SAP ROI — Enterprise Architecture & Business Solutions

Strategic SAP & IT Program Development for Measurable Business Value

ERP III – Is the Integration of Collaboration the Future of Enterprise Applications

February 11th, 2010

Corporate Collaboration

Back in the late 1990′s, while at Grant Thornton, and then later when the management consulting organization was sold to Hitachi I worked on a comprehensive knowledge management model (see the image below).  The model  has application and relevance to integrating collaboration tools into any enterprise application.

Carefully structured and planned integration of collaboration tools can produce great results,  but it is a challenge.  Finding ways to tie collaboration into the business technology for productive use in the enterprise is the goal of a lot of social media types but few of them have any idea how to do this.  Clearly there is a lot of hype around “Web 2.0″ interactive functionality but little in the way of productive business use.

By moving outside of the enterprise walls to integrate customer interaction and the extended supply chain the enterprise can gain valuable insight.  By using structured data gathering and organization techniques business value can be achieved.

In this post we will look at a few approaches I’ve taken over the years that have been effective and powerful for creating dynamic collaborative organizations.  They don’t use the trendy new tools like Facebook, or Twitter, or other communication mediums, but they do leverage the collaboration concept.  Maybe someone can create a use model for tools like Facebook or Twitter combined with enterprise applications.

Why Enterprise Collaboration Tools have Not Yet Taken Off

Too many organizations undertake the introduction of social media for the purpose of introducing social media into the enterprise.  In the Knowledge Management area this is like having information without any context of how to apply that information or the experience to apply it properly.  Information alone is NOT knowledge and social media or collaboration tools which do not have a specific business purpose are not very productive (if at all).  Without a specific “context” to apply social media tools, and the understanding of where they might fit, and how they will be used, they are more likely to be a distraction (see Social Media Fads and the Risk to the Enterprise ).

There are few methods, and even fewer tools to filter through all of the “noise” from social media tools to find what is meaningful.  From there, it is still even more difficult to distill what is meaningful into something useful.

Facebook, MySpace, and Twitter may NOT fit in your enterprise.  However, being able to capture employee, customer, and vendor knowledge, suggestions, or criticisms (information) and then publishing this internally to the right people (the context of applying that information) may make a huge difference for your company.

Few social media “gurus” have any idea on how to start this type of structured information gathering dialog from an unstructured information source (see the graphic below).  They do not know how to develop a structured program to take advantage of the unstructured data by finding meaningful ways to apply that information.  There are few methods, and even fewer tools to filter through all of the “noise” from social media tools to find what is meaningful.  From there, it is still even more difficult to distill what is meaningful into something useful.

What do they say in response to this?  What is their excuse?  You don’t understand social media and it is all about building relationships and you haven’t spent enough time and you can’t apply old business rules, etc., etc., etc.  Snake oil, snake oil, snake oil…  All you get are excuses and that you’re not doing enough or spending enough.  Few social media”gurus” have any idea at all on how to generate real value from these new channels.

Why Consultants and Collaboration Evangelists Have Not Shown Much Progress

Neither consultants nor business have learned how to use social media to drive business value.  There are few consultants out there with a coherent or even minimally functional method for business to use collaboration or social media tools to affect a company’s key value propositions.  Even moving down a layer there is still no coherent method for social media use which produces any kind of measurable business benefit.  Beyond things like video conferencing and webinars which help to reduce expenses related to travel and coordination, not much has been done to move social interaction and collaboration in business to the next level.  There is a lot of hype, a lot of claims that this is the “next big thing” but very little substance.

The real issue is not to use social or collaboration tools in the enterprise just to collaborate.  They must serve a business purpose and a business need.  The business enterprise is not a social club, but social tools can be used to serve the business purposes or goals.

In my prior post on SAP, ERP III, SOA — Learning Organizations through Social Media Collaboration there are 9 steps noted toward the end of that post on exactly how to use open source forum software for developing a learning organization.  That integration doesn’t deal with the cool, hip, or trendy social media tools of today, but they are effective collaboration methods.  The same concepts in that post can be generalized and applied to knowledge capture activities around innovation or customer experience.  The way you use these forum type tools inside the company depends on what your goals are, but the instructions for use are there.  And properly used they can be very powerful business tools for competitive advantage.  Little if any of this type of direct, clear, and understandable use case information exists for the “trendy” social media of today.

Toward Transforming Information to Knowledge – A Working Knowledge Management Model

By using collaboration tools properly, or by finding meaningful ways to use the Web 2.0 tools in a more structured way, it is possible to make systematic progress to support business purposes.

Back in 1997 and 1998 I worked through the model and developed a systematic approach, by using primitive collaboration and social media tools, to convert consulting into knowledge centered learning organizations.

It relied heavily on:

  • collaboration,
  • cooperation, and
  • information dissemination.

This was done by using the tools that were available at the time.  A systematic process was developed to capture, then synthesize, organize and disseminate the information to knowledgeable individuals throughout the organization.  By doing this the first seeds of a collaborative learning organization were planted.

The knowledge management graphic and model I produced years ago (see below) was used to advance the concept of a learning organization because that was a clear business fit for consulting companies.  A consultant’s capabilities are directly tied to their knowledge, and that knowledge is a consulting company’s capital or stock in trade.  From that learning organization real business transformation and business benefit can be achieved.  A learning organization is more dynamic and adapts to change more readily.  As a result of the ability to absorb change, dynamic market conditions help ensure you are a leader rather than a laggard in the marketplace.

Early Collaboration and Social Media Efforts that Started to Produce Results Shortly After Y2K

Even the most knowledgeable, talented, and proficient consultants get stuck at times. The nature of complex business and technology problems means there are times you need a little help.  Early on we recognized the need to have dynamic tools, templates, and resources available to consultants.  But the consultants were widely dispersed and didn’t all know each other.  At the same time we also recognized the need to be able to tap into other knowledgeable experts within the organization on a moment’s notice, even if the consultant who needed the help didn’t know the individual.  Outside of a consultant’s own personal network they didn’t know where to look for the specific skills or expertise they needed to resolve a particular issue.  The solution had to be simple, almost instantaneous, and be able to gain key information and insight even from someone you had never contacted before.

It had to be, the right knowledge, right now!

We wanted a structured method that was simple and intuitive to create a collaborative environment.  After looking at our technology landscape right after Y2K we started to use MS Exchange Public Folders, Outlook Shared User Folders, e-mail, and MS Messenger.  Today these collaboration tools have been rolled into SharePoint. 

A Simple Collaborative Solution Using MS Exchange Public Folders and MS Messenger (today it would be in SharePoint)

We developed an MS Exchange folder structure that matched our client project needs and sales force needs for tools, templates, resources and our own best practices on demand.  The beauty of MS Exchange was that the Web Access version allowed our consultants to leverage public folders through the web interface from anywhere, just like they were using MS Explorer / MS File Manager.  The public folder structure was the perfect fit because there was little to learn beyond the new folder structure of how we would store the data.  Dragging, dropping, and opening files in this MS Explorer like interface was intuitive and took no time to adjust to.  This was immensely helpful at some client sites where security is very high so that only the client’s computers or hardware were allowed on the client’s corporate network.  In other words, where access to internal resources would have been limited or non-existent this allowed for ready access to anything that was needed.  Add to this the MS Exchange folder permissions are robust so security was meaningful.

Together with this we used MS Messenger as our IM client but rather than just having an employee’s  name which was unknown to those outside that employees “circle” or network, we applied their key skill to the logon name.  From a standard list of key skill codes for SAP (SD, MM, PP, FI, CO, AM, CRM, SRM, APO, etc.) we placed that in front of the person’s name so that it automatically grouped like skills, and placed the skill reference first in a list of over a hundred resources.  In an instant if you needed some input from a seasoned Sales and Distribution person you would just look on your IM list for those names starting with SD_Employee_Name.  SAP practice users were then exposed to each other all over the United States and even in other countries by their skill codes so that even if they did not know the user, if they had a question of a colleague or peer they could ask in real time.  This was part of the “pull” information exchange infrastructure.

There was also a regular weekly publication containing special “tips and tricks” for productivity or functionality.  This was part of the “push” information exchange sent through e-mail and a copy stored in the knowledge management folder in MS Exchange.  It could be referenced at any time in the future.  This created a reusable but organized information  repository that allowed the quality of the tools, templates, resources, presentations, and other material to be continually advanced and quickly reused.

When I left we had just started on the internal forum posting initiative and unfortunately I do not believe it was completed.  This was to provide a central location to capture knowledge sharing or information discussions in a searchable database.  Using open source content management systems and open source integrated forums our goal was to create a central communication collaboration hub to capture and exchange ideas, custom coded solutions, and best practices.  With the many available add-ons to the open source CMS systems we considered adding an internal high level project management status tracking system and resource request system for senior level managers to gain near real-time visibility to the status and resource needs of all of the many projects taking place all over the country.

This was a very practical way we leveraged existing social and collaboration technology by building the structure and processes to add business value.  It enhanced the customer value proposition by providing better and faster customer solutions, more customer focus, and better internal employee interaction.  In other words, this whole solution was low cost and used existing collaboration tools to advance business interests.  It helped to promote end client satisfaction because of the nature and ability to gain “the right answer right now.”  It started to produce a “learning organization.”

Refinements, Enhancements, and New Dimensions to Collaboration and Knowledge Tools

As the efforts and my research on the subject matured I wrote a piece about my perspective on this issue as it had matured and called it SAP, ERP III, SOA — Learning Organizations through Social Media Collaboration.  That article laid out a way to integrate social media tools like Forum software into the SAP help system.  What this means is that end users can capture real time information about the system, or shortcuts, or requests for simplification or other useful information and disseminate it to the organization.  This also provides a method for workers in any department or area, in real time, to provide feedback that focuses on the company value proposition or competitive pressures.  Here is the model I produced:

1)  Raw Information:  The unstructured data, ideas, “crib notes,” and thoughts that we all have.  However in this instance, it is the raw information surrounding the job or responsibility that the individual performs within the enterprise.  Sometimes these are the “workarounds” to get something done when you run into obstacles or roadblocks, other times they are just shortcuts, techniques, to perform a job or function.

Knowledge Management Process

2)    Organized Information:  This is the process of capturing and classifying that raw information.  This is where the “knowledge bases” and other types of information systems come in.  Many enterprises make it this far. Sometimes these are the “workarounds” to get something done when you run into roadblocks or obstacles.  Other times they might be the shortcuts or techniques to more efficiently perform a job or function.

3)    Acquired Information Experience: This is the interaction with the organized information.  This can be through search functions, employed taxonomies, reports, or other methods of accessing the organized information.  This is after the capture of the information in steps 1) and 2) above, and involves its wider availability than in the individual who originally developed or “held” the knowledge or information.  Few organizations or enterprises make it much further than this.  However, this is the beginning of the true learning organization.

4)    Applied Experience (Knowledge!):  This is the practical application of the organized information after it has been acquired.  Whether this acquisition is through word of mouth, training, or some type of information management system (that is wrong named a knowledge management system) or through a “knowledge base”. This is where the cost savings, revenue opportunities, continuous process improvement opportunities, and real competitive advantage begins to come to fruition.

5)    Refined Experience:  This is more of the inherent “knowing” what to do in a broad variety of contexts that may not be directly related to the task or issue at hand.  It is when an individual can draw on that level of inner experiences mixed with intuition and make the right decision or provide the right answers when there is not enough information to make such a determination under normal circumstances.  This can also be a type of “making the complex appear to be simple.”

This knowledge model I created in the late 90′s seems to be pretty well accepted today [Fn1].  Notice it is very different than an information model because knowledge by its very nature requires information together with the context of how, what, and when to apply that information together with experience.

The ERP III future will rely heavily on delivering on the value propositions of customer focus and innovation.  By moving outside of the enterprise walls to integrate customer interaction and the extended supply chain the enterprise can gain valuable insight.  By using structured data gathering and organization techniques business value can be achieved.

It is my belief that both of these pillars will occur through the use of corporate collaboration tools–, but only corporate collaboration tools that are focused on the business goals of capturing critical “knowledge” and information around these two key premises.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[FN1]  The knowledge model I produced was based on a synthesis of a number of sources I had studied at the time to try to bring some clarity around the confusion between “information management” and “knowledge management.”  At that time, or possibly earlier, there may have been someone else with the same ideas and a similar model but I couldn’t find it then.  Today I see too many variations of these terms but the same basic process all over the place.  If someone else can claim *earlier* authorship I won’t dispute it.  I produced my first version before Y2K.

Related Posts:

Business Strategy and IT Strategy to Reproduce Apple Innovation

December 2nd, 2009

innovation and strategic direction

What are the Apple Innovation Secrets of Steve Jobs’? 

Steve Jobs focuses Apple innovation on competitive pressures and value propositions.  It’s basic to his DNA and core to his management style to relentlessly focus organizational energy on customer centered innovation and customer experience.  In a nutshell Apple’s innovation “secret” (if it can be called that) is the relentless pursuit of innovation around the customer experience.  As early as 2002 Steve Jobs told the world what his competitive strategy was, and it is clear that as CEO he was carefully evaluating competitive pressures and opportunities in the marketplace:

For those paying attention after Jobs’ return, the CEO was telegraphing Apple’s trajectory.  “I would rather compete with Sony than compete in another product category with Microsoft… We’re the only company that owns the whole widget–, the hardware, the software, and the operating system. We can take full responsibility for the user experience.  We can do things the other guys can’t do.” (comments to Time in early 2002).

Lashinsky, Adam, “The Decade of Steve – How Apple’s imperious, brilliant CEO transformed American Business,” Fortune Magazine, pg. 96. November 23, 2009. 

Apple’s CEO owns the Apple corporate strategy, and he has chosen to do one simple thing that many companies talk about but few execute very well–, Steve Jobs’ Business and IT strategy is 100% focused on customer centered innovation.  He knew that you find business benefit looking outward, looking at market and business drivers rather than at products or services that exist in a silo.

I recently read a Fortune Magazine article extolling the virtues, or more the impact, of Apple’s Steve Jobs on business.  Certainly under Steve Jobs’ guidance Apple has come to represent the best of business innovation for several reasons:

  • Jobs built Apple as an innovative company
  • After he left Apple the company nearly collapsed
  • He returned and turned the company around from the brink of collapse
  • Jobs at Apple, through his innovative guidance, has transformed three primary industries –; personal computers (laptops and desktops), personal music, personal cell phones.

For this and other reasons Steve Jobs’ time at Apple has helped him become the king of American business transformation, at least according to Fortune Magazine.

The Direction of Apple’s Innovative Recovery and Company Turnaround

Just after the Y2K scare, while the world was buzzing about the tech bubble burst; speculating about Apple’s survival with Steve Jobs return; watching the AMD and Intel Chip wars heat up–, Apple strategically avoided a battle with its “logical” arch-rival Microsoft.  Instead Steve Jobs made a conscious decision to “take his marbles” and play a completely different game.

Rather than taking a weak company that was struggling to stay afloat and challenge the dominant market maker Steve Jobs defined the Apple innovation strategy to focus on the integration of technology and entertainment.  Apple’s core competence at the time was in PCs and Laptops, but as Jobs said, they were the only vendor that did it all, hardware, software, and operating system.  He took that same approach with music, helping to develop the ecosystem to support the IPod and to transform digital music distribution through ITunes and the online purchase of songs.

The PC wasn’t new, but Jobs’ approach to customer centered innovation was.  The music player wasn’t new, but the IPod certainly was, and it was focused like a laser on the end of Sony Walkman dominance.  Selling music “singles” wasn’t new, but Jobs’ focused Apple’s innovation on the ITunes store together with the widespread use of the IPod.  He created the device to play the music and he created the channel to distribute the music.  The cell phone wasn’t new, and while Blackberry and Nokia owned the market, the IPhone focused like a laser on innovative customer experience.

Start with a gut sense of an opportunity, and the conversations start rolling.

What do we hate?

A: Our cell phones.

What do we have the technology to make?

A: A cell phone with a Mac inside.

What would we like to own?

A: An iPhone, what else?

But Jobs also explained that in this specific conversation, there were big debates across the organization about whether or not they could and should do it. Ultimately, he looked around and said, “Let’s do it.”

I think it’s clear they also benefit from the inauspicious “leak” to the market. By that I mean this overly tight-lipped organization occasionally leaks early ideas to the market to see what kind of response they might generate. Again, what other company benefits from having thousands of adoring designers come up with beautifully rendered concepts of what they think the next great product should look like?

This PragMatic Marketing Post is about the idea that “you can’t innovate like Appleand I say, BALONEY!  

Steve Jobs isn’t dumb, quite the contrary, he’s smart enough to know that you CAN innovate like Apple and that’s why Apple’s internal innovation methods are kept so secret!  Not only that, the ACTUAL workings of Apple’s innovation is a secret and PragMatic article, like so many others, merely speculates about the details of the inner workings.  This article looks at the actual company history and Jobs’ statements.

From the very beginning of any market action by Apple, the corporate strategy is focused on being a market disrupter, and in turn a market maker, by focusing relentlessly on the customer experience.  And not just a focus with existing products or services, new products and services are designed, developed, and relentlessly pursued to please the end customer.  Have you visited an Apple store?  Maybe it’s time you did.

The Apple innovation difference is less about an inward focus on how to squeeze every last penny out of some process or on reducing costs, such as what “Lean” and “Six Sigma” advocates.  Instead, the Apple corporate focus as driven by the CEO was outwardly focused on the marketplace, on the customer, and how to direct that energy into improving revenue and profitability by addressing the frustrations (or needs /wants) of customers.  The Apple innovation difference is where the role of CEO is fixated on customer centered innovation.  Customer experience with Apple products was the center of innovation.  New products, new applications, and new markets all focused on customer experience.

Steve Jobs Innate Understanding of Marketing and Economics

One thing Apple did well was listen to the market, and then shrewdly move marketing programs to create “pent up demand” for a product that had not yet been released.  These new products were designed to elegantly, and as intuitively as possible, address marketplace frustration. 

Many commentators have described this as him having a “knack” for making market moves at the right time.  Baloney, Steve Jobs understands the fundamental core concepts of sales, marketing, and economics that few teach today. 

Apple’s core of innovation is centered on one thing, market demand.  There is no “law of supply and demand” there is only the law of demand.  The supply side of the economic paradigm is completely irrelevant.  The one thing that is important is the law of demand only. Stop for a moment and think about that, internalize it, and one day I’ll offer some insight that I gained from a wise college economics professor who taught me this.

Where there is marketplace frustration there is internal “pent up demand” for that frustration to be addressed. 

You can see this thinking in Apple’s current move today.  With the deep pockets of several successful product strategies, and on the heels of Microsoft’s dismal Vista operating system launch, Apple is now aggressively going after the company’s old arch rival.  The market has complained about Vista, about Microsoft security problems, about the forced upgrade march, about a whole host of problems Microsoft has experienced lately.  Apple is seizing on the market frustration with Microsoft products and the inherent, pent up demand for an alternative.  Apple’s timing is simply capitalizing on the Microsoft promotion of Windows 7.  Apple’s marketing message is resonating with the general populace and the pent up demand that is inherent in marketplace frustration with prior versions of Microsoft Windows.  That message is that the new Windows 7 operating system is simply another “fix” to a long line of broken operating systems.

At the time Microsoft is bringing out its latest flagship product, Windows 7, to address criticism of the Vista product, Apple is offering an alternative. A very successful and financially healthy Apple is now targeting Microsoft directly.

Steve Jobs as the Apple CEO has become quite skilled at setting strategic direction along a future timeline.  As the calculus of the recent attack on Microsoft’s new Windows 7 operating system shows Steve Jobs is also very adept and skilled at holding back to determine the right timing to attack a market.  Think about it, everyone in the IT world has known about the Windows Vista complaints for years.  And over the last few years that frustration in the marketplace has been building.  And right on the heels of Microsoft’s boatloads of marketing spend to address negative market perceptions with a “new” Windows 7 flagship product Apple then pounces.

None of this is magic, none of it is really that mysterious.  Steve Jobs as Apple’s CEO understands competitive pressures and value propositions.  Steve Jobs gets it, plain and simple he understands that the primary role of the CEO is to set strategic direction and long term goals.  He understands the real reason executive participation creates project success.

Does anyone really believe that the launch of ITunes, and the IPod, and the IPhone, or Pixar, or the latest attack ads on Microsoft were some seat of the pants reaction?  The quality and polish of Apple products, even when there are glitches, indicates that planning and strategy for all of these ventures took place quite some time in advance.  Even rapid development cycles for some of the hardware, software, and operating systems takes quite some time.  Just to get the integration as seamless as Apple products often are is no small task.  So many of these plans were probably several years in the making before being released to the public.

It needs to be said that Steve Jobs’ approach to innovation isn’t really a secret, the specific details may be, but the approach is plain old business and IT strategy–, Steve Jobs gets it! He plain understands business and IT strategy. 

What Does All of this Have to do with ERP and SAP?

A properly implemented ERP system, such as SAP, requires a solid corporate strategy that addresses competitive pressures.  To achieve that elusive business benefit from the technology spend it is crucial to have business drivers, business strategy, and the future state direction built into the application.

The underlying ERP and SAP business case for ROI, business benefit, and success must be focused on the intersection IT and business strategy.  The most successful business strategy is always looking carefully for upcoming market opportunities, and for enhancing the value proposition.  In that business strategy there are revenue, profitability, customer retention, and customer acquisition opportunities while focusing on the competitive drivers in the marketplace.  At the intersection of that business strategy is where IT, ERP, and SAP strategy intersect to enable the business strategy.  In the end, like any capital investment it’s all about how the asset is used, or not used, which determines payback and success with its deployment. 

=========================

More Posts on How to Successfully Carry Out Innovation Initiatives in the Enterprise

=========================

From Collaboration to Innovation to Market – Toward a Working Model
http://www.r3now.com/from-collaboration-to-innovation-to-market-toward-a-working-model

A process orieted approach to with the first steps of a process model for moving from innovation to market.  A first pass at integrating collaboration with a structured creative process and moving from idea to design to market.

=========================

Striving for a Customer Focused Approach to Innovation 1 of 3
http://www.r3now.com/striving-for-a-customer-focused-approach-to-innovation-1-of-3

Categorizing and Defining the 3 primary types of corporate innovation. I’ve dubbed them “Stoic” (minimalist or continuous improvement); the “Stretch” (striving for a known future state); and the “Maelstrom” (directionless chaotic storm of ideas). The names you use really don’t matter, but these are the 3 types of what companies call “innovation” that I have seen.

=========================

Striving for a Customer Focused Approach to Innovation 2 of 3
http://www.r3now.com/striving-for-a-customer-focused-approach-to-innovation-2-of-3

Explaining the use of an “innovation narrative” in the “Stretch” type of innovation. This method produces a future state narrative which may not be achievable but provides a customer and market focused direction to aspire to for new products or services. That narrative acts as a future state blueprint for product or service development to move toward.

=========================

Striving for a Customer Focused Approach to Innovation 3 of 3
http://www.r3now.com/striving-for-a-customer-focused-approach-to-innovation-3-of-3

Practical ideas and practical application of some methods of moving toward an innovation culture. Some specific examples around how SAP (the big ERP vendor) has been very successful at integrating their customers, vendors, and their internal organization into an extended development dialog are explored. Includes an overview of how this all ties into the collaboration model I started in a post entitled “From Collaboration to Innovation to Market – Toward a Working Model”.

=========================

Business Strategy and IT Strategy to Reproduce Apple Innovation
http://www.r3now.com/business-strategy-and-it-strategy-to-reproduce-apple-innovation

Overview of Apple Innovation and the focus on Jobs as the head of Apple.  The apple innovation secret (if it can be called that at all) is about relentlessly pursuing the customer experience at the point of customer frustration.  Where there is customer frustration or customer dissatisfaction there is opportunity for gaining market share for the company who is able to address that point of frustration.

Related Posts:

Why SAP Projects Fail to Deliver ROI and How to Change IT

July 8th, 2009

Why SAP Projects Fail to Deliver ROI and How to Change IT

Part of the frustration with the failure of results in SAP implementations is the “hangover” from the Y2K effect.  At that time businesses everywhere simply wanted to install ERP systems to take care of the looming potential “crisis” over the millennial changeover.  The real promise of SAP was lost in the Y2K chaos.  After Y2K, the brief downturn in demand for ERP systems along with the tech bubble burst in the stock market created additional pressure.  The idea of delivering SAP implementations “better, faster, and cheaper” together with business benefit was lost in the confusion.  

Because so many custom systems had been developed from the era when disk space and memory were incredibly expensive, nearly all programs were written with 2 digit designations for the year.  The fear was that as we approached the year 2000, those same systems might read that date as 1900, have a different day of the week assigned, or not know how to handle the 2 digit date at all.  As a result there was a massive rush to implement ERP systems to manage this issue and to replace legacy systems with “off the shelf” software.  

ERP and SAP, Better, Faster, Cheaper but What About Business Benefit and Business Focus?

Leading up to Y2K the demand for replacement of these legacy systems with new ERP systems was so strong it lead to an almost exclusive focus on implementing SAP projects “better, faster, and cheaper.”  Certainly this is not a bad thing, but business alignment and business drivers got lost in the fog of technical system replacements.  Rather than doing system implementations that were focused on genuine business drivers nearly all ERP systems were installed as technical system replacements rather than being implemented for business benefit.

After Y2K, there was a continued emphasis by vendors and companies everywhere to implement and automate current business processes because that is the sales model (and competency) they had developed.  That sales model worked, presentations, approaches, methodologies, implementation tools, consulting training and prep, everything was centered around the Y2K “get it in” model. Projects focused only on existing business operations and on replacing existing IT systems.  Implementation methodologies and techniques for “better, faster, cheaper” implementations were developed to support these “quick hit” IT system replacements.

While every project should be delivered on time and on budget, the focus on only current business processes fails to address the forward looking nature of business.  Even to this day businesses implementing SAP still fail to see the system as any other kind of a capital asset where you build a business case with both a current state justification and a future state justification as well.  The current state is nothing more than the “on time, on budget” back office operational project requirements while the future state looks at business strategy and builds those into the application as well.  What do you want SAP to help you with in the future?

ERP Technicians Replace Systems – Consultants Use ERP to Transform Business

SAP projects fail to deliver for a number of reasons that have nothing to do with the software itself.  SAP projects that focus almost exclusively on “back office” processes or “operational excellence” find that they use lagging indicators.  These are important for evaluating current company health, and today’s (or yesterday’s, last months, etc.) indicators of marketplace performance, but these lagging indicators will not produce world class results most C-level executives are now looking for from SAP. [FN1] 

Today the marketplace still wants the “better, faster, cheaper” model of delivery, but now CEOs, CIOs, and CFOs are insisting that the application software must do more.  It must deliver something more meaningful. It must deliver strategy and forward looking business benefit.

Leading or Lagging Indicators? 

SAP projects, whether they are new implementations, upgrades, or re-implementations should begin with strategy, goals, and KPIs. In developing goals, KPIs (Key Performance Indicators) and performance metrics there are generally two types of measurement categories–, leading indicators and lagging indicators.  Leading and lagging indicators refer to “timing of cash flows within a corporation.”  [FN2] 

In the past, lagging and leading indicators have been applied almost exclusively to economic output, not necessarily to that of business, but the impact of business on economies. 

Recently, with the rise of the use of KPIs as a method to help drive business goals and strategy, the idea of leading and lagging indicators has been applied to business. In the context of economics, Wikipedia defines these indicators as:

Lagging Indicator  

A lagging indicator is an economic indicator that reacts slowly to economic changes, and therefore has little predictive value. Generally these types of indicators follow an event; they are historical in nature. For example, in a performance measuring system, profit earned by a business is a lagging indicator as it reflects a historical performance; similarly, improved customer satisfaction is the result of initiatives taken in the past. [FN3]

Leading Indicator 

[L]eading indicators are key economic variables… used to predict a new phase of the business cycle. A leading indicator is one that changes before the economy does. [FN4]

The Future of SAP – Strategic Implementation 

To finally realize business benefit from SAP, to achieve that elusive ROI and begin to make a difference in the way your company works, you must change the way you approach your implementation.  [FN5]

The Y2K days of any consultant who could learn to make system settings on the fly to support all those implementations are over.  With them, the thousands upon thousands of application “technicians” who got their start in SAP when the demand was so high may not be able to deliver in today’s tremendously competitive market. After all, now that the Y2K scare is long past, businesses everywhere are beginning to ask the really important questions of “how do we make this huge investment actually provide a return?”

The type of vendor and consultant you employ must have business and application experience.  Today more than ever it is critical to ensure you find the right resources and then do some up front planning and prep work yourself. 

Long before your implementation or upgrade project starts the implementation focus must change. 

While it is great to focus on process improvement, and that is critical in today’s market, it is no longer enough to win in today’s marketplace.  All of your competitors are working process improvement so it will not differentiate you in today’s market.  Does that mean you can ignore it?  Of course not, it still has to be done, but it must be done together with a serious strategy focus to your SAP implementation or upgrade.

Start by looking out at your competitive landscape, where are your company’s strengths and weaknesses in comparison to your competitors?  Are there areas in comparison to them that you are not executing particularly well?  Should you then focus on those processes to improve your competitive position?  In the areas you are doing well against your competition, should you emphasize those?  Are there market opportunities you are missing, or are there gaps in your product portfolio that partnering with another firm might help to fill the gap in?  Is your company large enough that you can change the vendor dynamic for certain key products or services by outright purchasing, or possibly underwriting new competitive vendors to ensure better products and services at better prices?

How do you use SAP to enable all of these processes you’ve just answered these questions to?  How do you develop the key goals and KPIs to meet the new market challenges out there in today’s competitive landscape?  What SAP reports or tools will be needed to support your leading indicators?  What KPIs should you focus on first?

There are many more mountains of additional things you can do to use SAP to achieve genuine business benefit, find that “elusive” ROI and make a real difference in the marketplace.  But to get there take the first step to changing your implementation approach–, start by defining the business reason for your implementation or upgrade before you even begin. [FN6]

[FN1]  Using SAP to improve Revenue and Profitability
http://www.r3now.com/using-sap-to-improve-revenue-and-profitability

[FN2] Bloomberg Glossary, http://www.bloomberg.com/invest//glossary/bfglosl.htm (retrieved 9/21/2009)

[FN3] Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagging_indicator (retrieved 9/21/2009)

[FN4] Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leading_indicator (retrieved 9/21/2009)

[FN5] SAP as a Change Enabler
http://www.r3now.com/sap-as-a-change-enabler

[FN6]  Change How You Look at SAP to create ROI
http://www.r3now.com/change-how-you-look-at-sap-to-create-roi

Related Posts: