“My client is looking to get directly connected with IT Directors, IT Managers and IT Purchasing.

His goal is to drive his business forward and increase his overall Sales Effectiveness by creating an IT Purchasing network. As I said in my question, my client is the Vice President of a Value Added Reseller. We have created a strategic plan to grow his segment of revenues by 20% over the next 6 months. It is an aggressive plan and one that requires the right contacts. Do you have any ideas how we could grow the IT Purchasing list for him to increase his client base? I am open to presenting all ideas to him and would appreciate any ideas that you have to offer.”

Let’s set the tone -

I believe that most practitioners of enterprise technology planning are asking the wrong questions. Because their questions are largely about technology, the results of these questions are answers dominated by the logic of technology itself, rather than by the mission or methods of the organization.

Many observers will agree that common complaints about technology projects --resistance to change, long sales cycles, inappropriate technology, unexpected costs, and unused tools -- are often the inevitable result of this techno-centric planning. The only way to unravel this problem is to go to the source and challenge the questions we ask.

In this point paper, I will touch on three questions of my own: In general, what kinds of questions should planners/providers be asking? What kinds of questions are they actually asking, in the field of business technology planning? How can we fix this?

First of all, growing the purchasing list and adding platinum-plated contacts to the bucket will prove futile at best and implode the company at worst (cost death spiral). I think your client needs to step back and look at what his company is actually offering to prospects. Otherwise they end up as just another discount IT warehouse, like CDW. Nothing wrong with CDW, but that low-ball baseline pricing with heavy/cute adverting is a saturated effort. Let’s change the experiment.

My overview will deal with what is the “As-Is” framework that outsourcers look at, and what should be the “To-Be” model? IOW, how will your client distinguish or differentiate from all the rest? The answer, I think, does not lie in the pricing model (maxed out) or the purchasing network (not unique enough) but in service delivery.

Most outsourcers have gravitated to one of three models for service delivery, and their subsequent reputations reflect the service delivery model. These approaches are:

1. Tech Centric – EDS is the best example, even to the point of changing phone numbers of the re-badged employees or physically moving them out of the geographical area.

2. Customer Intimacy – CSC is the best proponent of this approach. Account executives are ALWAYS available 24/7, meetings are called whenever the client contact point(s) desire, and SLA’s are as flexible as Jello.

3. System Integration – SAIC, period. ALL processes are blueprinted first, then technology and IT governance is applied. Great approach IMHO.

Of course one could say a proper mix of these approaches would be best but what %, and who determines that mix? All are valid concerns.

Let’s use CSC as our example outsourcer and General Dynamics as our client, I was part of this team as a Senior Project Manager and boss of the PMO, so I know a little about this dynamic. CSC, like almost ALL sourcing agents, used a variety of vendors for providing software and hardware, but the governance of how these assets were deployed, occurred with CSC personnel under the managerial aegis of CSC. So we dealt with IBM, HP, Compaq, 3com. Gatorbox, Cisco, etc. This incurred a large management and paperwork burden, All configuration management, change control, asset tagging, et al, occurred with CSC.

The problems inherent in this model are obvious – scattered accounting (cost and responsibility), co-ordination of ALL IT Governance functions (asset management, change/control, PM, etc) is impaired. An integrated, systems approach offering would be better. Why? Let me tell you a little story…

The focus on systems integration, especially with regards to modular approaches, derive from the fact that most efforts of significant scales are composed of a multitude of processes and/or utilize multimodal inputs and outputs. Now for the English translation - during the moon race, the Soviets built rockets bigger by simply strapping on more and more boosters. This led to the Energia N-1 moon booster, which had 72 rocket motors on the first stage. In an age prior to the development of microchip based computing power, this is obviously not practical. Three launches were attempted, all failed, with the booster having to be destroyed. Meanwhile, Werner Von Braun's' team at NASA developed the Saturn V booster. It had only five rocket motors on the first stage, but all fuel systems, pumps, servos, etc were totally integrated, mutually supporting the others. Good system integration can make the difference between going to the moon, and having to blow your rocket up.

So what would be a good, solid workable offering to these IT Pros you want to hook? And it would have to be sellable, understandable. How about –

Now the client accountants have just one line item to track, one set of reports to read and archive (throw in the trash), and the account executive can get some sleep!

I’m not saying this is an end-all / be-all plan… just an idea to keep in your back pocket “just-in-case”.

I admit, I have no idea what your strategic plan is – I’m not a salesperson, and all my contacts I could provide you with are either dead, or have moved on professionally. But I believe that by “cutting the Gordian Knot” process-wise, your client could:

1. Expand current revenue steams b offering this approach

2. Expand his client base with a unique product

3. Get his own Wikipedia entry for taking credit for this innovation (it’s OK, he can have it - or you – whatever).

Appendix A

Integrating the Help Desk

Behold!