Morettini on Management

General Management and Marketing Advice for Software and Tech Companies

Category: Operations

The Rise and Fall of Novell

Once again one of the great brand names of High Tech has been prominently in the news, this one  for it’s demise as a standalone company. This time it’s Novell, Inc.  Attachmate announced that it had closed its purchase of Novell, which becomes a brand of Attachmate.  The price was $2.2B–not chicken feed, but much less than the promise held by this company in the distant past.

This company holds a special place in my memory. In the early 90’s the Novell name was synonymous with Networking. The company was a pioneer in Corporate Networking, and played a major role in helping to create this market as we now know it. When I entered this market in 1990, the company’s core product, NetWare, held a commanding 70%+ market share in the networking software space, which was already very large at the time, and growing at a rapid rate. It was in this environment that I began my first general management position, starting up a systems and network management software business. Netware being the dominant NOS at the time, I got a very close look at the company’s activities, and some of the decisions and events that began Novell’s long decline. Novell is still a $1B business, but in terms of power and prominence, they are a shadow of the company I kept a close eye on in the 90s. There’s been speculation that the company would be an acquisition candidate for some time, so the news isn’t a big surprise. But it’s a story which is a cautionary tale, and many lessons for tech company management teams that don’t want to “blow it”.

So what caused the unfortunate change in fortunes for this former industry high-roller?

It’s a familiar story, actually, especially for those of you who are regular readers. The Novell story is particularly interesting, because several factors, each one itself capable of wreaking havoc on a solid company, came together to put this company into a long nosedive.

MICROSOFT-ITIS

The first problem was what I call “Microsoft-itis”. Novell became very successful on the back of its flagship NetWare platform, which drew the attention of Microsoft. Microsoft tends to become unhappy when any other software company grows too big, too fast. The upstart is then viewed as a potential threat in Redmond, as well as the fact that the market this other company has helped grow now becomes large enough to be attractive to MS. So the first problem was getting in the gun sight of Microsoft. Now, it’s hard to blame the company for this, it’s more of a side effect of success. This situation has caused problems for many a company, and is enough unto itself to throw a large majority of companies off their game. To have Microsoft target you is quite disconcerting, and if you don’t make the right decisions, you may be in serious trouble. How a company reacts to this challenge is critical, and in truth, often life or death.

ARROGANCE

Unfortunately, in some cases, being targeted by Microsoft sometimes builds a company up in its own view. It’s almost a baptism into the big-time. Microsoft is worried about us; we’re a peer to them now! We must really be smart! This leads to a false sense of security about the company’s true position in the market, leading to the second factor which can bring a company down—Arrogance.

Novell had plenty of excuses to be arrogant, even without Microsoft’s attention. They were truly dominating the Network Operating System business. The brand was dominant, the product was good, and the worldwide distribution network of VARs and distributors was second to none. Sales people at Novell no longer had to sell—they took orders. That led to a need to keep the big ball fast growth rolling, even as the market matured and became quite large. Wall Street, you know. Novell became known as a company that pushed, rather than created via pull marketing. There were numerous channel-stuffing scandals, so sales people could make their quarterly numbers and max out their bonus. No matter, things were well in hand, Novell was on a roll.

The closest competitor at the time was Banyan, with their VINES operating system. Banyan had a nice niche in the largest, WAN oriented corporations, but was no threat to Novell’s dominance. There was also a fast growing peer-to-peer player, Artisoft, who had a nice niche in the entry level market. Again, Artisoft posed no serious threat. And then there was Microsoft, with its alliance on the LAN Manager NOS with 3Com. At the time, Microsoft’s distribution strategy was still to primarily be an OEM supplier, preferring to let others take the lead in bringing the product to the end user market. They had piggybacked the hardware vendors with DOS and the emerging Windows 3.0, and were attempting to use that strategy in the Networking market with 3Com as their main partner. 3Com at the time was a dominant networking hardware vendor. They also teamed with many suppliers of UNIX software to create private label versions of LAN Manager for each UNIX flavor—HP UX, for instance. There were about 17 other platform partners, as I recall. It looked like a formidable syndicate which could challenge Novell for market leadership.

However, like many early Microsoft entrées into new markets, the offering was a joke. LAN Manager ran on top of OS/2, which should tell you something about its lack of success, right there. Technically inferior, with too many players involved to advance and support it, LAN Manager never gained significant traction vs. Netware, even with huge amounts of money being poured into development and marketing. Major new releases would be announced, each which was supposed be the one to give Novell a run for its money. It became a running joke in the network business. At this point, Novell looked invincible.

LOSING FOCUS

Then the arrogance at Novell rose to new levels. Apparently thinking Microsoft couldn’t beat them at their own game, Ray Noorda and senior management at Novell decided to also take on Microsoft on their own turf. Not only that, but to compete across many, many categories. They decided they wanted to become the new Microsoft, and in doing so opened a multi-front war against a larger competitor, with far more resources (See Hitler opening up the Russian front in the War against the Allies).

Novell bought WordPerfect to compete with MS Word, Quattro Pro to compete with Excel, and announced a dizzying array of additional new initiatives. (See Netscape taking a similar approach in its heyday, as well as Google is now, as we speak—that ought to be interesting). No one, I repeat, NO ONE, has won a multi-front war with Microsoft. The people that have fended them off (which is a small list), when MS has put them in their headlights, have done so by sticking to their knitting, and playing by the rules of their own market segment. Intuit is a notable example, which was able to keep MS in a minor role in the Personal Financial software segment, by advancing and focusing on its own offerings and current market.

WHAT HAPPENED?

Well, many of you who have been in High Tech for a while probably already know the result. Microsoft finally split with 3COM, developed Windows NT, essentially building Networking into the Operating System. This finally began to hurt Netware, and although it wasn’t an immediate rout, over time NT became the clear winner. The terminator of Redmond can be knocked down, but they almost never give up—they just go deeper into their pockets, and keep on coming.

The acquisitions that Novell made were already second or third tier products, and their markets were outside of Novell’s core market and competency. Drained of resources and fighting losing battles on many fronts, Novell was soundly defeated, ultimately selling off many of its acquisitions, retrenching and changing their strategy—quite a few times over the years, I might add. They went into a long, slow decline, and once this begins at a large company, it’s very difficult to truly turn it around.

WHAT IF?

So what would have happened it Novell hadn’t reacted like Netscape later did, choosing to battle it out toe-to-toe with Microsoft, blinded in a fit of rage and bravado? What if they had followed a similar strategy to the one that Intuit took? What if they had marshaled their resources, and kept their focus on maintaining the lead they had in Network Operating Systems and related businesses—which were pretty big markets in their own right? Hindsight is always 20/20, but my guess is that they would have had a much better chance of continued success—and possibly avoided the headlines in the Trade Magazines of the last few weeks.

Have you seen similar missteps in your own companies or markets?—please post a comment below to share the insights.

Follow Phil Morettini and Morettini on Management via Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, RSS, or the PJM Consulting Quarterly Newsletter. Contact Phil directly at info@pjmconsult.com

5 Comments by admin on May 3, 2011
filed in Business Models, Corporate Strategy, Distribution Channels, General Management, Operations, Software/Product Development, VARs, enterprise software

Growing from a Startup to a Mid-Market Software or Hardware Company

Every stage of a company’s growth holds unique challenges. In my opinion, startup to about $2M in revenue for a software company, and startup to $10M for a hardware company is the hardest phase of all. But growing a business is almost always hard, and there are several natural revenue levels where companies tend to “get stuck”.

 As in the hardware/software contrast above, revenue levels for different business models can be quite different. So it’s hard to generalize strictly upon gross revenue levels. But undoubtedly there are stages that every company goes through (startup to profitability, profitability to stable small company, stable small company to midsized company, etc.) which represent points of inflection in terms of the way a company operates. For example, you need quite a bit more formal process to operate a large company than a very small one. The methods of capitalizing a large company are very different from a bootstrapped or VC-backed startup. There are many more possible examples; I’m sure you get the picture. For this article we’ll focus on growth into the Mid Market stage.

 First of all, there is no perfect definition of a “Mid-Market” company. People have defined it many different ways: by number of employees, revenue level and many other factors. For the purposes of this discussion, we’ll define a Mid Market company as one having between 100 and 999 employees. . Let’s take a look at some of the major changes required to successfully grow from a startup to a mid-market sized company:

Hiring

As a startup or smaller company, you’re often restricted by resource realities with respect to who you can hire. Startups are often forced to hire people with less direct experience than they’d like, and pay them less than the going rate in cash compensation. You often can’t fill every hole, even all the ones that you think are critical. People have to wear two or more hats, and the type of people you can attract might be those that really prefer the small company environment, or are dreaming big dreams based upon the stock options. In short, it’s continuous compromise. As you grow into the mid market you have more resources to pay market rates, and are generally more attractive to a larger pool of employee prospects.

 But please, be careful–just because you can hire differently, doesn’t mean you should. I’ve seen folks get drunk on hiring at this phase, and get loaded down with overhead that makes running the business to optimal profitability much harder. There is also a tendency to go after people with big, blue chip company resumes, which can be very dangerous. If these candidates don’t also have experience in smaller companies, you’re setting yourself up for a very premature and inappropriate culture change. It’s important to guard against building a big company bureaucracy in a middle market company.

 Business processes

Much like in hiring, there is often a tendency to want to add too much process, too soon. In fact, I believe this is the absolute biggest danger executive management needs to guard against during this transition. The CEO and senior team are usually very aware that the business is outgrowing its current level of checks, balances and controls. Inevitably there is a need for additional and more formal processes. The typical mistake I see is that instead of adding carefully and gradually, folks want to radically change the business overnight. The result is often a still-modest-sized business operating like one with 20,000 employees: Meaning operating VERYSLOWLY. Guard against this! Mid Market companies still need to rely on speed and agility to compete with the corporate giants, who have many more competitive advantages that you can’t yet replicate.

 Scope of target market

Around the mid market stage, a single-product or single market segment company may be running out of room to grow at the rates it has historically enjoyed. This is a day of reckoning and a danger point that stops many promising companies in their tracks. If you need to expand into new products or markets, make sure that you do so rationally. Don’t go out and acquire a company in a complete different business, because your investment banker thinks it’s undervalued and a great buy. Do “diversify” into “adjacent” markets, taking one of your existing technologies into a different market, or introducing a new technology or product category to your existing market segment.

 Capitalization

This is the stage where you absolutely need to hire a serious CFO with financial market savvy and connections. Many startups have someone with a CFO title whose background is really accounting and financial controls. Or possibly and outsourced, part-time CFO. This usually is fine up to this stage. But once you are talking about opening new offices, funding a new market focus or new line of product technology, the game has changed. The skill set of controlling the company’s simple expenses, dealing with angel and VC investors now becomes inadequate. The company needs someone that understands raising money in institutional financial markets, along with the contacts that go with that knowledge. Budgeting and controls will also start to become more decentralized, requiring a different financial management style, as the company continues to grow into the upper end of the mid market phase.

 Distribution and regional offices

As your business grows into new markets and product categories, your distribution system must often change and grow with it. This might be the time that you begin to open offices in all the key geographic markets of the world. But don’t do this “just because it’s time”. It should be done only for good business reasons, such as increasing marketing in countries where a distributor won’t or can’t do what’s necessary. It might also be the time that a single distribution channel business needs to become multi-channel. For example, a direct-only company adds retail or VAR channels. Again, avoid the temptation to do these types of things because your business has grown to a certain stage. It adds complexity and overhead to your business, so make sure there are sound business reasons for the change.

 Product Development

Moving to a different customer set or new base technology can have a profound effect on the product planning and development process. It is often at this stage that you must stop relying on a single set of market veterans or insiders, who have been successful in bringing out products due to deep, long-term domain knowledge in your original market/product focus. Now is often the time where there needs to be a bit more standardized product planning and development process, as you broaden both the number and scope of development projects.

 The bottom line is that as you grow out of the startup phase, the way your business operates necessarily will need to adjust to continue strong growth. The biggest danger here is trying to “get big” before your time. While the big blue chip companies are often envied, trying to duplicate their current mode of operation while you’re just entering the mid-market stage is probably the best way to ensure that your company will never reach that blue chip status. “Get big” in the way you operate cautiously–because once you’ve bureaucratized your business, it’s very difficult going back.

 That’s my take on going from a startup to mid-market. Share your own growth stories with us to start a discussion.

 Follow Phil Morettini and Morettini on Management via Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, RSS, or the PJM Consulting Quarterly Newsletter. Contact Phil directly at info@pjmconsult.com

No Comments by admin on June 8, 2010
filed in Business Models, Corporate Strategy, Distribution Channels, General Management, Operations, Startup/Early Stage
tagged , , , , , , , ,

A Case Study in Bad Customer Service

In my opinion, the quality of a company’s customer service is BY FAR the most important ingredient of the numerous factors that go into a company brand reputation. Unfortunately, there are too many companies–even of the large, successful variety–that just don’t get it.

I wrote previously about “The End of Customer Service“. With people pinching pennies due to the great recession, it doesn’t appear that things have gotten any better.

The impetus to write further on this topic came from a recent, painful personal experience. The source of my pain was DIRECTV.

Troubling developments for a long-time customer

I have been a DirecTV customer for roughly 13 years. This is a long time for a relationship with any consumer products or services company. I initially fell in love with the programming offered by the company, especially they wide variety of sports. I still find their programming compelling. Initially, I also found the customer service and support to be first rate in the beginning. Unfortunately, over time the level of service has declined from first rate to astonishingly bad.

The level of customer service began slowly deteriorated about five years ago. I suspect that it did because the company was struggling to show a profit. It appears somewhere in that timeframe management of the company transitioned from a customer-orientation to focusing strictly on short-term profitability. This led to some short-sighted policies, which I believe could eventually lead to the death of this company.

A long series of customer service and equipment incidents over the last several years left me so frustrated that I decided I could no longer remain a customer, and became resigned to finding another TV service provider.

The final straw

My last customer service experience was what put me over the edge. I had payed $400 for an NFL programming package, only to find 2 games into the season that one of my two receivers was no longer capable of receiving this premium programming. It wasn’t really a technical issue, but a decision by DirecTV to no longer support this specific programming on that type of receiver. The receiver worked fine otherwise, and in fact had some key features not available on the more contemporary DirecTV models of comparable capability. I had paid good money for the receiver and had given the company a large premium programming fee for the NFL package that year (and many previous years), and I had not been told prior to renewing football subscription that year that the receiver would no longer receive this programming.

A few years back DirecTV had come under the control of Rupert Murdoch, which led to an equipment partnership with one of Murdoch’s affiliated companies. I have one of these as my primary receiver, and it contains some of the worst software I’ve ever seen in a consumer electronics device. Because of this, I would have preferred to continue to use my old receiver, which works great. But I wanted to be able to access my expensive NFL package on my second receiver, and I felt that I was at least entitled to one that could do this without losing other features important in my current receiver–at not cost, given the circumstances.

What ensued was a Keystone-Cop like series of customer service episodes punctuated by poorly trained service reps, extremely long phone-support hold times and multiple equipment shipments back and forth. I won’t bore you with every detail, but it started with an initial call which required 15-20 re-dials just to get through to the “hold” point, followed by a 1½ hours wait time. I’d like to say that was the worst part of the experience, but things actually went downhill from there.

At the end of this saga, I knew more about the internal customer service processes and procedures at DirecTV than most of the representatives I spoke with. It wasn’t hard; most of them seemed to be clueless. Some of them were good people trying hard to help me–others just didn’t caret. But many were inexperienced or poorly-trained, and nearly all of them were overwhelmed by the sheer complexity required to accomplish even the simplest task. Long story short, my simple request for a replacement receiver that would leave me happy paying DirecTV in excess of $100 every month was never fulfilled.

Even the CEO couldn’t make it right

It was at this point I’d had enough, and was resigned to the fact that I needed to change TV service providers. It wasn’t what I wanted–I felt I’d been pushed into a corner by the company’s arrogance and incompetence. But first I needed to blow off some steam, and so I wrote an email to the DirecTV CEO, detailing my painful experience. To his credit, he immediately and personally responded, apologizing and agreeing that what happened to me should not have happened. He asked if he could still make the situation right, and promised to have his personal representatives contact me to fix the situation. I was pleased by his reaction.

I was quickly contacted by a member of the DIRECTV Customer Advocate Team, a small top-secret group that you wouldn’t be aware of if you hadn’t interacted with the highest levels of company management. She was very nice and understanding, and told me that she was empowered to do just about anything that was required to make me a happy customer once again.

Apparently she was empowered to do anything except fill my very simple request.

She offered me a lot of things, many which were desirable. But I was a bit stuck on principle at this point; I wanted to be able to watch my expensive NFL package on a second receiver with comparable features, with no additional money out of my pocket.

She told me she could take care of this, but with one big condition: I’d be locked in to 24 additional months with DirecTV. Apparently, any new equipment sent to a customer automatically triggered this additional 24 month commitment, which no one had the power to override–no exceptions.

Complete idiocy–and very bad business

Here there is a customer who has stayed with a company for 13 years and loves their programming, but has been treated badly by customer service, and feels wronged. Making him happy is going to cost you probably $25 extra to send him a premium receiver instead of a basic one. He’d like to find an excuse to stay, but ready to leave due to frustration. The response is to try to lock him in for 24 months against his will?

I was wondering: are there any managers trained in Marketing at DirecTV? Is there anyone in upper management that has actually ever dealt with a customer? Or are they all accountants?

So for all the software developers and manufacturers out there, what are the takeaways from this customer service tale of the absurd?

Takeaway Lessons

Your product/service isn’t everything – I still love the DirecTV programming, but will be leaving because everything else surrounding it has turned bad.

Train your people – There is often a lot of turnover in the customer service department, and it’s easy to skimp on training for people that might not be there too long. If you don’t want to ruin your brand, Train & Retain! These folks ARE the company to the customers calling for help.

The customer is king – regardless of how desirable your offering is, the customer has alternatives. Treat him badly, and he will vote with his feet–its human nature.

Lock customers in with value, not contracts – that’s where you’ll find loyalty and long-term profitability. 24 month contracts will only create animosity with your customers–and represent a big opportunity for
an upstart, more customer-focused competitor.

Don’t be arrogant – Regardless of your market position, if a customer truly has been treated shabbily, swallow hard and do whatever it takes to make it right. Install a customer service culture of taking care of the customer, almost regardless of direct costs. The hidden costs of angry customers are very high from word of mouth and other bad publicity–especially in the Internet Age.

Don’t let your accountants set Marketing and Customer Service Policy – As described above, the easily traceable short-term costs savings which are the focus of the financial guys, will be overwhelmed by less obvious negative effects on future revenue, due to damage to your brand.

So that’s my sad story, and hopefully some valuable lessons for all of us as we formulate marketing and customer service policies. Do you have a customer service story of your own, negative or positive? Have a different view on the state of customer service today? Share with us in the comment section below.

Follow Phil Morettini and Morettini on Management via Twitter, Facebook, RSS, or the PJM Consulting Quarterly Newsletter. Contact Phil directly at info@pjmconsult.com

5 Comments by admin on January 24, 2010
filed in Corporate Strategy, Operations, Uncategorized
tagged , , , , , , , ,

Cloud Computing, SaaS and Such–Have We Read This Story Before?

I have this incredible feeling of déjà vu.

Cloud computing and Software as a Service is all the rage. In my practice at PJM Consulting, I am very involved in software startup activity. Nearly every new software company that I see today is being built on the Software as a Service business model. It’s all the rage–so much so that it appears that any self-respecting software entrepreneur would be embarrassed to start a company using the traditional software licensing model. Even if an entrepreneur was so inclined, good luck finding a VC who would even consider funding such a company. No one wants to look like a dinosaur.

It’s all well and good–there is definitely a real trend toward SaaS and Cloud Computing, with many good reasons for it. But most high technology trends are initially a bit over-hyped, and tend to get ahead of themselves. In addition, this particular story seems ever so familiar to a tech veteran that’s been around for a few of these cycles.

The first bit of history this reminds me of is the old terminal/mainframe model from the early years of computing. There were some real advantages to this model, but also some big disadvantages as well–which opened the door for the golden age of PCs and networking.

The second era that the current SaaS wave reminds me of is “Web 1.0″, when Web-based hosted software (then called ASP rather than the modern SaaS terminology), was first going to take over the world. The current trend seems so very similar because it was around the Web 1.0 years of the late 90s/early 2000 when the traditional software license business model was first proclaimed dead. At that time nearly every new business plan was based upon an ASP model.

So some of this fast-moving Cloud Computing or SaaS trend is new–but much of it could be viewed as recycled from past trends. Let’s look at the Pros and Cons of this computing model:

ADVANTAGES

* Enables “Utility-Style” computing – variable expense instead of. capital investment
* Allows an end run around overwhelmed IT departments (like PC networking did)
* Supposedly “On-demand”–use only what you need, when you need it
* More efficient use of compute resources by time-slicing large farms of cost-efficient computing resources
* Web-based allows anywhere, anytime availability
* Off-site storage of data assists disaster recovery preparedness

DISADVANTAGES

* Immature and inherently more difficult Security
* More difficult integration with other applications
* Internet latency
* Internet reliability
* Data resides outside the company firewall
* Costs over time aren’t necessarily lower for customers
* Lower margins for software vendors–aren’t always accounted for in current pricing

SUMMARY

I believe that the trend toward computing in the cloud will continue, but there will be some stumbles and pullbacks along the way. Cloud Computing and SaaS has some inherent strengths–but also some under-publicized weaknesses. Many software vendors are overlooking the weaknesses at this time, as is typical of any new and hyped technology. Traditional licensed software hosted by the user still has its strengths and a definite place in the market. Like many mature technologies and business models, the death of traditional software licensing has been greatly exaggerated. Once the early hype passes, decisions on whether to computer within the firewall or in the cloud will once again be made on the individual merits, costs and user needs for a particular application within a particular company. That’s how I see it–post a comment with your opinion so we can look at all viewpoints.

Phil Morettini
PJM Consulting
http://www.pjmconsult.com/

9 Comments by admin on May 4, 2009
filed in Corporate Strategy, General Management, Operations, SaaS, Software/Product Development, enterprise software
tagged , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Effective Management During an Economic Crisis

This month we’re doing something a bit different–we have a guest post from Holly McCarthy. Please be aware that Ms. McCarthy is not affiliated with PJM Consulting, and the views expressed in this post are her own.

In the current economic climate, there is much that can still be done to turn business around. Certainly, technology has come a long way in helping businesses to maximize productivity with a minimum amount of manpower. While this is a great advantage over the economic crises of years past, the fact remains that effective management and leadership is still a key factor in maintaining the integrity of any business that wants to stick around after the dust has settled.

Leading by Example

Management will need to take the reins of companies and lead by example for the best results as the economy continues to waver in the coming months. Being able to roll up one’s sleeves and get down to business will show employees just what it takes to get the job done right. Unemployment is at its highest in nearly sixteen years, so many people may be in fear of losing their jobs. Showing that you are ready and willing to help out in the trenches will help boost morale and bring your team together in the process.

Ask for Input

Crowdsourcing is becoming increasingly more popular among businesses. While you may not wish to go outside the scope of your company for ideas, asking those who work for you for suggestions and ideas helps bring employees together and builds a stronger office culture in the process. Getting ideas from those within the company and giving credit where credit is due is a very effective way to turn things around and get your business back on track.

Trim the Fat

Unfortunately, there comes a time when a company must make the decision to let go of some employees. Take time to carefully evaluate your staff and find out where the weak links are. Some duties may need to be consolidated into other positions and this should be done within reason. The employees who are left will more than likely be happy to take on a few extra duties to secure their jobs. Although this is not the best possible solution, it may be the only way to help keep a business afloat.

Be Proactive

It is very important in these times to refrain from being reactionary. While things may continue to change from day to day, create a plan of action for keeping your doors open beyond the crisis. What changes can be made? Where can money be saved? Look at all of your options and leave no stone unturned; figuring out a way to stay afloat and ahead of the curve should be your number one objective until things turn back around.

This post was contributed by Holly McCarthy, who writes on the subject of the job search. She invites your feedback at hollymccarthy12 at gmail dot com

1 Comment by admin on January 21, 2009
filed in Corporate Strategy, General Management, Operations
tagged , ,

What Happens to Apple after Steve Jobs?

I’ve written several times on Steve Jobs and Apple, one of the most fascinating companies and executives that we’ve seen in the history of high technology.

I don’t mean to make this a morbid article; the current (and now long-running) speculation on Steve Job’s health has been well-documented. I hope that Mr. Jobs is fine, and that he has many more years of good health, with a continued long reign at Apple.

But it does raise a slightly different question that is interesting to ponder. There has always be a “cult of personality” surrounding Apple and Steve Jobs. In fact, Apple stock often swings wildly on days when news about Jobs health comes out.  The company has done well during short periods when he has been away, but Mr. Jobs is joined at the hip with Apple in the investment community and public’s eyes. Jobs will leave Apple at some point, hopefully to go into a happy retirement, as I stated above. Regardless of the circumstances of his leaving, what will become of the company once he is gone?

I can think of no tech company more closely associated with a founder/CEO than Apple and Jobs. Gates and Microsoft certainly are in that league, and I’m sure that you can think of others. But I doubt if you can think of any combination that is clearly more high profile and closely-linked.

Jobs has obviously been a major driver of Apple’s current success, and has enriched its many shareholders and other stakeholders. While it may be blasphemy to the Apple faithful, especially in recent times, in my opinion he has also been responsible for some of the company’s periodic downturns. Whether viewed strictly as the company’s savoir, or also an unstable dictator that has wrought big swings in the company’s performance over a long period of time–it’s undeniable that an unusual amount of responsibility has laid in Job’s hands–especially for a company of Apple’s enormous size. He is known to be detailed-oriented and involved (from a positive perspective), and a micro-manager and poor delegater assuming a more negative viewpoint. The basic premise of this article is that once he leaves Apple, there will be a leadership vacuum. This isn’t necessarily a prescription for catastrophe–but it is rarely a good thing for a company, at least in the short term. So what are the broader lessons we can glean from this fascinating situation with respect to managing high tech businesses? Apple really isn’t a rare case–tech companies cultures are built around their founder/CEO quite often, as I see often in my practice at PJM Consulting. This is a case study that can be instructive for many managers. Let’s take a look at a few potential lessons:

Difficult or Odd Corporate Culture
There is obviously much to be admired about Apple’s corporate culture, since it is a very successful company. Yet by many it is considered to be somewhat dysfunctional from a management standpoint. Much of this can be attributed to having a leader with a very strong and quirky style. Cultures tend to develop haphazardly as companies grow, even if its leaders have given some thought to the issue. In a corporation, everyone has a boss and other constraints put on them by the company’s social structure. This tends to dampen the effects of dysfunctional behavior by people up and down the organizational chart. The exception to this is the Founder/CEO who is the head of the organization. Much like the old story about the “Emperor who has no Clothes”, no one in an official capacity will call out the person at the top of the org chart on their bad behavior, decisions and eccentricities. This is dangerous and can lead to a culture and company policies becoming embedded with inappropriate ideas for no good reason, sometimes based on what lower level people BELIEVE the CEO would want. The takeaway is that leaders (especially strong ones) must take care not to have TOO GREAT an influence on the culture of the company simply because of their personal style.

Corporate Succession
Strong leader such as Jobs often tend to run companies in a dictatorial manner. They also have a tendency to have a “self-centric” view of the world, and don’t give sufficient thought to planning for the company’s future after their tenure. This may work well while they are in charge, but can lead to a company in disarray when they leave. It’s not clear that there is a clear successor, or strong group of potential successors, in place to follow Jobs at Apple. For a company of the size and stature of Apple, most people would think that this isn’t a good idea. Founding CEOs and Senior Executives with a similar organizational impact need to force themselves to step back from the present, and plan for a future without themselves. This isn’t a comfortable thing for many people, but is critically important for the full potential of their legacy to be fulfilled.

Dangerous Concentration of Responsibility in a Single Person
In a startup, the founders often wear many hats, and make all of the important decisions themselves. No doubt that Jobs and Wozniak personally handled nearly everything when Apple was formed. This is a very proper operating model for a startup. As a company grows, at some point it becomes a VERY INAPPROPRIATE model, and can put the company in great jeopardy. What if that leader has a heart attack or is in some other way unable to fulfill their critical role? Chaos can occur, and the company’s decision-making can be paralyzed, especially in the short term. In addition, I believe that the old saying of “two heads are better than one” usually holds true. I’m not one to endorse decisions-by-committee, but many corporate situations are complex and inherently risky, and the decision-making in these circumstances can benefit by having several strong viewpoints. CEOs should ensure that important decisions include at least some level of peer discussion and review, to avoid blind spots and major mistakes.

Micro-Management
Strong leaders, especially those who are able to create a company from the ground up like Steve Jobs, are often “type A” personalities and micro-managers. This may be highly efficient when a company is in startup mode. Later on, however, it can lead to a lack of development of people down in the organization, as well as paralyze the organization’s ability to make quick decisions. The most effective leaders are those who are able to “let go” much of the decision-making as the company grows, while keeping their fingers on the pulse of what’s truly important. This is a very fine line to walk, no doubt, but it imo being able to successfully pull this off is one of the more important attributes of the very best corporate leaders.

Bench Strength – Can Worthy Managers Survive Under A Strong Leader?
Along the same lines as the Succession discussion above, attracting and retaining talented managers lower in the organization is usually critical to a company’s current success. If the leadership of the company tends to be dictatorial, micro-managers who hold on to most of the responsibility, lower-level managers may become demoralized. The management team needs to be developed, and feel like they have real responsibility and some control of their own destiny. When the guy at the top is holding on to all the power, strong leaders further down in the organization have a tendency to move on to other companies, where they feel like they are making an impact and have an opportunity to progress. The best leaders ensure that the conditions are in place attract, nurture, develop and retain the management talent required for a company’s continued growth and success.

SUMMARY
Apple is a great tech company, and Steve Jobs is one of our industry’s legendary entrepreneurs and managers. Yet every company, even highly successful ones like Apple, has holes in its game. There are many strong leaders much like Jobs at the head of software a
nd tech companies. Too often their strength is manifested with a very short term view of the organization. Although difficult to do, the strongest leaders operate with a view on not just optimizing the immediate issues facing them, but also plan ahead so that the company can function well even without their personal involvement. Often this means suppressing some of their own natural tendencies so that the overall organization can more fully develop. The resulting decentralization of power reduces a number of risks that are inherent when too much depends on a single individual. That’s my own view–post a comment if you have additional views to add to this discussion.

Follow Phil Morettini and Morettini on Management via Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, RSS, or the PJM Consulting Quarterly Newsletter. Contact Phil directly at info@pjmconsult.com

1 Comment by admin on January 9, 2009
filed in Corporate Strategy, General Management, Operations
tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

Structuring a High Tech Sales Force

There are many ways to organize a sales force. In my opinion, there is no one “right” way. There is only the BEST way for unique circumstances of your current company.

Like most aspects of developing a software or technology company, there are guidelines, but no exact roadmap to building a successful sales force. In my practice at PJM Consulting, I often suggest that a management exercise like structuring a sales force should begin with a series of questions:

What stage of development is your company in?
This important, because an early stage company may not have the resources to fully fund the outside sales force that may be ideal for its situation. Or the company may want to sell primarily via an inside sales force, but hasn’t had enough early success or nailed down the sales process sufficiently, to sell effectively through this less “high touch” method. Stage of development can be as important as what the ideal “steady state” organization would look like–don’t over shoot your development stage in designing your sales organization.

What are you asking your sales force to do?
Are you using your sales force primarily as closers, supported by strong marketing, etc — or will your sales force be doing a lot of cold calling, handling the customer “cradle to grave”? In general the more you are asking your sales force to do, the more “high touch” the structure needs to be.

What markets are you targeting?
In some markets (such as many enterprise IT market segments) an outside rep knocking on the customer’s door is absolutely expected, and essential. In other markets (like many SMB markets), this type of attention would be considered a nuisance, not a service. It’s important to understand what the target customers want and are expecting in a sales interface.

What are your product price points?
The implications of this question are usually well understood. High priced products can support a more expensive outside sales force, and may require one to make the sale. Lower priced products can’t usually be sold profitably this way, and an inbound or outbound telesales operation is often the optimal structure.

Is your product more of a commodity sale, or is there a longer, more complex sales cycle?
Commodities lend themselves to lower cost inside sales, as well as a higher mix of channels. The more complex your sales cycle, the more likely your company will need a captive, outside direct sales force.

This is just a sample of key questions to ask yourself as you design your sales function. There are many more relevant questions that should be asked, depending upon the specific situation. I won’t attempt to cover them all, or this article will become a book. Once you’ve done a good job of asking and answering the relevant questions, it’s time to actually start designing your organization. Below are some of the personnel types and organizational structure that a software or tech company would typically consider as part of its sales organization:

SALES REP TYPES

Outside Reps
This is the classic sales rep style that has been around since the beginning of time. In the “old days” even consumer products were often sold this way (those of a certain age can remember the “door to door” Fuller Brush Salesmen). But this is the most expensive form of sales person, and depending upon the market, products and other factors, is not always the most efficient or even effective. There are still a lot of companies that sell almost exclusively through outside direct sales forces. But in companies where they direct outside sales reps do exist, they are often used more sparingly, in combination with other types of reps and channels.

Inside Reps
This is a favorite form of rep for commodity products, companies that sell heavily through third party channels, and inexpensive, higher volume products. Inside reps can also be used effectively in a “teamed” approach with outside reps, helping to optimize a territory. They may source or qualify leads for the outside reps, handle smaller accounts in the territory or generally act as a “junior sales rep” to the more senior outside reps.

Hybrid Reps
This rep type is my own invention (the term is at least). This rep is part outside rep, part inside rep. A rep of this type would be appropriate for those “tweener” products and markets, which don’t fit neatly into a pure inside or outside model. For example, software products with an average sales price of $5-10,000–too low cost to be sold strictly through an outside sales force, but maybe too complex or expensive for a pure phone sale. Hybrid reps spend most of their time in the office on the phone, but also travel modestly, approximately one trip/month. Example trips might be to staff trade shows, visit channel partners and call on major accounts. This type of rep may be very appropriate for early stage companies that can’t yet afford to build out full inside and outside sales organizations.

Sales Managers
This is pretty self-explanatory, but not every tech company can afford a classical, full-time sales manager. Often you will see individual reps reporting to a manager of another function in startups, and occasionally you will see the concept of a “producing manager”, who has line sales responsibilities in addition to management. This personnel type is very important to setting the tone for your sales organization, and is applicable to managing all rep types within any organizational structure.

Sales Administrator
A specialist that you tend to see in larger sales organizations, or at least those that have a lot of complexity (a lot of return activity, inventory management, repairs, rep splits, etc.)

SALE ORGANIZATION TYPES

All of the organizational types listed below can be commonly found as the dominant sales organizational type in many companies, as well as in combination with each other in larger, more complex companies:

Region-specific organizations
This is probably the most common organizational structure, which may include any of the sales reps types, who are assigned to specific territories. In many cases I favor this arrangement, as it tends to be the most unambiguous to measure and manage. The downside is that certain regions can prove to be much more naturally fertile than others, which can make the management process more difficult to do fairly. You also may lose the advantages that certain reps may have in terms of contacts or vertical market knowledge which lies outside of their geographic region.

Channel-Specific organizations
This is the second most common sale organizational type, which of course tends to be found in companies which make strong use of third-party sales channels. There may be a direct sales force, a VAR or retail sales force, an OEM sales force, and so on. Sometime there is an “intermixing of these organizations, for example, an “overlay” VAR channel rep as part of a direct sales force.

Industry-specific organizations
Likely the least common of organization types, but one which is very appropriate in certain circumstances. For example, a tech company which has very different value propositions in a number of vertical industries, where “insider status” in important to selling into a particular vertical market, or the product offerings are arranged by vertical market.

SUMMARY
There are many possible sales organization types and styles for software and tech companies. Many different ways of organizing can work–and the people you have are always more important than organizational structure to your ultimate success. But by carefully considering your company’s specific situa
tion, and matching your organizational structure to your market, products and available resources, your company will have the best chance of achieving sales optimal results.

Phil Morettini
PJM Consulting
http://www.pjmconsult.com/

1 Comment by admin on November 5, 2008
filed in Corporate Strategy, Distribution Channels, General Management, Operations, Pricing, Retail, Startup/Early Stage, enterprise software, sales
tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

Integrating the Marketing and Engineering Functions at Technology Companies

In most tech companies, Product Marketing and Product Development/Engineering are managed separately. There is usually a VP over the Product Development function and another over the overall marketing function, which usually includes future product marketing/planning.

While this is certainly an appropriate way to organize a tech company, there is a great danger in one are when it comes to these separate operating “silos”: the planning of new products.

I have a particularly strong opinion on this topic, with an extensive product marketing background and also having worked as a product developer earlier in my career (albeit in a non-tech business).

With respect to current products, the silo approach isn’t much of an issue. The day-to-day activities of the marketing and engineering departments are very different, and can be managed separately quite successfully.

It’s in the future product area that things can get messy. Product Marketing and Product Development both have a key role to play here, if the company is to optimize the process of planning, developing and introducing the best new product possible. The problems is that at every level, from the VP-level down to the engineering project managers and marketing product managers, the product marketing and engineering functions are often staffed by individuals with very different world outlooks when compared to their direct counterparts in the other department.

Inevitably, if care isn’t taken, these very different personality types can lead to some pretty intense conflicts. I’ve been a soldier, captain and general in this war–and let me tell you, it isn’t pretty. The battlefield often is a company’s strategic plan, which ends up in a trampled mess. I have seen this battle play out regularly in the companies that I have worked for as an employee, as well as at many of my clients in eight years as a consultant at PJM Consulting. It sometimes gets so ugly it paralyzes a company, putting it at a severe disadvantage vs. competitors who have less of a conflict.

THE “WRONG” WAYS TO HANDLE THIS POTENTIAL PROBLEM

Unfortunately, most CEOs that I meet are not all that in tune to how damaging these conflicts can become.

Often they will ignore or deny the problem, thinking it is a responsibility to be handled at the VP level.

Another strategy that I have seen companies put in place is to extract the product planning function from the marketing department, and put it under engineering. This will often greatly reduce or eliminate the conflict, but it akin to throwing the baby out with the bathwater. As I said earlier, both marketing and engineering have a key role to play in product planning. This strategy effectively removes the voice of the customer, which is a key role that the marketing department should be playing in any successful software or tech company. As much as product developers think it looks easy, they almost never have the mentality or experience to accurately read markets or customers. Almost no one is great at everything; monitoring and reading markets, and technical product development, are two very different skill sets. Having both mentalities involved in a positive way leads to far better products in the end.

Finally, if they happen to have come from one side of the battle or the other, CEOs sometimes “take sides” in the battle–predetermining the winner. The problem is there is never any real winner in this battle–and the only certain loser is the company and its shareholders.

A CEO can choose to let Marketing have the upper hand–and this may work out adequately in commodity products where there is very little engineering differentiation. In any other circumstance, results will likely be sub-optimal.

Or he can let Engineering win and dominate the planning process–which is a very common occurrence in early stage, technically-driven software and tech companies. But this generally only works well for products made by engineers, built for engineers (the early days of Hewlett Packard are an example of this strategy working successfully). For every company that has used this approach successfully, there are probably hundreds or even thousands that failed in large part because of it.

Ultimately, to make sure that this conflict and its dire consequences are to be avoided, there is one key thing that needs to happen:

IT IS THE CEO’S RESPONSIBILITY TO PREVENT, RECOGNIZE AND FIX THIS PROBLEM.

So what steps can a software or tech CEO take to be on the lookout for this problem–and more importantly, what can they do to prevent it from developing?

*It’s all about relationships: closely monitor the personal relationship between VP-Marketing and VP-Engineering
*Make sure that the VPs are monitoring the relationships below them
*Make sure they are both VPs are open and honest with you about the relationship between departments
*Plan activities which allow engineering and marketing counterparts to get to know each other as “people” outside of their project activities
*Be careful that you don’t inadvertently make decisions or set up policies that reward or tolerate politics
*Design goals and MBOs to reward the two departments for working together
*Don’t ever allow one department to “get ahead” by blaming the other–tie them together as much as possible
*Hire marketing personnel that can talk the language of engineers
*Screen product development hires who will interact with Marketing for the not uncommon attitude that engineers are “superior” human beings
*Encourage the marketing department to get product developers in front of customers
*Watch out for arrogance when screening potential new hires for either department that will interface with the other –arrogance is usually the trigger which starts the battle rolling

SUMMARY

Marketing/Engineering conflict over the product planning process is a common problem that is often overlooked by tech company CEOs. A certain amount of creative tension can exist between the two departments, and be totally healthy. All too often, though, this tension turns into a bloody fight which is destructive to the company’s prospects. It is not “fait accompli”, however. It can be minimized and even prevented by a watchful and proactive CEO.

That’s my take on a common issue which is rarely discussed out loud. Have you had your own issues in this area? Post a comment to add to our discussion.

Phil Morettini
PJM Consulting
www.pjmconsult.com

No Comments by admin on July 8, 2008
filed in General Management, Marcom, Operations, Product Marketing/Management, Software/Product Development, hardware
tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

The End of Customer Service

No one answers the telephone anymore.

At least, technology companies in the US surely don’t. With big companies, you are either presented with an endless phone tree–”press 1 for a company directory”–or the newest innovation in communications technology: the cheerful “automated voice attendant”. In many cases these attendants, and several other “innovative” service options, can lead to a great deal of frustration for customers and prospects.

As a consumer and business buyer I’ve found this frustrating, not to mention an incredible productivity sink. As a High Tech industry executive and consultant with a strong marketing background, I find this practice curious at best–and insane at worst!

Think about it–how many BILLIONS of dollars companies spend trying to get the attention of potential new customers–most of who are going to need to contact the company at some point. Yet it seems that once we’ve got their interest, or God forbid, they’ve signed up as an actual customer–we are doing everything possible to keep them away. Doesn’t anyone remember the old marketing adage about current customers being your best source of additional business? Management guru Peter Drucker once said “The purpose of business is not to make a sale, but to make and keep a customer.” Apparently not many people agree with this, or have forgotten it, because “modern” customer service practices are doing there best to drive these folks away. Let’s examine some of the new customer service approaches:

OUTSOURCED CALL CENTERS IN OTHER COUNTRIES

This may be everyone consumer’s favorite new “pet peeve”–calling an American company based in Chicago, or Iowa or San Jose–only to be connected to some call center somewhere in India. Often this leads to a very, very frustrating experience. Companies are going this route for support as an expense driven decision–to obtain cheaper labor. But the reps on the end of the line are often poorly trained, probably aren’t employees of the company that you are calling, and often don’t speak English with an accent that is easy to understand for most Americans. Are there good reps who give great service available in these call centers? Certainly, I have spoken to more than a few. But compared to the “good old days” of local support, the average caller experience has degraded significantly. Add this to the initial frustration that the caller who is dialing has because of a problem with his or her new $1200 PC–and you don’t get a prescription for a happy customer.

PHONE TREES

This one has been around a while, but the increasing complexity of the tree, and well as the difficulty of exiting it to get to a live person, has continually made the situation worse. You can literally spend 5-10 minutes just navigating the phone tree these days. Oftentimes, callers just give up–which appears to be what companies want. I’ll discuss below why companies shouldn’t.

AUTOMATED ATTENDANTS

As I discussed above, this is one of the more recent scourges of the besieged customer with a problem. Ironically, Automated Voice Attendants have been made possible by a really nice leap forward in voice recognition technology. And there is no doubt that these products have come a very long way from the days in which they were first implemented. But talking to a machine is at this point still inherently inferior to speaking with a real human. I endorse the use of these Automated Attendants, but they should be used judiciously. I would still utilize them only at the very beginning of calls, and not require them to take a customer too far down the line of getting their problem addressed. Also, please make it easy to get away from them to a live human. With the high market share of some of the Automated Attendant companies, I am having far too many conversations with the same perky, Stepford Wife-ish-sounding artificial female voice. It’s getting a bit creepy. While we’re at it, let’s talk about my biggest customer support pet peeve. With all of the sophisticated software available today, why is it that I have to give my account number and god knows what else to this robot lady, and then repeat all of the same information to the first live person that I speak with, as well as everyone that they transfer my call to? I understand security concerns, but geez! Hasn’t anyone heard of data sharing and company firewalls?

“INTERNET COMPANIES”

The advent of the Internet has allowed for the creation of the ultimate small company: one man or woman, behind an Internet site. These companies invariably list no contact phone number or physical address. You can only email them for support, or if you’re really lucky, IM them. Unfortunately, potential customers figured out that this is likely a one man operation long ago. They will be reluctant to buy your product as a result, because they don’t believe you are “for real”, or at least they won’t be able to get good support. If you have the capability of offering real support, I urge you not to present your company in the image of one of these “Internet companies”. If you do, it will cost you business.

FEE-ONLY TECH SUPPPORT

I won’t deny that is some cases tech support fees are justifiable, and necessary. Even for consumer tech products. But in most cases tech support, and least at some level and for some period of time, really needs to be bundled into the base product offering. This trend came about with the intention of making tech support a “profit center”. While I believe that tech support can drive profits, in many cases it shouldn’t be done by attempting to extract additional money from customers (especially upfront or on the initial call) for the right to call in to get product issues fixed. There is a standard of care that most customers believe is fair: Help them get the product installed, up and running. Take care of any bugs or product defects. If you don’t meet this standard, you will likely pay for it yourself–in reduced customer satisfaction and loyalty.

I want to emphasize that I am not a racist, market protectionist, political isolationist or technophobe. I have nothing against a man or woman working in a call center India, doing their best to do their job. I’m also a tech guy, and certainly love the idea of using technology to increase labor force productivity. But as a marketer, above all else, I believe in the old axiom: THE CUSTOMER IS ALWAYS KING. Customer service today is not treating the customer as King, but like the lowest creature on the food chain. It’s possible that we are just undergoing a period of “growing pains”, implementation issues, and the new customer service methods discussed here will be the way to go in the long run. Maybe technology maturity and some additional training for the folks in those faraway call centers will correct the current painful situation.

BIG OPPORTUNITY TO GAIN AN ADVANTAGE

But my guess is that those corrective measures are a long way off. In the meantime, there is a big opportunity for savvy software and tech companies to use this “gap” that has occurred in most company’s customer service, to gain a strategic advantage in their market segment.

Unfortunately, in my Software and High Tech Practice at PJM Consulting, I find that customer service operations are usually an afterthought to senior management–especially in early stage companies. It’s understandable, since it doesn’t appear to be part of the strategic core that will mean the difference between success and failure for a young company. But in today’s world, used properly, customer and tech support can indeed be a strategic weapon.

Not only can good support cement the relationship with the customer and build long term loyalty, but don’t forget that you’ve got a customer on the line! Remember the old adage I mentioned above about your current customers
being the best place for incremental business? Once you’ve satisfied the caller’s concerns, you have an opportunity to educate them about new offerings, present them with a special offer, etc. The possibilities are nearly endless to profit from this customer interaction. This interaction by the way REQUIRED NO INCREMENTAL MARKETING EXPENSES TO INITIATE. Companies don’t realize the opportunity that they are leaving on the table, both to increase customer loyalty, and sell incremental offers to existing customers.

DIFFERENTIATION FROM COMMODITIES

Let’s talk about a specific example: HP & Dell in the PC business. I’m an old HP alumnus, and until recently, a long time Dell customer. Over a long period of time, customer support, specifically technical support– has gone from a major strength, to a nightmare for customers of both companies. At various stages of the customer ownership lifecycle, both of these companies throw every obstacle I’ve discussed in this article at you–Endless phone trees, automated voice attendants, email-only or IM-only tech support, and clueless representatives in foriegn call centers. PCs are as close to a commodity as anything in the High Tech business these days. These two market leaders, along with their competitors, are pretty much slugging it out on price (and brand, which means less and less in a standards-driven market like PCs). This is certainly not the way to achieve high gross margins, let alone customer loyalty.

Personally, I’d pay 10-15% more to buy a computer from a company who guaranteed good, local tech support. I run my business on my PC; when a problem occurs that I can’t fix on my own, it is often excruciatingly painful. I’m sure that these companies don’t believe that I, or many others, would pay more. But if a PC company put forth a well-developed marketing message touting their emphasis on technical support and customer service–and stuck with it–they would obtain a customer for life. Now, I may not have been willing to pay such a premium 10-15 years ago, before real customer service “ended”. I may have gone for the lowest price. But with personal service and support nearly gone the way of the Dodo bird (become extinct), things are different. Since good, personalized tech support has become a scarce commodity–it is therefore an opportunity that some smart company can exploit.

SUMMARY

There’s a big opportunity out there for smart technology companies to go against the current trends in customer service and tech support. Make it easy for people to reach you, using whatever method they prefer. I’m suggesting short phone trees, live operators, and an adequate number of representatives to eliminate long waits. Focusing completely on expense control or technology solutions, not personal service, is a mistake for tech companies. Savvy, “forward-thinking” software and tech companies can increase market share and customer loyalty with an “old school” approach–personalized customer service and support.

That’s what I have to say about the state of customer and tech support today–what’s your opinion? Post a comment if you’d like to discuss this further.

Phil Morettini
PJM Consulting
http://www.pjmconsult.com/

2 Comments by admin on May 6, 2008
filed in Corporate Strategy, General Management, Operations, Retail, sales
tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

System Integration vs. Product Development

I’ve recently engaged on assignments with two new clients. Both of them have businesses selling to large, blue chip customers. Customers of the size that are used to “having it their way”; as a result, getting a deal with them often includes the need for a lot of customization.

The interesting thing about these two clients is how they perceive and approach that need to customize.

A Tale of Two Companies

Company A views customization somewhat as a pain and distraction, something to be controlled–I am assisting them with creating a standard solution offering menu outlining the “Base” offering, with a list of options available at an added cost. They really want to discourage certain customizations, absolutely won’t do some things that will be asked, and want to make sure that they charge dearly for items that they find painful. They have the classic mentality of a product company; they want to do the amount of customization necessary to make a large sale to this important customer–but NO more than they have to.

Company B, which also considers itself a product company, has a very different mentality about customization. They welcome it, pride themselves on it, and position themselves to these potential large clients as someone that can quickly bring solutions to the client, customized to their desires. They want their big account reps to be scouring the big accounts for unique pain points or opportunities, which might fall within the company’s core capabilities, enabling them to propose a customized solution. In fact, up till now, their product development approach has really been to find out what individual accounts want–and build it for them.

So which of these two business models is the best way for technology companies to go?

System Integration Business Models

Advantages:
*More flexible and able to change with shifts in the marketplace
*Not as capital-intensive due to less “betting” on upfront product development
*Easier to grow business organically with internally-generated capital than in a product business

Disadvantages:
*Less risk due to lower upfront investments
*More competition; System Integration is an “easier-entry” business
*Generally lower operating margins
*Growth is less scalable than a product-oriented company

Product-Focused Business Models

Advantages:
*Provides greater opportunity for strategic advantage and resulting fast growth
*Less competition if a product/brand/technology differential advantage is created
*Can scale much quicker if a hit product is developed
*Higher operating margins if product is successful
*Usually more marketing-driven and less labor-intensive
*If creating a very large company is the goal, much easier to raise outside capital

Disadvantages:
*Much more risk of “crib death”, resulting in complete capital loss if first product has problems in development or marketing
*Harder to “get over the hump”; success is harder to come by, and success often happens as a step function after a difficult startup period

First of all, I want to emphasize that there isn’t necessarily a “wrong” approach with either of these business models. You can make a lot of money pursuing either model. Both of the companies I have used as models have managed to attract blue chip customer which would be the envy of any company. What we are really talking about here is the difference between a classic product-driven company and a system integrator.

Company A is that classic product-driven company. They customize when they have to, but also have a point where they will say “no”.

Company B also self-identifies itself as a product company, and in fact they have built their business around a small number of standard offerings. But as their core strategic advantage they really are utilizing relationships, the ability to customize beyond what standard product companies (especially larger ones) are willing to do, as well as to react very quickly to customer requests. They’ve built a very nice business doing this, but have some frustrations as well. They are highly dependent upon a small number of major accounts for virtually all of their revenue, and have the major revenue/profit swings that are associated with this type of business–up one year, back down the next. They also are in constant fear that a larger company will come along and “take away” their marketplace, because they’ve continuously failed to create new products which build upon a core offering which is very dated technologically. The core offering appears long-in-tooth and vulnerable. This company is very account-focused, and the lack of a market focus has kept them from being able to create additional, broadly marketable products which provide them with a strong proprietary advantage (and causes a lack of sleep at night!)

Company A understands who they are and what they want. That doesn’t guarantee success, but it makes it much easier to build a plan that everyone agrees on. At that point success or failure usually depends upon execution, unless the plan is awful. If failure ensues in this scenario, more times than not, the problem is in execution. Company B’s biggest problem is that they are floating right in the middle between the two business models. They are trying to leverage both of these business models, and struggling with execution, in some ways with both.

SUMMARY
It isn’t impossible to combine these two business models successfully. I’m sure that many of you can’t point to several examples of such a very successful compromise. In fact, many technology companies combine both of these models to some extent, with good success. But I find that usually, a company identifies itself primarily as a product company first, or a systems integrator. That identification is their strategic focus, and takes precedence when prioritizing the use of always scarce assets.

The secondary business model is usually utilized on an opportunistic basis. Product companies integrate and customize as needed to get a big deal. Integrators create “products” to fill the needs of a big account, and sometimes happily find they are saleable to other accounts. Occasionally, these “products” prove so widely saleable that they are spun off into a separate product company, or the integrator changes its focus into becoming a full-blown product company.

The most important thing, in my opinion, is to understand who you are, and what you are trying to accomplish strategically. It’s the company’s that are trying to leverage both business models at once, without one model taking the lead, that gets itself in a heap of trouble. That’s my opinion–what’s yours?

Phil Morettini
PJM Consulting
www.pjmconsult.com

1 Comment by admin on September 21, 2007
filed in Business Models, Corporate Strategy, Financing, Operations, Software/Product Development, Startup/Early Stage, VARs
tagged , , , , , , ,
« Older Posts