How much are you willing to spend?

In late 2007 the research firm Basex carried out market research on the average time per day lost to "distractions" - in other words, to the inability to control collaboration with colleagues (“Information Overload: We Have Met the Enemy and He Is Us”, Jonathan B. Spira, David M. Goldes, March 2007, basex.com)

For the purpose of simplifying this entry here is what they found:

- Typically 2 hours of productivity per day is lost per knowledge worker

- The average cost per hour of a knowledge worker is $21

In other words,

The cost of "lost productivity for a company" would be $21 (Cost per Hour) X 2 (Hours per Day) X 20 (Days a Month) = a whopping $840 per month per knowledge employee.

This bring me back to the title of this entry,

How much are you willing to spend in order to increase productivity by 10%??? 25%??? 50%????

Business Process Improvement is the cheapest & quickest way to a return on investment. Call Konverge to see how we can help.

Cheers,

NXT Delivery Partners

Konverge specializes in developing breakthrough software applications for medium and large enterprises across Canada, the US and Europe, and in transforming traditional software into software-as-a-service using Microsoft technologies. All of its applications are meant to solve business problems, boost productivity, or generate a specific return on investment. Through a formal development process and open communications, Konverge capitalizes on new learning as a project evolves to achieve outcomes that consistently exceed expectations.


Partner Specialization:
Business Intelligence, Database Migration, Enterprise Applications, Language Migration, Legacy Migration, Migration Tools and Services, Product/Application Development, Product Development Outsourcing.

Microsoft Technology Expertise:
.NET Framework, 2007 Office System, Active Directory, BizTalk Server, Internet Information Services, Microsoft Server Platform, PerformancePoint Server 2007, SharePoint Server 2003, SharePoint Server 2007, Silverlight, SQL Server 2005, SQL Server 2008, SQL Server Reporting Services, Visual Studio 2005, Visual Studio 2008, Visual C#, Visual C++, Windows Vista, Windows XP, Windows Media Services.

Industry Specialization: Horizontal cross-industry

Typical Customer Size: All

Microsoft Partner Status: Gold Certified Partner

Location(s): Europe, United States, Canada

Headquarters: Toronto, Canada

Web Site: www.konverge.com

Nobody ever got fired for choosing a "BIG 5" Consulting firm!

I have been around long enough to remember when the saying was, "Nobody ever got fired for choosing IBM."

In our industry, custom software development, nothing is more true than to outsource a “large project” to one of the big boys.

Smaller consulting firms such as Konverge run into this dilemma time and time again. We get invited to bid on large projects as the “go between” consulting firm that might help in negotiation with the big 5. It is rare that the smaller consulting firms actually get the multi-million dollar projects simply because of the "fear of failure". The consensus is that if you do fail, you can’t be blamed by choosing one of the big 5.

Here is some question to ask yourself the next time you are sourcing a software consulting firm:

Q: Do the “Big 5” firms have better Business Analysts?
A: NOPE. The International BA community is currently working diligently on standardizing Requirements Documentation through what is known as the BABOK

Q: Do the “Big 5” firms have better People?
A: NOPE. Maybe higher paid people, but the knowledge base and brainpower is in abundance here at Konverge and other small firms.

Q: Do the "Big 5" firms have more people?
A: Sure they do, so what?? It is your burn rate? If you want something done quickly it's never an issue.

Q: Do the “Big 5” Firm have better Process?
A: NOPE. Maybe more rigid, but we all utilize best practice methodologies such as RUP, JUD and AGILE methodologies. Small firms actually have the ability to bend, adopt and be more flexible to each individual project.

Q: Do the “Big 5” Firms fail less?
A: Have a look at the below “Software Hall of Shame” Picture. Who do you think failed on these projects?



If the name of the game is to innovate & grow your business. Give a small consulting firm such as Konverge a shot. We won’t tell you what to do, but I guarantee that we will work with you to achieve your business goals.

To Better Success,
Cheers,

The True Impact of SaaS on your Business – Part 1 – The Operation Group

Although there are still naysayers to the Software as a Service model, we cannot deny the speed in which traditional ISVs are looking to transition their already existing perpetual model into this pay-as-you-go model. As a SaaS Enabler, we constantly respond to questions from Independent Software Vendors who are trying to make the painstaking decision of getting SaaSy. Careful planning will make the difference between a profitable operation and one that is bleeding the company.

For the traditional ISV, the Operations Groups which consists of technical support, customer care and the R&D team have always been considered a "Cost Centers”. Software as a Service offers ISVs the ability to automate some of the processes associated with this team. Provisioning, ordering and billing can certainly be automated using technology. So where does this leave our team? What is the true impact of the SaaS Model on this team?

The SaaS paradigm shift has certainly made an impact on our Operations Group. These professional teams who are supporting a service are now a focal point in a successful business operation. Customer Care is accountable for customers successfully using the service; Help Desk and Support Services are accountable in making sure that the business is meeting Service Level Agreements and the R&D team is accountable in streamlining development to add functionality at a rapid pace.

Here is a quick glimpse of how these three components of the Operations Group have changed:

Customer Service Traditional ISV SaaS Model Cost Centre Valued group Tasked with provisioning and billing issues Ordering, billing & provisioning can be automated Tasked with being first line of customer calls Accountable for customers’ utilization of the service Responsible for Customer Churn

Help Desk / Support Services Traditional ISV SaaS Model Help Desk is technical solver with both internal & external customers Mainly supporting operations Supporting numerous builds and versions of software Accountable for business meeting SLAs Tasked with being first line of customer support calls First Line Help Desk can be automated Responsible for Customer Churn

R&D Team Traditional ISV SaaS Model Focus on bug fixes for dispersed versions Mainly supporting operations Not developing in the latest & greatest technologies reduces morale Accountable for business meeting SLAs Long Software Development Life Cycle Incorporate of Agile methods and reductions in development cycles Responsible for Customer Churn

The common denominator is “Customer Churn” which is really the biggest impact on operations. In order to succeed as a SaaS business, Independent Software Vendors must make the internal change from selling perpetual license to a subscription service. This change is NOT limited to Sales & Marketing; it also changes the internal structure of customer Service / Support & R&D. This is not an easy task.

There is however a benchmark tool that can help you in this mind-shift.
You can take the survey at: http://www.konverge.com/SaaS_Benchmarker.aspx

The cart leading the horse

I see this type situation arise all too often: A VP of Sales has a great idea like “if we knew more about our customers’ collective buying patterns I could be more effective at providing them with value added solutions at the right time”. Sounds like a pretty good idea.

Well, this idea gets tossed around with management, and eventually a decision is made to do something to capture the opportunity. So the process starts. They get somebody to write down requirements for such a project. Because this deals with customers, someone at some point will likely suggest “you need a CRM (Customer Relationship Management System”. Upon doing more research, all the wonderful things that CRMs do are built into the requirements document, because - ‘that’s a good idea’. At some point, finance is involved to set a budget. Then they give it to IT with the instruction: “Source a CRM system and someone to implement it for this much money”. IT now owns the project and goes about casting its net and find CRM implementers.
Can someone say ‘broken telephone’? The poor VP of Sales is looking for something to help him analyze customer buying patterns, but he’s going to get a full-blown CRM - how is that going to help him?

This is an exaggerated example, but the underlying flow of events is common among a lot of companies. What those companies don’t get is that software is supposed to solve business problems – not keep IT guys employed. I don’t mean to be hard on IT guys, since I’m one too on some days, but since when did the role of IT start to involve making key Business decisions to solve Business problems? Maybe I missed that memo.

If you’ll indulge me, let’s go back to the example and look at it from the bottom up. The bottom in this case is the poor CRM implementer who is entering into a situation they just can’t win. They don’t know anything about the customer’s business or what specific problem the software application is trying to solve. They may gain some keen insight as to what’s required by going to their IT gatekeeper, who will tell them all about what a CRM is supposed to do within their organization. They may even get a chance to meet with others and maybe even that VP of Sales, who has by this time been convinced that what he needs is a CRM system – because that’s what’s been approved for purchase. Chances are they won’t get to the root issue of what started this whole thing off.

This could have gone a different way. The VP of Sales could have directly gone in search of a partner to provide him with his problem: “if we knew more about our customers’ collective buying patterns I could be more effective at providing them with value added solutions at the right time”. What he would have found is a partner with expertise in Business Intelligence. That partner could have worked directly with him to understand his business, understand the problem and the impact it has on the business, and propose a solution that would specifically meet the business needs with a measurable return on investment.

Sound too easy? Well in our business the second scenario is a recipe for success – if we can’t engage with the business user then we won’t take on the project. We just won’t do that to your business.

BI for the little guy

Business intelligence has traditionally been a term used exclusively by big multinational companies with huge amounts of data, big systems to house it all, and expensive consultants to make it all work. Traditionally, it was because big companies had the systems to collect all the data and therefore the slicing and dicing of it became necessary. That’s not the case anymore. As smaller companies made investments in CRM, ERP and other systems they started collecting data that needs as much slicing and dicing as the big guys.

From a technology side, a few of the latest trends and concepts in BI are Dashboards and Datamarts. Let me explain:

Dashboards: There were two words that used come to mind with regard to end user BI tools: clunky and unreliable. The latest generation of end user tools are really slick – and you don’t need to be an MIT grad to figure out how to use them. Today, everyone from the CEO on down can have their own personal dashboard where they can view, manipulate, filter, slice or dice whatever flavour of information that’s meaningful for them. That’s a huge step forward.

Datamarts: The original BI concept was the Data Warehouse – great if you’ve got tons of storage space and tons of time to wait while your data was crunched because that guy in accounting was pulling of his monthly report. The new concept is a Datamart where small subsets of the Data Warehouse are compartmentalized (typically around KPIs and business units). You might have a Datamart for HR, one for Finance, one for Sales, etcetera - aligning them with business units really reduces the load on the system and therefore the time it takes to crunch data.

The bottom line? As these smaller (and even the bigger) companies become more mature and can create measurable Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), the need for fast, easy to use and reliable Business Intelligence tools is going to continue to grow.