6 ms·

I see this a lot in consulting. When a new CIO (or CEO or other C level) arrives, they want to make their mark with a digital transformation intiative. This usu

by S_A_P 7y ago

I see this a lot in consulting. When a new CIO (or CEO or other C level) arrives, they want to make their mark with a digital transformation intiative. This usually just means that the new C level employee is coming into a medium to large business and would like to add a bullet point to their resume and get that new shiny object everyone is talking about. Tableau, Salesforce, Data lakes, blockchain, ERP, Identity Management and "cloud" projects are often the result. It seems to also stem from the new C level employee having a close relationship with a sales rep/partner/C level employee at the vendor. Left a project a couple years ago that had Hadoop interfaces from every system. The user count of all this data? exactly 0. One somewhat disturbing trend I've seen at some of the largest corporations- cut/outsource IT support staff to near egregiously low levels to "save money". At the same time kick off 7-9 figure ERP/consulting projects that at best provide fractional value to the organization. Of course there are counterpoints to this. One of Houston's major pipeline operators pulled off a digital transformation and actually ended up with well designed, highly integrated and easily maintained systems. It took about 5-7 years and had a few reboots, but it eventually landed. That brings me to my final point. These projects often have a timeline that is divorced from reality. Whatever time frame you think a major IT project will take. Double it. twice, then add 50% and you are close. It also seems that C level folks are hesitant to hire boutique/small shops that have industry experience and years of experience in favor of big consulting. Nobody every gets fired for hiring Accenture/Deloitte/PwC. What usually happens in the non trivial niches is that these big shops sleeve the boutiques through them to get things done...

maxxxxx 7y ago
All you are writing sounds exactly like my company.
- ct520 7y ago
  Ditto. Working in the enterprise industry I can relate to a lot of what SAP is talking about.
lzol 7y ago
This resonates so much and seems to be a major trend in non-traditional tech companies. I've mostly worked in the financial industry and the executives' knowledge of technology is almost always horrible. As you said, a couple buzz words and very set opinions on the ways to do things. It's like they get pet projects in their head from reading an article in a magazine and get locked into it. I don't really have an issue with CXXs being ignorant about a subject. No one knows everything. What I do have an issue with is when they act like an expert ignoring all the people who are actually experts in a particular area. It'd be like me going into a room full of IT people and saying EBITDA a bunch of times claiming to be an accounting wizard ready to lead a major initiative. It's frustrating but I've learned all I can really do is smile and watch the show.
- noir_lord 7y ago
  > It's like they get pet projects in their head from reading an article in a magazine and get locked into it. It's not like that, it's often exactly that. I'm extremely fortunate in that while my boss sets the goals he never specifies how they should be achieved. That means I get to implement them as we need them. I'll never underestimate the value of smart management :).
  - alecco 7y ago
    >> It's like they get pet projects in their head from reading an article in a magazine and get locked into it. >It's not like that, it's often exactly that. And it usually is sold also from within from know-it-all primadonnas who want to climb the ladder. Or at least put something "spectacular" on their CV.
    - noir_lord 7y ago
      Start a ground breaking project that will be amazing in 2 years. Get promoted/leave for more money after 18mths. 2 years rolls around, everything is on fire but the guy with the matches is nowhere to be found. Sounds very very familiar to me.
bt3 7y ago
> Nobody every gets fired for hiring Accenture/Deloitte/PwC. What usually happens in the non trivial niches is that these big shops sleeve the boutiques through them to get things done... To provide a prospective as someone who works for a consulting firm like the ones you've mentioned... Hiring the "big" firms versus boutiques is a lot about a perception of risk, maintaining partnerships (procurement with new vendors is a nightmare everywhere), and leveraging experiences across other F500. For big implementations, think any ERP, our consulting teams can number 100+. Overkill? Probably, but there are few boutiques that have those kind of resources. And each of those 100 have more experience doing implementation work across a range of companies. It's a bit of a vicious cycle for boutiques where they will ultimately struggle to be competitive in these types of bids without seriously underpricing their services, which ends up meaning fewer resources or a less comprehensive scope. As a side note, when projects go south, the company CIO isn't getting fired, but I've know many leaders (from the consulting side) getting let go for botching multi million dollar contracts.
- S_A_P 7y ago
  Agreed. There is a perceived risk with the F500 so they may spend more to do something than is required because they feel they have recourse with the big shops. There are some good teams of folks out there, but there are also some shops that are happy to send a dozen folks @250-300/hr that generate process maps in visio and power point slides instead of delivering/implementing a project. I have seen these big shops deliver in a timely manner and I have seen boondoggles that waste millions. I don't think they are by default "bad", I just think they are not necessarily the right choice in some circumstances, and the right option is to hire the boutique niche firm that specializes in what they need. This lack of awareness is exactly what the article brings to light. CIO shoots down VP who needs timely solution for long protracted big rock implementation.
  - jlj 7y ago
    There's a strong case for decoupling the process flows, requirements, business analysis, scoping, current state understanding; from the implementation. Maybe even having a separate consulting firm do that work up front before going to bid on the ERP. Many ERP implementations fail because of wrong assumptions about the business, or inflexibility of the client to modify their business process to fit the ERP. Enter expensive customizations. These types of projects also affect peoples' jobs and that can bring up fears of being replaced that can quickly derail morale on a project. Successful projects empower the people with hands on the keyboard who know and live those processes, to own and define their future process too. When the consultants or executives are making future business process decisions without that experience, it is risky.
argd678 7y ago
> One somewhat disturbing trend I've seen at some of the largest corporations- cut/outsource IT support staff to near egregiously low levels to "save money". I see the opposite too, they just staff up on tons of IT people thinking they have a resource shortage, and end up with massive departments that deliver just a little as before. > It also seems that C level folks are hesitant to hire boutique/small shops that have industry experience and years of experience in favor of big consulting. The reason this makes sense is because they need to work with companies that have enough resources that they can be really inefficient and have enough capital that they can run for long periods of time and not go under. It’s more of an insurance policy, the quality of the work would be better at the smaller shop of course but they likely couldn’t complete it due to bureaucracy.
diveanon 7y ago
I'm convinced that the majority of Salesforce implementations are done so that C level execs aren't the odd one out that isn't using Salesforce during their next round of golf.
snowwrestler 7y ago
We've got a Salesforce implementation going at the nonprofit where I work. While there was some debate about which big CRM we'd buy, the need to consolidate was blindingly obvious. Why? Because our organization has been quite forward thinking about allowing managers and executives to source the technology they think they to succeed. As this article advocates for, IT was largely consultative rather than dictatorial, and a lot of business units were able to pick what they wanted. But what this has left us with is dozens of places where customer data was being stored, some of them now past their end of life. No central visibility into customer experience. People getting multiple copies of the same email from different departments using different email platforms. Poor deliverability. Subscriptions on random credit cards that suddenly turn off because the person left and no one knows how to get into the admin account and update the card. We hired a boutique shop to do the Salesforce implementation; we're not scared of doing that. Unfortunately this time it did not pay off... their performance fell off, to the point that they couldn't even reply to emails on time. As sometimes happens with small firms, they grew too fast and exceeded their ability to operate. We can't wait for them to figure it out... so here we go with a big dog firm. Let's see how that goes. Maybe I'm lucky in who I work with, but I find the "add a bullet point to the resume" take to be maybe a bit too cynical. Tableau, Salesforce, data lakes, ERP, identity management, and "cloud" infrastructure each seem like useful tools if implemented smartly. (Note that I took out blockchain...)
- lmkg 7y ago
  One of the side-effects I'm seeing of GDPR is a stronger incentive to consolidate systems under central management. Companies that allowed different departments the leeway to control their own systems now find themselves literally not knowing how many different places a customer's data might live.
  - IMTDb 7y ago
    > stronger incentive to consolidate systems under central management Which in turn makes it easier to over analyse and identify user data, exactly what GDPR was meant to avoid.
ownagefool 7y ago
Digital transformations can be great. The problem is, anything great will be sold to you by consultancies as a way to give you more consultancy services, which is kind of the opposite of what a digital transformation should be.

by S_A_P 7y ago

maxxxxx 7y ago

All you are writing sounds exactly like my company.

ct520 7y ago
Ditto. Working in the enterprise industry I can relate to a lot of what SAP is talking about.

lzol 7y ago

This resonates so much and seems to be a major trend in non-traditional tech companies. I've mostly worked in the financial industry and the executives' knowledge of technology is almost always horrible. As you said, a couple buzz words and very set opinions on the ways to do things. It's like they get pet projects in their head from reading an article in a magazine and get locked into it. I don't really have an issue with CXXs being ignorant about a subject. No one knows everything. What I do have an issue with is when they act like an expert ignoring all the people who are actually experts in a particular area. It'd be like me going into a room full of IT people and saying EBITDA a bunch of times claiming to be an accounting wizard ready to lead a major initiative. It's frustrating but I've learned all I can really do is smile and watch the show.

noir_lord 7y ago
> It's like they get pet projects in their head from reading an article in a magazine and get locked into it. It's not like that, it's often exactly that. I'm extremely fortunate in that while my boss sets the goals he never specifies how they should be achieved. That means I get to implement them as we need them. I'll never underestimate the value of smart management :).
- alecco 7y ago
  >> It's like they get pet projects in their head from reading an article in a magazine and get locked into it. >It's not like that, it's often exactly that. And it usually is sold also from within from know-it-all primadonnas who want to climb the ladder. Or at least put something "spectacular" on their CV.
  - noir_lord 7y ago
    Start a ground breaking project that will be amazing in 2 years. Get promoted/leave for more money after 18mths. 2 years rolls around, everything is on fire but the guy with the matches is nowhere to be found. Sounds very very familiar to me.

bt3 7y ago

> Nobody every gets fired for hiring Accenture/Deloitte/PwC. What usually happens in the non trivial niches is that these big shops sleeve the boutiques through them to get things done... To provide a prospective as someone who works for a consulting firm like the ones you've mentioned... Hiring the "big" firms versus boutiques is a lot about a perception of risk, maintaining partnerships (procurement with new vendors is a nightmare everywhere), and leveraging experiences across other F500. For big implementations, think any ERP, our consulting teams can number 100+. Overkill? Probably, but there are few boutiques that have those kind of resources. And each of those 100 have more experience doing implementation work across a range of companies. It's a bit of a vicious cycle for boutiques where they will ultimately struggle to be competitive in these types of bids without seriously underpricing their services, which ends up meaning fewer resources or a less comprehensive scope. As a side note, when projects go south, the company CIO isn't getting fired, but I've know many leaders (from the consulting side) getting let go for botching multi million dollar contracts.

S_A_P 7y ago
Agreed. There is a perceived risk with the F500 so they may spend more to do something than is required because they feel they have recourse with the big shops. There are some good teams of folks out there, but there are also some shops that are happy to send a dozen folks @250-300/hr that generate process maps in visio and power point slides instead of delivering/implementing a project. I have seen these big shops deliver in a timely manner and I have seen boondoggles that waste millions. I don't think they are by default "bad", I just think they are not necessarily the right choice in some circumstances, and the right option is to hire the boutique niche firm that specializes in what they need. This lack of awareness is exactly what the article brings to light. CIO shoots down VP who needs timely solution for long protracted big rock implementation.
- jlj 7y ago
  There's a strong case for decoupling the process flows, requirements, business analysis, scoping, current state understanding; from the implementation. Maybe even having a separate consulting firm do that work up front before going to bid on the ERP. Many ERP implementations fail because of wrong assumptions about the business, or inflexibility of the client to modify their business process to fit the ERP. Enter expensive customizations. These types of projects also affect peoples' jobs and that can bring up fears of being replaced that can quickly derail morale on a project. Successful projects empower the people with hands on the keyboard who know and live those processes, to own and define their future process too. When the consultants or executives are making future business process decisions without that experience, it is risky.

argd678 7y ago

> One somewhat disturbing trend I've seen at some of the largest corporations- cut/outsource IT support staff to near egregiously low levels to "save money". I see the opposite too, they just staff up on tons of IT people thinking they have a resource shortage, and end up with massive departments that deliver just a little as before. > It also seems that C level folks are hesitant to hire boutique/small shops that have industry experience and years of experience in favor of big consulting. The reason this makes sense is because they need to work with companies that have enough resources that they can be really inefficient and have enough capital that they can run for long periods of time and not go under. It’s more of an insurance policy, the quality of the work would be better at the smaller shop of course but they likely couldn’t complete it due to bureaucracy.

diveanon 7y ago

I'm convinced that the majority of Salesforce implementations are done so that C level execs aren't the odd one out that isn't using Salesforce during their next round of golf.

snowwrestler 7y ago

We've got a Salesforce implementation going at the nonprofit where I work. While there was some debate about which big CRM we'd buy, the need to consolidate was blindingly obvious. Why? Because our organization has been quite forward thinking about allowing managers and executives to source the technology they think they to succeed. As this article advocates for, IT was largely consultative rather than dictatorial, and a lot of business units were able to pick what they wanted. But what this has left us with is dozens of places where customer data was being stored, some of them now past their end of life. No central visibility into customer experience. People getting multiple copies of the same email from different departments using different email platforms. Poor deliverability. Subscriptions on random credit cards that suddenly turn off because the person left and no one knows how to get into the admin account and update the card. We hired a boutique shop to do the Salesforce implementation; we're not scared of doing that. Unfortunately this time it did not pay off... their performance fell off, to the point that they couldn't even reply to emails on time. As sometimes happens with small firms, they grew too fast and exceeded their ability to operate. We can't wait for them to figure it out... so here we go with a big dog firm. Let's see how that goes. Maybe I'm lucky in who I work with, but I find the "add a bullet point to the resume" take to be maybe a bit too cynical. Tableau, Salesforce, data lakes, ERP, identity management, and "cloud" infrastructure each seem like useful tools if implemented smartly. (Note that I took out blockchain...)

lmkg 7y ago
One of the side-effects I'm seeing of GDPR is a stronger incentive to consolidate systems under central management. Companies that allowed different departments the leeway to control their own systems now find themselves literally not knowing how many different places a customer's data might live.
- IMTDb 7y ago
  > stronger incentive to consolidate systems under central management Which in turn makes it easier to over analyse and identify user data, exactly what GDPR was meant to avoid.

ownagefool 7y ago

Digital transformations can be great. The problem is, anything great will be sold to you by consultancies as a way to give you more consultancy services, which is kind of the opposite of what a digital transformation should be.