Transforming businesses from obstacles to prosperity!

Thank you for taking the time to investigate what we have to offer. We created this service to assist you in making your company the very best. We differentiate ourselves from what others define as a consultant. The main difference between consulting versus counseling is preeminent in our mind.

A consultant is one that is employed or involved in giving professional advice to the public or to those practicing a profession. It is customary to offer a specific offering without regard to other parameters that may affect the ultimate outcome.

A counselor is one that is employed or involved in giving professional guidance in resolving conflicts and problems with the ultimate goal of affecting the net outcome of the whole business.

We believe this distinction is critical when you need assistance to improve the performance of your business. We have over thirty years of managing, operating, owning, and counseling experience. It is our desire to transform businesses from obstacles to prosperity.

I would request that you contact me and see what BMCS can do for you, just e-mail me at (cut and paste e-mail or web-site) stevehomola@gmail.com or visit my web-site http://businessmanagementcouselingservices.yolasite.com

Mission Statement

Mission, Vision, Founding Principle

Mission: To transform businesses from obstacles to prosperity

Vision: To be an instrument of success

Founding Principle: "Money will not make you happy, and happy will not make you money "
Groucho Marx

Core Values

STEWARDSHIP: We value the investments of all who contribute and ensure good use of their resources to achieve meaningful results.

HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS: Healthy relationships with friends, colleagues, family and God create safe, secure and thriving communities.

ENTREPRENEURSHIP: Learning is enhanced when we are open to opportunities that stretch our thinking and seek innovation.

RESPECT: We value and appreciate the contributions of all people and treat others with integrity.

OUTCOMES: We are accountable for excellence in our performance and measure our progress.

Monday, November 22, 2010

Thought Leadership-Exerpts from GlobalSpec White Paper

Thought leadership starts with a point of view
The first step in establishing your company as a thought leader is to develop a unique point of view. You can’t simply parrot what others are saying about your industry and market; there’s nothing special or worth paying attention to in that. You must have an angle—or point of view—that brings something new to the discussion.
Understanding and developing your thought leadership point of view can often be accomplished by answering a series of questions. While an execu­tive brainstorming session might suffice, you may want to get input from employees and customers, or other industry experts and analysts if you have relationships with them. Ultimately, your thought leadership point of view comes down to distilling the answers to seven key questions.
Seven questions that help establish a point of view
1. What is your company’s position on how your industry is changing?
2. What new challenges will your customers face in the next 1-3 years?
3. How is technological advancement shaping your industry?
4. What innovations do you see on the horizon?
5. What is your company’s approach to helping the marketplace understand and overcome challenges?
6. What differentiates your company’s market position from others?
7. What can your company do in the market that other companies cannot?
Your answers to these questions will likely overlap. From this common ground you will begin to identify your unique point of view. Hopefully, others will adopt your point of view over time, coming to see the industry as you do, approaching and solving challenges the way you recommend. But when you are first setting out to establish thought leadership, your point of view belongs to your company and your company alone.

Four characteristics of a powerful point of view
When developing your company’s thought leadership point of view, seek a position that embraces these four characteristics:
New-a new way to think about an industry issue, or a new solu­tion to an emerging or existing problem.
Relevant-your point of view should be relevant to a market need or challenge.
Valid-you should be able to back up your point of view, either with empirical evidence, research data, or customer case studies.
Practical-building a position of thought leadership is not the same as having a grandiose vision of the future of your industry. Thought leadership must be practical and realistic. You must talk about ideas and strategies that can be implemented.
Combine new, relevant, valid, and practical and you can establish a thought leadership point of view that motivates people to follow you and take actions that you recommend.
Develop content to support your thought leadership
Once you have a point of view established for your thought leadership initia­tive, you will need to develop content to support it. The content should be educational in nature, offering your audience helpful advice and guidance on solving the challenges and addressing issues that are important to them. Your thought leadership content should not be sales-oriented in any way. You’re trying to build trust and gain the confidence of your audience—not sell them something.
Here are examples of content that can support your thought leadership position:
• White papers—for both executive and technical audiences
• Presentations/speeches
• Webcasts
• Podcasts
• Blogs—a great way to publish quickly, helping you stay current and topi­cal; also provides an opportunity to listen to your audience through reader comments
• Videos—interviews with executives or executive presentations
• Bylined articles—if you are trying to position an individual as a thought leader, use their byline in articles
• Books—especially valuable if your point of view warrants a longer discussion
• How to guides—strategic counsel or practical instruction on how to solve an industry or technical challenge


Need assistance in putting together a Thought Leadership strategy for your company?  Give me a call and we can discuss the perfect formula for your business!  502/599-8313.


Monday, November 15, 2010

Dispute Mediation

Dispute Mediation: Is an effective method for addressing a variety of business-related matters, including:
·      Negotiating an ownership and/or partnership agreement when forming a new business or professional practice.
·       Resolving disputes between principals of an existing business or practice.
·       Renegotiating aspects of an existing ownership and/or partnership agreement.
·       Negotiating an amicable dissolution of an existing business arrangement when dissolution is the desired outcome.
·       Resolving conflicts between businesses.
·       Resolving personnel disputes.

Mediation helps to establish and maintain successful working relationships. In today’s ever-changing business environment, the difference between success and failure is often a function of the quality of the relationships within an existing business as well as between businesses.

Mediation has many advantages over traditional approaches, including the following:

·       A “win-win” result is often achieved because the agreement is satisfactory to each person.
·       New businesses can move forward more quickly as the principals have a clear, specific agreement about roles, responsibilities, goals and objectives.
·      Existing businesses can continue to grow and thrive, no longer hampered by unresolved problems or unclear agreements.
·       The parties’ ability to preserve an existing business relationship is enhanced.
·       It is less costly and less stressful than other alternatives, especially litigation.
·       A final settlement can usually be reached more quickly.
·       It provides a more confidential, informal, convenient and comfortable atmosphere in which to address the decisions that need to be made.

The results stand the test of time. Research shows that people are more likely to follow through with a mediated agreement and are less likely to engage in future litigation.
Mediation is a collaborative problem-solving and decision-making process. The goal is to help people make decisions that address as many of the needs and concerns of everyone involved as possible. The emphasis of the process is on mutual satisfaction, not winning and losing.

Prior to the start of mediation, we offer a free consultation to anyone who wants a face-to-face meeting with the mediator before committing to the process. This meeting is scheduled with the parties together and lasts approximately one-half hour. It is optional, however there is no charge.

The first formal step is to meet separately with each person. The purpose of this interview is to obtain a brief history of the situation at hand, get to know each person and his/her perspective on the issues that need to be addressed. This includes an understanding of one’s needs and concerns, as well as one's thoughts about how to resolve those issues. (Initially, this is easier to do if the other person is not present.)

Most of the remaining time is spent meeting together. During these sessions, we assist the parties in making decisions that meet as many of their needs and concerns as possible. At the beginning of the first joint session, the mediator presents the parties with a summary of the issues they are to address, based on what was learned in the individual interviews. Once everyone agrees on the agenda, the process begins wherever the parties chose.

We encourage our clients to make their agreements as detailed as possible. The more detailed the agreement is now, the less room there is to argue about what it means in the future. One of the reasons former spouses end up in litigation and/or mediation is because portions of their agreement were not clear.

Once an overall agreement is reached, the mediator will prepare a memorandum of understanding that describes the terms of the agreement in great detail. If either person has an attorney, we ask that the agreement be reviewed with the attorney before it is finalized or signed. Any questions raised by the attorneys are brought back to mediation in order to iron out any remaining wrinkles.

The individual sessions are scheduled for one and one-half hours at a time. The joint sessions are usually scheduled for two-hour blocks of time, as more can be accomplished in one two-hour session those in two one-hour sessions. However, the clients are charged only for the time that is actually used.

Negotiation formats vary in the degree of structure. Generally, the higher the level of trust between the parties, the less structure that is needed. Some examples of formats from the least amount of structure to the most are:
·       Direct discussion between the parties with no one else involved.
·       Direct discussion with the help of a facilitator or mediator.
·       Collaborative law process where attorneys actively participate in the negotiation process as advisors and spokespersons for their clients, but not in an adversarial manner. Other professionals may participate as needed.
·       Negotiations through and/or with the assistance of attorneys who represent their clients in an adversarial, litigation mode.
·       Settlement conference situation, where the parties and their attorneys go before a person of authority (attorney, judge, former judge, etc.), who uses experience and expertise to push them to make an agreement. Often times, that person shuttles between the parties who are kept in separate rooms. This may occur just shortly before they are scheduled for a court hearing.

Mediation vs. Arbitration

The difference between Mediation and Arbitration is straightforward. Small Business Mediation is voluntary. The parties mutually agree upon a fair settlement. Arbitration is mandatory. The Arbitrator makes a ruling, which is final. Arbitration is similar to court except it is quicker and cheaper. Arbitration clauses are included in many contracts and business agreements. Most Small Business disputes and complaints are resolved by voluntary Mediation before enforcing mandatory arbitration clauses. The major disadvantage with Arbitration is: The Arbitrator Ruling is Final. You cannot take further legal action in Court. In Small Business Mediation if both parties don't come to mutual resolution, the options for Arbitration or Court Litigation still remains.

Complaints vs. Dispute

Complaints are an expression of displeasure, grief, regret or resentment. A dispute is controversy that parties actively disagree; argue about, a matter of personal rights or policy.

Summary
Business people involved in a dispute usually consider filing a corporate lawsuit in order to resolve the dispute. Taking their case to court for litigation usually occurs when efforts that involve informal dispute resolution fail. Courts of law are indeed the places to settle differences in opinions that characterize a business dispute.

However, nowadays, most businesspersons tend to shy away from litigation as dealing with it usually takes a lot of time and money.

Some cons in litigating a business dispute:

One of the main disadvantages in having a business dispute go under the court system is that the parties involve lose control over the outcome or judgment. In court, a jury or judge will make the decisions concerning the matters at hand. The decision would always tend to point out a winner and a loser.

However, in reality, both the winner and the loser after the litigation, tend to both lose significantly in terms of expenses, time and focus to the management of the business.

Judgment on lawsuits are usually unpredictable and a party may become so engrossed in winning out their position that they do not think of the possibility that they may lost the case.
The whole process of litigation usually becomes very galvanizing. The tension created between the parties during the process make it difficult for them to patch up their differences and continue with their partnership. Thus, this could have detrimental impact on their financial status.
With these adverse effects, it is not surprising that most businesses undergoing a dispute tend to consider alternative ways to resolve it, which is relatively time efficient, cost effective and may encourage the nurturing of the partnership of the parties.

One of these alternative ways is mediation. Mediation can be accomplished at any given time and anywhere favorable for the parties involved. It can also be done with a hired dispute attorney present, or even without such presence. However, it would always be more productive to have such an attorney monitor the settlements.
Everyone wants to be heard and respected. BMCS advocates for mediation based on the fundamental belief that individuals, consumers and businesses can resolve their complaints and dispute when provided skilled guidance and support. The focus of Small Business Mediation is on achieving quick, fair justice.

While every Dispute Resolution is unique to the organization under impact, there are logical steps to take to handle and avoid the confusion of how to act.  Business Management Counseling Services can aid your company or organization prior and during this time.  We highly recommend a pro-active approach of preparedness, however when a pro-active plan does not exist we can facilitate the least amount of collateral damage to the event.


Do you have a dispute with a business partner, supplier, customer, or employee?  Perhaps I can assist in a viable resolution that will save you time, energy, and money.  Contact me at stevehomola@gmail.com





Steve

Stephen J. Homola
Chairman & Founder
Business Management Counseling Services

Monday, November 8, 2010

What the new Congress could mean for Business

Trade
One area where President Barack Obama and congressional Republicans could find common ground is trade. Mr. Obama wants to submit a revised South Korea free-trade agreement for congressional approval in January, and hopes to unveil new terms addressing U.S. auto and beef exports during the Group of 20 meeting of global leaders in Seoul next week. Mr. Obama has said he wants to boost U.S. exports by 50% during the next five years. Trade-skeptics in the Democratic caucus have blocked movement on trade-opening deals such as the South Korea treaty.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.,) said trade is one area where his caucus and the White House could work together. But it is unclear whether the new class of populist, tea-party Republicans share the traditional GOP view that free-trade deals are good for the U.S. economy overall. Big business groups see passage of the South Korea pact as a critical test of whether the White House and Congress can break the stalemate on trade issues.

Defense
Within national-security circles and the defense industry, there is some nervousness about whether the new Congress could push broader cuts in defense spending as part of an attack on the swelling federal deficit. In the past, a Republican House and a more conservative Senate would have been a guarantee of continued defense budget growth. But the influx of tea-party candidates, elected on promises to oppose pork-barrel deals and earmarks and reverse the growth of federal spending, could chart a different course. Debate over how much more to spend on the war in Afghanistan could become a test of the new Congress's direction ahead of the administration's deadline to begin phased withdrawals in July 2011.
Adding to the uncertainty is the expected departure of Defense Secretary Robert Gates in 2011. Mr. Gates, who served as a secretary of defense under George W. Bush before joining the Obama administration, commands the respect of congressional Republicans.
Transportation
This is supposed to be the year that Congress acts on a big, multiyear bill to finance road building, airport construction and other transportation projects. The Obama administration last year successfully pushed for a delay of action on a proposed $500 billion transportation bill, despite strong protests from House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman James Oberstar, (D., Minn.) Now, Mr. Oberstar is gone—defeated in his bid for re-election. Ready to take his place is U.S. Rep. John Mica (R., Fla.) Mr. Mica said in a statement Wednesday that passing a long-term highway and transit plan and measures to fund the Federal Aviation Administration and water projects are his top priorities. Mr. Mica also called for a "better directed high-speed rail program." Mr. Mica is more likely than Mr. Oberstar to encourage a bigger role for private investors in building new infrastructure projects, and has called for streamlining the process of getting projects approved.
Infrastructure spending is one area where business groups welcome federal spending. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which invested heavily to defeat congressional Democrats in the 2010 elections, has supported raising taxes to fund transportation improvements.

Health Care
Health-care companies see the Republican win as a chance to chip away at aspects of Mr. Obama's health overhaul least favorable to the industry. Insurance companies, drug manufacturers and hospitals say they will press to peel away the law's new taxes on health-care companies, pass tougher medical malpractice curbs and knock down a new board that recommends Medicare spending cuts. Opponents of the law may have the most success removing the law's new tax-reporting requirement that requires businesses to file a 1099 tax form when they pay a vendor more than $600 in a year. Where the health industry is most concerned about the Republicans' plans is the party's strong opposition to the law's requirement that most Americans carry insurance or pay a fine, something that could cost health-care providers millions of new customers. House Republicans say they plan to pass a bill repealing the law. That will almost certainly die in the Senate or on Mr. Obama's desk.

Pharmaceuticals
The pharmaceutical industry wants to hold on to concessions it won from Democrats during their reign in Congress, while benefiting from antiregulatory sentiment among Republicans who captured the House, industry lobbyists said.
In negotiations over the health bill that passed in March, the industry offered $80 billion in savings and won a promise from the White House not to pursue certain cost-cutting steps such as importing cheaper drugs from Canada. About half of the savings was intended to close a gap or "doughnut hole" in Medicare drug coverage that some seniors face. Despite Republican calls for a repeal of the health law, drug-industry lobbyists say they don't expect a GOP bid to reopen the doughnut hole because it would anger seniors and risk giving wounded Democrats a rallying cry. The incoming Republicans also may be more sympathetic to industry views on regulation, such as the industry's push to continue a system under which companies pay user fees to get faster decisions on drug applications.

Wall Street
House Republicans didn't wait for the final results of Tuesday's vote to launch their assault on the Obama administration's effort to tighten regulation of Wall Street.
Rep. Spencer Bachus, an Alabama Republican who will be one of the contenders to take over the House Financial Services Committee next year, said Wednesday he wants to rewrite "job-killing provisions" of the Dodd-Frank financial-overhaul law, starting with new rules on derivatives trading. Also high on Mr. Bachus's agenda: overhauling mortgage-finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Republicans want to wind down the two companies, currently under government control.
But any effort to change Dodd-Frank would need Democratic support in the Senate, and then Mr. Obama's signature. In the event those aren't forthcoming, House Republicans could try to cut off funding for agencies implementing Dodd-Frank or grill administration officials in Capitol Hill hearings.

Telecommunications
House Republicans will likely put the brakes on efforts by the Federal Communications Commission to re-regulate Internet lines. Phone and cable companies are fighting the plan, and Republicans have already warned the FCC to drop the plan.
Telecom and tech policy issues are likely to take a back seat next year. But Republicans and Democrats could find common ground in efforts to write stronger rules on Internet privacy. On Wednesday, two leaders of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Rep. Joe Barton (R., Texas) and Rep. Ed Markey (D., Mass.), jointly warned that they plan to put "Internet privacy policies in the crosshairs" with hearings and legislation.

Feel free to give me your feedback directly on my blog:

Monday, November 1, 2010

Why New Ventures Crash & Burn

There are lots of ways for a newborn business to crash and burn spectacularly. In fact, Steve Blank — serial entrepreneur and author of The Four Steps to the Epiphany — says there are probably 387 million ways to fail. But most screw-ups stem from five different sources; Blank told the audience in San Francisco on Wednesday, October 27, 2010 at “FailCon 2010”, a conference designed to embrace startup mistakes.
Here they are:
1. You’re letting your business plan dictate the trajectory of the business.
2. You assume your business model is correct.
3. You decide all the information you need to run your business is in your building.
4. You believe your mistaken hypotheses are crises.
5. You think you have all the time in the world.
If you’re guilty of one (or more) of the above five ways of thinking, you’re not thinking like a startup founder; you’re thinking like a corporate exec whose job it is to execute a business model. The problem is, your fledgling business doesn’t have a business model yet — no matter what your shiny business plan says.
Blank defines startups like so: “A temporary organization used to search for a scalable and repeatable business model.” The keyword there is search. When you’re just starting out and you don’t know much about your customers, you haven’t yet found your business model, so you have no business acting like your job is to simply execute a plan. Your job at this stage is to test and learn as much as you can (see #3) — and this means getting out of your building and going to your customers. And once you’ve learned that many of your assumptions are wrong, your job is to leverage that insight into building the product or service that your customers really want. It’s not a crisis when you find out you’re wrong (see #4). You could say, at this stage it’s your job is to fail. And fail again. And the faster you do it, the better.
When you finally do go to investors (and you shouldn’t even think about it until you’ve gone through at least 3 cycles of testing, failing, and learning), Blank suggests throwing out the traditional idea pitch in which you spend as much time as possible trying to convince them of the brilliance of your idea. Instead, give investors the this-is-what-I’ve-learned pitch. This accomplishes two things: It proves that you did a boatload of research on someone else’s dime (probably yours) and that you’re well on your way to searching for a business model that’s scalable.
Has anyone ever tried this kind of pitch with investors? Hit the comments area of my blog to tell us about your successes and failures.