Category Archives: rants

Nothing for Nothing

After reading this recent article over on Chief Executive on how 66% of CEOs Plan to Freeze or Downsize Workforce Size which also pointed out how the majority of CEOs expect capital expenditures to remain flat, as per Chief Executive’s monthly survey of CEOs’ perception of overall business conditions (that garnered 247 responses), I can’t help but think of No Sale, No Store by the Arrogant Worms:

…
This week!
This week only!
We pay the GST!
We pay the PST!
We pay for delivery!
We pay for everything!
How do we do it?
How do we offer these fabulous deals?
Volume!
We got the most!
The best!
The worst!
We've got it all!
We’ve got everything!
Except one thing...
What’s that?
We've got no store!
No products!
So come on down!
This week!
…
Every week!
Every year!
No money down!
No payment ever!
That’s nothing for nothing!

Simply put, no new investments into new technology to increase productivity to give current staff time to create new products and services and no new staff to create new products and services creates an innovation free company. An innovation free company has nothing to offer. And you get nothing for nothing. It’s a lose-lose all the way around (as new technologies sit on the shelf and talent sits on the couch.) There’s no sale, as there’s no store.

The Cloud is Full of Sweet Fluffy Dreams

If you want to win favour with the doctor, this is a good way to start. Over in the recent edition of the SIG newsletter, Kent Parker, COO of Ariba, wrote an article on how the Cloud represents a more scalable, efficient way to do business on a global basis because it requires no software, hardware or resources to deploy and time to value is near immediate. However, he noted that these rewards can only be reaped if the organizations providing these networked community capabilities transform in ways that enable them to deliver products and services that meet a completely new set of business challenges and customer needs. Otherwise, the benefit of the Cloud will remain nothing more than sweet, fluffy dreams.

In the article, Kent presented six new rules that companies need to follow if they are to transform in a way that will enable them to deliver the products and services that are required in today’s knowledge-based network economy. The first four were quite obvious:

  • break down application silos
    the goal is to connect all of your applications and let data flow through the lifecycle
  • make innovation a constant
    customers expect improvements on a rapid timeline
  • focus on quality
    because, simply put, no one wants cr@p
  • stay agile
    or you will be outmaneuvered by your competition

However, the last two were not and keys to success in today’s economy:

  • overhaul customer support
    In an always-on community, customers demand immediate, proactive response to their issues, particularly as they impact business commerce continuity. But if you’ve outsourced most of the function of internal IT to an external provider, then you need to make sure the provider is not only offering the service level guarantees, but that it has the competency to provide the necessary support. In the IT world, system restoration sometime between 8 am and 5 pm on the next business day is NOT acceptable.
  • redefine customer relationships
    Go-live is the beginning, not the end, of a customer relationship. In a network-driven cloud community, customers and other participants require more continuous, ongoing assistance with enabling and institutionalizing business commerce capabilities. A company that offers a cloud-based solution has to be willing to continuously work and support the customer on that solution. Or the customer will go elsewhere.

Collaborate, Collaborate, Collaborate, Collaborate … NOT!

Over on the HBR Blogs, Andrew Campbell recently wrote a post on how “Collaboration is Misunderstood and Overused” that was awesome. I don’t necessarily agree with it, but it’s thought-provoking and contrarian and almost ranting in its tone … and I love it!

As you may have guessed by the increase in the number of rants the doctor has written lately, he’s getting fed up of the bland, thoughtless drivel that is becoming common on many “leading” news and blog sites these days. In his view, if you can’t find something new, exciting, and innovative to write about, then, unless you can find something exciting and undiscovered in the same-old-sh*t that you’ve been writing about for years, don’t write anything at all. Stuff gets old and stale very fast on the internet. And those who are leaders, and not laggards, get tired of stale bread very quickly. But I digress.

In his post, Mr. Campbell, who is a director of the Ashridge Strategic Management Centre, notes that collaboration, which often fails because it’s a risky, time-consuming endeavour with hard-to-resolve competing objectives, is often confused with teamwork and that’s the big issue.

In his mind, teamwork is performed by a team that is created when people need to work closely together to achieve a joint objective. And in this team, someone is given the authority to resolve disputes, ensure coordinated action, and remove disruptive or incompetent team members. As a result, even teams at odds can succeed with a good leader.

In contrast, collaboration occurs when either two more individuals (departments, or other entities) identify shared goals and decide to work together to achieve those goals, or, more likely, when a senior executive creates an initiative that spans intra or inter organizational boundaries. But, unlike a team, there is no leader and no guaranteed way to ensure progress. And if the collaboration was mandated, the collaborators can’t walk away when they disagree. As a result, it’s easy for collaboration to come to an unresolvable standstill.

These are good points. If a dispute cannot be (forcefully) resolved (if necessary) and if the participants can just walk away at any time, there is no guarantee of a result — and no way to show collaboration ever took place. As a result, as the author points out, success depends on whether:

  • the participants are committed to work together
  • the participants have high respect for each other and each other’s competencies
  • the participants have the skills to creatively bargain with each other

and, most importantly, at least in the doctor‘s view,

  • the participants can swallow their pride and their ego and admit when someone else has a better way (which can be very hard for Type A’s and PhDs).

Based on this, the author suggest that you should only set up a collaborative relationship when you cannot use a team or a customer-supplier relationship and when some form of interaction is absolutely necessary. And even then, it shouldn’t be a permanent solution.

I’m not sure this is the right view. And I’m probably the most cynical of all the supply chain bloggers (because I know almost all marketers lie, that many, for lack of a better word, “analysts” in the space don’t really know squat about the fundamentals of technology, and that the current state of technology in an average enterprise organization is pretty dismal compared to what it could be)! Yes it often fails, but it’s usually the people and not the process. If you want to work together, you’ll work together. If you don’t, you won’t. Team, customer-supplier, or collaboration. Doesn’t matter. Collaboration can work just as well, even though, in reality, the odds of success might be less. Or maybe I’m just an optimistic cynic.

It’s Time for a Digital Strategy Audit

And it should be part of your annual planning process. Why do you need a digital strategy audit? Here are five compelling reasons from a recent Chief Executive article that presented what it thought were 11 Reasons Why It’s Time for a Digital Strategy Audit.

  • Digital Mistakes are for the World to See
    Most companies’ topline digital strategies are transparent to an experienced analyst, and readily available for analysis and scrutiny. As a result, mistakes are impossible to conceal and any attempt to do so will cause a media pile-on that makes the torch-bearning lynch mobs of old look like a Sunday picnic.
  • Digital is Cross-Function
    Even a simple e-mail marketing campaign involves sales, marketing, operations, and IT. Only supply chain is as far reaching, and if the digital supply chain strategy doesn’t complement the physical supply chain strategy, you have a disaster waiting to happen.
  • Numbers Tell a Story
    An organization’s spending on R&D tells a lot about its viability in the long term. Plus, digital strategy performance benchmarks can identify competitor strategies and threats and allow a company to make a proactive, rather than a reactive, response.
  • Digital Investments are Probably Higher Than You Think
    And probably generating less of a return than you think. In some enterprises, digital investments account for 5% of operating costs and 20% of marketing spend, and run in the eight digits in Fortunate 1000 companies. But without a coherent strategy, the returns in digital investments are often dismal to none. Consider the emerging mobile market with average click through rates on ads of 0.1%, for example.
  • Digital Affects Everything
    As the article says, no industry is unaffected by digital trends. But, few companies have formal, well-defined digital strategies that articulate the vision and govern investments and behavior. Typically, it’s an afterthought and pushed down to IT to figure out. But if IT is only a support organization in the company …

And, more importantly, unless you do a digital audit:

  • You Still Don’t Know How Unprepared You Are for the Digital Age
    Unless you are an IT company, chances are your infrastructure doesn’t have the scalablity, reliability, falut-tolerance, and, more importantly, the security to go all-out with a digital strategy. If even the Sony Playstation Network can be hacked and taken down for a week, and Sony has a very strong IT division operating a very large on-line service, how long do you think it would take a hacker or organized underground hacking group to your network down if you got in their cross-hairs. Assuming you could even scale up to support a superbowl size response. Online service leaders have experienced network overloads for years. AOL in its heyday had scalability problems and had to offer customers refunds to keep them in late 1996, Toys “R” Us was hit with a class action lawsuit in 2000 for taking orders for Christmas it could not deliver, Nintendo could not keep up with Wii orders in 2006 and Sony could not keep up with Playstation 3 orders in 2006, and the Playstation Network has hacked earlier this year.

Before you launch a digital initiative, you need to make sure that IT is ready to support it, and if you are selling something, that the supply chain is ready to supply any expected spikes in demand. Forget the meaningful opportunities for cost-savings, new revenue channels, and/or competitor vulnerabilities the Chief Executive author promotes. Chances are that you’re not even ready for that.

Headline from the Land of D’oh: Technology is Closing — and Widening — the Gap

A recent issue of Apparel leads with the headline that Technology is Closing — and Widening — the Gap. Needless to say, this is a headline that I had to read twice to believe I was reading it. It then goes on to say that mobile can be viewed as both a great threat and a great opportunity. Really? Smartphones create interaction much more dynamic than it was back in the days when customers were restricted to flipping through print catalogs. Who’d a thunk it? Mobile also poses a threat allowing customers to hop on Amazon.com or any number of other sites for a quick cost or brand comparison. A browser works on more than one site? Wow!

But seriously, this article is ridiculous. It’s common sense drivel for anyone with half a brain and a memory that remembers more than 10 years of history. (What am I saying? It’s only the last quarter that matters! Thank you Wall Street MBAs for ruining not only innovation but the importance of history. But that’s another rant.) First of all:

Mobile may be new, but it’s just another technology.
It’s going to go through the growing pains of every new technology that came before. There were growing pains with the Web. There were growing pains with television. There were growing pains with radio. And if you study your history (as one of my blogging counterparts will gladly point out as important), you’ll realize that each had the same growing pains, opportunities, and threats. The only difference is that with each generation of new technology, the time frames become more and more compressed. Right now, most minitrends last about five years. In the future, some may only last five months.

The difference between the rich and the poor is $$$.
How much $$$ you have in business depends on market share. It’s a knowledge economy, and how much knowledge you have depends on how fast you can distill it from information. How much information you have depends on how much data you have and how fast you can extract information from it. And both of these steps depend on technology. So, as a corollary, how much technology you have, or have access to, directly affects how rich or how poor you are.

Any change in your situation relative to someone else either narrows or widens the gap.
So if your technology changes, or your competitors’ technology changes, then the gap between you and your competition is going to change as well. D’oh!

Tell me something useful — like how to take advantage of this technology as a retailer. Otherwise, stop wasting my pixels and my time.