As global competition invades more and more markets, established companies are fighting tougher and tougher battles against commoditization. Whether their niche is business-process outsourcing, consumer electronics or air travel, management teams are asking themselves: How can our company continue to differentiate itself from our competitors? The short answer is, either with customer service or radically lower cost. In today’s economy, both paths demand innovating with IT systems in ways the competition will find difficult to copy.

Despite the seeming obviousness of this idea, however, relatively few companies are making it happen. There is a persistent problem in the relationship between the IT department and the rest of the corporation that blocks the effective use of IT capabilities when it comes to differentiating core products and services. Allow me to suggest an approach to breaking through this barrier.

The challenge, in essence, is to align IT investment with business priorities. The problem is that businesses are remarkably foggy on what their priorities are. Ask any consultant. When consultants interview the executive team individually and ask each person what the corporation’s overall strategy is, they receive many thoughtful answers. Unfortunately, these answers rarely converge. The dirty secret is that most corporations do not have a unified corporate strategy. So, in effect, we are asking IT to align with something that does not exist, and we should not be surprised when the results are poor.

Obviously, the long-term fix for this is to align the corporation around a single strategy. But that’s not in IT’s power to accomplish. What IT must do instead is determine the pecking order of power among the various competing corporate strategies and align itself with the most powerful first, then the second most powerful and so on. There won’t be enough resources to fund everyone’s strategy, so it is important to get to the most important ones first. Of course, if you are lucky enough to work for a corporation that does have a unified strategy, you can probably stop right there.

But let’s say you are not so lucky. Now what? The first step is to sit down with the executive in charge of the highest-priority operation or P&L and have a heart-to-heart about the following questions:

When you look at our corporation’s performance in the marketplace, what companies represent our stiffest competition? (List two or three. Then answer the following questions for each competitor.) 1. What are they so good at? 2. Is our goal to equal or beat them at that? 3. Is there some other thing that we do, or could do, that they in turn would find hard to compete with? 4. Is it our plan to commit significant resources to such an activity?

Once you get those answers, find out how the executive would define: 1. your company’s primary competitive differentiator today; 2. its best chance for equal or greater differentiation tomorrow; and 3. the most important business initiatives under way to create that future competitive differentiation.

Stop there. Once you have this input, thank the executive for his time and explain that you would like to think about the IT implications of this strategy and come back with a plan to maximize the value from IT investments going forward. Back in your office, gather your best and brightest around you for the following exercise, which we will call core/context analysis.

Identifying Your Core Functions

In this exercise, something is core if, and only if, it contributes to the corporation’s primary effort to create competitive differentiation. All other activities, by definition, are context. For example, at Southwest Airlines low-cost fares are core, and customer amenities are context.

Conversely, at United Air Lines customer amenities are core, and low-cost fares are context. At Domino’s Pizza, customer delivery is core; at Pizza Hut, it’s context. At Volvo, safety is core; at Ford it is context.

Now many context activities are extremely important, even if they are not differentiating. So to make sure we register this dimension as well, we also ask whether a given activity is mission-critical. Mission-critical activities may be core or context; their key feature is that falling short in their execution has severe negative consequences. For example, not losing customers’ luggage is a mission-critical task for all airlines, but core to none. Same goes for building a safe car; at Ford, hybrid fuel economy may be core, but the consequences of unsafe vehicles are totally unacceptable.

In light of this model, the most important processes to support are those that are both core and mission-critical. Even here, there is a subtlety that can be lost. Often, the goal of minimizing mission-critical risk can be at odds with increasing competitive differentiation. For example, suppose you could ship an ugly iPod by Christmas but would risk missing the holiday sales window to make a beautiful one. It is crucial that differentiation be given the priority. That is, if style is core (and at Apple it surely is) then one cannot sacrifice it, despite the risk. The reason is simple: Without competitive differentiation, the entire corporate strategy is bankrupt.

This doesn’t mean you can abrogate your responsibility to manage mission-critical risk, only that you must go out of your way to make sure it does not interfere with creating core processes. IT can help you create new core initiatives, but they are not always understood to be strategic at first.

Investing According to Analysis

Creating new core is the domain of pilot projects and skunk works. Typically, the company is still incubating the new capability, not exposing it yet to the marketplace at large, and not expecting significant revenue from it in the short term. That’s why it is not yet mission-critical. But it is incredibly strategic, particularly if you can shorten a new product or service’s time to market. Here’s where IT may be able to make a big difference, whether it is via converged communications and computing systems that speed collaboration, beta customer feedback systems that shorten cycle time, or supply chain management that supports rapid prototyping. But if IT resources are allocated by revenue contribution, then this quadrant will always get short shrift, and the company will lose precious time to market in an act of false economy. (That’s why it’s so important to allocate resources based on a core/context analysis.)

By contrast, putting IT in service to mission-critical context makes all kinds of sense to everyone involved. If competitive differentiation is not a key goal, then standardization is a great alternative, and nothing imposes standardization better than IT systems. Moreover, once processes have been standardized, they can be reengineered to extract resources either through automation or eventual outsourcing, thereby freeing up those resources to be invested in core activities.

The key here is to recognize that if a process is mission-critical but not core, then there is nothing to gain from differentiating its outputs. Therefore, user requests for nonstandard output need not—indeed, should not—be prioritized because they are not strategic. For example, users often argue that since the systems are being charged back to their budget, they should be entitled to get what they want for their money. Not so. It is not their money; it is the company's money, and they have a fiduciary responsibility to get a good return on it. There is more strategic value in standardizing mission-critical context processes because it frees resources to invest in strategic differentiation elsewhere.

Finally, that leaves processes that are neither core nor mission-critical—facilities management, training seminars, office supplies procurement and the like. These cry out for outsourcing. Here, IT can make the biggest contribution by preparing the processes for service-level management. That is, prior to transferring the work to another party, IT can first determine what the standards of acceptable work product are, establish metrics that track to those standards and even pilot those metrics while the work is still in-house. Then when the work is outsourced, the company has a low-touch, high-reliability mechanism for ensuring vendor performance.

The goal of all this analysis is to fund next-generation innovation by migrating resources from context to core. This not only improves returns but also helps reduce resistance to change, since the resources being transferred are often the very people who would otherwise be obstructing innovation.

The biggest challenge is extracting resources from mission-critical activities. The key to success here is to win the line-of-business executive sponsor’s support for standardizing these processes. That can be done if you can demonstrate how IT can redeploy those resources in support of core initiatives. Armed with this analysis, you now can go back to the business executive with a plan designed, first, to accelerate initiatives targeted at competitive differentiation and, second, to manage risk while freeing up resources for next-generation innovations.

 

编辑 | 阅读全文(742) | 回复(0),scwys 发表于 2006-5-5 15:14

     在这个每个企业都控制IT预算、IT成本的时代,IT面临着这样一个困境: 一方面是控制得越来越紧的IT资源,一方面是没完没了的业务需求;一方面是IT员工抱怨有干不完的活儿,一方面是用户满意度迟迟不见提高。相信这是很多IT经理们所面临的一个头疼问题。为什么用户的需求总是没完没了呢?下面这篇文章分析认为,主要是因为满足这些业务需求用户不需要付出一个子儿,如果IT只是简单地对需求进行优先级排列,只作优先级高的,那么IT又会被抱怨官僚、反应慢等等。怎么好解决这个问题呢?作者为我们根据市场经济的原理开出了一个药方: IT账单(checkbook)。究竟是怎么回事呢?请详见下文:

By N. Dean Meyer

“We’ve got to manage clients’ expectations.” I hear that phrase from cios all the time, and I hate it. It evokes the image of manipulating others’ feelings. But the problem is real. Clients generally expect more of an internal service provider like IT than the organization can deliver with its limited resources.

Will, the CIO in a not-for-profit health-care provider, got through the budget planning process, and as usual, the watchword was “cut!” He ended up with fewer resources and even more “keep the lights on” operational work (thanks to last year’s projects). That left less than ever for new projects.

But, of course this reality didn’t stop clients from wanting new things. And lots of them! Thus, the gap between clients’ demands and available resources was larger than ever. Will figured this was a good time to think about managing clients’ expectations.

Source of Unrealistic Expectations
Where do unrealistic expectations come from?

It’s simple: Like the proverbial kid in a candy story, clients want everything because they don’t have to pay for anything. When price is zero, demand approaches infinity.

So the kids clamor for everything. Daddy says no because he knows the limit of his checkbook and is aware of other competing demands. And of course when Daddy says no, Daddy is the villain.

Similarly, Will knew the limit of his IT organization’s resources. And whenever he said no, IT was the villain. Realizing this, Will set up a governance process, foisting the villain role off on a committee of executives. What did this accomplish? Clients still wanted more than IT could deliver, and all the executive committee could say was, “Here’s our sense of priorities. Now do all the high-priority items.”

Thanks to the committee, IT was now looking bureaucratic and unresponsive, and Will still found himself grumbling about managing expectations.

The Simple Solution
The key to solving the “managing expectations” problem is found in market economics. Essentially, give the kid in the candy store an allowance and let them buy whatever they want. In corporate terms, clients need a sense of how much is in their checkbooks and what everything costs.

I’m not talking about chargebacks. A fee-for-service internal economy is the most advanced and most challenging form. But chargebacks aren’t necessary to make market economics work within corporations.

Two ingredients are necessary: a defined checkbook which clients own and manage; and prices for everything IT sells.

With these two ingredients, IT can establish a non-bureaucratic, client-driven portfolio-management process. Then, clients will never expect more than they can afford to buy. Sure, they’ll want more. We all want more than we can afford. But we don’t blame the store when we can’t afford everything in it. Clients will come to understand that the limit is the corporation’s spending power, not in the IT organization.

Client Checkbooks
The first ingredient in this systematic solution is a well-defined checkbook, handed over to clients to manage. By “checkbook,” I don’t mean cash. Clients only get real money if IT has implemented chargebacks.

If you don’t charge fees for services, the checkbook represents a claim on IT resources. Think of the IT budget as a “pre-paid account”—money put on deposit by the corporation in order to buy things from IT all year long. Some of that budget should be managed by IT. The rest goes in the clients’ checkbook.

Specifically, there are two subsets of the budget which should be managed by IT rather than clients. One subset is funding for “corporate good” activities, which pays for services that IT does for the corporation as a whole, which competitors (like outsourcing vendors and decentralized IT groups) don’t have to do. It includes things like policy coordination, architectural standards, “consumers report” style research like on PC configurations, and participating in non-IT tasks like corporate committees and community-action programs. (It does not include mass-market commodities like desktops, interconnectivity and e-mail, which are services to clients.)

The other subset of the budget that IT should manage is one-time funding for improvements in the IT organization. This includes both capital and operating expense to fund infrastructure (anything that’s capitalized and depreciated), start-ups of new lines of business, and other major organizational improvements. Think of it like a loan from the bank, paid back (in some cases) through depreciation.

The rest of the IT budget belongs to clients. It covers all their ongoing operational services (the “keeps the lights on” activities) plus new projects. This portion of the IT budget must be isolated, and then turned over to clients to manage. There are various types of client checkbook management processes. Clients may manage their checkbook with a corporatewide committee, or it may be divided among the business units and managed locally.

Prices
Once clients own a checkbook, they need to know what everything costs—the second ingredient in systematically managing expectations.

Clients need to know the cost of ongoing services, so they understand where much of their checkbook is going and have an incentive to shut down less-valuable services to free up resources for new things. And they need to know the cost of all the new projects and services they might want.

It’s critically important that prices represent the true, full cost to shareholders of each purchase decision. Anything less will cause clients to buy more than is economic. Worse, with marginal-cost pricing, internal support functions won’t be able to grow as the IT business grows, and the “managing expectations” problem will crop up again in a different spot in the IT organization. (The pitfalls of marginal-cost pricing are described in detail in my book, The Internal Economy.)

Every product and service should be priced at a rate that includes all direct costs plus a fair share of indirect costs. Indirect costs include:

·  The cost of staff’s “unbillable” time for sustenance activities like their own training, new-product research and client relations.

·  External-indirect expenses to train and equip staff and to support the infrastructure.

·  Internal-indirect expenses when one IT group “sells” its services to another IT group; for example, infrastructure engineers sell upgrades to the operations group, a cost which is spread over all the services sold by the operations group.

·  Overhead that’s spread across the entire IT organization.

The proper name for this is activity-based costing. There are many challenges in making ABC practical. Two key challenges are: First, to define each IT group’s products and services, both those sold to clients and those sold internally. Second, to get all the indirect costs spread in the right places, without circularity (A sells to B, who sells to C, who in turn sells to A).

Single Solution
The challenge of managing expectations comes down to two fundamental financial processes: budgeting and pricing. The budget must sort out how much goes in the clients’ checkbook(s) versus resources to be managed by IT. And prices must represent the true, full cost of everything clients might buy.

These are not really two separate things. You wouldn’t want to quote a cost in the budget and then charge a rate during the year that adds up to a different number! Both budgets and prices should be developed by a single, integrated operational planning process. The planning process begins by identifying the lines of business within the IT organization.

Then, each manager lists all the deliverables (products and services) he/she might sell (internally and to clients) in the year ahead. This becomes the basis for a service catalog designed around clients’ purchase decisions. These deliverables are prioritized, leading to a “keep the lights on” pessimistic forecast and an optimistic growth forecast.

Analysis includes the types of staff (employees and contractors) to be utilized, the billable-time ratios for each, the costs of each and of course direct and indirect expenses. In this process, managers agree on what they’ll sell to one another and what overhead services they’ll build into their prices.

All indirect costs are carefully scrutinized by IT senior management. Then a budget is presented for deliverables instead of for cost-factors like compensation, travel and training. This leads to a rational discussion of what the corporation will and won’t buy from IT in the year ahead.

Already, clients know what to expect of IT. Furthermore, knowing what the budget is meant to pay for allows IT to sort funds into the various checkbooks, which is the basis for an ongoing, dynamic portfolio-management process.

Finally, prices are extracted from this data-cube.

This integrated operational planning, budgeting, and pricing process is the first step in a systematic approach to managing expectations. This process can be done either to prepare for the next budget cycle, or mid-year to reverse-engineer the current budget and set up the process ahead of the next cycle. In either case, expectations and resources will snap into alignment once results are communicated to clients.

The Systematic Approach
The “managing expectations” problem can’t be solved by lectures on IT’s limits, nor by bureaucratic committees and approval processes. Only a systematic approach solves the problem in the right way, once and for all.

The systematic solution is found in market economics and an integrated operational planning, activity-based budgeting and pricing process.

 

编辑 | 阅读全文(457) | 回复(0),scwys 发表于 2005-12-30 12:7

吴敬琏直陈三大障碍:中国经济增长质量很差

■各级政府保持着对重要资源的配置权力

■以GDP增长作为考核各级政府政绩的主要标志

■税收主要来源于增值税,使得各级政府过分关注产值增长

 本报上海11月28日电“改革开放以来我国一直试图转向现代经济增长模式和新型工业化道路,但迄今为止,尚未成功。”今天,著名经济学家吴敬琏在中欧国际工商学院主办的“中国汽车产业高峰论坛”上表示,中国经济现在遇到的基本问题是转变增长模式与工业化道路,应该从西方国家第一次产业革命以后的增长模式转变为第二次产业革命以后新的增长模式,即现代经济增长模式。

 吴敬琏说,“有人说我们现在的状态就是,消耗了不可再生资源,破坏了环境,又背负倾销的恶名,最后还没有赚到多少钱”.我国目前遇到很多经济社会问题,归根结底都是因为我国的经济增长模式没有转变过来。

 吴敬琏指出,要转变增长方式,第9个五年计划就正式提出了,到了第11个五年规划又一次提出,说明我们没有很快很好地转过来。

  吴敬琏表示,旧体制遗留下来一些不良的“东西”,包括第一,是各级政府保持着对重要资源,比如说土地、信贷等的配置权力;第二,是以GDP增长作为考核各级政府政绩的主要标志;第三,虽然财税体制有了很大进步,但是税收主要来源于增值税,其中一半是生产型的增值税,中央拿75%,地方拿25%,这就使得各级政府过分关注产值的增长。

  吴敬琏指出,在现行政绩标准和财税体制压力以及扭曲的要素价格支持下,许多政府官员把“结构调整”理解为大量投入土地、信贷等资源,营建“形象工程”和“政绩工程”,造成了大规模投资和产业结构“重型化”的热潮。

  他认为,这会造成很严重的后果,比如不能“有效地配置资源;放松技术创新和提高效率的努力;造成煤电油运及其他资源的高度紧张;造成生态环境破坏;增加解决就业问题的难度;抑制服务业的发展;引发短期的和长期的金融问题。

 最基本的一条,他认为,就是这种工业化的道路和这种增长模式违反了经济基本的原则,就是发挥比较优势。中国的资源特点是人力资源丰富,自然资源短缺,资本资源紧俏,生态环境脆弱。如果不能够转到现代经济增长,依靠技术进步,依靠效率提高来支撑增长,那么结果就会是扬短避长,降低经济的总体效率。所以增长数量成绩非常好,可是增长的质量非常的差。

编辑 | 阅读全文(275) | 回复(0),scwys 发表于 2005-11-30 10:2

因为考虑为公司培养更多合格的项目经理人才,我所带领的项目管理办公室(PMO)开始特别关注项目经理所应该具备的能力。从来自PMI的专家J.D.佛雷姆先生的经典著作<项目管理能力>一书中,我找到了自己比较认可的答案。佛雷姆先生先生从20世纪90年代开始就成立一个课题小组,通过大量探讨发现,以下能力是一个合格的项目经理所应该具有的:

1. 以结果为导向,坚毅; (Result-oriented)

2. 关注细节;  (Focus on details)

3. 奉献精神;  (Commitment)

4. 清楚组织目标;  (Clear understanding of project objectives)

5. 具有政治头脑;  (Political skills)

6. 具有成本意识;  (Cost/budget control)

7. 了解商业运作的基本原理和流程;   (Business processes)

8. 能够理解项目利益相关者的需求;(即需求管理, 期望管理, 沟通管理)

9. 善于应对不确定性,令人感到失望的情况; (即变革管理和风险管理)

10. 具有良好的谈判技巧; (沟通与谈判技巧)

11. 具有工作所需要的技术。(Technical skills)

作者认为,实际上是没有一个人可以全面满足以上所有的要求,但有一点可以肯定: 具有以上能力越多的项目经理越出色,能更有效地完成自己的工作任务. 而我个人的耳闻目睹告诉我,5 6 8 9这几项技能是我所接触过的项目经理们相对比较薄弱但往往会导致项目出现重要问题的

编辑 | 阅读全文(685) | 回复(0),scwys 发表于 2005-7-19 14:19

最近,在台湾、新加坡的青年人中流传着一封取名为终极期望的信,它是美国头号员工激励专家鲍伯·尼尔森在《不要只做我告诉你的事,请做需要做的事》一书中虚拟的一封信,该书被许多公司作为员工培训的核心读本。

  信的全文如下:

亲爱的员工:

  我们之所以聘用你,是因为你能满足我们一些紧迫的需求。如果没有你也能顺利满足要求,我们就不必费这个劲了。但是,我们深信需要有一个拥有你那样的技能和经验的人,并且认为你正是帮助我们实现目标的最佳人选。于是,我们给了你这个职位,而你欣然接受了。谢谢!在你任职期间,你会被要求做许多事情:一般性的职责,特别的任务,团队和个人项目。你会有很多机会超越他人,显示你的优秀,并向我们证明当初聘用你的决定是多么明智。

  然而,有一项最重要的职责,或许你的上司永远都会对你秘而不宣,但你在任职期间要始终牢牢地记在心里。那就是企业对你的终极期望 永远做非常需要做的事,而不必等待别人要求你去做。

  是的,我们是聘你来工作的,但更重要的,是聘你来为了公司的最大利益,而随时随地思考、运用你的判断力并采取行动的。

  如果此后再也没有人向你提及这个原则,千万别误以为这是因为它不再重要了或者我们改变了看法。我们有可能是在处理繁忙的日常业务、在应对没有止境的操作变化、在种种争分夺秒的活动中抽不出身来。我们日复一日的工作实践,或许会让你觉得这个原则已不再适用了。但是,不要被这表象所蒙蔽。

  一刻都不要忘记企业对你的终极期望。在你和我们的雇佣关系存续期间,让它始终伴随你左右,成为你积极主动工作的一盏指路明灯,时时刻刻鞭策着你思考和行动。

  只要你是我们的员工,你就拥有我们的许可:为我们共同的最佳利益而积极主动地行动。

  在任何时候,如果你感觉到我们没有做对事情 没有做对我们大家都有益的事情 请明白地说出来。你拥有我们的许可:有权在必要的时候直言不讳陈述己见,提出你的建议,或是质疑某项行动或决定。

  这并不意味着我们必定会认同你的看法,或是必然改变我们现有的做法;但是,我们将始终乐于倾听,在你看来什么将有助于更好地达成我们所追求的成效和目标,并在这一过程中创造一种自助助人的成功经验。

  如果你想寻求对既有工作程序的改变,你必须先努力了解既有的工作流程是如何运作的(及其原因)。先努力尝试着在既有的体系下开展工作,但如果你觉得这些体系需要改变,那就毫不犹豫地告诉我们。

  对于这封信所表达的主题,欢迎你随时和我以及公司中的其他成员展开讨论,或许我们都将因此更好地实现企业的终极期望。

你的真诚的经理

  又及:像其他许多很好的建议一样,终极期望也是简单不过的常识。但是,不要把听起来简单,等同于做起来简单。请将这一原则铭记在心,并有效,地贯彻到你的工作情境中。一旦你明白了终极期望,你就必须在每日的工作中加以实践。再也没有比接受这个挑战,对你获得工作、事业以及人生的成功更至关重要的了。

 

编辑 | 阅读全文(472) | 回复(1),scwys 发表于 2005-6-8 9:50
(共 5 条) 上一页 1 下一页

仅列出标题