailed monthly cash flow (which is NOT an income statement), plus zero-based approach to all expenses.
  • We also do both pessimistic and optimistic models based on individual attorney performances.
  • We update budgets every 6 month in rolling 18 month program of forecasting.
  • Expenses are easy and we can plug them in and hit them within one percent annually. Lining up expenses with strategies and goals is simple and straight forward. Predicting revenue and cash flow is the hard part; we are usually successful in estimating and in the last couple of years have had done well with monthly cash flow projects. Nonetheless, cash receipts are always a bit lumpy and make budgeting a challenge.
  • Formula for best shot at success — balance realization with utilization and monitor expenses closely. Be efficient and effective and take nothing for granted.
  • Our attorneys are very reluctant to forecast much more than 3-6 months ahead, so trying to get them to project for a full year has proven impossible. We base (the year) on trends, knowledge of practices and their short range projections.
  • (Relative to client level projections, we do a) case by case analysis of all contingent cases…review three year averages of attorney productivity…and review any large non-repeat type cases or situations.
  • (We) have found it useful when presenting the expense budget to management to sort (accounts) in descending order on dollar value. This helps to ensure that major items are discussed, and that time isn’t wasted debating the lobby magazine subscriptions.
  • (We use a) bottom up process. The Finance Committee and Board review budgets, ask for justifications and will require a bottom up revision to get the final budget in line with long range goals. (It is) time consuming but effective in getting buy-in at all levels.

*******************************************************

As always we thank the many, many law firm leaders who took the time to share their knowledge and insights on this month’s strategy question. The comments section is open for those who want to continue the dialog and we welcome your calls (312-543-6616) and emails (jsterling@sterlingstrat.com) as well.

 

Improving the Budget Process – September 2012 Law Firm Strategy Topic of the Month

Posted on by

The budget process is right around the corner – at least for the vast majority of firms that are on a calendar year cycle.

These quick monthly surveys are primarily intended to build a foundation of useful information and benchmarks for law firm leadership.  While budget development may not be viewed as strategic, for many organizations it is a vital tool for allocating resources in ways that are consistent with and supportive of the overall strategy.  At any rate, we can all benefit from learning about what is working best in budget processes around the legal industry.

With that in mind, let’s learn about what approaches are proving to be most useful and most helpful in the budget development process in law firms.  As always, individual responses will remain entirely confidential.  The survey should take less than five minutes.  Aggregate responses will be reported at the end of the month on this blog.  Deadline to respond is end of business PDT on Thursday, September 27, 2012.  As always, thank you for your help and participation.

If for any reason you do not see the survey in the box below, click here and you will be taken directly to the survey host site.

Managing Under Productive Partners

Posted on by

The August 2012 law firm strategy question of the month focused on managing under productive partners – what approaches firms take to the issue; what works and what does not; and how the process plays out over time. In a very practical sense, this topic is the counter point to the July 2012 question of the month – what characteristics comprise a ‘model’ partner?

The term “under productive partner” implies that ‘problem’ partners are primarily an economic issue. Certainly, persistently weak revenue production  is the most common reason for frustration with partner performance. However, a number of law firm leaders noted in open-ended comments that “citizenship issues” and other qualitative factors regarding professional demeanor can also lead to a firm insisting a partner work to turn his or her performance around.

A Daunting Task, But Not Hopeless

Asked how often under productive partners manage to turn it around, over 95% of law firm leaders agreed that fewer than half of all ‘problem’ partners manage to have a “career renaissance.” In fact, over 50% of law firm leaders have found that fewer than 10% of partners manage to make an effective turn around. The silver lining – not a single law firm leader has found the well to be completely dry – everyone has seen a successful turnaround within their own firm.

Patience is a Virtue…

Firms are generally, but not universally, patient with regard to under performance. Many leaders noted that partner performance statistics are averaged over multiple years, so it takes time before performance issues are considered a persistent problem. Over two-thirds of the leaders responding to this survey noted that it takes at least two years of weak performance before the issue is addressed at all.

What Are Firms Doing to Address the Issue?

Asked to share which approaches they have tried and how well they have worked, law firm leaders were candid. The most commonly used approaches to address partner under performance:

  • Every firm has tried reducing compensation and holding one-on-one meetings with ‘problem’ partners.
  • Nearly everyone has tried “doing nothing and hoping things improve” (NOTE: It does not work – 90% report it “never works”).
  • Over 90% of law firm leaders have tried threatening compensation reductions and 90% have tried individual partner plans.

Conversely, a few approaches have not been as widely adopted, though some (as will become evident below) are actually reasonably successful in their own ways. Less frequently tried approaches include:

  • Only about half the firms indicated that they have tried to actively outplace partners (i.e., at client organizations, on the bench, etc.).
  • Slightly more than half of all firms have tried using a professional coach with under productive partners.
  • About 60% have tried “group interventions” (i.e., more than just a one-on-one meeting).

Now, it is absolutely true that actively outplacing someone is not really a turnaround per se – at least within the confines of the firm. However, for many partners, leaving (and landing well) is a tremendous career turn around. And, as it turns out, it is by far considered to be the most successful approach (by those who have tried it).

Blunt Tools

The other more successful approaches included actively cutting compensation; holding one-on-one discussions with under performers; and requiring individual plans. As one managing partner noted, compensation is a blunt tool and one you only get to use once a year (at most). In fact, these are all fairly blunt tools. However, a combination of one-on-one discussions along with individual turnaround plans has the direct benefit of creating accountability and a path forward for the partner in question.

Ultimately, the clear take-away messages:

  • Doing nothing and hoping it gets better never works;
  • Confronting the issue, creating a path forward, and holding people accountable has a reasonable success rate; and
  • Actively out placing those who cannot or will not turn it around is remarkably successful.

We welcome and encourage your comments below and your emails to John Sterling – jsterling@sterlingstrat.com .

 

Managing Under Productive Partners – August 2012 Strategy Question of the Month

Posted on by

Last month’s law firm strategy question of the month asked law firm leaders to create a ‘model partner’ (i.e., a partner with the optimal balance of positive characteristics).  The ‘model partner’ results can be found in the July 2012 archives here.

Obviously, few partners actually deliver the perfect balance – but, the right balance is achieved across the partnership.  Unfortunately, some partners’ contribution to the firm erodes – sometimes dramatically – over time.  That may be the most vexing challenge for managing partners – turning around the performance of an under productive partner.

So, this month’s quick strategy survey will help us put some data around the question – what works and what does not work in helping under productive partners turn their performance around?  The quick 5 minute (or less) survey is embedded in the window below.  If for some reason you do not see it, click this link and you will be taken directly to the survey.

Deadline for responding is the end of business PDT on Wednesday, August 29, 2012.  Individual responses will remain confidential (as always).  Results will be published on this blog at the end of the month.  Thanks you for your insights and participation.

 

SURVEY RESULTS – Creating the ‘Model Partner’ – July 2012 Law Firm Strategy Question

Posted on by

Our July law firm strategy question of the month focused on the characteristics that comprise a “model partner.” While crafting the balance of behaviors and traits of an ideal partner is a bit more fun (and bit less strategic) than previous months’ questions, the results (and the thought process) are useful. In particular, in an era of increased partner mobility and a tighter reign on entry into partnerships, it is very important to understand what your firm expects and needs from its partners (or at least its hypothetical “model partners”).

As some were quick to note in the open-ended comments section, few partners are actually a perfect balance of the positive characteristics highlighted in the survey question. In the real world, partners’ individual strengths and limitations tend to balance each other out across the firm. Thus, some are much stronger business originators, while others are extraordinarily creative lawyers and problem solvers. Some are exceptional relationship managers and some are truly gifted in their ability to bring people together and to develop the talents of their peers and subordinates.

The “model partner” question was structured as an exercise in balance. Survey participants divided 100 points across a range of positive characteristics good partners exhibit. Thus, the overall result produces a pie chart that visually depicts the “ideal” balance of positive traits we want in our partners. Note that in the pie chart, we have grouped multiple characteristics into larger themes (for instance, training, professional development and mentoring were grouped together into people development).

The idea of balancing a range of positive characteristics is undoubtedly the most productive way to think about what constitutes a “model partner.” But, the characteristics can also be view through the prism of a simple list as well. In that context, business origination was clearly the most important characteristic (over one-third of the aggregate weighting was given to origination). Working attorney receipts and the set of qualitative factors that make-up a “good citizen” of the firm were roughly tied as the second most important factors (both slightly under 20% of the weighting). People development, outstanding legal acumen, and participation in the management of the firm each received slightly less than 10% of the weighting.

As noted above, the survey provided an open-ended question to allow for further comments and/or additions to the list. As is virtually always the case with these “question of the month” surveys, the open-ended responses were thoughtful and added important ideas to the conversation. Several characteristics not specifically noted in the “divide 100 points” options were mentioned by multiple respondents including:

  • Positive attitude, upbeat, optimism in the face of challenges;
  • An ownership mentality;
  • A team player, willingness to help others;
  • Client focused.

In addition, a number of other terms offered in the open-ended response help to define some of the more qualitative aspects of good partners including loyalty, integrity, responsiveness, self-directed, and “servant leadership” (a term coined by Robert Greenleaf in a 1970 essay).

Finally, for those who completed the full survey exercise and are interested in the detailed responses, you will find those in the chart below. Note that the weightings do not add to 100 in this chart, since they represent average weightings regardless of the number of responses given to that characteristic. In that sense, it gives added weight to the lower rated items (which were given de facto ‘zeros’ by some respondents).

As always, we welcome your comments below or off-line via email at jsterling@sterlingstrat.com. Thank you for reading and for participating in the July 2012 strategy question of the month.