Upcoming Events

Executive conference

Cloud Connect March 16-18

Comprehensive thought leadership for executives, IT professionals and developers. Topics include: the ROI, cost and economics of on-demand computing; Migration strategies to move from on-premise to cloud-based IT; Vertical cloud specialization, tailoring features and architectures to specific applications, industries, and customer ecosystems

More Events »

Subscribe to Newsletter

  • Keep up with all of the latest news and analysis on the fast-moving IT industry with Network Computing newsletters.
Sign Up
Column - Down to Business
C O L U M N  
Placing Blame, Executive Style

  September 15, 2002
  By Rob Preston


TOC Issue TOC
Printer Print this article
E-Mail E-Mail this URL
flame author Flame the author

The buck stops there. That's the message coming from the executive suites as yet another embattled CEO blames disappointing financial results on a technology implementation that didn't go according to plan.

The latest company to try this tactic is Agilent Technologies, which last month pinned a $105 million third-quarter "revenue shortfall" on its choppy rollout of ERP software. "The disruptions associated with that new system have been more extensive than we expected," Agilent CEO Ned Barnholt stated in the company's recent earnings release.

However, in a subsequent conference call with analysts, CFO Adrian Dillon, the Agilent executive closest to the ERP system (since it touches virtually all the company's financial processes), characterized the company's implementation experience as "about normal but not significantly better than the average experience."


So what exactly was unexpected about Agilent's earnings shortfall? Could it be that other factors were more germane to the company's financial problems (Agilent hasn't posted an operating profit for several quarters) than an enterprise software implementation? Not until a footnote in Agilent's release is it revealed that the company's other operational challenges include the economic downturn, competitive and pricing pressures, changing demand, an internal reorganization and the company's ability to execute on new products. Yet half the release is dedicated to navel gazing about the ERP implementation.

As a technology vendor, Agilent knows better than most companies that big IT projects are difficult and disruptive. As the CFO suggested, the ERP upheaval was a normal cost of doing business, a cost Agilent's management should have mitigated with technical and process controls. Any collateral financial damage should have been anticipated and built into the company's revenue and earnings forecasts. Instead -- surprise! -- the company comes up $105 million short.

To Agilent's credit, it didn't point fingers directly at its technology vendor or IT organization -- either because it knew better or of professional courtesy. Other companies have dragged their implementers' names through the mud to deflect criticism of their own management inadequacies.

In March 2001, for example, Nike blasted its supply chain software vendor for inventory problems that reduced third-quarter sales by as much as $100 million. Nike never said much more about those problems, probably because it had no one to blame but itself. According to one source with knowledge of that project, Nike's business executives made unrealistic demands of the software at the start of the project planning, only to be set straight by several of the company's IT managers, who were then replaced by yes men (and women) who ultimately couldn't deliver what the execs demanded.

Agilent and Nike are by no means the first companies to blame a bad quarter on an IT snafu. Almost every company, from luggage maker Samsonite to distributor W.W. Grainger to HMO Oxford Health Care to electronics conglomerate Siemens, has made IT a financial scapegoat at one time or another. Senior executives figure they can blame IT for their companies' less-than-stellar financials since the less-than-tech-savvy analysts and shareholders they answer to aren't likely to call them on their logic.

Meantime, what message does this blame game send to those companies' tech professionals? You're the fall guys (or gals). When was the last time an IT organization was credited in an earnings release with creating business efficiencies?

IT and business organizations must manage enterprise technology projects--and expectations -- in lockstep. Any associated problems aren't one or another organization's fault or even the software's or the vendor's fault. They're the company's fault. Plain and simple, the buck must stop here.

--Rob Preston, rpreston@cmp.com

Best of the Web

Data deduplication: Declawing the clones

Data deduplication is emerging as a critically important new arrow in the storage administrator's quiver to answer hard questions about the increasing problem in storage growth costs.

Quick Read

Compression, Encryption, Deduplication, and Replication: Strange Bedfellows

One of the great ironies of storage technology is the inverse relationship between efficiency and security: Adding performance or reducing storage requirements almost always results in reducing the confidentiality, integrity, or availability of a system.

Quick Read

WAN Optimization Whitelists and Blacklists

Optimization is a fantastic way of saving money and creating really happy customers at the same time, but it doesn't work flawlessly for all applications.

Quick Read

WAN Optimization as a Managed Service: It's Not About the Cost

This insight examines how organizations outsourcing their WAN optimization initiatives to a third-party go about achieving their goals for application performance, reducing operational costs, and streamlining enterprise infrastructure.

Quick Read

  Sponsored Links

Premium Content

Next Generation Data Center, Delivered, November 17th
NWC


Salary

Video