It must have been about 10 years ago when a CIO told me that a strategic business decision (a sale of a business division) could not be executed due to the IT department. His company had decided to re-focus on its core business and as a result the decision was made to sell a business division that was no longer "core business". He explained that during the due diligence it became obvious that the carve-out of a part of the organisation was actually not possible without huge costs and a lot of time and resources. The final results was that the buyer withdrew his offer and that IT got blamed for "hindering" strategic business decisons.
As a CIO you rather want to avoid this kind of situations.
Although it is not uncommon that IT is not able to execute this kind of business decisions. Businesses evolve. Strategy get new dimensions, priorities are redefined and the business environment changes. It happens in nearly all business over time. Just think about M&A, carve-outs, value chain transformations, outsourcing of business processes like HR payroll or transportation, re-organisation in a line-of-business, setting up of shared service centers for finance and admin, ....And then I am not yet talking about compliancy related changes like the introduction of a new currency (Euro) or IFRS account standards.
IT landscapes and architectures are often designed to meet the business requirements at a certain moment in time. As the business evolves and transforms, the IT organisation is struggling to adapt system landscapes in an adequate and timely manner to these revised business needs. This is not easy for IT, as these kind of transformation are common but yet to a large extend unpredictable. So we need flexibility or ability to deal with these situations in an efficient way.
Not only homegrown solutions but also Enterprise Application packages have the reputation to lack flexibility to adapt to these kind of Structural Transformations. Homegrown solutions have architectures which are build to align with the business requirements at the moment of design. ERP or Business Applications like SAP are configurable, but once a choice has been made, it is hard to change (it is like concrete: solid with steel in it to make it reliable; but hard to change as soon as it is dry ...). It is clear that many applications have an issue to handle these kind of transformations in a straightforward way. Problem. Especially if one reads in a study from BCG that a large amount of IT project budgets are going into transformations; especially transformations which are structural and initiated by business. The life cycle of a business application eventually comes into a transformation stage (after initiation and operations phases) due to need for re-modelling or business evolution. This is the area where most System Integrators will suggest you to "re-do" the job. Re-visit your business requirements, think about a new design, develop a new architecture and start from scratch.
This can not be the only solution? Imagine that we would decide, due to new and evolved "living" needs, to "rebuild" a city like Paris from scratch. Take the city down and start over. I am sure it would look different; completely re-think choices and do certain things in an alternative way, avoid "mistakes" which have been made in the past and adapt the new architecture to the evolved needs and expectations ... Sounds nice, but is not realistic. Same with Enterprise Application landscapes. Starting from scratch is not what one needs to do. It is just too expensive, time consuming and not realistic.
But what to do then? See next post
Friday, December 10, 2010
Sunday, November 28, 2010
When "best run" is maybe not good enough ...
The Flemisch government is generaly accepted to be "the best run" regional government within Belgium. The benchmarking statistics show that the main KPI's like deficit and employment are "better" than the peers. The media (especially the Flemisch ones) highlight the performance and compare Flanders with Wallonia, Brussels, and Federal counterparts.
So The Flemisch Government is "best" run? Or is it just "good" run? Or maybe not even that?
In the corporate world, a company is labelled "best run" when it succeeds is doing 3 things: being efficient in its operations (cost efficient, best in class in operating the business, ...); agile and flexible in a changing business environment (capable of dealing with changes and driving innovations) and last but not least has the complete insight in its business and eco-system (full transparency and ability to link strategy and execution).
Relating this to a public sector organisation like a government is hard to do. But let's give it a try ...
A government that has increased it number of employees by several thousands over the last 3 years and is struggling to improve its operational efficiency by e.g. exploiting the potential of technology. A government that takes a long time to answer future mobility topics and has difficulties to deal with change when it comes e.g. to a choice for a bridge or a tunnel. A government that does not outperform on business analytics and performance management, and has difficulties to create transparancy in operations and linking the "strategy" to the actual operations.
In a corporate world we would not call this "best run". Maybe "good" is a rather high rating, but better is surely possible and "best" is still quite a long way to go ...
So The Flemisch Government is "best" run? Or is it just "good" run? Or maybe not even that?
In the corporate world, a company is labelled "best run" when it succeeds is doing 3 things: being efficient in its operations (cost efficient, best in class in operating the business, ...); agile and flexible in a changing business environment (capable of dealing with changes and driving innovations) and last but not least has the complete insight in its business and eco-system (full transparency and ability to link strategy and execution).
Relating this to a public sector organisation like a government is hard to do. But let's give it a try ...
A government that has increased it number of employees by several thousands over the last 3 years and is struggling to improve its operational efficiency by e.g. exploiting the potential of technology. A government that takes a long time to answer future mobility topics and has difficulties to deal with change when it comes e.g. to a choice for a bridge or a tunnel. A government that does not outperform on business analytics and performance management, and has difficulties to create transparancy in operations and linking the "strategy" to the actual operations.
In a corporate world we would not call this "best run". Maybe "good" is a rather high rating, but better is surely possible and "best" is still quite a long way to go ...
Monday, November 8, 2010
Is TCO a strategic topic?
Multiple studies on ICT main topics have put TCO/cost as a key agenda topic for the CIO. But is TCO actually a key element? Is cost a strategic driver for ICT?
If you talk to the CIO, the cost of delivery of the IT operations is a topic on which he is quite often challenged. I used to ask CIO's I met and who are not members of the executive committee (and by the way most CIO's are not) how often they are asked to talk about ICT on the board level.
It is a reality that most CIO's are called to the board mainly to present there ICT plan (besides the call to come and explain a crisis/escalation/serious problem situation). At that occassion the main topic turns to be cost/budget.
So should we blame CIO's to be concentrated on costs? They are somehow conditioned to always talk about cost of operations and projects (maybe because that way the other boardmembers avoid that too technical subjects, which they can not follow, are put on to the agenda). The fact is that the CIO is often perceived in lots of organisations as a costcenter manager who spend about 2/3 to 3/4 of his/her budget on keeping the shop running (call this operations costs) and is asking always for more money. If that is the situation you are in, than the total cost of your operations will get the necessary attention and will make sure you find ways to optimize, source better, reduce complexity and save money. Cost is than somewhat "strategic" ... for the internal visibility of the CIO.
But what if you are the CEO of the organisation? Is the cost of ICT key?
If you consider that most ICT organisations run a budget at 1-2% of the turnover, saving ICT budget by 10 or 20% (quite an effort) will not fundamentally change the bottom line of your organisation. Efficiency is always important, but costs of ICT are not exactly "strategic" for the company and its leader. Quite some CEO's understand that ICT can add value, and that ICT is key for the operations of the company. Concentrading attention on this is much more important than saving some money left or right. This does not mean that money is not a topic. But ICT value focus brings much more the potential impact of ICT on the strategy and future of the organisation on top of the priority list of the CIO. Saving on TCO will be seen as a way to free up means for more important (=strategic) topic of the company and not as a way to "reduce costs".
Conclusion is : TCO is an important topic, but should never be a strategic topic. The focus on "value adding" of ICT is much more "strategic".
If you talk to the CIO, the cost of delivery of the IT operations is a topic on which he is quite often challenged. I used to ask CIO's I met and who are not members of the executive committee (and by the way most CIO's are not) how often they are asked to talk about ICT on the board level.
It is a reality that most CIO's are called to the board mainly to present there ICT plan (besides the call to come and explain a crisis/escalation/serious problem situation). At that occassion the main topic turns to be cost/budget.
So should we blame CIO's to be concentrated on costs? They are somehow conditioned to always talk about cost of operations and projects (maybe because that way the other boardmembers avoid that too technical subjects, which they can not follow, are put on to the agenda). The fact is that the CIO is often perceived in lots of organisations as a costcenter manager who spend about 2/3 to 3/4 of his/her budget on keeping the shop running (call this operations costs) and is asking always for more money. If that is the situation you are in, than the total cost of your operations will get the necessary attention and will make sure you find ways to optimize, source better, reduce complexity and save money. Cost is than somewhat "strategic" ... for the internal visibility of the CIO.
But what if you are the CEO of the organisation? Is the cost of ICT key?
If you consider that most ICT organisations run a budget at 1-2% of the turnover, saving ICT budget by 10 or 20% (quite an effort) will not fundamentally change the bottom line of your organisation. Efficiency is always important, but costs of ICT are not exactly "strategic" for the company and its leader. Quite some CEO's understand that ICT can add value, and that ICT is key for the operations of the company. Concentrading attention on this is much more important than saving some money left or right. This does not mean that money is not a topic. But ICT value focus brings much more the potential impact of ICT on the strategy and future of the organisation on top of the priority list of the CIO. Saving on TCO will be seen as a way to free up means for more important (=strategic) topic of the company and not as a way to "reduce costs".
Conclusion is : TCO is an important topic, but should never be a strategic topic. The focus on "value adding" of ICT is much more "strategic".
Shared services vs quality ?
When Joep Van 't Hek published his experience with the call center of T-Mobile, lots of people recognized the situation. I personally also had a "yes, I know what he is talking about" kind of feeling (especially when I think about my last call to my telco and about how many buttons I had to press on my phone to get where I wanted to be). Communicating as a "customer" with a big utility or telco company always goes through call centers. Despite the huge investments, these call centers do often fail to meet the customer expectations and leave a general negative impression of "too slow and not adequate". Do these companies realize this?
Quite similar within the corporate world, shared services are also often not perceived as synonym of quality of services. As an individual employee, HR and IT are the most commonly established and contacted shared service centers. And also in the corporate world the experience is quite similar with what Van 't Hek experienced with T-mobile.
Strange if you realize that these call centers/shared services are basically established to create economies of scale (read optimize the service and reduce costs) but equally for professionalisation of service (like standardisation, harmonisation, specialization and increased re-directing towards experts). Isn't "improving" the service level and "meet customer expectations" part of the objectives?
I am quite sure that the cost objective has been met in most cases. The professionalisation on the other hand is much more difficult to measure, and what about the quality of service? Too often quality is measured through quantitative statistics (how many tickets, processing time, waiting time for customer ... ) and seldom through the real perceived quality of the services supplied. Only some more advanced service management system do ask for feedback on the delivered service.
This is according to me a the only good way to really know how the "customer" perceived the service. Imagine what you would say if you first had to wait "25 min before being helped by a telco call center agent" or "when an inexperienced Indian IT help desk person after 3 calls finally understands and solves your PC problem".
It starts with capturing the feedback and listening to your "customer's perception". Necessary ... but not sufficient of course, but surely a first important step for lots of (internal and external) service providers. let's start here and listen to the customer.
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Cultural differences influence buying behaviour
I do not have the pretension to teach about cultural difference, ... but I see that organisation sometimes seem to forget the existence of cultural difference in buying behaviour. I know that, "we are different" is a too often misused excuse. But on the other hand it is important to recognize that difference in sales cycles are a reality. Especially when benchmarking/comparing local organisations.
An obvious example of the difference can be found in the way an American and a Belgian citizen buy a car (yes, I have to admit that I am using "cars" once more to make my point). Here is the difference (a bit black and white to make the point)
The American wakes up in the morning and feels that it is about time for a new car. He enthusiastically says to his wife that it is "beautiful day for buying a new car". He drives to one of these big car dealer in the neighbourhood. After listening to the convincing arguments of the sales person and his sales pitch in which he repeats 3 times "This is a great choice and I am sure this is the right car for you sir", ... the buyer decides and gets his new car.
The Belgian buying process starts about 6 months earlier. Buying a car is something you should prepare thoroughly and informed. There for the potential buyer first start a detailed study of "auto magazines" and reads about the tests of the latest car models of interest. Armed with a shortlist of 3 models, the buyer starts his fieldwork and visits dealers. Preferably after "test drives", the shortlist is reduced to the "one and only car". But before buying, the potential buyer will visit other dealers and compare the prices (and sometimes also the service offering). Finally after another round of bargaining, the car is bought.
I don't think Belgian will ever buy like Americans when it comes to cars. Without value statement, it is important to recognize these cultural difference influence the way sales process should be managed. And be careful with benchmarking ...
An obvious example of the difference can be found in the way an American and a Belgian citizen buy a car (yes, I have to admit that I am using "cars" once more to make my point). Here is the difference (a bit black and white to make the point)
The American wakes up in the morning and feels that it is about time for a new car. He enthusiastically says to his wife that it is "beautiful day for buying a new car". He drives to one of these big car dealer in the neighbourhood. After listening to the convincing arguments of the sales person and his sales pitch in which he repeats 3 times "This is a great choice and I am sure this is the right car for you sir", ... the buyer decides and gets his new car.
The Belgian buying process starts about 6 months earlier. Buying a car is something you should prepare thoroughly and informed. There for the potential buyer first start a detailed study of "auto magazines" and reads about the tests of the latest car models of interest. Armed with a shortlist of 3 models, the buyer starts his fieldwork and visits dealers. Preferably after "test drives", the shortlist is reduced to the "one and only car". But before buying, the potential buyer will visit other dealers and compare the prices (and sometimes also the service offering). Finally after another round of bargaining, the car is bought.
I don't think Belgian will ever buy like Americans when it comes to cars. Without value statement, it is important to recognize these cultural difference influence the way sales process should be managed. And be careful with benchmarking ...
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
What is your average speed?
It must be more than 25 years now that I have my drivers licence. If I compare the car I drive today, with my first Ford Taunus, I have to admit that lots of things have changed. Not just the type of car but the comfort (noice, suspension, ...), equipement (airco, GPS, handsfree ...) and performance (accelerations, maximum speed ...) are uncomparable. The evolution of many things have made my trips with the car much more comfortable, ... but NOT FASTER.
Actually recently the average speed indicated on my dashboard attracted my attention: 56km/h (this is the average speed since I started driving my current car 2 years ago) . I still remember when I returned my first leasing car with a "car computer" about 10 years ago: I could see that my average driving speed during the 140000K was 58km/h. So apparently, despite the whole evolution of the car technology, we are maybe getting more confortable to our destinations, but apparently not any faster.
Just imagine and compare the evolution of business application software. The screens for sure have much more colors, buttoms, effects, and possibilities, ... but imagine the average processing of business transactions taking as much time as 10 or 15 years ago. I think nobody would use the software. The software is designed to help you effectively and efficiently do the job, just like the car is designed to transport you from A to B. It is maybe not easy to blame the car manufacturer for the traffic jams, the congestion on the roads, the infrastructure ... On the other hand, business application vendors can not be blamed for the growing complexity in doing business and the demands for current realtime business community.
There are lots of things software business can learn from car manufacturers, ... but maybe this is a area where carmakers can learn from the software guys and think about how we can improve the average "speed" of transportation with cars.
Actually recently the average speed indicated on my dashboard attracted my attention: 56km/h (this is the average speed since I started driving my current car 2 years ago) . I still remember when I returned my first leasing car with a "car computer" about 10 years ago: I could see that my average driving speed during the 140000K was 58km/h. So apparently, despite the whole evolution of the car technology, we are maybe getting more confortable to our destinations, but apparently not any faster.
Just imagine and compare the evolution of business application software. The screens for sure have much more colors, buttoms, effects, and possibilities, ... but imagine the average processing of business transactions taking as much time as 10 or 15 years ago. I think nobody would use the software. The software is designed to help you effectively and efficiently do the job, just like the car is designed to transport you from A to B. It is maybe not easy to blame the car manufacturer for the traffic jams, the congestion on the roads, the infrastructure ... On the other hand, business application vendors can not be blamed for the growing complexity in doing business and the demands for current realtime business community.
There are lots of things software business can learn from car manufacturers, ... but maybe this is a area where carmakers can learn from the software guys and think about how we can improve the average "speed" of transportation with cars.
Telesales in an IT environment?
How many times have you, in a B2B environment (but also as a private consumer) really bought something over the phone? I mean the whole way: a sales agents contacts you, presents the solution, attracts your attention and finally (maybe after multiple intermediate steps) you buy ...
For most IT companies (hardware, software, telco, service providers ...) Telesales is considered to be a "must-have" sales channel (besides direct sales, resellers or vars, e-shops and other). It is true that a telesales channels has some clear advantages ... for sure for the seller (scale, costs, direct, ...). Just think about the "ease" to establish direct contact with your potential customer compared to the chance of attracting attention with paper brochures or e-mail communication. Direct effective 1-to-1 communication and personalisation are also for the buyer reasons to "like" tele-sales. Although I have to admit that the number of "customers" that really like to buy over the phone remains limited. The tele-sales person that interrupts you, unasked and likely at an inconvenient moment, trying to overload you with information/promotions and things you should not miss ... is very unlikely to be successful. And the more complex the solution offered the lower the likelihood of success.
I read lately (and I hear from personal contacts) that a majority of CIO's do not like the telesales approach of their supplier. I just think about my own reaction when I pick up the phone at night, after a busy day at work, and hear the commercial speech of an over-enthusiastic sales agent promoting things like ... eg. digital TV. I will ask them polite to send me some information, so that I can think about it. But it is very unlikely that I will buy the new stuff over the phone from the person who just called me.
Although on the other hand, I have to admit that in this particular case, the call attracted my attention, got me into thinking about digital TV, and initiated my buying reflects. A couple weeks later I actually ended registering for digital TV, ... But I went to the "shop" to buy and I used the face-to-face contact to answer all my questions.
Maybe I am not representative for regular behaviour (age? culture?), but buying on the phone is not what lots of CIO's actually do.
According to my proper experiences (personal and professional) telesales is a channel to initiate sales, but not a pure "saleschannel". The approach with tele-sales people can be valuable to promote the "stuff". And then I rather call them a Telemarketing channel, because the chance to sell over the phone in countries like Belgium remain small (culturally we are different from eg the US).
Finally, telechannels are like other channels. If the seller differentiates through the approach, the new customer might give it attention. Be the first, or be different. Because if everybody in your market is doing it, the success rate will be lower (similar to your brochure that is lost in the pile of commercial mail or you e-mail that overloads the inbox of your potential customer).
For most IT companies (hardware, software, telco, service providers ...) Telesales is considered to be a "must-have" sales channel (besides direct sales, resellers or vars, e-shops and other). It is true that a telesales channels has some clear advantages ... for sure for the seller (scale, costs, direct, ...). Just think about the "ease" to establish direct contact with your potential customer compared to the chance of attracting attention with paper brochures or e-mail communication. Direct effective 1-to-1 communication and personalisation are also for the buyer reasons to "like" tele-sales. Although I have to admit that the number of "customers" that really like to buy over the phone remains limited. The tele-sales person that interrupts you, unasked and likely at an inconvenient moment, trying to overload you with information/promotions and things you should not miss ... is very unlikely to be successful. And the more complex the solution offered the lower the likelihood of success.
I read lately (and I hear from personal contacts) that a majority of CIO's do not like the telesales approach of their supplier. I just think about my own reaction when I pick up the phone at night, after a busy day at work, and hear the commercial speech of an over-enthusiastic sales agent promoting things like ... eg. digital TV. I will ask them polite to send me some information, so that I can think about it. But it is very unlikely that I will buy the new stuff over the phone from the person who just called me.
Although on the other hand, I have to admit that in this particular case, the call attracted my attention, got me into thinking about digital TV, and initiated my buying reflects. A couple weeks later I actually ended registering for digital TV, ... But I went to the "shop" to buy and I used the face-to-face contact to answer all my questions.
Maybe I am not representative for regular behaviour (age? culture?), but buying on the phone is not what lots of CIO's actually do.
According to my proper experiences (personal and professional) telesales is a channel to initiate sales, but not a pure "saleschannel". The approach with tele-sales people can be valuable to promote the "stuff". And then I rather call them a Telemarketing channel, because the chance to sell over the phone in countries like Belgium remain small (culturally we are different from eg the US).
Finally, telechannels are like other channels. If the seller differentiates through the approach, the new customer might give it attention. Be the first, or be different. Because if everybody in your market is doing it, the success rate will be lower (similar to your brochure that is lost in the pile of commercial mail or you e-mail that overloads the inbox of your potential customer).
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Analyst: can we still believe these people?
During this Belgian pre-election period, this title may sound like a political statement. Who still believes these people? Although it is not my intention, ... one might consider the parallelism between politicians and analyst for a second.
For a long time during my professional career within SAP, I paid lots of attention to market studies and analyst reports. The external information helps to give a good objective insight in the market share, the relative position, the competition, ... and to complement the internal intelligence or info. Absolute relevant data when preparing market strategies, execution plans and marketing campaigns. Despite the fact that often not all data seemed to be only completely correct, there was always some relevancy in terms of relative position or trends.
Until I started to notice that different analyst seem to have complete other views on the same "reality". How can that be? Is there a reason to doubt about the "political" correctness of analyst market-share info? Is the quality of this kind of reports reliable enough for decision makers?
To illustrate my point, I want to share a very recent experience:
PAC announced a report on the BI market in Belgium (a summary publicised in DataNews) : http://datanews.rnews.be/nl/ict/nieuws/nieuwsoverzicht/2010/03/26/sas-heeft-kwart-van-belgische-bi-markt/article-1194714757619.htm. According to this study SAP/BO is second biggest player with a 16.4% market share (after SAS with 24.4%). The view of Smart Business Strategies, Insites consulting gives SAP a market share of 34%, and SAS only 5% (cfr article below). Help! Who is right and who is wrong here?
Even with a statistical error, there seems to be enough reasons to doubt about one (or both?) reports. This is just one example to show that analyst have complete different views on the world.
I don't know anymore whether we can we still believe these people?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consolidatie op BI-markt zal populariteit van tool doen stijgen
In het mei-nummer van CFO magazine kunt u een artikel lezen over de consolidatie in de BI-markt. Die heeft gevolgen waarmee ook u rekening moet houden: u zult de concurrentie minder kunnen laten spelen, moeilijker kunnen overstappen en rekening moeten houden met het feit dat de grote spelers nogal wat tijd zullen moeten besteden aan de integratie van de overgenomen bedrijven en dus minder tijd zullen kunnen vrijmaken voor innovatie. Anderzijds houdt de consolidatiebeweging in dat u zult kunnen standaardiseren en dus ook zult kunnen besparen en dat de populariteit van BI onvermijdelijk zal toenemen omdat spelers met grote namen als IBM, Oracle en SAP er nu echt hun tanden in zetten. Hieronder een overzicht van de marktaandelen van de belangrijkste BI-spelers.
Marktaandeel Business Intelligence in België
Business Objects / SAP 34%
Cognos / IBM / SPSS 17%
Hyperion / Oracle 6%
Informatica 2%
Microsoft 25%
Microstrategy 1%
SAS 5%
QlikView 1%
Information Builders 1%
Overige 8%
Bron: InSites Consulting, Smart Business Strategies, 2009
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For a long time during my professional career within SAP, I paid lots of attention to market studies and analyst reports. The external information helps to give a good objective insight in the market share, the relative position, the competition, ... and to complement the internal intelligence or info. Absolute relevant data when preparing market strategies, execution plans and marketing campaigns. Despite the fact that often not all data seemed to be only completely correct, there was always some relevancy in terms of relative position or trends.
Until I started to notice that different analyst seem to have complete other views on the same "reality". How can that be? Is there a reason to doubt about the "political" correctness of analyst market-share info? Is the quality of this kind of reports reliable enough for decision makers?
To illustrate my point, I want to share a very recent experience:
PAC announced a report on the BI market in Belgium (a summary publicised in DataNews) : http://datanews.rnews.be/nl/ict/nieuws/nieuwsoverzicht/2010/03/26/sas-heeft-kwart-van-belgische-bi-markt/article-1194714757619.htm. According to this study SAP/BO is second biggest player with a 16.4% market share (after SAS with 24.4%). The view of Smart Business Strategies, Insites consulting gives SAP a market share of 34%, and SAS only 5% (cfr article below). Help! Who is right and who is wrong here?
Even with a statistical error, there seems to be enough reasons to doubt about one (or both?) reports. This is just one example to show that analyst have complete different views on the world.
I don't know anymore whether we can we still believe these people?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consolidatie op BI-markt zal populariteit van tool doen stijgen
In het mei-nummer van CFO magazine kunt u een artikel lezen over de consolidatie in de BI-markt. Die heeft gevolgen waarmee ook u rekening moet houden: u zult de concurrentie minder kunnen laten spelen, moeilijker kunnen overstappen en rekening moeten houden met het feit dat de grote spelers nogal wat tijd zullen moeten besteden aan de integratie van de overgenomen bedrijven en dus minder tijd zullen kunnen vrijmaken voor innovatie. Anderzijds houdt de consolidatiebeweging in dat u zult kunnen standaardiseren en dus ook zult kunnen besparen en dat de populariteit van BI onvermijdelijk zal toenemen omdat spelers met grote namen als IBM, Oracle en SAP er nu echt hun tanden in zetten. Hieronder een overzicht van de marktaandelen van de belangrijkste BI-spelers.
Marktaandeel Business Intelligence in België
Business Objects / SAP 34%
Cognos / IBM / SPSS 17%
Hyperion / Oracle 6%
Informatica 2%
Microsoft 25%
Microstrategy 1%
SAS 5%
QlikView 1%
Information Builders 1%
Overige 8%
Bron: InSites Consulting, Smart Business Strategies, 2009
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Walk the talk
Why would it be that, although lots of management books stress the importance of "walk the talk" as a good management practice, still lots of leaders fail to put this into practice?
"Do what you say" requires that one takes care of what he says (of the "talk") but also executes what has been said/claimt or proposed. Reliability in behaviour and consistency between words and actions is what caracterizes solid leadership.
But too often in corporate live as well as in politics, leaders seem to forget this and think that "nice" words are most valuable, more than the actual execution. There is nothing wrong with creating expectation. There is only something wrong when one can not put these into practice. Employees leave companies because they do not trust there leaders any more (number one reasons why people look for another job has to do with the believe/trust in the manager) and similarly, people do not vote for politicians or parties anymore because they do not "walk the talk".
Think about the whole public debate on the age of retirement. Most people agree that "working longer" becomes a necessity for sustaining our existing social model and survival of the pension system. Most parties and individual politicians talk about the necessity to stop early retirement plans. And what happens when Opel, Godiva (and soon Carrefour?) propose a restructuring plan? What do policitians do? Where is the consistency and reliability? Who "walks the talk" here?
"Do what you say" requires that one takes care of what he says (of the "talk") but also executes what has been said/claimt or proposed. Reliability in behaviour and consistency between words and actions is what caracterizes solid leadership.
But too often in corporate live as well as in politics, leaders seem to forget this and think that "nice" words are most valuable, more than the actual execution. There is nothing wrong with creating expectation. There is only something wrong when one can not put these into practice. Employees leave companies because they do not trust there leaders any more (number one reasons why people look for another job has to do with the believe/trust in the manager) and similarly, people do not vote for politicians or parties anymore because they do not "walk the talk".
Think about the whole public debate on the age of retirement. Most people agree that "working longer" becomes a necessity for sustaining our existing social model and survival of the pension system. Most parties and individual politicians talk about the necessity to stop early retirement plans. And what happens when Opel, Godiva (and soon Carrefour?) propose a restructuring plan? What do policitians do? Where is the consistency and reliability? Who "walks the talk" here?
Saturday, May 1, 2010
waarom e-maaltijdcheques niet gewoon afschaffen?
Er wordt de laatste tijd wel wat geschreven over electronische maatltjdcheques. Welke aanbieders? Welk systeem? Hoe en wanneer invoeren? Het belang van de stakeholders? Het zal wel "voordelen" hebben zeker om de papieren cheques, hun gebruik en administratieve afhandeling, electronisch te maken. E- versies van de huidige versie is "modern". En bovendien in de tijd dat alles best "green" wordt, ook nog eens veel beter voor de natuur. Niets dan voordelen dus voor de gebruiker, de ontvanger en de verwerker.
Maar laat ons de zaken eens volledig blanco bekijken. Het geen mij verbaasd, is dat er niemand de redenering nog een stap verder zet, en echt LEAN gaat nadenken over maaltijdcheques; door ze simpel weg "af te schaffen".
Afschaffen?
Inderdaad. Maaltijdcheques zijn een vorm van verloning (bijdrage van de werkgever in de kosten van de maaltijd van de werknemer) die voor de werkgever en werknemer voordelen biedt (... alleen de Belgische staat heeft er een nadeel van). Maar om van dit fiscale (belasting, sociale zekerheid) voordeel te genieten moeten we de papieren (tot nu toch althans) cheques aanvaarden. En het ietswat omslachtige patroon om er gebruik van te maken er bij nemen; cheques afzonderlijk in de portefeuille meesleuren, betalen met cheques, enkel voor voeding of toch niet (?), geen hoger bedrag in cheques geven, vervaldagen in het oog houden, ... Soit, heel wat zaken die niet echt toegevoegde waarde bieden.
Wat als we nu eens gewoon het "fiscale" aspect van de maaltijdcheques beperken tot een bereking in de loonverrekening. Gewoon een netto "maaltijdkrediet" per gepresteerde dag op de loonfiche vermelden, en het "maaltijdcheque" bedrag integreren als deel van het loon. Weg cheques, weg manipulatie en verwerking, ... weg discussie over e-cheques. Of is dat te veel administratieve vereenvoudiging?
Maar laat ons de zaken eens volledig blanco bekijken. Het geen mij verbaasd, is dat er niemand de redenering nog een stap verder zet, en echt LEAN gaat nadenken over maaltijdcheques; door ze simpel weg "af te schaffen".
Afschaffen?
Inderdaad. Maaltijdcheques zijn een vorm van verloning (bijdrage van de werkgever in de kosten van de maaltijd van de werknemer) die voor de werkgever en werknemer voordelen biedt (... alleen de Belgische staat heeft er een nadeel van). Maar om van dit fiscale (belasting, sociale zekerheid) voordeel te genieten moeten we de papieren (tot nu toch althans) cheques aanvaarden. En het ietswat omslachtige patroon om er gebruik van te maken er bij nemen; cheques afzonderlijk in de portefeuille meesleuren, betalen met cheques, enkel voor voeding of toch niet (?), geen hoger bedrag in cheques geven, vervaldagen in het oog houden, ... Soit, heel wat zaken die niet echt toegevoegde waarde bieden.
Wat als we nu eens gewoon het "fiscale" aspect van de maaltijdcheques beperken tot een bereking in de loonverrekening. Gewoon een netto "maaltijdkrediet" per gepresteerde dag op de loonfiche vermelden, en het "maaltijdcheque" bedrag integreren als deel van het loon. Weg cheques, weg manipulatie en verwerking, ... weg discussie over e-cheques. Of is dat te veel administratieve vereenvoudiging?
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Sympathie of afkeer?
Vakbonden en werkgevers hebben duidelijk een andere kijk op dezelfde realiteit: het respectievelijke beeld van de wereld is anders en vaak conflictueel. Het is evident dat het referentiekader verschillend is, dat er andere prioriteiten en waardeschalen worden gehanteerd. Het is een cliché, maar het meest voorkomende resultaat is onbegrip over het standpunt of uitgangspunt van de "andere" partij. Nochtans moet het niet altijd zo zijn. Met de nodige "empathie" is het best mogelijk om het standpunt van de de-facto tegenhanger te begrijpen en zelfs te steunen.
Ik denk hier in het bijzonder aan de manier waarop de werknemersvertegenwoordiging bij Opel Antwerpen op zoek gaat naar oplossingen om de fabriek toch open te houden. Chapeau. Ondanks het economisch gegeven van overcapaciteit in de automobielsector, is het zeker gerechtvaardigd om te ijveren om een "rendabele" fabriek open te houden en om oplossingen aan te reiken die haalbaar (minstens tijdelijk) en aanvaardbaar zouden moeten kunnen zijn. Een open dialoog, creativiteit, medewerking met het management ... getuigen van leiderschap die te weinig wordt gezien in acties van de vakbonden. Toch zou mijns inziens de vakbond hier nog verder kunnen gaan (vb een loonsinlevering van 10% in ruil voor garanties; meer flexibiliteit; ...).
Zelfde gevoel tov de acties bij InBev: de ingesteldheid waarmee de vakbonden de belangen verdedigen van hun leden kan rekenen op sympathie. De manier waarop InBev als organizatie hier terug (herinner Hoegaarden) communiceert en ageert is niet echt "best in class". Respect voor werknemers is iets wat je mag verwachten van professionele organisaties.
Ik denk hier in het bijzonder aan de manier waarop de werknemersvertegenwoordiging bij Opel Antwerpen op zoek gaat naar oplossingen om de fabriek toch open te houden. Chapeau. Ondanks het economisch gegeven van overcapaciteit in de automobielsector, is het zeker gerechtvaardigd om te ijveren om een "rendabele" fabriek open te houden en om oplossingen aan te reiken die haalbaar (minstens tijdelijk) en aanvaardbaar zouden moeten kunnen zijn. Een open dialoog, creativiteit, medewerking met het management ... getuigen van leiderschap die te weinig wordt gezien in acties van de vakbonden. Toch zou mijns inziens de vakbond hier nog verder kunnen gaan (vb een loonsinlevering van 10% in ruil voor garanties; meer flexibiliteit; ...).
Zelfde gevoel tov de acties bij InBev: de ingesteldheid waarmee de vakbonden de belangen verdedigen van hun leden kan rekenen op sympathie. De manier waarop InBev als organizatie hier terug (herinner Hoegaarden) communiceert en ageert is niet echt "best in class". Respect voor werknemers is iets wat je mag verwachten van professionele organisaties.
Er zijn echter andere recente vakbondsacties die eerder onbegrip opleveren:
- het lamleggen van het treinverkeer na het accident in Buizingen in de wetenschap dat er allicht een menselijke fout werd gemaakt met het argument dat de opleiding allemaal wat te snel moet verlopen, heeft weinig te maken met empathie van de vakbonden bij NMBS.
- de recente acties van douane mensen omdat er "wijzigingen" zouden kunnen gaan gebeuren; zonder dat er iets concreet is gaat men acties voeren en creert men weinig ruimte voor open dialoog over mogelijke veranderingen
- de manier waarop de bonden bij Carrefour reageren is ook heel wat minder matuur dan bij pakweg Opel. Een constructieve houding en samenwerking om een potentiele overname van Carrefour winkels (met transfer van personeelsleden) mogelijk te maken is toch meer in het belang van de werknemers dan waar er met de acties wordt naar toe gewerkt.
Sympathie vanuit werkgevers naar vakbonden en hun standpunten is perfect mogelijk. Ik kijk hoopvol naar een groeiende constructieve attitude vanuit de werknemersvertegenwoordiging. Uiteindelijk is er altijd een oplossing mogelijk, vanuit empathie en zonder afkeer ... denk ik dan.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Predictability is everything?
I have been following amused, and sometimes amazed, the reactions and comments on last week’s traffic problems.
A sudden snowfall during rush hours made Belgian traffic come to a stand-still. Record traffic jams was the result. Was it predictable? Was the information available? Why was the information not used properly? Who should be blamed for this? (why do we want to blame somebody by the way …?)
In today’s life, “surprises” and unexpected events are a sign of weakness. Especially in the business reality, predictability is a necessity. Companies that come with “unexpected” results or last minute pre-announcements of their earnings, are labeled as “unprofessional”. Those companies and their managers are “punished” by the marketplace and the business press (think about what happened to Belgian companies like Option, Omega Pharma, Agfa, Barco …in a recent past).
Being able to predict, to forecast or foresee the future (but also to communicate on the recent past) is considered for granted. A company should see clearly and communicate transparently (at least for stock traded businesses) where it stands and where its results are heading to. Easy to say, but still quite some businesses lack the ability to create insight in the enterprise performance. So what is it that makes this so difficult?
Clarity is not something which comes out of a system, at the push of a bottom. It is the result of a comprehensive view on how the business in running, which business processes have been executed and what operations are taking place today and in the future. The accounting/controlling part of an ERP system might get you a long way in this. It is a good basis and platform for enterprise operations. But without a solid planning, business intelligence and analytics system, the senior management of the organization will lack the necessary information and insight on the performance of the organization. Just think about the banking sector at the start of the financial crisis. Lack of insight and clarity makes predictability impossible.
A good “stomac” feeling alone is not enough for a organization (certainly of a certain size) to know how things are going. For sure this explains why analytics and intelligence are still high on the list of priorities for 2010. And maybe the fact that independent research has shown that worldclass companies have above average analytical capabilities helps here.
It’s for sure, we can still improve insight and transparency in daily life (business and other) and try to reduce “surprises”. But let’s not forget that more information and intelligence does not mean that we will never be confronted with un-predictability. To illustrate, I refer back to last week; record traffic jam on Belgian highways due to snowfall during rush hour. We might get much better in collecting information (eg. Think about weather forecasting today compared with 10 years ago), we might be better in communicating (think about the multitude of communication channels about the weather), and even get more and faster information, … still what we do with it all, and how we act on the information will equally be important. Predictability can reduce surprises, but will not change the “news” or the information (we will still have sudden snow falls and likely difficult roads to drive on).
Goldratt’s statement “necessary but not sufficient” get’s here another application …
A sudden snowfall during rush hours made Belgian traffic come to a stand-still. Record traffic jams was the result. Was it predictable? Was the information available? Why was the information not used properly? Who should be blamed for this? (why do we want to blame somebody by the way …?)
In today’s life, “surprises” and unexpected events are a sign of weakness. Especially in the business reality, predictability is a necessity. Companies that come with “unexpected” results or last minute pre-announcements of their earnings, are labeled as “unprofessional”. Those companies and their managers are “punished” by the marketplace and the business press (think about what happened to Belgian companies like Option, Omega Pharma, Agfa, Barco …in a recent past).
Being able to predict, to forecast or foresee the future (but also to communicate on the recent past) is considered for granted. A company should see clearly and communicate transparently (at least for stock traded businesses) where it stands and where its results are heading to. Easy to say, but still quite some businesses lack the ability to create insight in the enterprise performance. So what is it that makes this so difficult?
Clarity is not something which comes out of a system, at the push of a bottom. It is the result of a comprehensive view on how the business in running, which business processes have been executed and what operations are taking place today and in the future. The accounting/controlling part of an ERP system might get you a long way in this. It is a good basis and platform for enterprise operations. But without a solid planning, business intelligence and analytics system, the senior management of the organization will lack the necessary information and insight on the performance of the organization. Just think about the banking sector at the start of the financial crisis. Lack of insight and clarity makes predictability impossible.
A good “stomac” feeling alone is not enough for a organization (certainly of a certain size) to know how things are going. For sure this explains why analytics and intelligence are still high on the list of priorities for 2010. And maybe the fact that independent research has shown that worldclass companies have above average analytical capabilities helps here.
It’s for sure, we can still improve insight and transparency in daily life (business and other) and try to reduce “surprises”. But let’s not forget that more information and intelligence does not mean that we will never be confronted with un-predictability. To illustrate, I refer back to last week; record traffic jam on Belgian highways due to snowfall during rush hour. We might get much better in collecting information (eg. Think about weather forecasting today compared with 10 years ago), we might be better in communicating (think about the multitude of communication channels about the weather), and even get more and faster information, … still what we do with it all, and how we act on the information will equally be important. Predictability can reduce surprises, but will not change the “news” or the information (we will still have sudden snow falls and likely difficult roads to drive on).
Goldratt’s statement “necessary but not sufficient” get’s here another application …
Monday, February 8, 2010
Wishing you a Happy New year and a successfull collaboration. (10/01/2010)
It is appropriate at the start of a New Year to wish ones business and professional relation “all the best” for the New Year.
Professionally, I would like to wish you for this year, “a better year than 2009”. A nice outlook … at least for lots of companies for whom the last 12 month were not the best ever. Many businesses are actually happy to turn the 2009 page, close the book, and look ahead to 2010 with new aspirations. I have also decided not to look back too much at last year, but just to remember one important aspect of doing business within SAP in 2009: partnerships.
Relations, collaborations, partnerships are key in the “new reality”. This goes beyond pure incidental joint business transactions. Through collaborations and partnerships make the difference.Therefore SAP BeLux changed its yearly partner award at the end of 2009. We awarded 10 partners a “collaboration award”. In the past years, partners were nominated or awarded based on being the best in one specific category (award for midmarket, award for strategic solutions, award for customer satisfaction…). At the end of 2009 we looked at a combination of 5 criteria and looked for a clear answer on the main question: “how did the partner contributed to growing the SAP business”. The 5 criteria SAP BeLux used to determine “successful collaboration” were:1. new customers : obviously this is the key measure to define growth in Small and Medium Enterprises business. On the other hand, SAP equally targets ‘new names’ in the Large Enterprises segment2. extending the SAP solution footprint : within the installed customer base, SAP basically challenges its partners to invest in new, strategic solutions like Business User and CFO solutions, Netweaver Innovation solutions, Sustainability solutions,… and to position these at the customers. Therefore partners are requested to invest in demo systems, knowledge and education of their consultants.3. developing new markets, new industry sectors: even in a tough economic climate the focus industries like Financial Services sector and the Public Sector remain growth markets which require specific expertise and approaches together with SAP partners. 4. creating satisfied reference customers through high quality implementation projects. Customer success is the most valuable return for SAP and its partners. Equally real customer testimonials, success stories, reference calls,… are important way to convince prospects to invest in SAP.5. investment in sales and business development capacity: in summary SAP relies on transparent collaboration with partners to plan and develop joint opportunities .
Accenture, Alti Cernum, BSB, Callataÿ & Wouters, CSC, Delaware, Deloitte, IBM, Intensum and Thinking Solutions are the 10 companies I would like to congratulate with their collaboration award.
I am looking forward to extend this collaboration in 2010 and build a successful year together with the complete SAP eco-system.
Professionally, I would like to wish you for this year, “a better year than 2009”. A nice outlook … at least for lots of companies for whom the last 12 month were not the best ever. Many businesses are actually happy to turn the 2009 page, close the book, and look ahead to 2010 with new aspirations. I have also decided not to look back too much at last year, but just to remember one important aspect of doing business within SAP in 2009: partnerships.
Relations, collaborations, partnerships are key in the “new reality”. This goes beyond pure incidental joint business transactions. Through collaborations and partnerships make the difference.Therefore SAP BeLux changed its yearly partner award at the end of 2009. We awarded 10 partners a “collaboration award”. In the past years, partners were nominated or awarded based on being the best in one specific category (award for midmarket, award for strategic solutions, award for customer satisfaction…). At the end of 2009 we looked at a combination of 5 criteria and looked for a clear answer on the main question: “how did the partner contributed to growing the SAP business”. The 5 criteria SAP BeLux used to determine “successful collaboration” were:1. new customers : obviously this is the key measure to define growth in Small and Medium Enterprises business. On the other hand, SAP equally targets ‘new names’ in the Large Enterprises segment2. extending the SAP solution footprint : within the installed customer base, SAP basically challenges its partners to invest in new, strategic solutions like Business User and CFO solutions, Netweaver Innovation solutions, Sustainability solutions,… and to position these at the customers. Therefore partners are requested to invest in demo systems, knowledge and education of their consultants.3. developing new markets, new industry sectors: even in a tough economic climate the focus industries like Financial Services sector and the Public Sector remain growth markets which require specific expertise and approaches together with SAP partners. 4. creating satisfied reference customers through high quality implementation projects. Customer success is the most valuable return for SAP and its partners. Equally real customer testimonials, success stories, reference calls,… are important way to convince prospects to invest in SAP.5. investment in sales and business development capacity: in summary SAP relies on transparent collaboration with partners to plan and develop joint opportunities .
Accenture, Alti Cernum, BSB, Callataÿ & Wouters, CSC, Delaware, Deloitte, IBM, Intensum and Thinking Solutions are the 10 companies I would like to congratulate with their collaboration award.
I am looking forward to extend this collaboration in 2010 and build a successful year together with the complete SAP eco-system.
Small, beautiful and … great (07/12/2009)
Luxemburg is one of the smallest countries in Europe where SAP has an own office. For years already SAP has chosen for a real office, with own operations and own people, not just a location where travelling salesmen pass-by. Luxemburg is particular and has a business environment which is at the same time “open” and “closed”. “Open” towards international collaboration, business networks and participants. Lots of business are indeed linked to international players and there is a large group of international business people active in Luxemburg. Open also towards innovations and change. It is a kind of a unwritten rule that “small” entities tend to be frontrunners in innovations and changes, as well in politics as in business. Luxemburg is confirming this rule.Closed also, because the business community consist of a small circle of Luxembourgian business people and companies with a good network. It takes a while before companies and individuals are integrated and connected. At SAP we recognize the characteristics and the specifics of the country. And we are glad to see that SAP and the SAP partners are also recognized in Luxemburg. In the last month only SAP won 2 awards in Luxemburg, and Amal Choury, president of the Luxemburg SAP User Group, was awarded the title of “Best IT Manager”. At this year’s Luxemburg HR Awards, organized by HR One, a renowned community of HR professionals, SAP was elected as the “Best HR software”. SAP HR solutions have gained a strong footprint in the Luxemburg companies and organizations. La Poste, Cargolux, Dexia, Etat de Luxembourg, KBL … are just a couple of companies that run SAP HR. And just a week ago, IT One awarded SAP the price of the Best Financial Systems against Fernbach Software; C&W; Oracle and some others software providers … About 50 CIOs from different sectors voted for the different prices categories and have also chosen Amal Choury as “Best IT Manager”. Amal is not only the driving force behind the Luxemburg User community, but also the “leading lady” at e-Kenz, an established and respected SAP partner. Together with Delaware, e-Kenz is innovating the SAP offering towards Luxemburg SME companies, combining a hosted SAP SME solution and introducing alternative SAP Software “consumption” models. Congratulations to Amal. I am glad to see that Luxemburg recognizes young, dynamic, … and female talent. SAP can be proud and the SAP community in Luxemburg is doing a great job to help organizations to become “best run”. The Awards are a motivation for SAP and the SAP partners to continue with lots of energy the good work 200km south of Brussels.
CIOs have Critical Role in Guiding Business Out of Recession (25/11/2009)
I would like to share an article with you, which highlights some thoughts I fully support.
"Chief information officers (CIOs) have a critical role to play in the next five years as businesses continue to feel the effects of the economic recession, says Chakib Bouhdary, chief value officer at SAP. Smart CIOs realize that business is unlikely to be the same as it was before the economic crisis and are planning for the future, he told the SAP UK and Ireland User Group Conference 2009. They are engaging with the business, reducing IT cost and complexity, tapping into business information, and building an IT infrastructure for new ways of working, he said. Without understanding where the business is trying to go, CIOs will be unable to assess whether they have the right infrastructure to achieve those goals into the future, said Bouhdary. The biggest enemy of the enterprise is the inefficiency and complexity created by having too many applications, he said. The most successful companies have three to five applications per $1bn revenue, but many businesses typically have 50 applications or more. By investing wisely in a few applications, most businesses can cut costs and improve efficiency, said Bouhdary."
cfr http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2009/11/24/239444/cios-have-critical-role-in-guiding-business-out-of-recession-says.htm for ffull article
"Chief information officers (CIOs) have a critical role to play in the next five years as businesses continue to feel the effects of the economic recession, says Chakib Bouhdary, chief value officer at SAP. Smart CIOs realize that business is unlikely to be the same as it was before the economic crisis and are planning for the future, he told the SAP UK and Ireland User Group Conference 2009. They are engaging with the business, reducing IT cost and complexity, tapping into business information, and building an IT infrastructure for new ways of working, he said. Without understanding where the business is trying to go, CIOs will be unable to assess whether they have the right infrastructure to achieve those goals into the future, said Bouhdary. The biggest enemy of the enterprise is the inefficiency and complexity created by having too many applications, he said. The most successful companies have three to five applications per $1bn revenue, but many businesses typically have 50 applications or more. By investing wisely in a few applications, most businesses can cut costs and improve efficiency, said Bouhdary."
cfr http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2009/11/24/239444/cios-have-critical-role-in-guiding-business-out-of-recession-says.htm for ffull article
A regular car has four doors and six gears …(19/10/2009)
Imagine you are in the following situation. You are in the parking lot of a supermarket, watching a family of four (dad, mom, two kids) approaching. The man and the woman are carrying big bags of groceries. Daddy has to put down the bags next to his car and as he is searching his pockets for his car keys, some of the purchased goods fall on the ground. Once the door is unlocked, the children are climbing into the car using the door at the driver side, followed by the woman, who has some difficulties getting into the car through the passenger seat. The groceries are loaded into the car via the same door, handed over to the kids, who put them on the backseat. When, after quite some time, they are finished, dad starts the car and leaves the parking ground. As the car makes a lot of noise, this catches the attention of everybody around. Keeping the car in first gear can have that effect, of course...
You probably have some questions about the events I just described. “Why doesn’t the man use the car key to remotely unlock the car?”, you might ask. Or: “why don’t they open the rear and the passenger doors to get everybody in the car?" And: “wouldn’t it be better to load the groceries directly into the trunk of the car?” Some of you would ask: “something must wrong with the car, because what else could be the reason the driver didn't use any of the other gears?” It is hard to imagine that something like this would happen in reality. If this family would look around, they would quickly notice that their way of “using” their car was not exactly “common practice”.
Am I exaggerating? Perhaps. However, I see a lot similarities between the car scenario and the way people use software solutions. Companies often buy software solutions that are only partially known by the user, sometimes not implemented in an optimal way, too often under-exploited and even misused. The net effect is reflected in the level of user satisfaction (just like the car that is not convenient for its passengers, makes too much noise …) and un-used capabilities.
I’m happy that SAP has an entire community –our SAP ecosystem- to avoid this. Next to the services to have our software up and running, our partners and we have put everything in place to train and spread the knowledge and enable everyone to share their experiences. A very important element is peer-exchange; customers exchanging knowledge, challenges and insights. That’s why I believe a lot in the value of a user community: organizations can show each other that a car has lots of functions and even advanced options which can make life much easier. In this context the Belgian SAP User Group SAPience.be has proven its value. I’m a great fan of the SAPience.be user group and of event events like the SAPience.be User Day, where SAP customers show each other how they use SAP technology to get the greatest business value. If you want to see how other people use the “four doors and six gears” of their SAP software, then do stop by on November 19 at the SAP Lounge for already the 8th SAPience.be User Day.
You can find inspiration on www.inspirationforsuccess.be
You probably have some questions about the events I just described. “Why doesn’t the man use the car key to remotely unlock the car?”, you might ask. Or: “why don’t they open the rear and the passenger doors to get everybody in the car?" And: “wouldn’t it be better to load the groceries directly into the trunk of the car?” Some of you would ask: “something must wrong with the car, because what else could be the reason the driver didn't use any of the other gears?” It is hard to imagine that something like this would happen in reality. If this family would look around, they would quickly notice that their way of “using” their car was not exactly “common practice”.
Am I exaggerating? Perhaps. However, I see a lot similarities between the car scenario and the way people use software solutions. Companies often buy software solutions that are only partially known by the user, sometimes not implemented in an optimal way, too often under-exploited and even misused. The net effect is reflected in the level of user satisfaction (just like the car that is not convenient for its passengers, makes too much noise …) and un-used capabilities.
I’m happy that SAP has an entire community –our SAP ecosystem- to avoid this. Next to the services to have our software up and running, our partners and we have put everything in place to train and spread the knowledge and enable everyone to share their experiences. A very important element is peer-exchange; customers exchanging knowledge, challenges and insights. That’s why I believe a lot in the value of a user community: organizations can show each other that a car has lots of functions and even advanced options which can make life much easier. In this context the Belgian SAP User Group SAPience.be has proven its value. I’m a great fan of the SAPience.be user group and of event events like the SAPience.be User Day, where SAP customers show each other how they use SAP technology to get the greatest business value. If you want to see how other people use the “four doors and six gears” of their SAP software, then do stop by on November 19 at the SAP Lounge for already the 8th SAPience.be User Day.
You can find inspiration on www.inspirationforsuccess.be
Some best practices are good enough and become common practices … other best practices are not good enough and require own practices (14/08/2009)
remember when I was a student at the university I heard for the first time about “good practices”. The principle idea behind good practices was that certain “ways of doing” got accepted as being good, or even being the reference. Instead of re-inventing everything one selves, it was allowed for organization to “copy” what was considered good practices. Exchanging on how to do business, on how to run certain processes, on the flow of activities … helped companies to increase efficiency and allowed to gain speed on changing towards/or implementing new practices. SAP (and also other business application software providers) used the concept of good practices to offer standard solutions that were built around these practices. SAP called these standardized processes/flows/models even “best practices” and helped organizations to accelerate in implementing these. Considering the evolution since the early 90’s, good practices (or even best practices) are still very relevant. The waves of Business Process Re-engineering/Modeling/Improving … have enforced the idea of reference based practices and processes. One could say that some “good practices” have become common practices. Meaning that it is a common business, or a generally accepted business practice, to do things in a certain way. And hence to standardize operations accordingly. The result is also that companies see clearly that there is no need to do these practices themselves any longer. They are common, and non-core, and hence ready to outsource or out-task. If you just think about pay-roll processing, facility management (cleaning, catering, fleet management…). The list of “common” practices is actually longer in certain industries (eg. procure-to-pay, warehousing, …) … although these are in more cases still considered “differentiating” from competitors or peers. On the other side of the spectrum, companies try to “innovate”. Not only by developing new products or services, but through creativity in processes (Business Process Innovations). The main idea is to differentiate through an different “practice”. We could say that organization opt for “own practices” which support to build competitive advantage. Own processes are most of the time not “rocket science” but rather “variations” on practices or processes. These own processes are most of the time “rewired” processes, using existing building blocks, or merely changing certain aspects of a good/best practice. It is clear that in many organizations “best practices” have to live together with “own practices”. The question is: is your IT infrastructure and organization capable of supporting this at an acceptable cost of ownership? Equally important is to question the flexibility and speed of changing practices. Undoubtedly a business process platform, which deliver both standard practices and an environment with tools to easily compose own practices based on proven building block/services is the best option. And guess what … SAP can help you here.
To centralize or not to centralize, that is NOT the question? (23/06/2009)
Cost cuts are on the toplist of business priorities these days in all organizations (small or large, no matter which industry sector they operate in). The trivial question is: how can organizations systematically drive down costs? How can enterprises improve cost structures? The answers are often related to improving operational efficiency; to do more with less. That is indeed the “what to do?” question and answer. But than comes the “how?”. My recent customer contacts have show that lots of commercial, industrial or service organization make reflection around the “best” organizational structure to maximize efficiency and drive down costs. Should organizations structure (or re-structured) all or part of their operations in a central or decentral way? In today’s economic reality, in comes down to “how to organize lean operations?”. How can one run and structure his business in a more performing (read in first instance “cheaper”) way? For sure in lots of different ways. But often “lean” is also associated to concepts like standardization, harmonization, benefiting from economies of scale, shared services, … It is generally accepted that the effect of centralization or consolidating of services within an organization is adding value (either higher service or lower costs) for a company. Quite often the real value is not coming from the consolidation as such, but from the automatization of the services associated with it. Research has proven that top performing companies use more often shared services than their peers. Besides the many other motivations to centralize, better control (governance, compliancy, security …) and cost reduction (enterprise workforce effectiveness, reduced enterprise process cost, …) are the strongest drivers. SAP has developed on the topic of shared services over the last couple of year, in order to deliver solution which allow companies to “centralize” part of their services or operations if they want to. I dare to say that SAP is probably the only enterprise business application that allows companies (especially large) to operate large scale shared service operations. And as is required in most cases, integrate these with more decentralized operations and processes. I doubt that lots of companies will fundamentally change their organizational form today (rather business process improvements than business process re-engineering), but the question “how to organize lean operations?” is more actual than ever. And than it is always good to know that the SAP Business Process Platform can enable our customers to deal with their business priorities by enabling shared services kind of solutions and/or further centralization of processes. After all this it would be a wrong deduction to say that SAP only support centralized business models. Decentralized business models are equally successfully support by the SAP solutions. And than there is a nice side effect … since there seems to a cyclical movement from centralization to decentralization, it is good to know that the SAP solutions can support both models.
Is everything clear? (07/06/2009)
The past months have been a turning point in our business; but equally in lots of industry sectors, and even in the whole economy. At SAP we talk about a New Reality, rather than about a crisis. It is clear in the mean time that not every company or industry is in crisis. But on the other hand it is also clear that there is a “new reality” for each and every business. A “new reality” characterized by economic volatility, instability and changes. A volatility that brings new risks, uncertainty … but equally new opportunities and possibilities. New in this reality is also the growing pressure for accountability and complexity. Accountability is related to the growing demand of stakeholders to proof that the company operates in the best interest of the global community. Sustainability, green economy, corporate social responsibility … are the more often used terms when it comes to accountability. Complexity on the other hand has to do with operating in the interconnected global world. The Suprime crisis has proven that nobody is immune for what happens at the other end of the world: the interconnected economy (the flat world) spreads its effects and influences at incredible speed over the globe. To be able to recognize these new dimensions, to see opportunity and deal with uncertainties and risks, and to make the right decisions within this new reality, enterprises need to see the whole picture. The best antidote to weather today’s economic storms is CLARITY. Because once you know more, see more, you can effectively do more. In this new reality it is not about cost cutting, at least not about cost cutting alone. It is rather about “thinking clearly”; how to (re?) focus business strategies and answer questions like who are the customers I want to serve? What is my strategy? Which markets I want to be in? Next to thinking clearly, “seeing clearly” (transparency while operating in today’s complex global world) and “act clearly” (demonstrating accountability) are component of the clear company. The best run companies need clarity today. SAP wants to enable clarity. SAP wants to enable its customers to become a clear enterprises. Enterprises that see clear in the whole value chain, from one end to the other. Enabling clarity comes according to SAP down to 3 things
Make businesses and business networks transparent, accountable and sustainable. SAP can cover all business processes and help to achieve clarity. Just think about Business Suite 7.0 and GRC as the cornerstones for making businesses transparent and accountable.
Secondly, agile & lean. On top of efficient operations, enterprises need flexibility and ability to innovate. To operate accurate while having the ability to change fast if necessary, is what the Business Process Platform and the Enterprise SOA of SAP bring as an answer to the table.
And last, collaboration and customer centricity. Clarity beyond the own business, into the complete business network is what is needed. As well for Enterprise operating in the Financial service industry dealing with complex financial products (clarity in the products), as for manufacturing companies which outsource part of their activities off-shore in the Far East (clarity in the social and environmental dimension of the operations). Clarity also in the relationship with the customer.
Companies can rely on SAP to enable clarity. Stay tuned; SAP will communicate much more on this topic in the near future. I hope the message is clear.
Make businesses and business networks transparent, accountable and sustainable. SAP can cover all business processes and help to achieve clarity. Just think about Business Suite 7.0 and GRC as the cornerstones for making businesses transparent and accountable.
Secondly, agile & lean. On top of efficient operations, enterprises need flexibility and ability to innovate. To operate accurate while having the ability to change fast if necessary, is what the Business Process Platform and the Enterprise SOA of SAP bring as an answer to the table.
And last, collaboration and customer centricity. Clarity beyond the own business, into the complete business network is what is needed. As well for Enterprise operating in the Financial service industry dealing with complex financial products (clarity in the products), as for manufacturing companies which outsource part of their activities off-shore in the Far East (clarity in the social and environmental dimension of the operations). Clarity also in the relationship with the customer.
Companies can rely on SAP to enable clarity. Stay tuned; SAP will communicate much more on this topic in the near future. I hope the message is clear.
Who or what is a business user? (26/05/2009)
As a Managing Director, I am a heavy user of my PC. I guess I spend every day at least 2 hours behind a screen, working on systems. But I would not call myself a “real user” of an enterprise application. Most of my “system time” I am working actually on my mail. I do use our own SAP ERP, CRM, SRM, … systems, but only sporadic. And most of the time to approve, release or consult transactional objects. My personal system use is often linked to non-operational activities. The kind of activities that need information, analytics, communication and collaboration capabilities. Some would call me an information worker or a business user. As a business user, I need information for fact based decision making and communication. Enterprise Applications have for a long been focusing on transactional users or task workers only. People that enter sales orders or book invoices or release production orders are well served by Business Systems. The main focus of the software was and is on how to raise productivity, transparency and consistency for operational activities. But how about the non-operational activities? How about the information workers? This kind of employees only sporadic access enterprise applications. They mainly require information for doing their job; which is managing, decision making and steering their area of reponsability. And they want this intuitively, fast and anywhere. For a long time (too long?) SAP has under-served this user community. Only during the last years, SAP has been focusing to to answer the question: how can we increase the productivity of information workers? With the acquisition of Business Objects, SAP has clearly chosen to set new standards in this domain. Analytics is the name of the game : analytics embedded in transactional systems, analytics for informations users, analytics to bridge the gap between strategy and execution … With Business Objects Explorer, launched at the Sapphire in Orlando just a week ago, SAP want to take Enterprise Performance Management to a next level and make information available in a “google like search and click” approach. Everybody is used to serve the web looking for “the” piece of information that he/she requires. Just imagine that business users can serve the corporate information source to find the answer for his/her questions. This is closer to become a reality than it might sound. But there is more than analytics. The collaboration of SAP and Microsoft or IBM, the Duet and Alloy solutions, also fit into the program to address the needs of the business user, combining the familiar day-to-day working environment (mainly mail) with access to information and transactions in a convenient way. It is all about enabling users to become more efficient and gaining the necessary insight into the organization and analytics to become “better run”.
It takes more than good ingredients to serve a nice meal ... (28/04/2009)
Have you ever wondered what the difference is between a good, a very good or a bad restaurant? What does it take to run a very good restaurant? To deserve good marks from your audience or from the Gault Milllau.I would not dare to compare a small pizzeria (to avoid misunderstanding, they can serve delicious food) with a 3 Michelin Star restaurant à la Hof van Cleve. But still, within the same category/type of restaurants there seems to be a huge different in the “customer experience”. How come? The chefs basically have access to (or even use) the same “ingredients” and even then the result can be quite different. At least if we stay within the same type of restaurants I would dare to state that it is not the ingredients alone that determine the result. What makes the difference? Same or similar input, and still a different output or result. Is the chef the reason? Would the often miss-used statement “people are the most important asset” be the differentiator in the restaurant business? Is it the creativity of the chef, the experience of the kitchen personnel, the ability to “exploit” the potential of the ingredients, the unique combination of flavors, ….or is it something outside of the kitchen? What about the other elements of the experience, which have basically nothing to do with the quality or appreciation of the meal, but do influence or even determine the complete “experience” (like the atmosphere in the restaurant, the wine, the quality and friendliness of the service …)? I like to compare the “SAP experience” of quite some of our customers with a restaurant experience. Some enjoy a good experience, while for others it leaves a bitter taste. Although our customers (and partners) do mostly have access to the same software components, the results in an operational business environment can be quite different. Some SAP projects are very nice: the solution really pleases the users, the way the system set-up, the configuration; the customizing that has been done is great. The solution fits the business needs and makes company best run; the process run efficient, the system delivers valuable business insight and SAP supports the demand for flexibility, change and innovation over time. Is it the “chef” with his personal experience, his ability to put the components together, and with his creativity to combine and compose the right solution that makes the difference? Let me answer this firmly with a YES. Just like in a restaurant, people can make the difference between a good, very good and a bad project. When customers ask me which partner to choose to support my implementation, I use the restaurant metaphore to stress that you can cook different meals with the same ingredients. If you put the best ingredients in the hand of a lousy cook, the result is not guarantied. If you want to gain a Michelin Star, you will need the best possible people in the kitchen. If you want a good SAP solution, you will need good consultants and integrators. Even in a take-away (pre-configured solution?), the people can make the difference. But just like in the restaurant business, the meal is not the only part of the experience. It is “necessary but not sufficient” to compose your company SAP solution using the right ingredients in the right proportion and combination. Beside the “meal”, the critical success factors, the elements which make your experience also relate to project governance and management support (lets say the maitre d’hotel), user acceptance and knowledge (like the restaurant atmosphere) , the integration and involvement/ownership of the business … etc. I guess it is a challenge for SAP to make sure the ingredients are “fresh” and good quality; a challenge for the SAP integrator that the “meal” is rightly cooked; and for the customer and partner to make sure that it all contributes to a “delicious” experience.
Flemish government headcount increases by 7000 …. (22/03/2009)
This weekend I read an article in the newspapers about the increase in the number of Flemish public officials (“ambtenaren”). The headline was that more than 7000 additional employees are serving the Flemish population over the last 7 years; an increase of 17%. That equals the number of people working for a company like eg. Electrabel. The increases on the Federal level, within the Brussels administration and the Walloon administration are quite comparable. Is there an issue with the efficiency of our Public Services? Efficiency is apparently less critical in the Public Sector than it is in private companies. Today “efficiency” is seen as a knock-out criteria for private companies to stay in business. If your company is not operating efficiently, you will be put out of business by competitors. Streamlining end-to-end processes, within each department separately but also across different departments within the organizations, transparency in the different process step, no duplication of work, stable, reliable and traceable information … all elements which are a necessity in private companies. ERP solutions like SAP played an important role in enabling this in the private sector. How about the Public sector? Do they have the same drive to organize their operations and processes? And do they have the same tools and systems to do so?
The other element that attracted my attention is the fact that the Public Sector was lacking actual information on their employee file. A “study” had to be executed to know how many people were actually working for the Flemish government; capturing insight in age, sexe, education level and other indicators on headcounts at the same time. I have the impression that lots of private companies equally lack ready available insights or key indicators on what they call “their most important assets”. Do private companies have the intelligence available to answer questions like “what is the evolution of personnel turnover in the last 10 years, eg. per education level?”, “how many people will retire from the company in the next 10 years?” … I have personally experienced (based on customer contacts) that Business Intelligence on personnel information is less developed than it is on topics like inventory levels, customer information or available production capacity. The personnel data should be easily available out of a classical Personnel Administration system like SAP HR. Maybe there is a large opportunity to improve the insight and business intelligence and to supply company management with relevant KPIs on personnel/headcount matters.
I am sure companies will welcome this (not only when having to make decisions on headcounts these days).
The other element that attracted my attention is the fact that the Public Sector was lacking actual information on their employee file. A “study” had to be executed to know how many people were actually working for the Flemish government; capturing insight in age, sexe, education level and other indicators on headcounts at the same time. I have the impression that lots of private companies equally lack ready available insights or key indicators on what they call “their most important assets”. Do private companies have the intelligence available to answer questions like “what is the evolution of personnel turnover in the last 10 years, eg. per education level?”, “how many people will retire from the company in the next 10 years?” … I have personally experienced (based on customer contacts) that Business Intelligence on personnel information is less developed than it is on topics like inventory levels, customer information or available production capacity. The personnel data should be easily available out of a classical Personnel Administration system like SAP HR. Maybe there is a large opportunity to improve the insight and business intelligence and to supply company management with relevant KPIs on personnel/headcount matters.
I am sure companies will welcome this (not only when having to make decisions on headcounts these days).
Business-critical software demands new kind of support (16/03/2009)
After reading the article “EuroCIO denounces Microsoft and SAP”, which appeared in Data News on 6 March, I’d like to share some thoughts on the support services that SAP offers its customers. For a long time ‘support’ in the ICT sector was synonymous with ‘ensuring that the systems keep running’. But for the companies supporting their business-critical processes with software, this isn’t the end of the story. In this current challenging climate especially, these organizations want their applications to provide them with continuous value and help them to be quick in anticipating changes in market and business conditions. This is the only way for them to maintain a competitive edge. Software suppliers may like to point to concepts like SOA and clear upgrade possibilities for their software, but customers expect more. They want their supplier to help them think about the added value of the software, as well as offer support for achieving and maintaining this value. With this in mind, last year we introduced the standard support model Enterprise Support. Here, SAP takes greater responsibility for guaranteeing the quality of the systems at the customer’s site and the customer also receives supplementary advice services for introducing new capabilities and innovations. Additionally, we also extended our standard support period by two years, so that customers have a long-term guarantee for their investment. As reported in the article of 6 March, this new support model has a new price tag. Since last year new customers are paying 22% support costs – the average market price for standard support services. And for the first time in 10 years, the support contributions of existing customers are to be index-linked each year by 8% until 2012, so as to reach 22% by that point. What we are really proud of, however, is that our customers will be able to reduce their TCO because of the many new services on offer. They will be able to free up time and resources to focus on what really matters in today’s world: not just keeping the system running with limited resources but ensuring that the business applications can support the organization even more efficiently and rapidly enhance all the business processes with added value. Today, more than ever, this is our leitmotif. What’s more, we’ll keep on listening to the market, our customers and user groups so that we keep getting better at anticipating their wishes.
This is not a crisis of the IT industry … (08/03/2009)
At SAP we have agreed not to use the term “crisis” too much anymore, but rather talk about the “new reality”. A good attitude I think, … since it seems that when people talk too much about the crisis that in the end everybody seems to accept the crisis and does not fight it anymore.
At SAP we believe there are good reasons and ways to address the challenges of the new reality, rather than accepting the crisis. Especially in the IT industry. In contradiction to 2001 (dotcom), IT did not cause the downturn. It is rather the other way around: IT (Software and more in particular Enterprise Business Solutions) can play a fundamental role to address the “new reality”.
In these times lots of companies are looking for cost savings, cutting down on expenses and investments. The predictability of the economic evolution is limited (even in the short term), so companies tend to look for short term and easy(?) cost saving measures rather than investing in ways to overcome some of the challenges. Cash shortage, working capital, in-efficenties in business processes, … or things like a poor sourcing strategy are not addressed by “saving costs”. Smart investments and short term projects that tackle the real pain points have higher changes to be successful and to help companies survive. SAP has made a short document on this. I would like to advise everyone (our customers and partners) to read it, find some inspiration and address the challenges beyond the regular cost savings.
The SAP colleagues are ready to discuss with you.
At SAP we believe there are good reasons and ways to address the challenges of the new reality, rather than accepting the crisis. Especially in the IT industry. In contradiction to 2001 (dotcom), IT did not cause the downturn. It is rather the other way around: IT (Software and more in particular Enterprise Business Solutions) can play a fundamental role to address the “new reality”.
In these times lots of companies are looking for cost savings, cutting down on expenses and investments. The predictability of the economic evolution is limited (even in the short term), so companies tend to look for short term and easy(?) cost saving measures rather than investing in ways to overcome some of the challenges. Cash shortage, working capital, in-efficenties in business processes, … or things like a poor sourcing strategy are not addressed by “saving costs”. Smart investments and short term projects that tackle the real pain points have higher changes to be successful and to help companies survive. SAP has made a short document on this. I would like to advise everyone (our customers and partners) to read it, find some inspiration and address the challenges beyond the regular cost savings.
The SAP colleagues are ready to discuss with you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
