Major Advances in BPM and ERP

RFG Perspective: Business executives in small- and medium-sized (SMBs) as well as those in rapidly-changing large organizations can be at a disadvantage compared to their counterparts in relatively staid organizations. They must juggle a myriad of challenges, oftentimes without automated processes, usually because traditional ERP solutions either cannot be modified easily or the price point is prohibitive. These executives need business process management (BPM) and/or enterprise resource planning (ERP) solutions that will automate redundant processes, enable them to get to the data they require, and/or allow them to respond to rapid-fire business changes within (and external to) their organizations.

At the 2013 JRocket Marketing Analyst Road Show in Boston, Massachusetts three innovative disruptive technology vendors made announcements that can enable business executives in optimizing their business processes. These game-changing vendors are:
• Apparancy, the sister company of Corefino and powered by Corefino's 500 plus pre-built cloud-based Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) process framework, made its debut. Apparancy BPM solutions will initially target healthcare-related challenges faced by both enterprises and providers, and other areas in desperate need of quantum leaps in business process improvements.
• SYSPRO is transforming the manufacturing/distribution sector through its unprecedented rapidly-deployed and specialized solutions for industry micro-verticals both on-premise and in the cloud.
• UNIT4 is a global ERP solution provider that is expanding its offerings to Businesses Living IN Change (BLINC) ™; businesses that are changing rapidly due to mergers and acquisitions, global expansion, compliance, reorganization, etc.).

Apparancy

Today, executives must transform themselves into business process visionaries to guide their organizations into a sustainable and thriving future. Executives across the enterprise and in particular in the administrative side of healthcare, spend inordinate amounts of time on redundant and repetitive processes, distracting them from the real work at hand, which costs their organizations millions of dollars annually.

Market newcomer, Apparancy delivers BPM expertise to vendors with an automated, compliance-centric, and holistic business process workflow framework. Apparancy's previously introduced cloud-based sister company Corefino, has already proven that its 500-plus process framework can save organizations from 25 to 50 percent or more over costs attached to their current workflow frameworks.

Apparancy customers get pre-built workflows to solve specific issues, such as compliance to Affordable Care Act (ACA) mandates, in a platform that sits on top of existing data systems, and that can then be continuously (and easily) updated and modified. The cloud-based SaaS model is proven (based on the five-year experiences of sister company Corefino) to support legal compliance while delivering substantial measurable ROI.

Apparancy's workflow platform minimizes and simplifies state-, federal-, and industry- mandated compliance. The framework vets data and marries systems of record with systems of engagement to make business processes accurate and auditable. In essence, the Apparancy solution enables the any device, anywhere, anytime paradigm to be applied to pre-configured business process workflows – an industry first.

Executives must be able to confidently manage, sustain, and grow their organizations well into the future –as well as remain compliant. Apparancy can provide these organizations with the information they need anytime, anywhere as well as the detailed-as-necessary visibility into internal workflows without having to increase talent acquisition. Enterprise human resources (HR) executives and healthcare providers dealing with new legislation are key areas under extreme stress for which Apparancy will provide much-needed support.

SYSPRO

In a super-sized world mid-market business executives have learned that "bigger is not always better." The answer to complex business problems is not a larger, more complex ERP solution. Moreover, one size does not fit all. This is especially true in manufacturing and distribution, in which consolidation, outsourcing, and off-shoring have become de rigueur. In addition, regulations change continuously and large retailer organizations often define the standards which SMB manufacturers/distributers must follow. This has become increasingly more challenging, driving many out of business.

For business executives to respond to change with agility as well as grow their businesses, they require an ERP vendor with solutions that go beyond simply targeting the manufacturing and distribution verticals. They need a vendor solution that drills down into the business, finance, technology, and regulatory challenges of specific micro-verticals, such as food and beverage, medical devices, electronics, or machinery and equipment.

At the 2013 Analyst Road Show, SYSPRO, a best-of-breed ERP solution for SMB manufacturers/distributers, announced the SYSPRO USA BRAIN BOOST program, part of the U.S. team's successful "Einstein" market strategy. The four-point initiative continues to deliver on SYSPRO's 35–year legacy of providing standards-based technology, multi-tiered architectures, and scalability along with an agile user interface. This enables businesses executives to continuously and swiftly adapt to market, standards, and compliance fluctuations.

United States manufacturing and distribution sectors have undergone sector-shattering changes. Many have been unable to adapt and have been forced to close. To remain in the game and be continuously viable, it is paramount for manufacturing and business executives to partner with a reliable, customer-focused, and future-directed vendor.

UNIT4

Business executives in fast-changing organizations or those with highly complex financial reporting structures are often at the mercy of rigid two-dimensional systems that do not allow for nimble access to, and manipulation of, financial data. In addition, many of the widely-installed ERP systems are prohibitively expensive to install, maintain, and then continuously modify to allow for this kind of agility.

The promise of post-implementation business flexibility/agility from larger ERP vendors has in many cases not been fulfilled. UNIT4 has found itself in the enviable position of being the replacement product for many high-end high-cost ERP solutions that failed to meet customer needs and expectations and cost customers millions of dollars. UNIT4 is a least-cost ERP/financial solution provider that has successfully shifted its model to the cloud (without a dip in revenues). The entire acquisition and installation cost for UNIT4 software was typically the same as that of a one-year provider license for a competitor ERP solution and that is just the beginning of the savings.

At the December 2013 Analyst Road Show UNIT4 made several announcements including the launch of two financial performance products in the North American Market (Cash Flow and Financial Consolidation) and a new change-supporting in-memory analytics solution. Recently IDC, a global market intelligence firm conducted a survey sponsored by UNIT4 of 167 IDC customers surrounding ERP purchase, implementation, maintenance, upgrade, and re-implementation. Significant observations of the survey include: "UNIT4 customers spent average of 55 percent less than the general ERP community on supporting business change…UNIT4 customers also reported having to make moderate to substantial system change only 25 percent of the time for mergers and acquisitions…" compared to 64 percent of non-UNIT4 ERP customers.

It behooves business executives to take a closer look at the direct and indirect costs – as well as the business impacts – associated with making changes to their ERP systems. Executives who wish to cost-effectively leverage their ERP systems should consider comparing the total cost of ownership (TCO) and return on investment (ROI) of their existing solution to that of an alternative ERP vendor.

Summary

The December 2013 Analyst Road Show showcased three disruptive technology vendors with three different foci: Apparancy is poised to have a significant positive and indispensible impact on the healthcare sector because it will provide healthcare executives (and enterprises conforming to new healthcare legislation) with a SaaS-deployed, streamlined, and cost-conscious solution. SYSPRO continues to be the champion of customized and quickly deployable ERP solutions for SMB manufacturers and distributers. UNIT4 solutions are designed to enable executives to embrace business change – simply, quickly, and cost-effectively.

RFG POV: All disruptive technology vendors herein are primed to enable their customers to not only remain viable and be competitive, but to experience sustained revenue growth. Business executives, whether across the enterprise, in healthcare, SMB manufacturing/distribution, or larger but fast-changing organizations must look beyond solving today's business and IT problems. They must look to the future and be able to predict as well as respond nimbly and effectively to financial, market, and policy changes – well into the next two decades. Executives who possess business acumen should select long-term trusted vendor partners that will enable them to not only respond agilely to change but to do so faster than their competitors.

Blog written by Ms. Maria DeGiglio, Principal Analyst

Disrupt 2014

What did I learn (or what did you miss) at Disrupt 2014?

On Monday I attended The Robert Frances Group's (RFG) Disrupt 2014 conference in New York City. The attendees enjoyed an over-the-top lunch and several hours of interesting and informative presentations. I would probably gain weight just recounting the menu, so instead I'll review two of the presentations, and hint at a third.
 

1 - IT Disruptive Tech Trends and Directions

With this as the title, Cal Braunstein, CEO and Executive Director of Research for RFG, began by showing us how the pace of disruptive technology is increasing dramatically. According to AIIM, for more than 1/3 of the organizations studied, 90% of their IT spend adds no new value. It was the right start for Disrupt 2014. 

IT budgets are increasing linearly, at 1-5% per year, while the data we produce is increasing exponentially. Disruption isn't just necessary, it is critical!

What is disruption? RFG defines it as industry leaders responding to the changes in customer demands and global economics by making fundamental changes in their approach to products, services, service delivery, engagement models, and the economic model on which their industry is based. You can read more about it here.

Cal focused on Storage Trends and Directions as a bellwether of disruption.

Intel conducted a study in 2012 that informed part of Cal's presentation. When looking at a data center and its technology, servers from before 2008 comprised 32% of the hardware but they consumed 60% of the data center power budget. Here is the bad news. The old gear only provided 4% of performance capacity. The point is that the technology rate of change is exponential and any IT executive that keeps IT hardware past 40 months is costing his company money. Keeping current and transforming the data center over a 3 year cycle should be viewed as a strategic approach to modernizing a data center and containing costs. The improvement in processing power vs. power consumed is truly disruptive. You could pay for a data center renewal simply by scrapping the old power burning gear. RFG has identified the following optimization opportunities, which Cal presented.

RFG has "Disrupt 2014" marching orders for IT

• IT departments must keep up with disruptive technologies
• Don't wait for next wave to become mainstream - the time to act is now
• IT vision and strategy must include waves of change
• IT needs business and user executives to share the vision, integrate & buy-in
• Data Center transformation is a must and has a very positive business case
• IT vendors must show a business case, not just talk about products & services

 2 - The Value of TCO Studies

RFG Principal Analyst Gary McFadden presented on the value of Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) studies to support acquisition decisions. Gary's Disrupt 2014 thesis was straightforward. According to Gary...

 

 

Businesses today are willing to invest provided they can see a decent return and a positive cost value proposition. Our TCO studies address the total cost of acquisition and ownership and the return on investment

In the RFG world, a TCO is a business-oriented custom research report that compares vendor offerings to those of their competitors. The report shows how the vendor's solution could be financially superior to traditional approaches, and considers soft-dollar aspects as well as hard costs.

Knowing that, you should realize that all TCO studies are not created equal. Gary presented an overview of key TCO choices. Which one is right for you? Well, that depends on your needs. Your time horizon and buying cycle are chief determinants of which style of TCO would be right for you.

 Making Sense of the Data

Gary correctly pointed out that no matter how comprehensive the data gathering phase of a TCO, the accumulated bulk of data is not actionable unless it is expressed in a useful manner. In the charts following, Gary contracted the details with an organized RFG presentation. The left chart holds mysteries, while the right one offers answers.

Remember that all TCOs are not created equal. Make sure that the one you pay for delivers the information you need, and the ones you use in your research follow a robust development methodology and contain the insights you require to enable your decision.

By the way, don't think RFG delivers vendor-slanted product and service stories. That is not what they are about. Instead, RFG's TCO reports are targeted at business and technology executives including CIOs, IT VPs/directors, CFOs, CMO, facilities executives, etc. They relate a business narrative designed to explain the business case for taking certain actions.

3 - Storm Insights "Mystery Presentation"

No, I can't tell you much. All I can say is that Dr. Adrian Bowles has an exciting and disruptive information services offering that will change the way IT product and services vendors learn about their markets, and the way their markets learn about them. Don't write off traditional research and advisory services yet, but stay tuned. I'll report about the Storm Insights offering as the new year unfolds. For now, take my word for it... this is very interesting!

The Bottom Line

Disrupt 2014 delivered great value and a great lunch to the appreciative attendees. RFG extended the hand of friendship and those that took hold learned much and enjoyed the sense of community that appears when like-minded professionals gather to exchange ideas. When RFG asks you to attend one of their meetings, the smart answer is "YES"!

Published by permission of Stuart Selip, Principal Consulting LLC

 

 

 

 

 

Evolution of NoSQL – part 2

Evolution of NoSQL - part 2

Evolution of NoSQL – part 1

Evolution of NoSQL - part 1

The Butterfly Effect of Bad Data (Part 2)

Last time... Bad Data was revealed to be pervasive and costly In the first part of this two-part post, I wrote about the truly abysmal business outcomes our survey respondents reported in our "Poor Data Quality - Negative Business Outcomes" survey. Read about it here. In writing part 1, I was stunned by the following statistic: 95% of those suffering supply chain issues noted reduced or lost savings that might have been attained from better supply chain integration. The lost savings were large, with 15% reporting missed savings of up to 20%! In this post, I'll have a look at supply chains, and how passing bad data among participants harms participants and stakeholders, and how this can cause a "butterfly effect".

Supply Chains spread the social disease of bad data

A supply chain is a community of "consenting" organizations that pass data across and among themselves to facilitate business functions such as sales, purchase ordering, inventory management, order fulfillment, and the like. The intention is that executing these business functions properly will benefit the end consumer, and all the supply chain participants.

In case the Human Social Disease Analogy is not clear...

Human social diseases spread like wildfire among communities of consenting participants. In my college days, the news that someone contracted a social disease was met with chuckles, winks, and a trip to the infirmary for a shot of penicillin. Once, a business analogy to those long-past days might have been learning that the 9-track tape you sent to a business partner had the wrong blocking factor, was encoded in ASCII instead of EBCDIC, or contained yesterday's transactions instead of today's. All of those problems were easily fixed. Just like getting a shot of penicillin. Today, we live in a different world. As we learned with AIDS, a social disease can have pervasive and devastating results for individuals and society. With a communicable disease, the inoculant has its "bad data" encoded in DNA. Where supply chains are concerned, the social disease inoculant is likely to be an XML-encoded transaction sent from one supply chain participant to another. In this case, the "bad transaction" information about the customer, product, quantity, price, terms, due date, or other critical information will simply be wrong, causing a ripple of negative consequences across the supply chain. That ripple is the Butterfly Effect.

The BUTTERFLY EFFECT

The basis of the Butterfly Effect is that a small, apparently random input to an interconnected system (like a supply chain) may have a ripple effect, the ultimate impact of which cannot be reasonably anticipated. As the phrase was constructed by Philip Merilees in back in 1972...

Does the flap of a butterfly’s wings in Brazil set off a tornado in Texas?

According to Martin Christopher, in his 2005 E-Book "Logistics and Supply Chain Management", the butterfly can and will upset the supply chain.

Today's supply chains are underpinned by the exchange of information between all the entities and levels that comprise the complete end-to-end [supply chain] network... The so-called "Bullwhip" effect is the manifestation of the way that demand signals can be considerably distorted as a result of multiple steps in the chain. As a result of this distortion, the data that is used as input to planning and forecasting activities can be flawed and hence forecast accuracy is reduced and more costs are incurred. (Emphasis provided)

Supply Chains Have Learned that Bad Data is a Social Disease

Supply chains connect a network of organizations that collaborate to create and distribute a product to its consumers. Specifically, Investopedia defines a supply chain as:

The network created amongst different companies producing, handling and/or distributing a specific product. Specifically, the supply chain encompasses the steps it takes to get a good or service from the supplier to the customer

Managing the supply chain involves exchanges of data among participants. It is easy to see that exchanging bad data would disrupt the chain, adding cost, delay, and risk of ultimate delivery failure to the supply chain mix. With sufficient bad data, the value delivered by a managed supply chain would come at a higher cost and risk. Consider the graphic of supply chain management and the problems our survey respondents found in their experiences with supply chains and bad data. Click on the graphics to see them in full size.  

Bad data means ambiguously defined data, missing data, and inaccurate data with corrupt or plugged values. These issues lead the list of supply chain data problems found by our survey respondents.

Would you be pleased to purchase a new car delivered with parts that do not work or break because suppliers misinterpreted part specifications? Do you remember the old 1960 era Fords whose doors let snow inside because of their poor fit? Let's not pillory Ford, as GM and Chrysler had their own quality meltdowns too. Supply chain-derived quality issues like these kill revenues and harm consumers and brands.

Would you like to drive the automobile that contained safety components ordered with missing and corrupt data? What about that artificial knee replacement you were considering? Suppose the specifications for your medical device implant had been ambiguously defined and then misinterpreted. Ready to go ahead with that surgery? Bad data is a social disease, and it could make you suffer!

Bad Data is an Expensive Supply Chain Social Disease

Bad data is costing supply chain participants big money. As the graphic from our survey indicates, more than 20% of respondents to the Supply Chain survey segment thought that data quality problems added between 6% and 10 %. to the cost of operating their supply chain. Almost 16% said data quality problems added between 11% and 20% to supply chain operating costs. That is HUGE! The graphic following gives you survey results. Notice that 44% of the respondents could not monetize their supply chain data problems. That is a serious finding, in and of itself.

THOUGHT EXPERIMENT: CUT SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT COSTS by 20%

Over 15% of survey respondents with supply chain issues believed bad data added between 11% and 20% to the cost of operating their supply chain.Let's use 20% in our thought experiment, to yield a nice round number.

Understanding the total cost of managing a supply chain is a non-trivial exercise. Industry body The Supply Chain Council has defined The Supply Chain Operations Reference (SCOR®) model. According to that reference model, Supply Chain Management Costs include the costs to plan, source, and deliver products and services. The costs of making products and handling returns are captured in other aggregations.

For a manufacturing firm with a billion dollar revenue stream, the total costs of managing a supply chain will be around 20% of revenue, or $200,000,000 USD. Reducing this cost by 20% would mean an annual saving $40,000,000 USD. That would be a significant savings, for a data cleanup and quality sustenance investment of perhaps $3,000,000. The clean-up investment would be a one-time expense. If the $40,000,000 were a one time savings, the ROI would be 1,3333%.

But wait, it is better than that. The $40,000,000 savings recurs annually. The payback period is measured in months. The ROI is enormous. Having clean data pays big dividends!

If you think the one-time "get it right and keep it right" investment would be more like $10,000,000 USD, your payback period would still be measured in months, not years. Let's add a 20% additional cost or $2,000,000 USD in years 2-5 for maintenance and additional quality work. That means you would have spent $18,000,000 USD in 5 years to achieve a savings $200,000,000. That would be greater than a 10-times return on your money! Not too shabby an investment, and your partners and stakeholders would be saving money too. This scenario is really a win-win situation, right down the line to your customers.

The Corcardia Group believes that total supply chain costs for hospitals approach 50% of the hospital's operating budget. For a hospital with a $60,000,000 USD annual operating budget, a 20% savings means $12,000,000 USD would be freed for other uses, like curing patients and preventing illness.

Even Better...

For manufacturers, hospitals, and other supply chain participants, ridding themselves of bad data will produce still better returns. By cleaning up the data throughout the supply chain, it is likely that costs would go down while margins would improve. The product costs for participants could drop. Firms might realize an additional 5% cost savings from this as well. Their return is even better.

What does the Supply Chain Community say about Data Quality?

A 2011 McKinsey & Company study entitled McKinsey on Supply Chain: Selected Publications, which you can download here, the publication "The Challenges Ahead for Supply Chains" by Trish Gyorey, Matt Jochim, and Sabina Norton goes right to the heart of a supply chain's dependency on data, and the weakness of current supply chain decision-making based on that data. According to the authors:

Knowledge is power The results show a similar disconnection between data and decision making: companies seem to collect and use much less detailed information than our experience suggests is prudent in making astute supply chain decisions (Exhibit 6).   For example, customer service is becoming a higher priority,and executives say their companies balance service and cost to serve effectively... Half of the executives say their companies have limited or no quantitative information about incremental costs for raw materials, manufacturing capacity, and personnel, and 41 percent do not track per-customer supply chain costs at any useful level of detail.

Here is Exhibit 6 - a graphic from their study, referenced in the previous quote. Andrew White, writing about master data management for the Supply Chain Quarterly in its Q2-2013 issue, underscored the importance of data quality and consistency for supply chain participants.

... there is a growing emphasis among many organizations on knowing their customers' needs. More than this, organizations are seeking to influence the behavior of customers and prospects, guiding customers' purchasing decisions toward their own products and services and away from those of competitors. This change in focus is leading to a greater demand for and reliance on consistent data.

White's take-away from this is...

...as companies' growing focus on collaboration with trading partners and their need to improve business outcomes, data consistency—especially between trading partners—is increasingly a prerequisite for improved and competitive supply chain performance.   As data quality and consistency become increasingly important factors in supply chain performance, companies that want to catch up with the innovators will have to pay closer attention to master data management. That may require supply chain managers to change the way they think about and utilize data.

Did everyone get that? Data Quality and Consistency are important factors in supply chain performance. You want your auto and your artificial knee joint to work properly and consistently, as their designers and builders intended. This means curing existing data social disease victims and preventing the recurrence and spread.

The Bottom Line

At this point, nearly 300 respondents have begun their surveys, and more than 200 have completed them. I urge those who have left their surveys in mid-course to complete them!

Bad data is a social disease that harms supply chain participants and stakeholders. Do take a stand on wiping it out. The simplest first step is to make your experiences known to us by visiting the IBM InfoGovernance site and taking our "Poor Data Quality - Negative Business Outcomes" survey.

When you get to the question about participating in an interview, answer "YES"and give us real examples of problems, solutions attempted, success attained, and failures sustained. Only by publicizing the magnitude and pervasiveness of this social disease will we collectively stand a chance of achieving cure and prevention.

As a follow-up next step, work with us to survey your organization in a private study that parallels our public InfoGovernance study. The public study forms a excellent baseline for us to compare and contrast the specific data quality issues within your organization. Data Quality will not be attained and sustained until your management understands the depth and breadth of the problem and its cost to your organization's bottom line.

Contact me here and let us help you build the business case for eliminating the causes of bad data. Published by permission of Stuart Selip, Principal Consulting LLC

Bad Data is a Social Disease (Part 1)

Organizational bad data is a social disease easily passed to your business partners and stakeholders With 200 completed responses in our "Poor Data Quality - Negative Business Outcomes" survey, run in conjunction with The Robert Frances Group, the IBM InfoGovernance Community, and Chaordix, it is safe to say that bad data is a social disease that can spread easily and quickly. Merriam-Webster defines a social disease as

a disease (as tuberculosis) whose incidence is directly related to social and economic factors

OK, that definition works for the bad data social disease. In this case, the social and economic factors enabling and potentiating this disease include

• Business management failing to fund and support data governance initiatives
• IT management failing to sell the value of data quality to their business colleagues,
• Business partners failing to challenge and push-back when bad data is exchanged
• Financial analysts not downgrading firms that repeatedly refile 10-Ks due to bad data
• Customers not abandoning firms that err due to bad data quality and management

No doubt you can think of other reasons why the bad data social disease spreads. Was the source of this disease a doorknob? Not according to our survey respondents, who said the chief sources of bad data social disease are inaccurate, ambiguously defined, and unreliable data, as shown in the graphic following. As you can see, in the chart immediately previous, those are not the only causes of the disease. Social diseases negatively affect the sufferer, their partners, and the community around them. According to our respondents:

• 95% of those suffering supply chain issues noted reduced or lost savings that might have been attained from better supply chain integration.
• 72% reported customer data problems, and 71% of those respondents lost business because the didn't know their customer
• 71% of those suffering financial reporting problems said poor data quality cause them to reach and act upon erroneous conclusions based upon materially faulty revenues, expenses, and/or liabilities
• 66% missed the chance to accelerate receivables collection
• 49% reported operations problems from bad data, and 87% of those respondents suffered excess costs for business operations
• 27% reported strategic planning problems, with 75% of those indicating challenges with financial records, profits and losses of units, taxes paid, capital, true customer profiles, overhead allocations, marginal costs, shareholders, etc.)

This response from our survey respondents highlights the truly dismal state of data quality across a spectrum of organizations.

What is in Part 2?

In next week's post, we'll examine some of our survey results specific to bad data and the supply chain. A successful supply chain requires sound internal data integration and equally sound data exchange and integration across chain participants.A network of willing participants exchanging data is fertile ground for spreading the social disease of business. Expect a thought experiment about wringing the bad data quality costs out of supply chain management, and see what some supply chain experts think about the dependency of effective supply chains on high quality data.

The Bottom Line

Believe that bad data is a social disease and take a stand on wiping it out. The simplest first step is to make your experiences known to us by visiting the IBM InfoGovernance site and taking our "Poor Data Quality - Negative Business Outcomes" survey. When you get to the question about participating in an interview, answer "YES"and give us real examples of problems, solutions attempted, success attained, and failures sustained. Only by publicizing the magnitude and pervasiveness of this social disease will we collectively stand a chance of achieving cure and prevention. As a follow-up next step, work with us to survey your organization in a private study that parallels our public InfoGovernance study. The public study forms an excellent baseline for us to compare the specific data quality issues within your organization. You will not attain and sustain data quality until your management understands the depth and breadth of the problem and its cost to your organization's bottom line. Bad Data is a needless and costly social disease of business. Let's move forward swiftly and decisively to wipe it out! Published by permission of Stuart Selip, Principal Consulting LLC

Future of NAND Flash – Component Manufacturers

Future of NAND Flash - Component Manufacturers

Future of NAND Flash – Integrators

Future of NAND Flash - Integrators

Future of NAND Flash – All-Flash Providers

Future of NAND Flash - All-Flash Providers

As the consulting industry changes will you be the disrupter, not the disrupted?

Will you be the disrupter, not the disrupted? This is the question that came to mind as I read Consulting on the Cusp of Disruption, by Clayton M. Christensen, Dina Wang, and Derek van Bever, in the October 2013 issue of the Harvard Business Review (HBR). With an online subscription, you can read it here. Disruption means industry leaders are responding to the changes in customer demands and global economics by making fundamental changes in their approach to services, service delivery, engagement models, and the economic model on which their industry is based. As an example of disruption, the HBR authors open by discussing the McKinsey & Company move to develop McKinsey Solutions, an offering that is not "human-capital based", but instead focuses on technology and analytics embedded at their client. This is a significant departure for a firm known for hiring the best and the brightest, to be tasked with delivering key insights and judgement. Especially when the judgment business was doing well. The authors make the point that the consulting industry has evolved over time.

Generalists have become Functional Specialists Local Structures developed into Global Structures Tightly Structured Teams morphed into spider webs of Remote Specialists

However, McKinsey Solutions was not evolutionary. In its way, it was a revolutionary breakthrough for McKinsey. While McKinsey Solutions' success meant additional revenue for the firm, and offered another means of remaining "Top of Mind" for the McKinsey Solutions' client, the move was really a first line of defense against disruption in the consulting industry. By enjoying "first mover advantage" McKinsey protected their already strong market position, and became the disrupter, not the disrupted.

What is the classic pattern of disruption?

According to Christensen, et al,

New competitors with new business models arrive; incumbents choose to ignore the new players or flee to higher-margin activities; a disrupter whose product was once barely good enough achieves a level of quality acceptable to the broad middle of the market, undermining the position of longtime leaders and often causing the "flip" to a new basis of competition.

Cal Braunstein, CEO of The Robert Frances Group, believes that IT needs a disruptive agenda. In his research note, Cal references the US auto industry back in the happy days when the Model "T" completely disrupted non-production line operations of competitors. But when disruption results in a workable model with entrenched incumbents, the market once again becomes ripe for disruption. That is exactly what happened to the "Big 3" US automakers when Honda and Toyota entered the US market with better quality and service at a dramatically lower price point. Disruption struck again. Detroit never recovered. The City of Detroit itself is now bankrupt. Disruption has significant consequences.

Industry leaders may suffer most from disruption

In his work "The Innovator's Solution" HBR author Clayton M. Christensen addressed the problem of incumbents becoming vulnerable to disruption, writing

An organization's capabilities become its disabilities when disruption is afoot.

The disruption problem is worse for market leaders, according to Christensen.

No challenge is more difficult for a market leader facing disruption than to turn and fight back - to disrupt itself before a competitor does... Success in self-disruption requires at least the following six elements: An autonomous business unit... Leaders who come from relevant "schools of experience"... A separate resource allocation process... Independent sales channels... A new profit model... Unwavering commitment by the CEO...

  So, it will be tough to disrupt yourself if you are big, set in your ways, and don't have the right CEO.

Being the disrupter, not the disrupted

The HBR authors characterized three forms of offering consulting, ranging from the traditional "Solution Shop" to "Value-added Process Businesses" and then to "Facilitated Networks". The spectrum ranges from delivering pronouncements from gifted but opaque expert practitioners charging by the hour through repeatable process delivery charging for delivered results to dynamic and configurable collections of experts linked by a business network layer. In my experience, the expert network form is the most flexible, least constrained, and most likely to deliver value at an exceptional price. It is at once the most disruptive, and presently the least likely form to be destabilized by other disruptive initiatives.

The Bottom Line

If you are in the consulting industry and you don't recognize that disruptive forces are changing the industry and your market's expectations as you read this, you will surely be the disrupted, not the disrupter. On the other hand, disrupters can be expected to provide a consulting service that will deliver much more value for a much lower price point. We are talking here of more than a simple process improvement 10% gain. It will be a quantum jump. Like McKinsey, that may come from embedding in some new solution that accelerates the consulting process and cuts costs. Now is the time to develop situation awareness. What are the small independent competitors doing? Yes, the little firms that you don't really think will invade your market and displace you. Watch them carefully, and learn before it is too late. Those readers who man those small, agile, and disruptive firms should ensure they understand their prospect's pain points and dissatisfaction with the status quo. As physician Sir William Olser famously said "Listen to your patient, he is telling you his diagnosis". Do it now!    > - reprinted by permission of Stu Selip and Principal Consulting LLC.