Archive for the ‘Complexity’ Category

Salesforce.com the SAP of the Saas World?

Friday, October 20th, 2006

Controversial as usual, Nick Carr’s insight into Salesforce.com’s Apex strategy is still definitely worth pondering. Almost all enterprise technology vendors are fighting for the Ultimate Platform or Infrastructure Utility position. Carr writes:

Now, I understand the rationale for the [salesforce.com's] decision: the infrastructure is the product. While Salesforce’s move opens up new opportunities for the firm, it also dramatically widens the competition it will face. Everyone from Microsoft to Google to Amazon is moving into the business of being an infrastructure utility. And, in an age of standardization, it will be interesting to see how customers react to the idea of running their enterprise applications in a private language. Is Salesforce the SAP of the SaaS world - and is that a good or a bad thing?

So the on-premise world has the choice of IBM’s Websphere, SAP’s Netweaver, Oracle’s Fusion MW and Microsoft .net as the unifying architecture. Of these SAP, Oracle and Microsoft command a dizzying array of 3rd party applications to “plug-in” to the platform and provide both functional richness and flexibility to the offering.

While Oracle and SAP have both on-demand and on-premise offerings Salesforce.com has the entire architecture based on SaaS and therefore did not have platform-play aspirations until this last week. With Apex it is now offering a “Platform through the Web” proposition which will broaden the platform wars that raged primarily on premise.

Maybe winning in Enterprise 2.0 will ultimately be about creating a standard platform that unifies on-premise and on-demand.

Communicating the revolutionary platform change in non-techno speak to the board rooms has been challenging for most CIOs.
Now that we are back in the growth (innovation) stage of the economic cycle in most industries and technology innovation dollars are still consumed by maintaining unwieldy infrastructure in most IT shops, the promise of the Platform, the liberation of process and technology innovation is bigger pressure than ever. Technology and process complexity is the ultimate barrier to growth so most companies will ultimately move to an infrastructure utility and this transition will be very interesting to watch over the next decade being fought out between the on-premise giants and the SaaS challengers.

Th00123

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Complexity as Growth Killer

Wednesday, October 18th, 2006

All of us technology professionals were supposed to make business simpler. Well, we failed. As I am working with companies with hundreds if not thousands of enterprise applications and multiple competing business models and processes in the same company it makes you wonder where this is all going.

The new buzzword in business improvement is complexity management. Most companies still do not understand the correlation between increased complexity (products, technologies, organizations) and the resulting growth or lack thereof.

Harvard Business Review had a great article on this topic titled Innovation vs Complexity:

As a company increases the pace of innovation, its profitability often begins to stagnate or even erode. The reason can be summed up in one word: complexity. The continual launch of new products and line extensions adds complexity throughout a company’s operations, and, as the costs of managing that complexity multiply, margins shrink.

They also point out that business wealth is created in the simplification of interactions between systems, processes and organizations.

That is where most studies are going. Internal complexity becomes the number one prohibitor of growth. It is not lack of customers, lack of talent, lack of products. in fact it is due to too many products, services, channels and talent. All major strategy shops are exploring this topic in recent articles from ATKearney, Bain, and Booz-Allen and McKinsey.

Complexity comes in many forms from product portfolio proliferation through diverging technologies to non-standard processes.

If you can afford the top strategy firms they could send you back to the drawing board and ask you to design your business from scratch as if your were selling one product to one customer. Then keep adding product lines and channels without adding unnecessary organizations or processes. It is amazing how an exercise like that paints a real best-in-class view of your business.

In my research complexity and uncertainty feed on each other. When businesses face uncertainty (and who doesn’t) they tend to create what I call safety buffers by adding people, procedures and technologies. Depending on the business it may be

  • excess inventory or capacity because the management does not trust the planning process or technology
  • excess people because the human glue is needed to ensure information flow in divergent processes
  • excess process and technology solutions because divergent organizations need more procedures and technology
  • excess innovation to meet unspecified customer needs

Complexity management may one day give us some guidelines on how to simplify and standardize businesses and show us companies that did go back to the proverbial drawing board. Until then new technologies will need to focus on simplicity, standardization and thereby making a small contribution to that elusive concept: sustainable growth.

As the Booz-Allen study so aptly stated when describing the role of technology providers:

Process complexity is one of the silent killers of profitability. Any time a new product is added or changed or a service level is increased without addressing complexity the result is a process that is a little more cumbersome and a little more costly. Over the long haul, many good strategies go wrong simply because of the drag created by all those incrementally increasing costs.

Th324234

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , ,