As 2009 draws to a close, there has been a definite upswing in the amount of $$$ being spent on new IT initiatives. For many of us in the industry, this is the first bit of good news we've had since, well, Microsoft quietly announced that you could still downgrade Vista to XP (albeit at the 'discount' price of $99).
This has been a very tough year for integrators and consulting firms. Drops of almost 50% in revenue were not surprising; companies who had, for years, been on the 'cutting edge' of technology found suddenly that 'cutting edge' was coming in for 'cutting back' and technological advantages took backseat to company survival. And all of us who service such companies found their paychecks drastically curtailed.
Initial signs for 2010 are promising. Windows 7 looks *finally* to be the worthy successor to XP; messaging integration is here; virtualization is taking off by leaps and bounds; and 802.n wireless is spreading from the largest, to the smallest, networks.
A colleague of mine, who works as a senior network architect at IBM, recently told me that he is booked up for the next six months. Compared to this time last year, when he was working about 20 hours a week, he didn't even have enough time to schedule a vacation this year. And he is not alone - I've heard several such exclamations at a recent CIO conference I attended in New York.
Let's be optimistic - 2010 should show a welcome return to profitability for our industry.
Monday, October 5, 2009
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Technology - are you using it properly?
Technology. It promised so much - paperless offices, office automation, ease-of-use - and yet, far too often, it has failed to deliver on it’s promises. Printer jams, slow networks, endless pop-ups, viruses, alerts - it is enough to drive an executive crazy.
But it doesn’t need to be this way. Far too many companies approach technology and it’s application with a restrictive, limited scope vision that fails to truly encompass your organization’s business methodology, processes, and technology needs. The result? Frustrated users, lost revenue opportunities, wasted time.
I've seen some truly poor applications of technology over the past year, some of which were probably costing their businesses hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost productivity.
Top of the list was a small (about 90 users) textiles firm that had operations in both the US and China. When new orders came in, they were manually entered into a system in New York, then emailed to China, where someone would re-enter the data into a spreadsheet that would run a few macros and apply some forumula's.
Next, the operator would print out the document, which would be checked by accounting, who would then email a 3rd printed form back to the US, for processing. The entire process, from order taking to actual placing of the order, was about 2 hours, and was extremely manpower intensive. They had a backlog of orders of over 5 months.
A simple sharepoint application completely changed the way they did business. For an estimated 25k in costs, they have managed, in little more than 6 months, to completely eliminate their order backlog, drop their processing time to less than 15 minutes, and find hidden revenue streams by using data mining techniques that had been completely unrealized before.
Using a top-down approach to understanding your business, technology can be tter applied, money can be saved, and processes can be improved. This ‘holistic’ view of your business and it’s use of modern tools has some companies to help a wide-range of businesses better understand their operating costs, find new sources of previously untapped revenue, and reduce the cost and time required for operations. The LCO Group, a New York based IT consulting firm, has business/technology analysts who specialize in 'technology application.' I have seen the results firsthand - quite impressive indeed.
But it doesn’t need to be this way. Far too many companies approach technology and it’s application with a restrictive, limited scope vision that fails to truly encompass your organization’s business methodology, processes, and technology needs. The result? Frustrated users, lost revenue opportunities, wasted time.
I've seen some truly poor applications of technology over the past year, some of which were probably costing their businesses hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost productivity.
Top of the list was a small (about 90 users) textiles firm that had operations in both the US and China. When new orders came in, they were manually entered into a system in New York, then emailed to China, where someone would re-enter the data into a spreadsheet that would run a few macros and apply some forumula's.
Next, the operator would print out the document, which would be checked by accounting, who would then email a 3rd printed form back to the US, for processing. The entire process, from order taking to actual placing of the order, was about 2 hours, and was extremely manpower intensive. They had a backlog of orders of over 5 months.
A simple sharepoint application completely changed the way they did business. For an estimated 25k in costs, they have managed, in little more than 6 months, to completely eliminate their order backlog, drop their processing time to less than 15 minutes, and find hidden revenue streams by using data mining techniques that had been completely unrealized before.
Using a top-down approach to understanding your business, technology can be tter applied, money can be saved, and processes can be improved. This ‘holistic’ view of your business and it’s use of modern tools has some companies to help a wide-range of businesses better understand their operating costs, find new sources of previously untapped revenue, and reduce the cost and time required for operations. The LCO Group, a New York based IT consulting firm, has business/technology analysts who specialize in 'technology application.' I have seen the results firsthand - quite impressive indeed.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Does Your IT Suck?
The question often leaves the manager, c-suite suit, or mannequined automaton that I am talking to with mouth agape and a disclaimer forming on their lips before I have even finished. Yet, the sad truth to this pointed question is that, for most small business owners, the answer is a resounding *yes*.
I am frequently contacted by business owners or office managers in small firms, often in the 25 to 50 seat size, to ask how to improve their IT, cut their costs, or explore moving to an outsourced (or, sometimes, in-house) IT support model. These discussions usually involve the people who are intimately connected with the IT decision making process - generally the CFO, office manager, and, if the firm employs an in-house tech and their job isn't on the line, the network admin. The conversations all start with a brief overview of their current support model, their budget (or lack thereof), their 'pain', and their exposure. I try to give more value to these discussions by focusing not just on what they are doing, but what other firms in their industry are doing, what other firm's are spending, and how other firms are using technology to 'improve' their productivity. We talk about per-seat costs, fixed price consulting models versus hourly programs, when to outsource and when to hire internally, and a host of other pertinent IT issues that can have a real, bottom-line effect on a businesses well-being.
At this point, whoever is responsible for the IT policies at the company will sometimes (actually, more than sometimes, but I am being kind) begin what I call the 'hem haw' - a collection of trite phrases and half-hearted justifications about why their IT 'state of the state' is the way it is. Some of these verbal parries are semi-believable - but they usually come down to two or three all-too common traits - inertia, bad judgment, or 'playing it on the cheap.' If I hear one of these, and it's clear that it's patently bogus and against what I would consider 'marginal practice' (forget best practices here) - then it's generally at this point, that I come out with my question - "Does your IT suck?"
"Excuse me?" is probably the most frequent rejoinder to this question, but I've had responses run the gamut from red-faced embarrassment and a quickly ending interview, to CFO's who burst out laughing at the discomfiture of their office manager, to a roomful of c-level folks whose heads bob up and down in unison, nodding a definitive YES. But the value of the question is not to shock my audience into submission - but rather to indicate to them - quickly, clearly, and concisely - what I think of their approach to technology and its application to their business.
To many small business owners, technology is not a tool to improve productivity - but rather, a 'necessary evil' that they have to deal with in order to create spreadsheets or read those long documents and statements they get in their inboxes. These firms usually have a 'bare minimum' approach to technology, and have never had anyone come to them and actually discuss the options and possibilities that technology can offer.
Case in point - a small firm with remote operations in China brought my firm in to consult with them on general support and service options. Yet within fifteen minutes of hearing their story, the question about their general IT suckage was out in the open. Why? This firm was spending literally hundreds of man-hours per year consolidating their orders via a manual process that involved emailing spreadsheets back and forth to their offices in China. Never mind that their network was old and needed service - that was an easy fix. But when I discussed with them how easily - and cheaply - technology could actually reshape the way they did business, they finally got the message that they had been doing it wrong for a long, long time - simply because that is how they always did it. Less than ten thousand dollars and a few months later (a fraction of the cost in lost time that they had been enduring) their average order process time went from three days to *under fifteen minutes*. Since we joined this firm as their IT solutions provider, and opened their eyes to the possibilities of technology, they have grown from twenty two people to over forty - in eighteen months.
So, next time you get a huge bill from your IT consulting company, or have a network problem, or are fighting your computer instead of profiting from it, or find yourself doing things the same old way simply because no one has shown you a better way - ask yourself the simple question - does your IT suck?
I am frequently contacted by business owners or office managers in small firms, often in the 25 to 50 seat size, to ask how to improve their IT, cut their costs, or explore moving to an outsourced (or, sometimes, in-house) IT support model. These discussions usually involve the people who are intimately connected with the IT decision making process - generally the CFO, office manager, and, if the firm employs an in-house tech and their job isn't on the line, the network admin. The conversations all start with a brief overview of their current support model, their budget (or lack thereof), their 'pain', and their exposure. I try to give more value to these discussions by focusing not just on what they are doing, but what other firms in their industry are doing, what other firm's are spending, and how other firms are using technology to 'improve' their productivity. We talk about per-seat costs, fixed price consulting models versus hourly programs, when to outsource and when to hire internally, and a host of other pertinent IT issues that can have a real, bottom-line effect on a businesses well-being.
At this point, whoever is responsible for the IT policies at the company will sometimes (actually, more than sometimes, but I am being kind) begin what I call the 'hem haw' - a collection of trite phrases and half-hearted justifications about why their IT 'state of the state' is the way it is. Some of these verbal parries are semi-believable - but they usually come down to two or three all-too common traits - inertia, bad judgment, or 'playing it on the cheap.' If I hear one of these, and it's clear that it's patently bogus and against what I would consider 'marginal practice' (forget best practices here) - then it's generally at this point, that I come out with my question - "Does your IT suck?"
"Excuse me?" is probably the most frequent rejoinder to this question, but I've had responses run the gamut from red-faced embarrassment and a quickly ending interview, to CFO's who burst out laughing at the discomfiture of their office manager, to a roomful of c-level folks whose heads bob up and down in unison, nodding a definitive YES. But the value of the question is not to shock my audience into submission - but rather to indicate to them - quickly, clearly, and concisely - what I think of their approach to technology and its application to their business.
To many small business owners, technology is not a tool to improve productivity - but rather, a 'necessary evil' that they have to deal with in order to create spreadsheets or read those long documents and statements they get in their inboxes. These firms usually have a 'bare minimum' approach to technology, and have never had anyone come to them and actually discuss the options and possibilities that technology can offer.
Case in point - a small firm with remote operations in China brought my firm in to consult with them on general support and service options. Yet within fifteen minutes of hearing their story, the question about their general IT suckage was out in the open. Why? This firm was spending literally hundreds of man-hours per year consolidating their orders via a manual process that involved emailing spreadsheets back and forth to their offices in China. Never mind that their network was old and needed service - that was an easy fix. But when I discussed with them how easily - and cheaply - technology could actually reshape the way they did business, they finally got the message that they had been doing it wrong for a long, long time - simply because that is how they always did it. Less than ten thousand dollars and a few months later (a fraction of the cost in lost time that they had been enduring) their average order process time went from three days to *under fifteen minutes*. Since we joined this firm as their IT solutions provider, and opened their eyes to the possibilities of technology, they have grown from twenty two people to over forty - in eighteen months.
So, next time you get a huge bill from your IT consulting company, or have a network problem, or are fighting your computer instead of profiting from it, or find yourself doing things the same old way simply because no one has shown you a better way - ask yourself the simple question - does your IT suck?
Friday, July 24, 2009
IT Consulting - Why are we giving it away?
My 25th anniversary as an IT consultant is rapidly approaching - and with it, comes a myriad of mixed emotions; satisfaction? Maybe a little. Frustration? Perhaps. Futility? A bit. Backaches from too many 'desk crawls'? Certainly.
I've seen this industry go from the first baby steps in the late 80's, when Novell was the 'defacto' choice for small businesses (and large), where Microsoft's only network offering was Windows for Workgroups, where companies such as Banyan Vines had superior product offerings and directory services before they were even a twinkle in the industry's eye (try managing a 50,000 user network these days without a directory service, and you will see what Banyan meant for us poor network admins in the early 90's).
These days, the industry is all about 'consolidation', 'virtualization', and 'outsourcing'. Despite the ever-increasing complexity of today's networks, consultants are generally earning (and their company's charging) exactly the same rates for service that they charged ten years ago - or less.
Why?
Ask this question to ten different consultants, and you will probably get ten different answers. The most common, of course, is that 'pressure' from overseas markets have caused rates to stay flat, or even to decrease. Others range from 'economic woes', to 'users accessing their offices remotely', to 'increased computer knowledge by in-house resources', to 'ease of use for networks', to 'managed services and hosting eating into margins.'
While I will address some of these in a future post, my own thoughts lie in a different direction. The main reason I believe that we, IT professionals and outsourcers, are still earning the same wages as we have for the past 20 years, is that
a> we have failed to make C suite businessmen see their network infrastructure as anything more than 'the plumbing' - something that is ignored, is expected to always work, and is only noticed when it doesn't
b> Lousy business practices and lousy businessman in our industry - too often, we 'give it away.'. You don't see lawyers or financial professionals doing this, but you see it ALL THE TIME in our industry - geek-types who love to 'tinker' and learn things, and don't charge for their time or expertise. This is an industry wide problem, and has eroded everyone's earning potential because of it.
c> inability to really do comprehensive *process* analysis of IT clients and help them apply technology to fundamentally change the way they do business. Oh sure, I see some of that, but in general most network consultants I talk to are only interested in upgrading servers, getting faster pc's, adding ram, upgrading OS', etc. Nothing that will fundamentally change the way the companies are using technology - just more of the same 'faster, better, newer' mentality.
I've seen very few firms in the northeast area of the country - particularly New York /New Jersey /Connecticut that do a complete job of IT outsourcing. There are plenty that can fix your network - there are very few that take a *complete* view of your technology, and look hard at your business processes. One of the best, The LCO Group (http://www.thelcogroup.com) was referred to me a few years ago, and I've done some consulting work for them. Progent (http://www.prgent.com) was also impressive. But even these firms have been affected by the overcrowded IT market, and erosion of profits that are affecting the entire industry.
And we have no one to blame but ourselves ...
I've seen this industry go from the first baby steps in the late 80's, when Novell was the 'defacto' choice for small businesses (and large), where Microsoft's only network offering was Windows for Workgroups, where companies such as Banyan Vines had superior product offerings and directory services before they were even a twinkle in the industry's eye (try managing a 50,000 user network these days without a directory service, and you will see what Banyan meant for us poor network admins in the early 90's).
These days, the industry is all about 'consolidation', 'virtualization', and 'outsourcing'. Despite the ever-increasing complexity of today's networks, consultants are generally earning (and their company's charging) exactly the same rates for service that they charged ten years ago - or less.
Why?
Ask this question to ten different consultants, and you will probably get ten different answers. The most common, of course, is that 'pressure' from overseas markets have caused rates to stay flat, or even to decrease. Others range from 'economic woes', to 'users accessing their offices remotely', to 'increased computer knowledge by in-house resources', to 'ease of use for networks', to 'managed services and hosting eating into margins.'
While I will address some of these in a future post, my own thoughts lie in a different direction. The main reason I believe that we, IT professionals and outsourcers, are still earning the same wages as we have for the past 20 years, is that
a> we have failed to make C suite businessmen see their network infrastructure as anything more than 'the plumbing' - something that is ignored, is expected to always work, and is only noticed when it doesn't
b> Lousy business practices and lousy businessman in our industry - too often, we 'give it away.'. You don't see lawyers or financial professionals doing this, but you see it ALL THE TIME in our industry - geek-types who love to 'tinker' and learn things, and don't charge for their time or expertise. This is an industry wide problem, and has eroded everyone's earning potential because of it.
c> inability to really do comprehensive *process* analysis of IT clients and help them apply technology to fundamentally change the way they do business. Oh sure, I see some of that, but in general most network consultants I talk to are only interested in upgrading servers, getting faster pc's, adding ram, upgrading OS', etc. Nothing that will fundamentally change the way the companies are using technology - just more of the same 'faster, better, newer' mentality.
I've seen very few firms in the northeast area of the country - particularly New York /New Jersey /Connecticut that do a complete job of IT outsourcing. There are plenty that can fix your network - there are very few that take a *complete* view of your technology, and look hard at your business processes. One of the best, The LCO Group (http://www.thelcogroup.com) was referred to me a few years ago, and I've done some consulting work for them. Progent (http://www.prgent.com) was also impressive. But even these firms have been affected by the overcrowded IT market, and erosion of profits that are affecting the entire industry.
And we have no one to blame but ourselves ...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)