Contented Management laughing buddha logo

Contented Management

Contented Management

When should technology lead requirements?

How do you develop your content management requirements?

Typically, organisations will identify a business strategy, develop requirements based on that strategy to improve revenue or reduce costs, and then develop a software architecture based on those requirements. But when should the technology drive business change?

The simplest answer is “never”: don’t let the technology tail wag the business dog. But the simplest answer is rarely right. New technologies can lead to competitive advantage as well as stimulate innovation culture, so there should be room for a technology-led approach. You do need to establish some criteria for initiating these kinds of projects, however.

Emergent benefits but a defined problem
You may not know precisely what benefits the new technology will bring — this is particularly true of very new technologies that have little case history of ROI — but that shouldn’t in itself preclude assigning the project a budget. What should prevent you starting the project is not having a problem. This might be an operational issue such as ineffective project communications, or the opportunity to target a new market segment. But the problem needs to be there even if it’s not clear how the new technology will resolve it.

For example, online retailers have long had an issue with customer trust. People don’t buy products just because the website says it’s worth buying. But if you add the facility to comment on or rate a product, this gives some reassurance to the buyer. It improves sales markedly for some items, but risks reducing them for products that receive poor reviews. While it’s not 100% clear what effect customer ratings will have on your revenue stream, they do address the perceived trustworthiness of the product description.

If you want an example where this hasn’t worked, consider Second Life. Eighteen months ago, virtual worlds were the bandwagon to be on. It wasn’t clear what the benefits would be but it was technologically cool. The problem was that there was no problem. Second Life didn’t offer any real communication improvements while tapping a relatively small market that could be reached through other channels anyway. There may well be scope for virtual worlds in future, but they need to address a real business issue before they’ll take off.

Ability to deploy quickly
Since the rate of obsolescence outpaces the rate at which companies change [slideshare], you’d better be quick about your work. If it takes you a year to roll out a new technology, this should be business-driven, not led by a technology which will be old hat by the time it’s deployed. Software as a service gives companies a real advantage to deploy quickly, as do flexible server environments. You should certainly be looking at these kind of tools if yours is an organisation that likes to be at the leading edge.

Acceptable cost
How much money are you willing to risk if the technology doesn’t bring any benefit? This is a difficult assessment to make as you’re less likely to have a watertight figures than if you went down the more traditional business case route. Normally your assessment would be: my problem costs me £X, so if I spend £Y then I’ll get a return within Z months, so £Y can be my project budget. When you’re technology-led, you’re unlikely to know how long it will take to get a return. So you need to treat your budget as a sunk cost that you’re comfortable writing off.

This doesn’t necessarily mean that your budget must be small: the car industry spends a fortune on innovation because the risks of losing competitive advantage are so huge. Of course, you can limit your risk of failure by running a pilot, which will help you to satisfy the need to deploy quickly as well as constrain costs. Your project budget should be based on the scale of the problem you’re trying to solve, rather than on the scale of anticipated benefits.

Exit strategy
If the technology isn’t as successful as you’d hoped, or it’s viable but creates other problems you hadn’t forseen, you need a cost effective way to abandon it. This is particularly relevant for information management projects. If you put business critical information into a new wiki that has poor adoption, you absolutely need a way of getting that information back in a format that can be migrated to another system. Your project needs to include a decommissioning approach.

Ride the wave
Technology should inform your business strategy, but being at the crest of the hype cycle isn’t enough. If you apply these criteria to technology-driven projects however, you should go some way to avoiding the trough of disillusionment, both emotionally and financially.

Philippe Parker on 29 September 2009 | Tweet this |

6 Comments

  1. Good points on not letting technology drive your requirements. One addition I would make to your flow after developing the business strategy is finding out what the users, consumers and employees desire. Audience research should be the next stop after nailing the strategy down. I’ve seen too many WCM projects that go off the rails because of an IT department that doesn’t understand how to gather the non-technology requirements or integrate the e-business/marketing team.

    Another danger is letting a vendor define the problem for you. Getting distracted by shiny objects for CRM integration, social media, search optimization, etc. typically leads to extended timelines and shelfware. There are great modules available to supplement the core offering, but your feature/function set should be backed by business requirements, not a great deal on software. Buy it when you actually need it – the software rep will always be there to fill the order.

    Comment by Tony Bailey — 29 September 2009 @ 1:43 pm

  2. When should technology lead the way?

    When your organisation’s IT dept already bought the technology (and decided the strategy) but not shown the business what it does or what it is!

    Ahem :)

    Comment by henry — 29 September 2009 @ 7:05 pm

  3. It depends on how granular you define technology. Available in house skills will often decide the platform (LAMP or Win/IIS), and so narrow your options. Many of my colleagues do not want to touch Open Source or non Microsoft based options, no matter how compelling.

    For me, end users should be the prime consideration, as this aids adoption, and increases project success. Often this is secondary to internal politics, or the personal bias of senior management. Technology led projects rarely appear based upon the merits of the adopted technology.

    Comment by Andy Rowland — 29 September 2009 @ 10:20 pm

  4. @henry
    That’s exactly the worst case scenario I was thinking of.
    What happens more frequently however is that there is a business strategy driving technology choice, but that it takes so long to implement the chosen technology stack that business requirements change. All the goalposts move. Everyone then says “I didn’t choose it guv” even when their name is on the minutes of the selection panel meetings!
    I think this is a strategy problem rather than a technology selection one. If business strategy is leading, you either need to be certain that your strategy is correct or build in enough flexibility that you can adapt to emerging factors, including new opportunities with technology.

    @Andy Rowland, @Tony Bailey
    I most definitely agree that end users should be the prime consideration for any project.
    Yet in many organisations users are naïve about the opportunities that technology can offer them, while the organisations don’t know how well their users will adapt to the new technology. What’s the best way to address this issue?

    Comment by Philippe Parker — 30 September 2009 @ 9:07 am

  5. > What happens more frequently however is that there is a business strategy driving technology choice, but that it takes so long to implement the chosen technology stack that business requirements change.

    Ah yes. But if the strategy’s properly drawn up this shouldn’t matter – the chosen solution should be flexible enough in theory. I think your key point here is about business users being naïve – through no fault of their own. Or, to illustrate this with a recent conversation I may or may not have taken part it:

    “Why didn’t you tell us we could upload 150 files at once via drag and drop? We’ve been doing it manually!”

    “It wasn’t in your technical requirements”

    Comment by Henry — 30 September 2009 @ 10:11 am

  6. That’s pretty shocking. I think it’s a consultant’s job to tell you what would have been in your requirements if you’d known about it.

    Comment by Philippe Parker — 1 October 2009 @ 8:13 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.