The company (let’s call it A) was seeded in the era of
client-server technologies and the inception of what became known as the
standard for developing open systems. So naturally their technology foray
included the technology stack that promised interoperability and ease of
programming. Systems were developed in-house with a bunch of programmers
working alongside the business, thus creating many fit for purpose solutions
that helped scale up the business. Their growth story aided by their early
focus on technology made them a player of reckoning.
One of their able competitors (why not B) started off with a
few years decided to watch the results of A’s foray before taking a decision to
invest. Years passed by and the turn of the millennium saw anxiety filled
movement for compliance and then a drop in business triggered by dot-bust
coupled with further slowdown due to terrorist activity. By the time B did get
started taking nascent steps into the world of technology, a newer framework
was gaining popularity as an alternative making a compelling case for adoption.
By now A was already reaping the benefits of an early start
giving them resilience and efficiency that a good technology solution can
provide. They broke into the top 10 by the time B was just about stabilizing
technology solutions to move to fast track growth path. Both grew at a fast
clip from there on though the gap kept growing with A enjoying the benefit of
base effect. Each had created specific market differentiators as they competed
head on and survived the arrival and exit of some major global competitors.
A decade later the market had changed; heavy investments in
technology by some big companies and newer technology enabled startups and
disruptors started eating away market share from both. While they continued to
stay profitable they were relegated to a marginal player status. Call it
providence or just competitive landscape, A & B were finding it difficult
to change, straightjacketed by their people and process. Technology alone was
unable to pull them out of the quagmire they found themselves in.
Market forces led to consolidation of the industry and the
founders of A & B who were healthy competitors decided to merge their
business operations to create larger play. Due diligence and valuations aside,
both believed that their technologies provided them the platform on which they
had competed and created a name for themselves. In a merger of equals who
decides on the prevalence of process and technology while the people were
relatively easy to put into different buckets to rationalize.
Thus began the discussion and debate between the survival of
technology landscape, the business applications, and the IT infrastructure,
none willing to give a quarter. Both IT teams presented the merits of their
choices to the combined management who defended their IT architectures and
wanted their solutions to become the solution of choice. Both portrayed
passionate attachment to their investments to the extent that rational thought
was kept aside; so they decided to call in a consultant for mediation.
The consultant, a veteran with experience of many mergers
and acquisitions and more than a score years behind him agreed to assist in
resolution of the seemingly childish conflict. He started by asking some tough
questions on the intent and rationale behind the merger, the new GTM
(Go-To-Market) positioning, the target customers, competitive landscape, and
finally team competencies to support the chosen solution. He opined that these
shall determine the victor and survivor between the battles of technology
solutions.
They agreed to drop their earlier arguments and align with
the direction set by the consultant as the way forward. After all there was no
direct impact to their business or customers due to technology frameworks and
to that extent they were chasing a red herring driven by ego, otherwise a non-issue.
Saner minds now applied rigor to determine the best option including a hybrid
approach if necessary to solving the problem of technology choice. The solution
that emerged gave them the benefit they wanted from technology.
Which solution stack finally won ? Does it matter ? What
matters is that the decision was taken the way it should have in the initial
stages by evaluating business benefit and connect to customers; you cannot go
wrong with such criteria as compared to evaluating merits of one technology stack
versus another. Forget IT folks, today business leaders also get enamored by
smooth talking technology sales people who create inane metrics for assessment
and are able to influence the search engine enabled technology decision makers.
No comments:
Post a Comment