Aptify's CEO Blog

Subscribe to this Blog with RSS

Back To Posts

Mar
22 		 Enterprise Business Applications: Asset or Liability to Innovation?
  Innovation  Business Process 

Since I run a company that provides enterprise software technology, the subject of this blog post may seem odd. Certainly, enterprise business applications have provided organizations with tremendous value over many years. While that is true, the question I am asking has more to do with the long term lifecycle of a business application. Markets and customer demands change over time. Therefore, businesses must change over time. Processes must change over time. People must change over time. And, to support all of this, business applications must change over time. I have heard countless times from executives that the reason they perform a process a certain way is because their technology forces them to do it in that manner. In some instances, a system imposed process can be a good thing, helping a company adopt best practices that are known to be assets in other organizations. In some cases, such system-mandated processes are neutral in their impact. But, in many cases, being locked into an antiquated method of doing business can be devastating.

The rate of change in business today is seemingly greater than at any point in time in recent memory. Businesses and consumers demand nearly instant adjustment to evolving preferences. The winners in many markets are those companies that are most nimble. Most business applications promote some efficiency gains when they are initially built. Over a period of time, however, they might be making a very bad process very efficient. Inflexible technology is often the culprit but the issue also has to do with organizational structure and culture. Many groups provide their internal IT departments with complete control over all aspects of their applications. In order to change any system process, IT has to bless the idea and then figure out a way to implement it. There are many other examples of similar challenges in other departments too. A typical result is that the business needs in support of innovation are often not met. There are many dimensions to this discussion and I’m not suggesting that IT should let business owners run rampant in changing anything they want at will. The point I’m making is that technology and business have to go hand in hand, both supporting rapid innovation and the idea of experiential learning.

Comments  3

  • Mike Robey 22 Mar

    I think the question is, how does IT support change? IT alone cannot support change. The only way to support change is through teamwork among the business people and the technologists. Like any product, business processes and the technology solutions used to implement them must go through regular review cycles to ensure both still meet the needs of the organization. All too often the business processes and the implemented technologies drift apart. The drift can happen slowly until there is a derailment.

    From a solutions software perspective, adherence to the three tier architecture of presentation layer, logic layer (workflow, if you will), and the database layer, means the solution is more flexible and configurable to changing needs, reducing the likelihood of a costly wholesale replacement. But the business processes and solutions software have to be kept in alignment. This requires a solid working relationship among all parties, vendors included, and regular life cycle reviews to keep things fresh and in sync. No group is an island.

  • Yvonne Parle 24 Mar

    Companies that are serious about a sustainable return on investment from their technology portfolio should adopt a continuous improvement programme including as Mike says in his post, regular reviews to see if technology is supporting processes that enable or potentially cripple the business strategy.  Needless to say, such a regime of regular review may be a piece of common sense but in my experience isn't so common.

  • Amith Nagarajan 24 Mar

    I agree with you both that IT must be a strategic player and there must be a cross-functional partnership. But it is critical that systems (and inertia) don't end up slowing progress due to inflexibility.
Post a comment!