Introduction

This Is the first of a series of blogs discussing the Why, What and How (including the difficulties) of Large Transformational Programmes like SAP and Digital change.

The levels of disappointment and sometimes failures of these Programmes and the vast wasted investments over the last 30 years point the finger firmly at the Ecosystem and Customer approaches.

This blog series is not intended to be a bitching “Moan-a-thon” but will try to focus on improving the HOW of Transformational programs with practical experience and logical thinking.

The Traditional Approach

Enterprise systems are critical components of modern businesses providing a backbone to processes across the organisation. Despite their importance, Enterprise systems implementations and Transformational programs have a disappointing track record with success rates of only 10-30%. This is due to the traditional approach, which focuses on technology and ignores the broader business context.

The Traditional approach to these implementations, specifying a set of requirements, selecting a software vendor, selecting an SI, configuring, and deploying the software to meet those requirements. This approach is Technology focused and often results in a system that is not well aligned with the needs and objectives of the business. This can lead to a higher rate of user resistance, low adoption rates and suboptimal business results.

The Businesses must ask themselves:

 “How did we create a legacy of Point solutions (a cluster F***) with huge technical debt that is a drag anchor on the business?”.

The answers lie within, powerful internal Entrepreneurs promoting “Pet” projects, silo thinking, following trends or matching competitors with little or no thought to what was being built in Operations as a holistic system, or how do we update, embed Change, and even retire these systems.

The “Project Based” Portfolio Management function adds to the problem, by again not focusing on what holistic system is being built in Operations but trying to maximise the number of projects throughput for the Budget.

The Traditional approach in this Ecosystem sees businesses outsourcing projects to SI’s due to lack of Knowhow/Knowledge and resources (indeed the heavy lifting needs to be done by someone), this “throw it over the wall’ attitude attempts to transfer responsibility (and sometimes even accountability) to the SI only partially works, as the SI will only deliver to the SOW and their contract (btw their lawyers will always be better than yours!).

The SI’s will only focus and operate in the Implementation Phase, there are “Blind spots” that they can’t cover (these are mostly Business side related) and if not factored can pose a risk to the Implementation/Project, some of these Blind spots are:

• Value Chain/Value stream
• Signature/Competitive Advantage processes
• Latent system issues
• Unintended Consequences
• The Theory of Constraints

Therefore, the SI only covers 1/6^th (the implementation) the other 5/6ths (the blind spots) get ignored or missed altogether.

This Traditional approach sees Businesses Rushing from Business Case/RFP to Project implementation at speed to achieve the perceived results, however in this haste lie the seeds of failure and disappointment, errors or omissions at this early stage can lead to 50x /100x the cost to resolve at the Project implementation stage.

The traditional approach normally results in Systems that are difficult to Change in Operations, these “Concrete Boots” hold you back and make handling change problematic, even if the Business could run to keep up with Change (even exponential change) the out-of-sync speed of Technology system change with Business Change will drag you down.

These “Concreate Boots” often require another Project or phase to put them right or change to the latest internal or external requirements.

Ask yourself the question:

 “Why don’t we build into these systems a “Changing Capability” to cope with internal and external change “  

Also, ask yourself the question:

 “Who benefits from project delays and overruns, contention, unseen changes etc?” …the answer …SI’s, consultants and advisers…and who pays…YOU.

The BIzTech Change Approach

A new method or framework to overcome the above problems is well overdue and it must mould Business Strategy with Technology and Change into a seamless connected whole.

Leaders must become BizTech Leaders capable of handling Technology and Business Change in their stride to compete.

Business Strategy

Our new framework must overcome the following common strategy issues:

• The Strategy Formulation to Strategy Execution broken link.
• The Corporate Strategy and Local (Competitive Advantage) strategy broken links.
• The Strategy to Operations (Operation model or TOM) broken link.
• The Strategy to Value delivery (Operation Model or TOM) broken link.
• The Strategy to Technology systems (via the TOM) broken link.
• The Strategy to Changing Capability broken link.
• The strategy must consider real constraints in the Business.

These links are either broken or non-existent.

Technology

Our new framework must have the following Tech characteristics:

• Must be initiated in Strategy formulation as a Capability
• What are we building in Operations as an Integrated Platform
• We must have a Changing Capability built into the Technology
• Tech Change must be synced to Business Change
• Tech and Business must be integrated
• Tech must help to deliver Value
• Tech must help to overcome constraints

Change

Our new framework must have the following Change Characteristics:

• A Changing Capability must be embedded in Strategy and technology
• A “Continuous Changing Capability” must be established as a process
• Focus on Value delivery
• Must overcome real constraints

The above BizTech Change Approach must be communicated using a technique like the “Commanders Intent” which recognises that Change is inevitable, and teams must be locally adaptable but understand the goal of the Commander.

Conclusion

The Technology Ecosystem of Software Vendors, SI’s and Consultants supporting large complex Transformation programmes has often left the average Business Customer disappointed with the results.

These Technology Companies spurt out their latest & greatest versions and offerings, enthral change in their customers…but the Irony of Ironies, is they have never changed their own Business Models in 40 years!

The Technology Companies with the attitude of “Never give a sucker an even break” lift all the monies off the table (who would blame them).

Business Customers only have themselves to blame…. the problem lies at your door…the Tradition Approach does not work for many, and you are not in the 10% Club (no matter what you think) …therefore rethink your Approach …. a careful clever Phase 0 with a BizTech Change Approach is the start!

Without this Business Customer driven Change …the Ecosystem will never Change!

What to know more? Contact [email protected]