Project X Discussions

Project X Ltd. and MicroStrategy Partnership

Project X Ltd., a Toronto-based boutique advisory and systems integration firm is pleased to announce that they have established a Global Consulting Partnership with MicroStrategy, the industry’s best-in-class provider of Business Intelligence software. 

Project X Ltd. employs a unique approach to the delivery of Business Intelligence projects known as RapidBI™.  This methodology allows their customers to realize value quickly and in an iterative process.  Project X Ltd added to the RapidBI™ methodology with a best in class infrastructure that allows for their own research and development, but also rapid development for their clients.  MicroStrategy was chosen to be a part of this infrastructure as it aligns very well to their methodology and RapidBI™ platform. 

“Project X Ltd. is a company that prides itself on doing things differently to bring real, tangible benefits to its clients,” says Stephen Hayward, President & CEO of Project X Ltd.  “Being able to solidify our relationship with a world-class partner like MicroStrategy really allows us to make our vision for unique and differentiated business intelligence initiatives a reality,” continues Hayward.  “The proof of this is in the success of our work with our clients in the past and in the future.”

Throughout 2010 Project X Ltd. will evolve a Centre of Excellence in business intelligence that revolves around their methodology, their partnership with MicroStrategy and their RapidBI™ Platform, which is a dedicated environment that allows customers to develop business intelligence proof-of-concept applications.  “The long term success of business intelligence initiatives is quickly iterating and learning from what you find through development,” say Michael Ianni-Palarchio, Vice President of Consulting.  “Our RapidBI Platform is a safe environment for clients to experiment and discover important aspects of their data and business processes through the development of prototype BI applications.”

Linking Business and IT

How often does one hear the complaint that the IT group really only cares about technology and not about the business?  If you are talking to an IT person about your business problem, how often is the first question they ask is "What software are you using?"  Now what does that have to do with them understanding your business problem?   However the business often feels very uncomfortable talking about technology at any level.  Communication is blocked.

I expect some of the problem has to do with the insecurity we feel when we are outside our comfort zone.  Also both the business problem and the technology challenges are both stretching us so how can we enter another very challenging area.

So how do will bridge this gap in real ways and stop everybody from hiding behind the jargon.  In IT the jargon is the latest buzz words, like SOA.  In the business it is _____________.  You need to fill that in for your business.

If we did more listening as oppose to talking to cover up our own insecurities, might help.  Do not rush to solve the superficial statement of the problem, say "tell me more."  Then listen, listen, listen.  When one responds try to use the same terminology and avoid jargon.

Education Transformation

I thought I'd cross post an article I wrote on my blog regarding some thoughts on transforming education here on the PXTLD blog since it directly relates to some of the work we do.

_______________________________________________________________

I've spent some time over the past few months carrying out some strategy work in the education market as a part of our Education Transformation solution offering.  The way technology is leveraged by kids has always been something I've been interested in (here are past posts), both because I have children of my own & because I am always looking for ways that organizations can extract real value from their investments in information technology.

As I have worked with my own children over the past couple of years, I've come to see more and more that this generation of children is really changing due to being a digital generation. I saw this as well when I created and operated the Youth Technology Camp program for children.

Our children are changing, the world they will enter after school is changing, so why is it that education has not changed that much?  I don't think that it has kept up with the changing nature of the world with which it has found itself (a good video that drives home the point of rapid change is this one titled Did You Know).

So how is education changing and where is it all going?  What does it mean to transform our education system into a 21st century model?  To best understand this change, we need to understand the changes as they relate to the various stakeholder, processes and objectives.  The transition from Education 1.0 to today's Education 2.0 and eventually the future Education 3.0 is causing a fundamental paradigm shift in various aspects of education.  The diagram to the left tries to capture this change.  Most importantly is the move to a customized approach for each student.  That is truly disruptive.  It is akin to the the level of customization we receive in so many other areas of our lives.  For example, banks have embraced technology to try and deliver us a more customer-intimate experience, a one-on-one relationship between the bank and its customers.  The expectation is part of the culture today and kids are growing up with that.  Education needs to strive to deliver that type of learning environment to today's youth. 

Niche Consulting Firms

Project X Ltd has now been around for just under 5 years and have evolved into a Niche Advisory and Technology Services organization.  In discussions over the weekend, I had a great conversation with someone from industry about why we are choosing to stay niche and what value this brings to our clients.

So let's frame this a bit and provide a some context for this blog post.  eHealth Ontario has come under fire lately about their use of consultants and the associated costs that have produced no return for the taxpayers.  Sadly I do not know anything other than what is published in the papers or web, so I can't comment on this.  But it was a good starting point about how big does not necessarily mean good and the staffing model at the other extreme can also not be as manageable.

When Graham and I first described what we wanted to build we modeled our company off of Gellman Hayward and Partners Ltd who we both had been exposed to.  It was a great place with some great people doing great work.  Most importantly, it provided real, tangible value to its clients. 

We then looked at the gap that frequently exists between the business and technology and how finding a select area of expertise and a mind to this issue we could help facilitate the better utilization of IT by the business.  This lead us to Actionable Strategy and then eventually Rapid Results.

Why Rapid Results?

1. Mainly because this is what the business needs to be able to address the changing landscape of their business.
2. Our large competitors are not about that and need massive projects that last years.  We wanted results in 90 to 100 days.
3. Staffing resources though good, would not have the necessary glue and accountability to bring best practices to the client to help drive value.
4. We want to empower our clients to be able to utilize the same methods and breed change agents and most of our competition should be scared of this type of thinking.
5. Be fast, be nimble and most of all be focused on the results.  Use the process as a tool not the answer.

Whether we like the name of the approach of Rapid Results or the things it gives us the ability to do.  This is one of the underpinnings of us and how we operate as a niche firm and strive to drive value.  Our clients seem to like it and our competitors don't seem to want to do it.

Future Open Source Economics and the Web

Just looked at an interesting TED presentation by Yochai Benkler on open source economics.  Little dated but interesting. http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/yochai_benkler_on_the_new_open_source_economics.html

Whack a Mole Culture

I was reading an article about the danger of your hidden culture called "Executives Beware -- Your Culture May Be Deadly by Peter De Lisi.  If you recall the kids game, when the mole sticks his head up out of the ground, you try to whack the mole.  In many organizations, anybody who sticks the head up with an idea or concept which is outside the box is given a whack.  How many times in a meeting somebody asks a questions that we find challenging and the questions is push aside?  I think it is very easy for an organization to have a "Whack a Mole Culture." 

I find that the best way to stay engage in a meeting is to actively participate and ask questions.  I expect at times I get whacked and do not even notice.

I think this sort of culture develops in a very subtle fashion and really stifles innovation.  Notice at the next work session you attend, how few people ask the hard but obvious question or make a suggestion which is "outside the box."

Many subtle things reveal the culture and underlying assumptions of an organization.  However they are  very important and very difficult to change.  However with a concerted effort on the part of the group, they can change.  Often I think culture change is the reason a new CEO is bought into an organization from outside the industry.  The hope is that he might make a culture change.  Usually he has to change many of the senior team.  Even then these silent assumptions are very tenacious and hard to change.  Of course they are always replaced by new ones, maybe even better ones. 

Five Levers Model - Extracting Resources

In two previous post I have been talking about the book on innovation called "Dealing with Darwin".  One of the keys to innovation is extracting resources from Context to apply to innovation.  Moore comes up with five levers which are a sequence for management action for re-engineering mission-critical work to extract risk so one can extract resources.  These resources will then be used innovate in the Core.  You will recognize each of these levers because you will likely have been on the receiving end of some of them.

Centralize     A process that has been recognized as context, that is it is not a key differentiator, even though it is important, the first way to extract resources is to centralize.  Centralization eliminates management overhead and thus some resources for reassignment.  Often people cling to their processes (we can do it better) but in the relentless search for productivity the marginally better cannot  be justified.   An example might be moving all the billing processes under one central billing group.

Standardize    Now that the process has been centralized under a single point of control, opportunities to increase productivity can be identified.   Again using the billing example, many unique billing processes can likely be converted to a standard billing process.  These improvements can again reduce the resources required and even be done faster.   These two move things from a decentralize services model to a shared services model. 

Modularize      Once the service has been standardize one can then consider adopting best practices used elsewhere.  Radical different approaches have been taken by companies to change the way billing are done by looking at things totally differently.  Could the billing process be combined with an earlier step in the fulfillment process?  Many companies have look to other industries for ideas they can adapt to their industry.  For example maybe billing is unnecessary for some products. 

Optimize        Similar to the step above, taking a hard look at the way things are done can eliminate some major efforts.  Again looking at best practices and process improvement stories can free up needed resources for innovation in Core.

Outsource       Once you have taken all the risk out of this mission critical activity, now one can safely consider outsourcing.  One clearly needs to retain some resources to manage the outsourcer but clearly this can really create a resource pool of people and capital that can be applied to innovative core activity. 

The book deals with some of these things in more detail but I found these five levers a good model for thinking about how to free resources from context to apply to core.

Moore also deals with an associated problem that some of the people involved in context activity may not be suitable for core projects.

I found the book had many good ideas which is typical of Moore but much of the book is boring.  Moore has a gift for creating some neat mental models.  His presentations are much more entertaining than his books.

Innovation Value Networks

A couple of years ago I remember discussing Innovation Value Networks and how valuable they can be.  I was in a meeting recently that reminded me of that.

As a recap of IVN - Innovation Value Network
My idea of this was that this was a group of people both internally and externally (partners, customers, friends ...) who you are comfortable in collaborating with in a safe manner to look at breakthroughs on issues or operations.  Internally we often have groups or individuals who we gravitate towards because of familiarity or prior success - from familiarity, shared experience and common reference points.  We can often talk in a shorthand or feel more comfortable on the hairy edge with these folks.  Externally these are people you may have worked with in the past or partners, customers or vendors who have a different point of view and a shared interest in creating mutual value.

I myself am very lucky to have a wide variety of folks who I get to work with who are part of my value network.  They often help me put in context, challenge ideas, root myself or stretch me.  I am very lucky to have them care enough.

With the stability and common acceptance of social media we have new ways and abilities to leverage these value networks.  This makes it easier to innovate and collaborate.  Wikis, blogs and many other tools help us facilitate the open communication.  Heck the good old fashioned client working session or meeting can often open new ideas.  Isn't that cool?

Core or Context in Innovation

In a previous blog entitled "Evolution and Innovation" http://pxltd.typepad.com/project_x_discussions/2008/01/evolution-and-i.html  I talked about a book we recently discussed at our Senge Circle called Dealing with Darwin.   A very interesting distinction was made by Moore in the book between Core and Context.  Moore defines Core as things which differentiate your company from it's competitors and Context is all the important processes which are essential for staying in business but do not differentiate.  In introducing innovation the key to evolution is to innovate in the Core areas.  Context innovation will only make the more profit but will not help the company evolve. 

However innovation in Context can free up resources needed to innovate in the core.  For example, increased productivity will not cause the company to evolve but we free up people to work on a innovation in Core, like introducing a new product.  However the problem will arise that the people made available not be capable of working on an innovative product.  His solution is interesting.  He suggests that some Context people are also good change agents and others are more suited to processes in Context.  He suggests you move the people who like change and are capable of Core work into the new area and give the process people more responsibility in the Context work. 

I think this is a neat idea and I would like to give a concrete example.  A company needs more capital and some strong people to introduce a new product or service.  Lets take an insurance company for example wants to move into a new line of insurance.   They need capital and people to move into this new area.  They decide they will outsource some of their existing information technology which are very capital intensive.  They will use the capital freed up in the outsourcing process to introduce this new product thru acquisition.  They need new people to manage the acquisition and run the new processes.  Some of the people form the information technology organization are transferred to the new product and others are retained to manage the outsourcing project.   Some people will also be taken by the outsourcer as well.  The people the insurance company move to the new product will people capable of innovation and the process people will be retained to work with the outsourcer.

Now on the other side of the activity is the outsourcer.  If the acquisition of this business is Core for them and represents some innovation, we clearly have a win-win.

I recall many years ago CGI took over the IT processes for Cooperators Insurance.  It was a big deal and cooperators was paid in CGI treasury shares.  The stock market liked the deal and Cooperators Insurance ended up with a great capital influx.  CGI at the same time acquired a major piece of outsourcing work which was core to CGI's growth in the oursourcing business.  Clearly the deal was a real win for both parties.

I found this view of outsourcing quite informative for me.  From an IT perspectives, outsourcing often looks like a failure.  I always thought of the reason for outsourcing was to improve the service and observed that often there was little or no improvement.  I never appreciated that the principal motivation for outsourcing might be the freeing of capital which is desperately needed for the company's survival through innovation in the core.   

How neat is it to learn something that allows you to see something quite a different perspective!  I found it a profound reframing of outsourcing.

Evolution and Innovation

I am reading a book called "Dealing with Darwin: How Great Companies Innovate at Every Phase of Their Evolution" by Geoffrey Moore.   We are discussing the book in our Senge Circle.  The book is quite interesting but a bit tedious when he uses Cisco as an example through out the book.  However he does have a neat idea about how innovation helps a company evolve. 

The book is quite practical in helping one decide what type of business you are, IE Volume Operation or Complex Systems.  The next question is at  what the stage in the life cycle is your product.  Then some ideas about how others have dealt with the issue.  However like most business books he does not mention the failures only the successes.   

The last part of the book deals with Managing Inertia which is very difficult when you are milking a cash cow.  He talks about Cisco who knows the current stage of networks will end soon and the question is what is the next stage.  For Cisco they will have to make a huge gamble.

Some of the examples of managing innovation in mature markets are quite interesting.  Nokia went from a diversified corporation in pulp and paper, rubber and cable to cell phones.  Through the cable side they entered the electronic sector.  From there to mobile phones and the rest is history.   They clearly had to move out of their comfort area into a completely new world and shed the old facilities.

I think he makes it very clear that senior management must go through a process where they can clearly see that change is essential not just a good idea.  He suggest a process for such a transformation but as usual the senior fellow is the key.  I think it must be his number one priority if change is going to happen.  He must not drive the change into the unknown.   

I have found the model of evolution a neat idea.  I think however Moore's speeches are more entertaining than his book.  He is a great speaker at a conference and really gets the juices flowing.  He certainly does not mind naming names in his speeches.

Anybody else have opinions on the book.  We discuss it next week so I might add more after next week.