Executive Insights Blog

Applying value creation lessons to consolidate an industry

Photo for Applying value creation lessons to consolidate an industry

Irshad Ahmed, is president and CEO of Pure Energy Corp. in Paramus, N.J. and a member of the MIT EMBA class of 2012.

There are major changes happening in the biofuel industry. Public policy is aggressively attempting to shift our dependence away from nonrenewable energy sources. Our country’s goal is to produce and consume 36 billion gallons of biofuel by 2022 in order to decrease our usage of gasoline and diesel fuels. In other words, about 25% of our transportation liquid fuels need to come from renewable energy resources in the next 10 years.

While this is a huge and daunting challenge, it’s a great one to have and I’ve been applying my knowledge from MIT Sloan’s EMBA program to help my company lead the way in this area.

A New Business Model

I’m now looking at the biofuel industry through a new lens, and as a result have completely changed my company’s business model to focus on consolidation. The biofuel industry is currently made up of very small-capacity facilities, which are more like mom and pop operations so they are fragmented, don’t perform well without economies of scale, and lack the ability to do business with major oil companies like Exxon-Mobil, Shell and Chevron.

There is value in these small facilities, but they aren’t able to capture that value on their own. Consolidation is long overdue in this industry. We need to bundle these small plants together to instill management discipline and attract the large capital necessary to make them run efficiently and give them the leverage to deal with major oil companies.

Understand Systems dynamics

On its face, it looks like there is no way the biofuel industry could rise to the challenge of adding two-billion gallon capacity each year for the next 10 years. After all, it took 30 years just to build a 15-billion gallon capacity. But if you look at it through the lens of systems dynamics, you see that as adoption takes place, the amount of free capital that becomes relevant to the industry doubles each year. That is an important insight; without it, I would not have the confidence to pursue our consolidation plan.

Growing the Pieces of the Pie

So far, we have negotiated with 12 small biodiesel plant owners and have the option to acquire seven under our company’s umbrella. The amazing thing is that I didn’t have to raise more than $20 million to execute this because plant owners recognize the value we’re trying to create and capture by creating a larger platform. By merging their 8-million gallon plant with others to form a consolidated 160-million gallon capacity, they’ll be part of a larger company that has contracts with big customers like Shell and Exxon. We also can take our large platform to producers of raw materials and negotiate better prices. Plant owners see that their small part of the pie stands to significantly grow through an consolidation model, which will achieve economies of scale without building larger plants.

Maximizing Value at the Negotiating Table

Before coming to MIT, I would have entered a negotiation with the commonly held belief that I’m there to maximize value for myself and my team. This isn’t true, and you can actually cause a worse outcome with that philosophy.

Instead, the best deal you can cut is to maximize value for everyone at the table, and by doing that you will maximize your own value while simultaneously building relationships that will be beneficial for years to come. This concept, the Pareto Frontier, is taught by Prof. Jared Curhan in negotiation at MIT Sloan, and  helps maximize your outcomes at the negotiating table. 

An example of how this works can be seen in a recent negotiation I conducted with a plant on the West Coast. The 8-million gallon plant had been struggling and was in so much debt that it didn’t make sense for it to continue to operate. They were dead in the water so to speak. I could have walked into the room and said: You owe $7.5 million so here’s a check for $7.5 million. That probably would have completed the deal.

Instead, I saw that there was a different deal I could offer that would be more beneficial and will create more value to all parties. So instead, I offered to:
- take responsibility for their debt
- write them a check for $1.5 million
- let them earn back a percentage ownership up to 49% of the plant if they operate the plant at an acceptable capacity

My offer was based on one condition: Their entire team had to stay on to operate the plant.

Why did I do this? With this deal, I only had to write a check for $1.5 million (as opposed to $7.5 million) and take over their loan payments. In exchange, they felt like they got a second lease on life, and the equity option gives them a huge incentive to bring their plant back to health. And by keeping their team intact, we don’t have any costly down time from trying to find replacements and provide training. Everyone comes out feeling like a winner. If we apply that lesson with each plant going forward, not only will we make more money, but we’ll capture much more value. And that is not just for me, but also for my shareholders. 

How do you find and capture value for your organization?

Add a Comment:








Comments

Mr. Ahmed, your accomplishment is an impressive one; more so, an accomplishment which will affect us all..

As for your acquisitions and use of the Pareto Principle, how did you manage the politics and bureaucracies, if any, when consolidating these groups? It seems that the rewarding outcome and connective bridge was that all would benefit, a win/win.

In currently working on capturing value of a department in a large company, I first defined a multi-leveled approach with the first level being on discovery meaning I am understanding all the dynamics of each group which make up the department. My hardest challenge (dynamic observed) is in bureaucracies which exist and have had staying power due to a resistance of change; ironically, change is so desired, but I find that politics, bureaucracies and perceptions are the drivers and thus challengers. So, the construction of a business case is a delicate one; the key will be in concluding and illustrating, through presentation, the tangible and intangible benefits.

By Cynthia Garde on Jun 06, 2012

Mr. Ahmed: Thanks for sharing this insight with us. Its pretty impressive how you have tried to use the class knowledge towards a successful strategy in your business model. When I read this post it instantly strung a chord with me as I am currently using a similar strategy however from a different angle and without formally knowing about the Pareto Frontier concept. Its comforting and promising to see that you were successfully able to execute this. It provides me greater confidence applying similar concept at my work place. Based on your article my organization is one of the smaller companies (though not a mom and pop shop) in the semiconductor industry who proactively approached the more established player towards a mutually beneficial partnership as it was very challenging to penetrate the bigger OEM customers in a given market segment to drive our volumes on our own. At the same time this approach would also enable our established partner to offer a differentiating technology from us to their end customers. In the end all parties come out as a winner. However the devil is always in the details and needs flawless execution in overcoming some of the challenges noted in the other post by Cynthia. I am just glad that this insight corroborates my belief on how one can take a formal education from a classroom and apply to a real world situation. Thanks for sharing this wonderful insight.

By Amit Varma on Jun 11, 2012

Hi Cynthia:

Thank you for your comments and sharing your thoughts on what resistances to value capture you are finding within your organization. 

While I agree with you that bureaucracies and resistance to change are two of the most hard to overcome elements that we encounter the most, however, I have found that “what’s in it for me (us)?” motivation that exist just below the surface can actually be used as a tool to overcome the bureaucracies and resistance to change.  Leading with “value capture” for each individual stakeholder will cut through the resistances and allow you to move the entire negotiation toward Pareto Principle. 

For example, a conversation with each stakeholder about what they want to get out of a proposed change is a great place to start.  While difficult, it is a good exercise to map each stakeholder’s point of view and motivations (which is exactly what I did during my negotiations).  In the end, my approach was to present to the group a matrix of what they all wanted (or probably wanted to see get out of it) and then show them the second matrix as to what we all will (or should) get out of it in order to get the deal done.

In your case you have the time to do some research, however, in my world of tight deadlines where typically one or more stakeholders are in a full blown crisis (financial, legal or other), there is not enough time to map the entire negotiation.  The best you can do in those cases is to be very empathetic to all around you. 

Cultivate network relationships (if you have time) before making any presentations.  Building trust worthy relationships with your counterparts will break down the bureaucracies and resistances to change.  In the end, we are all humans with human weaknesses and biases. Understanding and mapping basic motivations of everyone on the table has produced better results for me in the past than any degree of analyses.

Good luck with your progress and keep us posted. 

By Irshad Ahmed on Jun 12, 2012

Mr. Ahmed - thank you for your response and advice. I agree on most of what you said.  A few thoughts on it in the meantime.

1. “Time” is continuously moving forward, it is never fixed. So, although deadlines and crisis call in an instance of time, I see my “windows of opportunities” as requiring an instance of time too. Meaning, knowing what dynamics are at play, I only have a certain margin of time to win over the crowd, so to speak, before they get dazzled by something else or some other movement comes about because of a company crisis. I must know the dynamics well, just as you posed. The saying “Time is of the essence” is true for everything even when it is not explicit.

2. “Causation” - every action executed will result in a consequence/another action.  So, although heavy analysis may not be practical in certain situation which is very true. Decisions of the moment, the hour or day require quick thinking. However, with a certain type of thinking which can slice, order and reasonably anticipate, the decision will be good enough which seems to me is what you do smile  For now and to what I am exposed to as well as what I foresee for others, analysis is a must—and if I don’t have the time, I want to make sure my intelligent systems give me the information I need enough to make a quick decision at any given moment. If I don’t have the systems, then I must have enough derived from the analysis.

3. Perception - often enough, everyone has their own view of the “problem”. How do we remove the haze and provide clarity? How do you manage your clients in their “Crisis”?

You are absolutely right about understanding others in their motivations and building relationships—a true fundamental of business.

Cynthia

By Cynthia Garde on Jun 12, 2012

Dear Amit and Cynthia:

Your June 11th/12th comments are dead-on.  I am a believer of Pareto Frontier and think it goes to the heart of my conviction.  The challenge is to make all stakeholders see the value in it from the get-go.  Hence setting the right tone in the first 15 minutes is the key.  Perceptions get set fast and no matter how smart the people are, we all fall victim to set-in biases. 

Cynthia, I will just change the sequence of your thought process.  In my opinion, the perception drives causation which in turn puts pressure on timeline in which decisions have to be made.  Above all, unless we understand the motivations of each of the stakeholders, we will fail to achieve an optimum solution to our objectives.  The human race as advanced as it has gotten, it still falls victim to personal biases and “what’s in it for me” needs.  Address this and you are half way there.  It is the hardest thing I had to do because you are not always face-to-face with reasonable people.  Keeping emotions out of it is the second most important element.  And that is probably the hardest thing to master. 

Overall, I like your thinking and I believe if you are operating on clock speeds that are in days and not hours, a properly mapped out strategy will help you a lot.  In the end, it is a balancing act which takes this to an art form from an exact science.

By Irshad Ahmed on Jun 25, 2012