In a recent post over on Software & Services Safari, Mr. Brian Sommer tells us that Building Apps is Wrong! and, as far as the doctor is concerned, he couldn’t be more right!
According to Brian:
||Software application development has been going on for decades. In the old world of software, applications took a (usually accounting) business event and then validated, stored and reported it. These were internal usage utilities that dealt with internal data. That’s the wrong perspective to have today. Businesses don’t want apps – they need ‘capabilities’. Moreover, they need capabilities that serve different kinds of information to different kinds of smart devices to mobile, interconnected workers.
And, as Brian points out, not only do interconnected workers that want to access information whenever and wherever they are, they want one user interface no matter how many solutions are serving up information on their device.
This means that a Desktop App, an iOS App, an Android App, a Windows App, each customized to the browser or platform, is not the way to go. When you customize to the platform, you tend to drift away from the current UI to the new UI until you have a hodge-podge of interfaces across a dozen platforms. Unless you want to develop your own extensions to the default development libraries on each platform, and alter your UI to be observant of the limitations of each library, you need to focus on a platform-independent delivery method (such as mobile-compatible HTML 5) and focus on what the user really wants — a slick, information-rich, user experience, and not a solution exclusively oriented around the data and the capabilities of the platform.
After all, as Brian points out, what the user really wants is:
- Context to enrich and complete transactions, customer interactions, etc.
- Information served up at point of need
- Information designed to answer the worker’s or customer’s needs
- Information beyond transactional data
- A solution that makes the most of data, voice and video
and not flash. If they want HD graphics, they’ll fire up a HD game.
Yesterday’s post introduced us to Knowledge Based Sourcing, the Next Level Supply Management proposal put forward by Booz Allen as its entry into the Next Level Ring. Described as a competency consisting of a set of powerful techniques used to identify high impact value drivers that result in increased understanding and knowledge of ‘ideal’ cost structures that can be used to develop better relationships with suppliers, focused on reality based improvement plans, and gain an ongoing business advantage, Knowledge Based Sourcing (KBS) is defined by its characteristics, which were reviewed in detail in yesterday’s post.
Today’s post is going to discuss the basic philosophy of Knowledge-Based Sourcing, which is a simple, four-step continuous improvement cycle:
- Cost Model Generation
a detailed cost model that captures the majority of component costs, including all of the cost drivers
- Gap Identification
which identifies where costs are higher than they should be based on raw material costs, realistic production costs, and market averages
- Gap Closure Plan
which outlines a plan to attack and reduce costs that are too high
- Standard Cost Revision
which updates the costs in the cost model to current costs and updates the baseline according to new information
This continuous improvement cycle incorporates the following aligned behaviours:
- cost standards for major processes based on physical realities and best-in-class data points
as a goal towards reducing costs below known minimums for a given process with defined equipment and resources is not just unrealistic, but stupid
- best-in-class performance compared with known (supplier) costs
as exceeding best-in-class cost performance will generally not be possible unless the process is changed
- dialog around cost improvement ideas relative to best-in-class pricing
as many heads are better than one
- agreement on a realistic improvement plan
as all parties need to be on-board for success
- supply management as a learning opportunity
that improves based upon a better understanding of cost, best-in-class performance, and past improvements
And, most important, promises the suppliers that:
- no requests will be made to undercut cost structures
as this is unfair
- a fair profit and SG&A allowance will be incorporated into target cost models
as all supply chain partners need to profit
- comparisons will only be made with peer-group suppliers using real, validated data
as other comparisons are invalid
- detailed feedback will be provided on cost elements that need to be improved
as improvement does not happen in a vaccum
- collaboration on waste removal will occur
as waste is quickly becoming one of the most significant contributions to unnecessary costs (thanks to rising raw material, power, and water costs)
- business will be rewarded to those that open their books and demonstrate best-in-class costs
as the goal of KBS is to collaborate on cost improvement
- information will be protected as confidential
as it’s only fair
- knowledge gained can be applied to other business
as this is a great incentive for collaboration and improvement
It’s a good philsophy, and a good foundation for improving supply chain relations. Tomorrow’s post will dive into the cost modelling process.