Of all the traps I see organizations fall into as they consider technology in their decision making processes, the most significant is what I call the "Automate the Existing" trap.

This is because it is the one that prevents most organizations from creating the quantum-leap breakthroughs that could give them substantial competitive advantages in every area of their operation.

"Automate the Existing" refers to our natural tendency to apply technology to create efficiencies in how we do things now.

The trap is in not re-thinking the nature of what we do - in a very basic way - in light of the capabilities that new technologies make possible.

Here's a few that avoided this trap, and at least made worthwhile progress in the right direction:

In Canada, Cyanamid is beyond automated mailings, with a data base that tells them which of the 100,000 farmers they serve grow which crops, what problems they had last year, and which solutions they tried. They only send product info to those who have a specific problem the product can solve. Not only less sent out, but their customers never get "junk" mail from Cyanamid.

A catalogue distributor puts their warehouse 1000 miles from their call centre, near the courier company's airport center. Now they can deliver to the courier by 2 :00 am, and advertise to their customers "order by midnight, get delivery next morning".

At Quill office products, a super service success story, an operator in their Chicago call center can give directions to their warehouse in any city for emergency pick-ups. Given the main intersection closest to you, their computer will display directions from there to the warehouse.

The store manager's computer at Mrs. Fields Cookies tells them which items are selling at what pace this morning, and therefore when to bake a new batch of X, or put the tray of Y on sale on top of the counter. Relieved of this traditional management function, they can focus on looking after customers instead.

Quantum leaps come from re-thinking the why's from even broader perspectives.

As an obvious example, FedEx and UPS have gone beyond making their tracking systems efficient, and given their customers a sense of control by letting them play a role in the process.

In a much larger sense, why do we congregate people together for set periods of time to get the work of our business done?

As we move from the age of activity to the age of results, this fundamental concept makes less and less sense.

When capital was the asset and machines produced results, humans contributed activity (the manufacturing age). Now that knowledge is the asset, and it is creativity - being applied to clearly understood priorities - that produces results, machines do most of the routine activity.

So, this made sense when:
a.) someone had to physically hand you the work you were to do (the file or the next part to be bolted on); and
b.) your supervisor (literally the "over-seer") needed to be able to see if you were working.

If you were leaning on your shovel or didn't have your fingers on the keyboard, you weren't doing what you were being paid to do.

And what you were basically being paid to do was perform an activity. If your boss could ensure that you were constantly busy at the activity, then your contribution to the enterprise could be measured by how much time you spent on site. You could even get paid based on when you punched in and punched out.

But is this what most of us actually get paid to do today? Or are we supposed to be thinking and creating business-sensible results for our organizations?

This is the underpinnings of the "empowerment, self managed teams, etc., etc.," movements of the last few years.

We first recognized that computers would allow to count keystrokes per hour and monitor how many minutes our operators spent per average call. (automating what managers did).

But isn't what you're inputting, or whether or not you saved a valuable customer, more important?

How many genuinely "no think" jobs are there left in your operation? What percentage of your folks can you just look at to decide if they're being effective?

How do the majority of your people work? On what basis do they actually get paid?

If you had to design your operation from the ground up, with the technology available today, what could it look like?

An old definition: "Success is doing today what everybody will be doing tomorrow".

Great Plains Software is a phenomenally successful maker of accounting software based in Fargo, North Dakota. CEO Doug Burgum has built this model company on speed (genuinely 32-bit applications available 12 hours after Windows 95's release), awesome service (the prestigious MCI/Inc. magazine Excellence award), and top quality products (lists of "editors choice / best product" awards). A pretty standard formula . . . albeit brilliantly executed.

But beyond that is a less visible component of their success.

A decade ago, Doug saw that technology would make possible virtual organizations. Management spend most of their time out of the office, so who cares where they call home? Their senior and mid-level teams live all over the country. They've always been leading users of all the speed, convenience, and effectiveness that communication technology allows.

Over 3000 partners in 32 countries are also wired into, and made to feel part of, the Great Plains family, although they draw their pay checks from some other corporate entity.

What has made this concept possible was Doug's insight that virtual organizations need strong values. As technology extends our reach across distance, we must work very hard to extend our values much closer to "top of mind position" than we had to when a supervisor was always 10 feet away.

`A big part of Great Plain's success is the combination of a working lifestyle that attracts the best and the brightest, and the conscious priority that ensures everyone in the business knows the results they need to contribute, and the values they need to demonstrate while doing it.

They are certainly not the only organization using technology to re-think the nature of what they do. Pizza franchises have virtually all their calls answered by home workers (who can now work only a 1 or 2 hour shift if they choose to); banks are launching full service, 24 hour operations that have no bricks and mortar. (Probably couldn't have got the financing approved if they weren't there own customer for it!)

Let me conclude with the most pervasive current example of the "Automate the Existing" strategic thinking trap. Much as early television was "visual radio", most web sites today are digital billboards and brochures . . . a new broadcast medium.

This completely ignores the potential of the new technology, which is that of an individual relationship building medium.

A clothing retailer's site remembers the skirt you bought last time and can show you items that go with it. It orders things in your size for you, and uses its' spinning graphics to let you see the back of the dress.

It is ironic that Thomas Watson's dictum should be so apropos today: THINK . . . don't just automate the existing; envision the possible.

Warren Evans is a prominent Canadian consultant and trainer based in Mississauga, Ontario. A popular and dynamic speaker, he's addressed audiences across Canada, the U.S. and in the Caribbean and Europe. He is one of North America's leading authorities in the field of Service Management. Warren can be reached at (905) 858-000.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) Canlink Interactive Technologies and Words of Mouth.

  Make Your Advertising Message Stand Out With Original Stock Photography -- Only $30 per single image -- $95 for panoramas. 

Back to "Features" Menu