Implementing Technology

So many factors are involved in deciding when, why, how or if a person or corporation to implement a new technology. As it is with anything involving people, I don't think that it is possible to produce a fail safe philosophy of implementation. Instead, I think that technology implementation has to be considered in conjunction with the human element and is therefore a case sensitive issue.

When I was in high school I worked a part time restaurant job in my hometown. When the restaurant first opened up, every order was hand written on a receipt pad of sorts and the carbon copy was passed back to the kitchen and placed on a pin up board. To complete the order, a line cook had to read the hand written ticket and communicate what each member of the kitchen staff was responsible for. Naturally, as time went on and the restaurant increased in popularity, more and more people came, volume increased, and this system became apparently inefficient.

The need to switch to technology was apparent. Within the first 2 months, we had moved to a computer system where the waitresses in the front of the house would enter the orders into the computer. The orders would then print out on a mobile printer in the kitchen, and each order would be broken down into each section of the kitchen staff. (For example, the ticket would have 3 sections: "Grill, Fryer, Salads." Each team member could look under his section to see what he needed to do to complete the order.) Our average ticket time decreased significantly, and we had less problems with orders than ever before.

The same staff, however, did not react with such a welcoming spirit when it came time to switch computer systems. Management made the call that it the current technology wasn't the best, especially with their intent to make the restaurant a chain. The need for a simple, uniform computer system throughout all of the stores became a top priority as expansion started to happen.

This time, with everyone accustomed to a particular technology, resistance was vocal and widespread. For the cooks, it didn't really matter because they were essentially receiving the same type of ticket in the back. However, the waitresses had a hard time locating all of the products on the new system and weren't able to enter orders with the same speed and accuracy as they had before. The decision was made, though, and there was no looking back.

The restaurant went through a month long transition period and had on site tech help for every shift for the first 2 weeks. After that, tech support was readily available through the phone and would be called in on occasion.  It wasn't an easy transition, but eventually the technology stuck and the staff grew accustomed to it. In the end, the new technology was irrefutably better and more efficient. It just took a lot of work to keep staff morale high during the transition period and it took dedication from the management team to grind it out and be there to provide support and guidance through the struggle.

My personal experience highlights the important of management buy-in and dedication. Had there been apathetic managers, the new technology would have been a bust and the restaurant may not have grown to what it is today.

Nokia at a North American Crossroad?

I ran across this article on Nokia's shrinking market share in the US [NOKIA], and it was interesting to see how well it related to the topics we've been discussing in class. As Apple and other smart phone manufacturers are ever increasing their share of the US market, Nokia has steadily fallen since 2006. One explanation is the company's unwillingness to relinquish control of the hardware and software of its phones to the provider.

Collaborating with other companies and forming strategic alliances with otherwise competitors is crucial to a firm's ability to be agile in a changing market place. At least a portion of the success that other smart phone manufacturers and providers have experienced is due to their ability to interpret the market and roll out a product that fits the current needs, wants and trends of its customers. It seems that Nokia is having a hard time letting go of the old way of doing things in the US because it is still working well on a global scale.

The issue of context inevitably comes to mind here. Nokia has found themselves at a strategic inflection crossroads of sorts in the US market, and it is coming to be decision time for the company. It has to decide how it is going to respond to the current trends of the market. Will it continue producing phones the same way that it has been, hoping to ride out the smart phone wave? Or will it suffer the fate of companies such as Blockbuster and eventually fall by the wayside in the US as a result of its unwillingness to make the appropriate changes in its business model to respond to its current context? Time will reveal.

More on Social Networking and a Thought on STS

As a continuation from our conversation last week on social networking, I ran across this interesting article online: http://www.pcworld.com/article/205263/facebook_now_more_popular_than_google.html?tk=hp_new With Facebook leading the charge with 9.9% of our internet time, it reaffirms our assertion that firms must view these networks as opportunities. We are already seeing this from an advertisement standpoint. There was a time when Facebook wasn't overrun with sidebar ads, but they now not only exist is excess, but they are tailored to peak the interest of the user based on his or her profile information. 

On the STS question, I think that harmony can only be reached when a firm decides which of the four elements will serve as its anchor. One of the fundamental issues with MFC was that in theory the people and the organizational structure drove their STS, but in practice it was the technology. Studying the MFC case and discussing it in class reaffirmed that IT projects are business projects and that IT is a strategic partner of the firm. Separating the two leads to a fragmented and confused business process.

 

Downstream Marketing and IT

I like the idea of the SCVNGR app and others like it. Being able to tailor your marketing to individuals and to make them feel like they have a meaningful relationship with your company has immeasurable value. From an IT standpoint, to not take advantage of the unprecedented connectivity that technology now offers and harness its power to draw the customer to your products would be foolish at best. But, at what point does your "pull" strategy start to feel more like a shove, or worse, a nag?

I think there is a delicate balance between moving closer to the customer and being too close. Running too quickly with the implementation of IT downstream shifts in marketing has the potential to become invasive. Marketing teams have to be careful of being too aggressive as they continue to pursue opportunities in this area. The SCVNGER app is great because the consumer has to take the initiative to download it before reaping its promotional benefits.

 I dread the day that I receive a random text message offering me a discounted latte at Starbucks while I'm sitting at the stoplight on College waiting to hop on the Interstate.