Case 1: He got a
call from head of manufacturing to quickly meet to evaluate their solution;
surprised, the sales head rushed to the meeting taking the next flight
available. The caller represented a large enterprise that had invested in much
IT and this was a new opportunity; the solution was used by other industries,
but not this one. The solution was niche with limited competition, the sales
head knew that competition had not yet got a whiff of this; he landed in front
of the team that included staff from IT and operations.
The discussion unfolded with the articulation of the need
and the business case around it. They acknowledged that the solution had
traction in other industries, but they believed that as a pioneer much value
could be captured if the project succeeded. Appreciating the forward thinking,
technical resources were allotted to the customer to sketch out the detailed use
case. Within identified constraints, the solution fit well though partially
fulfilling the business case, the team pushed the vendor to provide a solution
architecture.
Back and forth they went refining the solution, steps that
exposed the superficial thought that conjured up the project; as the urgency
died down and the timeline continued to shift, the sales head lost patience, getting
the short end of the stick on sales conversion of a purported hot prospect that
had consumed significant time, effort and sales budget. The functional teams
much wiser through the discussions had begun to like the specific solution;
they however were unable to push the timeline for decision making.
Months passed by, the aspirational go-live date came and
went, the evaluation data exposed the shallow approach taken in their ignorance
and lack of understanding of the complexity. They realized that they needed to
revisit their assumptions, recast the timelines and budget to get it right first
time. The smattering of smaller vendors who had engaged earlier had blinkered
view of the elephant and solutions offered to address limited parts; unwilling
to let go, the ally vendor demonstrated patience as the months stretched into a
year.
Case 2: In a high
growth industry, the company was beginning to feel the pinch with lower than benchmark
profitability. They were growing faster than the industry and at times had to
refuse business as they could not hire fast enough or deliver service to
customer satisfaction. They knew that technology could help their business and
thus started evaluating local and global solutions. The business head after
meeting a few vendors was confused by the choices, so a cross-functional team
was put together.
The team diligently evaluated options and as a starting
point put in a part that appeared to be a low hanging fruit. The solution
worked as designed but people ignored it citing operational hurdles. It was
quickly parked in the technology
orphanage and a consultant was approached to help in determining the
best way to solve the problem. She recommended reassembling the
cross-functional team to document processes, optimize and define the to-be
process against which the solutions can be benchmarked.
Supported by the COO, the team worked to create the document
which was reviewed along with IT to formulate the RFP. The Group CIO put his
hat in the ring offering to run the process with his trusted lieutenant who at
best was better than average. The team
would meet every fortnight to review progress made, tweak expectations and
proclaim complexity larger than anticipated. The detailing of processes
continued for the time period in which the consultant had proposed to complete
the implementation !
As they approached the anniversary of project initiation,
the team had evaluated multiple local and global solutions; the IT Head hired
early in the evaluation had defocused from this critical project, now spend his
hours in creating incremental technology solutions akin to Band-Aid. The
business head wanting the best shot at the project continued to support the
team which continued to refine the spreadsheet ad infinitum. The consultant
occasionally followed up and realized that a decision was a moving target now.
In both cases different factors contributed to inaction
or no decision in the timeline that mattered to the company and the
business. The first did not know what and how, the second procrastinated on the
decision refining their requirements, solution design, and future, in an ever
changing world. Both had different drivers and contexts, both ended up
disadvantaged, the first losing the pioneering opportunity, the latter
experiencing slowing growth and profitability. After a while it really did not
matter if they finally got it right.
It was a collective leadership failure !
