We all go through change at some point.
Changing your process to meet the new requirements of a product or service in response to market change is a relentless march forward.
Some organisations hold on to a way they do things despite the issues and inefficiencies in them. These might be because of a number of reasons including working around deficiencies in older technologies, individuals or business structures.
Technology and Service organisations spend millions, sometimes hundreds of millions, looking to find the best way to streamline a process and build that into their application(s), why then do smaller organisations feel the need to customise these applications to meet their, potentially, less efficient processes?
Wanting to become more mature in what you do requires change, so why do companies always fight technological change?
photo credit: AndYaDontStop via photopin cc
Warning, today is a bit of a rant. I had an email and chat exchange with a friend that wasn’t treated well recently and felt compelled to ramble.
Ethics is extremely important in business as it is the foundation of relationships. Ethics in the IT business is especially important as members of the Technology team(s) are responsible for representing IT to the wider business. Through the relationships IT builds with the business it is able to better understand the needs of the business itself and can develop real value through the strategic use of IT, using the collective smarts (IP) of the team. The Technology teams inside an organisation supports the business’ strategy, balances the wider strategic needs of the organisation and business units with the explicit needs of IT and IT strategies. Unethical behaviour can destroy this.
Let me be clear, when I say unethical I mean behaviour that isn’t:
- Done with Integrity;
- Performed Efficiently; and
- Respectful of Property
Our individual actions ultimately reflect our ethical beliefs.When we are in a position of authority these also shape the way those around us operate.
The consequences of unethical behaviour in our IT teams is that it breaks the relationships, both internal to the team and the external ones to the organisation. This can cause team-members to become disconnected and jaded, holding back the IP that could make a difference between completing that aggressive project on time, creating that innovative new product or demoralise the wider team around them. The greater flow on affect is that IT will become disconnected from the business (again) and relegating it to that group that just cost a lot of money and doesn’t deliver anything.
It is easy to be dismissive in the heat of corporate action, but let’s face it, for the most part corporate IT is not life and death. Take the extra minute to think about the repercussions of the decisions you make and the actions you take, it may mean the ultimate success or failure for the perception of IT in the business.
OK I think I’m prepared for that Ethics section in today’s exam!
I found this paper earlier in the week. I honestly wish I found this three or four years ago, as it is a great pre-cursor for understanding how to break up a business and set the appropriate technology strategy to support the overarching business strategy.
It pulls together a number of ideas I’ve been playing with over the last few years with regards to business-mapping and lets me see, what appears to be, the embryo of a lot of the thinking in support of Simon Wardley’s model. The origin is an article by Nicolas Carr, 2003, Why IT doesn’t matter. I never realised it was from a larger thesis, I read the HBR article 2 years ago.
His main recommendations for IT are
- Spend Less
- Follow, don’t lead
- invest only when risks are low
- focus on vulnerabilities rather than opportunities
This is all based on the view that IT is not of strategic importance because:
- Technology is expensive so not everyone can afford it.
- Not everyone will be sufficiently imaginative to see the potential
- Those who exploit it early may be able to lock-in customers, markets or business in a way that is difficult to break or match.
These all read like excuses, putting It into the “too hard” basket. If we treated HR with the same contempt we’d never employ anyone because people are really expensive, I might not be able to use them to their potential, I’m locking by business into relying on those people because they know a lot about me.
This attitude also explains why so many people can’t see the chess board when it comes to business strategy in general; if you ignore it because it’s hard and copy the competition, you’ll be fine.
This is a very raw emerging thought – Catching up on the reading I need to do for University and a few things started to come together. I realised that business (people in them) still think of themselves as relatively static entities in a market that doesn’t change. This was highlighted when I was reviewing two different frameworks for business strategy; Michael Porter’s Generic Strategy model (something I’ve used in the past) and D’Aventi’s Hyper-competition model. Click in the image to see the two models.
I’m still working through my thoughts on this and how to use, but I think that as a whole as markets thrash through the product -> commodity phases, the markets represent a hyper-competitive one and the strategies listed by D’Aventi seem to be more appropriate.
That said, you could also use the D’Aventi model as a targeted selling technique on a case by case basis. As the relevant IT adoption maturity of the potential customer will vary, as will their perception of the Technology and it’s capability.
Regardless of the use, the models are definitely only useful for short term game. I don’t want to get to the point of lazy generation of strategy statements. More looking at ways to direct thinking appropriately, for the given situation.
I started writing this post a few week back and stumbled onto it today – It was off the back of me reading this article on Denzeen by Alexendria Lange. It is an individual perspective on 3D printing, it’s failings and how it could learn from the sewing revival. This article was in direct response to Seth Stephen’s article on Slate.com. Below is my rambling thoughts on their perspectives.
Experience limitations can and do skew perspectives, more often than not towards the negative. Look at the wider picture and see the possibility.
Look to the future, and like the sewing pattern sellers you will see more like Thingiverse, offering a marketplace (marketspace) for the sale of 3D patterns. The sewing revival, enabled by the internet, teaches how to make your own patterns, or download pre-created patterns for you to sew. 3D, too, offers this (Thingiverse, other?). The difference is in the maturity of the technology. Give it time.
Now for the longer version:
Whilst the parallels are useful, keep in mind that they are different technologies with different applications.
Article points to the fact that current home 3D printing is not at a level sufficient for mass use. I argue that, in it’s current form, it will never be. What it is today is the very beginning of what is to come. The pre-cursor to something amazing. We are already seeing what is coming (Food printing, medical printing, manufacturing). I’m sure that the early automatic sewing machines were horrible and produced sub-par results too (Just look to the shitty hand-held or initial cheap machines available; and even what is now available in discount stores). Not all things are created equal.