I vividly recall sitting in a negotiation room a few years ago, representing a corporate client in the middle stages of large technology outsourcing negotiations.
Like a hangover from an old legal drama in which mere numbers instantly intimated power, the room had been stereotypically (but rather unproductively) stacked. On my side of the table sat two commercial managers, three engineers and one in-house legal counsel. They were all well-practised at looking appropriately stern and influential, as though competing tenderers were poised to burst through the doors on cue.
Valiantly, the supplier had responded in kind, offering two project directors, one engineer and a sales manager. For the last three months, it had also insisted on fielding a ‘deal co-ordinator’. I never did work out what he actually did.
The more meetings we had the less productive they were, as topics seemed to expand eternally to fill the time available. For my clients, an intensive schedule of negotiations was a way of demonstrating heroic persistence to their broader procurement team and chief information officer. Negotiations represented engagement and activity. Unfortunately, I was the only one who had become acutely conscious that activity didn’t necessarily mean progress. I began to suspect both teams had simply found a brilliant way of avoiding any real work and were now loath to stray from a good thing.
The topic set for that morning was technology innovation. It had originally been listed in my client’s request for proposal as a ‘critical requirement’ and a bland placeholder had hence ridden along furtively in the draft services contract for some 6 months now. It had happily survived numerous exchanges of the draft without much regard. Today, we were forced to look at – and perhaps for the first time think intelligently about – the unhelpful pointer staring up at us. It simply read:
“[Innovation: The customer would like to discuss this critical requirement in detail further with the supplier]”.
In keeping with the practice we had adopted for all other negotiation sessions, I welcomed the supplier team to the table and invited our client’s lead commercial manager to begin with a general statement of the customer’s requirements. He began talking, emphasising the importance of “all forms of technology and non-technology innovation” to his company, stressing the rapid development of IT infrastructure in Australia and relaying some research pointing to an exponential increase in clients’ technology expectations.
He had spoken passionately for a good ten minutes when the room began to realise he hadn’t actually said anything particularly meaningful. He realised it too. When he finally wrapped up, the question from the other side of the table was painfully predictable (and slightly patronising):
“Look, we sound like we’re on the same page. I don’t think we can disagree with anything you’ve said. But with all due respect, I’m still no clearer as to what you actually expect from us in terms of innovation – or how you propose to measure us in relation to it.”
Trapped like a nervous rabbit, my client immediately glanced towards me, not missing a beat.
“Yes, I was getting to that. At the end of the day we figure that defining the supplier’s obligations is really a legal matter, so I’ll leave it to our lawyer to explain what we mean.”
Needless to say, we went nowhere that day.
As interesting as philosophical debates about business and commercial innovation may be from a theoretical perspective, they are susceptible to being fairly existential. Talk of innovation for its own sake is of limited utility, if unsupported by a clear definition of how or in what form it is intended to manifest. There is arguably no single definition of business innovation – it takes its meaning from the context of the very services in respect of which that innovation is sought.
It is vital that we try to enliven seemingly intriguing theories through intelligent applications. Truly successful commercial technology innovations should have a clear business or service outcome – for example, they may measurably enhance the consumer experience, improve the quality of a supplier’s products and services, give birth to new and more efficient forms of communication or contribute to a collective sum of knowledge that others can build upon in a discernible and synergistic way.
Today, the advent and acceptance of digital media and communications, new forms of content distribution and convergent technologies afford businesses a fascinating range of opportunities which, only a decade ago, was pure fantasy. For many, the digital age has now become synonymous with the intersection between science and commerce. While there are few industries that have not been impacted by the digital phenomenon, to fully and successfully exploit it demands intelligence and creativity, combined with a strong sense of the practical – what will work, versus what won’t; and what is interesting versus what is useful.
As we think increasingly deeply about innovation, the ultimate goal should always be kept in mind. Traditionally, creativity has been the mark of the dreamer and application the skill of the pragmatist. Assuming the two can be aligned – or at least develop some measure of co-operation – business will have finally identified a powerful combination.
No comments:
Post a Comment