Subscribe
About

Choose wisely

New technology can be costly, lengthy to implement and less stable than an older technology framework.

Viren Maharaj
By Viren Maharaj, founder and principal consultant at King StraTech Consulting
Johannesburg, 08 Jun 2010

Replacing the enterprise framework is much like arranging a mail-order bride. The possibility of new and foreign is exciting enough to warrant the research. On paper, her profile is fantastic... she's young, educated, independent, speaks seven languages, is athletic, and is drop-dead gorgeous. The meeting takes place and despite substantial communication difficulties, the optimist in you reminds you to “imagine the possibilities...”

Six months into the new marriage, you find out that she's definitely educated but English isn't her strong suit; in fact, you are the only one who understands her. Apparently learning “hello... world” was a lot easier to achieve than a full conversation with the local bank cashier. She's also not as independent and athletic as you thought, so you're often making excuses for her. And to top it all, she hates kids... You should cancel the whole relationship, but, by now, everyone is fully aware of your substantial time and financial investment...

Choosing organisational technology is much the same. The research is done, questions are asked of the right people (usually some salesperson) and alternatives are investigated...

The company learns the new tech being offered is “bleeding-edge” and is going to “revolutionise” the way it does business. All the industry giants are clamouring to get onto the bandwagon, but if the company adopts now, it will be ahead of the pack. The company is told that this new tech will bring enhanced innovation, business agility, cohesiveness, and synergy to the company. This will allow business stakeholders to grab more market-share in record time, and let's not even get started on the precedent-setting ROI.

The business investigates further and discovers all the major consulting houses are already selling relevant white papers and scheduling workshops in Atlanta, Stockholm and Cape Town. This looks like a great opportunity to get in at ground zero, and the company can't afford not to.

The good (on paper, it looks great...)

* The interface is shiny and functional.
* It has immense integration capability.
* It's based on the latest and greatest tech-paradigm (insert latest technology paradigm here).
* It not only supports, but enhances, business agility.
* It's going to support mobile and social networking strategies (although it is still uncertain what that means to the organisation other than as a marketing exercise).

Adopting a new technology actually introduces more risk to the organisation than existing platforms.

Viren Maharaj is founder and principal consultant at King StraTech Consulting.

The bad (which is usually discovered at POC, but the company is willing to look past)

* The company is going to be their largest client to date.
* The vendor doesn't have local presence, but is investigating a sub-Saharan partnership.
* The only people who can currently work on the platform are internal technical staff (usually a small team who actually developed the entire framework), but the company is promised that skills transfer is nothing to worry about.

The ugly (what the company finds out six months after it has committed)

* The tech is still in beta release.
* The tech is more costly than mature technologies.
* It's less stable and reliable than mature alternatives and can negatively affect customer experience.
* It's slower than the old technology framework as it requires new hardware and proprietary tech to get performance back to where it was before the project started.
* It requires specialised skills or experience to work with, and subsequent lengthy training periods.
* It actually offers less support to clients by virtue of its recent market entrance.
* It offers less capability than the mature equivalent.
* Development iterations are lengthy due to the fact that the original beta release framework is going to have to develop and evolve along with business-specific requirements.

The truth is that, in some cases, adopting a new technology actually introduces more risk to the organisation than existing platforms. The existing tech may not offer much in the way of aesthetics, and it may not be easily prefixed with the latest industry catchphrase, but the company knows everything there is to know about it and a little plastic surgery can really improve how it is viewed.

Try increasing the capability of existing technology first. In most instances, the company has already got the skills, processes and infrastructure in place. Most importantly, the business knows how it behaves under all conditions.

Manage expectations

If the company decides to adopt it anyway, understand that brand new technology is costly, lengthy to implement, difficult to train for, has lower functional capability, is often unreliable and less stable than an older technology framework. Support and skills transfer is going to be lengthy and expensive, so try as far as possible to choose a vendor offering with a local partner presence.

Technology with limited 'match-time' is a risk. As far as possible, try pilot projects in areas of the business that will limit its exposure; those areas that will be least affected by a missed deployment date or inflated costs. Successful companies also invest in R&D, because risk is then managed in a controlled area and when managed, real organisational benefits are identified.

Technology evolution is undeniable and today's technology trends will shape the way business is done tomorrow. The trick is ensuring business invests in technology capability that supports its organisational requirements, not cripples it...

Share