Archive for the ‘innovation’ Category

How Toyota Can Teach IT To Keep Things Fresh

Monday, December 15th, 2008
Toyota Has Several Ways That It Uses To Keep Employees Engaged

Toyota Has Several Ways To Prevent Processes From Becoming Stale

Despite all the talk about innovation these days, we know how things really are. It’s way too easy for us to set up IT processes and procedures that we use to run our IT shops and then over time they become part of a larger “That’s The Way We Do Things Here” culture.

The problem with this is that over time things change. Solutions that were once the best way to do things may no longer be the correct way to be doing something. However, we get caught in our ways and that starts to slow the whole IT department down and then the whole company.

Toyota has found a way around this problem that we can all learn from. They’ve come up with innovative ways to keep their IT employees constantly thinking about how the company can reach out and get new customers, enter new market segments, enter new geographic regions. Additionally, employees are challenged to consider better ways for the company to go after competitors, as well as how to create new ideas and come up with new and better practices.

How does Toyota accomplish all of this? One way is that they set nearly unattainable goals for the company. These goals are what push the company to overcome its existing routines and achieve new levels of performance. One such goal is stated as delivering “a full line in every market”. This is nearly impossible for Toyota (or any car company) to do, but it does a great job of making all employees feel as though they are working together to achieve a common goal.

Toyota’s goals are vague – on purpose. Goals like “create a cleaner car” don’t have clear, nailed-down requirements. By doing this Toyota ensures that employees won’t be able to look at a goal and say to themselves “that goal doesn’t apply to me”. Instead, vague goals result in multiple departments ending up working together in order try to achieve the goals.

What’s interesting about Toyota’s cars which are sold globally is that they aren’t modified to meet local needs. Instead, Toyota takes the time to customize its products to meet the level of consumer sophistication that is found in each country.

IT needs to adopt this way of thinking: how can we modify the way a user interacts with an application to reflect what department they are in? Finance may need sophisticated reporting tools, but sales probably does not.

One of Toyota’s greatest strengths is that it has built a culture in which there is an eagerness to take risks. This excitement about trying new ways to accomplish tasks is what allows Toyota to overcome those things that are blocking it from achieving its almost impossible goals.

Unlike so many other companies, Toyota is not constantly “betting the farm” on massive new projects. Instead, they have adopted a process by which they come up with big plans that they then go about implementing by taking a series of small steps.

This approach coupled with a philosophy of never giving up has allowed Toyota to be successful. When Toyota was developing an environmentally friendly car, they had a lot of failures – engines wouldn’t start, batteries died, etc. However, they never gave up and the Prius was eventually created. Even this car is not the final result, but is rather a stepping stone towards where Toyota wants to get to.

Toyota’s embrace of experimentation has not been done willy-nilly. Rather, they have a structured process called Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) that is baked into their business processes. What makes Toyota different is that employees are encouraged to speak up when something fails or when they run into a unsolvable problem. Toyota’s culture of open communication has a great deal to teach all IT departments.

Does your IT department encourage employees to try new approaches to problem solving? Have you created an environment in which employees feel free to speak up when they run into a problem that they can’t solve? Do you consider your goals to be achievable or impossible? Is this a good thing? Leave me a comment and let me know what you are thinking.

Too Much Of A Good Thing Can Kill An IT Department

Tuesday, August 19th, 2008

Being the 900 lb gorilla can be a bad thing for an IT department

If revenue is what feeds a company, then it must also be what keeps an IT department alive. Growing companies need more and more revenue to stay alive – if growth stalls, then there’s a good chance that the party may be over for everyone involved (including the IT department).

But what if everything is going great? What if your firm owns the market – you are the 900 lb gorilla? Do you really have anything to worry about? Well, the answer is yes and in fact history tells us that you are probably in a sinking boat even if you don’t realize it right now.

The fancy term that is used to describe 900 lb market gorillas is “premium-position captivity”. If you think about it, it makes sense. When you are making money hand over fist, you really don’t want to do anything to rock the boat. This means that if a new, low-cost competitor shows up or if your customer suddenly changes how they value your product, you’re not going to be able to react quickly enough to defend the firm. CIOs have a major role to play in this.

This situation is best described in the fantastic book “The Innovator’s Dilemma” that if you haven’t read, you really should. In the book, the hard drive business is examined and one of the points made is that 3.5″ small hard drives originally had less capacity of larger hard drives so who would ever want them? Well, it turns out that small hard drives work perfectly for laptops and when that market exploded, the companies that made only the larger drives got left in the dust.

What’s a CIO to do? If the senior management of a firm are unable to see impending doom, then how can a CIO possibly provide any value? The answer is simple: the CIO has access to tools and data that are not available to the rest of the firm. Awareness of the potential for a revenue stall and the will to keep a vigilant eye out for the signs can make the CIO an invaluable bellwether for the firm.

How can a CIO who works at a firm that has a dominate market position detect when a revenue stall is on the horizon? The key is for the IT department to collect and analyze market data. The data never lies. Rather, senior management who have grown accustom to seeing what they want to see discount the changes that will ultimately result in their downfall. Here is what the IT department needs to sift through the data to find:

  1. Market Share Loss: The first warning signs will be pockets of rapid market share loss. These will generally be found in specific, narrow, customer segments. It will be followed by the emergence of resistance from well-established existing customers to paying premium prices for incremental enhancements to existing products.

  2. Tracking The Wrong Metrics: More often than not, dominate firms like to track profit per customer. However, if they don’t notice that customer acquisition costs have shot up, then they will end up being blindsided. Adjusting the metrics that are being tracked is key to uncovering new trends.
  3. Internal Attitude: how is the company viewing start-up competition? Is it assumed that these new players will never be able to compete with the firm for it’s customers? Are lower end parts of the market being turned over to them so that we can focus on the upper ends of the market with the assumption that they’ll never challenge us for our part of the market?

The companies to watch today are SAP and Oracle. They are the 900 lb gorilla. Other firms such as Salesforce.com and SugarCRM have entered the market and may not be seen as a threat to the established players right now; however, time has shown that they may very well turn into tomorrow’s gorillas. Let’s hope that the CIOs at SAP and Oracle are already taking the correct next steps…

What do you think – once a gorilla, always a gorilla? Do you think that looking for economic stalls is part of the CIO’s job? If not, then who should be doing it? Have you ever worked at a company that went from being dominate in its market to struggling? Leave a comment and let me know what you think.

Tags: , , , ,

In IT, Bigger is NOT Necessarily Better

Wednesday, August 6th, 2008

In IT, small teams can get things done quicker

Way back in my young & foolish days I had the opportunity to work at a couple of startups. I came to them after having worked for very large firms such as Boeing, Siemens, and Alcatel. Needless to say the environment, attitude, and overall energy level at the startups was completely different from the large established firms.

One of my friends from those days, Charlie, has moved on and the startup that he’s working for can no longer really be called a startup: they’ve got 800 employees and have been around for almost 10 years now. Thanks to LinkedIn we’ve reconnected and we got to talking about the “good ‘ol days”. What caught my attention is that Charlie told me that he’s been put in charge of a project to rekindle the “startup spirit” within his company. When I asked him how he was going to go about doing that, he said that he had no good ideas.

Charlie’s firm is struggling with the same issue that Microsoft is just starting to deal with: how can a large firm with lots of resources learn to operate like a smaller, more nimble firm? Everyone realizes that Google, Facebook, Salesforce.com, etc. weren’t born inside of a large firm. Instead, they started life as a startup and because they had a great product and lots of employee energy, they got lucky and have become successful. Just about every large company would like to find a way to infuse itself with that kind of “startup energy” (a.k.a. innovation).

Janet Rae-Dupree
wrote a piece dealing with this topic for the New York Times awhile back. Some interesting observations came out of this article. The first is that just about everyone agrees that when it comes to IT and innovation, bigger is not always better. Specifically, smaller teams that are made up of staff from different departments seem to be able to move much quicker than larger traditional organizations. Specifically decisions get made much faster and so the entire team is able to move on to the next-next-next thing. I can hear collective HR and Legal departments gasping at the thought right now!

I almost hate to say it, but the TV show Survivor has proved this point. When forced to, people can work together to solve complex problems in unique ways. Yeah, yeah – there will always be backstabbing and alliances formed; however, when the team’s survival depends on its success this can overcome many of these personality issues.

As Charlie and I wrapped up our talk, I pointed out the Survivor analogy to him. He pushed back and said that he liked the small team idea but didn’t want to be kicking employees off of an island each week. I told that he didn’t need to do that, but what he could do is limit the resources available to a team (time, money, etc.) and tell them that they need to reach a milestone before one of their resources ran out. If they didn’t then the team would be disbanded. Everyone works better under startup-like pressures.

So what do you think? Was my advice to Charlie any good or did I send him down the wrong path? Can the best parts of a startup (innovation, sense of ownership) be replicated within a large company or is this a fool’s quest?

Tags: , , , ,