Posts Tagged ‘technology’

Alliances – Confront Today for Success Tomorrow

Monday, October 18th, 2010

By Mark P. Dangelo

www.Innovative-Relevance.com

Increasingly, alliances and their dependent relationships are a critical component within our business and technology go-to-market offerings.  Alliances range from simple forms of operational provisioning (e.g., vendors, sales forces, expense management) to strategic relationships between firms (e.g., sharing of revenue, joint ventures, market collaboration) – and permutations of “everything in between”.  For some, alliances represent a new form of currency to expand capabilities, while improving margins.

Furthermore, regardless of organizational size, alliances are necessary modules in our delivery to customers (i.e., B2B, B2C, and P2P), and even as an element in influencing industry regulations and risk mitigation (e.g., associations).  Our organizational operations passively and actively use alliance relationships in both formalized and ad-hoc structures –beyond a logo on a web page or a press release advocating a spirit of cooperation. 

Today’s alliances are foundational building blocks used to connect highly-fragmented markets with bespoken offerings hemmed in by global economic and currency uncertainty (i.e., “Why hire when we can source to outside experts?”).

Yet, for all their potential, the on-going tit-for-tat saga being played out between Oracle and HP, exposes the deep seated vulnerabilities of traditional alliances and the approaches used to transform and govern them.  Whereas, most finance and mortgage group (FMG) operations are not as complex or interconnected as these billion dollar technology giants, their alliance deterioration demonstrates the downside consequences of assuming these relationships are risk-free. 

To discover alliance lessons learned, we need to pose five key questions:

·         What are the formal or informal alliance goals, objectives, and expected contributions? 

·         Beyond the legal documents, what does the alliance comprise – end-to-end? 

·         What is the impact – quantitatively and qualitatively — when they are non-performing? 

·         How have they changed from their inception and are they still relevant (i.e., how are they measured against today’s benchmarks)? 

·         What happens with the alliances, relationships, and businesses, which were built upon compromise, that end in bitter divorce?

As a financier and serial entrepreneur recently stated, “Today’s uncertainty and operating demands have put increased pressure on organizations to produce results regardless of the relationship consequences.  The result appears to be manifesting itself in unprofessional behavior, broken promises, and every man for themselves.  In general, old alliances are fast becoming inconvenient with a ‘buyer-beware’ position.” 

Indeed, it may be a good time to apply lessons learned to our own business and technology alliances – before they end up on the front pages or worse yet, in a court of law.  Let’s examine just a few of the unfolding challenges confronting today’s alliance initiatives.

Lesson #1: T-Squared (Timing and Trustworthiness)

 

For many, this is the most important aspect of their alliances.  Timing is not only important for payments, identifications, turnarounds, and resolutions; it demonstrates cross-organizational commitment and longevity.  Yet, the time required to reach an alliance (while simultaneously conducting joint pursuits) should not be left to chance.  Timing has become a known area where large firms negatively “string out” smaller ones.

 

Trustworthiness envelopes inter-organization actions, and once breeched, it will unravel the best alliance program.  In the publicized Oracle and HP alliance disconnects, both sides are now providing “evidence” and “allegations” that the other is behaving irrationally, and as a result, should not be trusted.  More commonly, during negotiations, organizations make-or-break the program by their actions – such as delaying contract T’s & C to avoid payouts.  An award for the poorest behavior is given to a large software firm that unilaterally substituted contracts in the middle of negotiations – after clients were introduced into the alliance program.

Lesson #2: DAR (Duration, Action, Reward)

 

A professional alliance should never be open ended.  Forced reevaluation on an annual basis is the norm subject to adherence to preset terms and conditions.  Businesses change – so does the need or desire for alliances.

 

Actions and interlinked responsibility / accountability should be clearly delineated encompassing priorities and budgets.  Most alliances stress the separation of IC, ownership, and competition, but few include Addendums detailing how any results are to be identified or achieved – tied to stated and agreed upon alliance goals, objectives, rationale, and implications.

 

Rewards or payments cannot be, “… at the sole discretion of the company” as some firms would advocate in the fine print.  Accounting for results is often more involved than an introduction, a referral, or part of a pursuit team.  The percentage, method, and duration of payments are always subject to negotiations and are seldom presented at face value.

Lesson #3: MCP (Measurement, Commitment, Performance)

 

To be rewarded, alliance programs need to have adaptive, measurement processes to ensure on-going relevancy.  Moreover, how profitability is calculated and expenses allocated are sometimes problematic. 

 

Whereas, alliance programs place a burden on the firm joining the plan, what commitment does the alliance provider guarantee should they fail to live up to obligatory performance?  Many programs are silent on this effort, but failure to deliver is a leading cause for reputational damages and early termination.  What about conflicts-of-interest?

 

So, how is performance measured?  Who owns the contacts and market?  If the alliance program is successful (in the eyes of both parties), what constitutes success?  It is more than payment terms. 

Lesson #4: PH (People and Herding)

 

As we know, alliances are often used to formalize a growing business relationship.  Frequently, when a key person leaves or is moved, the alliance suffers or fails altogether.  So ask yourself, is it a business alliance or a personal alliance?  The feasibility of alliances often begin with understanding this dynamic and the competitive forces in play.

 

Some organizations, especially when new products are announced, rush into the markets to sign everyone to an alliance program in an effort to gain breadth and scale – they herd as many as they can into promoting their offering.  Recently, we have witnessed increased alliances in services – outsourcing, consulting, and system integrators – as organizations want access to larger books-of-business, while they avoid hiring FTE’s and gain access to local markets.  Problems arise for smaller firms partnering with larger ones as these arrangements quickly become one-sided and commoditized – not to mention competitively dysfunctional.

Lesson #5: ICE (Issues, Challenges, and Expectations)

 

To ensure viability, any alliance must have predefined mechanisms to deal with issues or challenges to the intent.  Working relationships will generate frictions, and before they surface, agreed upon workout processes must be created and tested.  Without a process to escalate, your only choices are reaching out to the senior executives or hiring legal representation.

 

Expectation management is continually present in any alliance.  Is the partner holding up their promises?  Does the alliance hold hidden costs and risks that were masked?  How come the arrangement is not benefiting my organization sooner?  Dialogue channels and formalized communication must be explicitly identified in every alliance.  Too often, especially if executed with passive-aggressive cultures, communications and expectation fall into a chasm resulting in eventual alliance failure.

Lesson #6: SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats)

 

SWOT is a common business approach for the initial definition of an alliance agreement.  However, the initial assessments are seldom revisited to ensure accuracy.  With the alliance underway, putting stated goals, objectives, and measurements into defined dashboards provides an “at a glance” assessment of progress and value.  Additionally, the results may lead to periodic appraisals of assumptions, risks, and issues forcing a revaluation of SWOT and the value of the alliance to the organization.

Lesson #7: BUIHTD (“Breaking Up Is Hard to Do”)

 

Even the best relationships can experience separation and some even end in divorce – at a minimum, the Oracle and HP arrangement is apparently heading for a separation.  Events, reorganizations, mergers, acquisitions, divestures (MAD) and even buy-outs can significantly alter once prosperous alliances.  Alliances, just like those forged in reality TV, are constantly shifting and breaking.  Forward-thinking preparation can mitigate many of the problems associated with BUIHTD.

 

Remember, alliance contracts should not resemble employment contracts – this is a surprise to many large software firms.  The breakup should not impact the ability to compete or forge new alliances — unless something is provided in return.

 

* * * * * * * *

There is a marked difference in alliances executed during periods of economic expansion versus contraction.  The changes for economic rebalancing, which precipitated the start of new alliances, have just begun – currencies, trade, policies, quantitative easing, MAD, protectionism, and regulatory taxes and controls.  Therefore, the traditional beliefs behind alliances must be continually called into question.  Alliances, and the proposed value brought to the organization, must be rethought.

Confronting alliance dogma represents a key component in creating and sustaining new business, while forging lasting relationships that mutually benefit both parties.  How effective are your alliances when you map them to the future of your business – and customer needs?

 

An Allegory for an Uncommon Time

Tuesday, June 22nd, 2010

By Mark P. Dangelo

www.innovative-relevance.com

(as also published at the National  Mortgage Bankers Association)

In a dark cave, a fire glows in the corner casting its shadows with eerie reflections on the objects within.  In the flickers of light, we can see outlines of gray and black hues sketching out eight individuals – all chained together, all facing forward. 

For decades, each of these figures –consumer, banker, GSE, financier, investor, regulator, politician, and technologist – faced the wall in a sitting position gawking at the dancing wall images encapsulating a unique reality for their daily existence.  Each saw their reality in isolation even though the images of their existence were created from the same source.

The cave, and its changing shadows, was the only existence this group of eight had ever known for business, markets, and individual reward.  The inhabitants had never left the cave, yet each was firm in their own but different, realities.  Their livelihood and prosperity was the cave.  It was comfortable, convenient, and it defined their existence. 

A Seismic Disruption

Just over two years ago, a magnitude 8.2 financial seismic disturbance unshackled the cave dwellers from their bonds, and the light that reassured them of their existence sparked and began to rapidly dim.  In short, the seismic aftermath freed each of the linked from their one-way value chain of subsistence.  As they rubbed their dust cover faces, they witnessed a new illumination coming from the entrance of the cave. 

Disoriented and driven by failing debris, the historically interconnected dwellers were separately forced into the open and the strange confines of a new world.  Grasping, groping, angry, and seeking safety, the eight moved to the glow of new surroundings, as a method to escape individual and financial demise now being delivered by the cave that once protected and sustained them.

For the group of eight (G8), their survival outside of the cave was savage.  Month after month, their long-held axioms were shattered – home ownership, mark-to-market, hedging strategies, derivatives, regulatory certainty, housing markets, ethics, investor confidence, sovereign wealth and currencies, consumer behavior, regulatory oversight, risk analytics and strategies, swaps, structured financing, fiscal responsibilities, and even government-backed enterprises, which have the potential to saddle taxpayers with $1 trillion USD in losses against the national debt (multiples greater than AIG). 

Moreover, the G8 were challenged by those who had already lived outside of the cave, as they were acclimated to behaving and interacting across new world commerce.  These “global dwellers” had different mores, protocols (i.e., regulations), and business demands quite distinct from the G8.  The original G8 longed for the prior security of their cave. 

For the next 827 days, aftershocks and misplaced initiatives dominated their interactions with these global dwellers, and those that indirectly had come to depend upon them.  The G8’s prosperity (i.e., cave light), as defined by their historical cave surroundings, was being extinguished.  A new illumination was coming from a different source delivering ever changing images and realities – a radiance that was high in the sky rising from the East.  The G8 were grasping for efficacy in a new environment as the rules and workflows of operation were regularly failing their original creators.

For the G8, as they exited from cave their global wealth steadily declined by over $20 trillion, as triple-A asset backed securities and complex, opaque OTC derivatives fell in value or vanished all together.  As the markets fell, business interactions among the G8 declined resulting in 1 in 10 domestic adults being unemployed.  Moreover, unsustainable household debt or leverage approached 200% of income as government debt reached WWII ratios against GDP.

The shockwave of unemployment and survival conditions outside of the cave inverted the ratio of new mortgages when compared against delinquencies and foreclosures. Calendar 2010 promises nearly 3 million repossessions and short sales against an average of 650,000 originations.  Private securitization fell from over 60% in 2006 to < 2% in 2009.  Moreover, 2010 brings new survival risks for the G8 cave inhabitants, as global dwellers and their investors demand new restrictions as volatile sentiment creates lingering doubts – and the potential retracing (e.g., double dipping) of the on-going survival pain. 

Life on the Outside — The Unthinkable becomes Commonplace

New behaviors and strange occurrences for the G8 grew.  Consumer strategic defaults became commonplace as “underwater” became a key justification for default.  Bankers reluctantly became “utility” providers, as they never thought their actions would become public record – let alone achieve such a level of public vilification.  Making matters worse, HAMP, which was promoted with the hope for all the G8, is now facing the potential of a 75% re-default within 12 months for those already “helped.”

Even those “Sheppard’s” of the old cave – the regulators, their agencies, and politicians – now added more uncertainty and strange behavior. This diverse trio reacted to the demands of the global dwellers, and the chaos they were unprepared to experience.

Individually and using public forums, once comfortable regulators found their relationships and new world frightening.  They chose to hide behind the nearest tree to avoid retribution or inspection.  Politicians blamed everyone around them as a global distain grew into domestic consequences – their role and reelection appeared no longer ordained – as some were having tea while others were distributing wealth and retribution. 

Investors and brokers now realized, what meteorically goes up can crash to the ground destroying their secure cave and everyone in it.  It was no longer a game or an illusion on the wall of the cave.  It was real, and the consequences dehumanizing.  Actions and results went well beyond the “education” of the markets and informed investors, moral hazards, or even “the greater good.” 

And yes, the technologist who was seeking to streamline processes for operational efficiency (i.e., the interconnected images on the cave wall), find these new global dwellers offensive, belligerent, and failing to accept the storied accomplishments once taken as gospel within the cave.  Their prior status seems to have little meaning to the global dwellers, who have established themselves and their markets without the dogmatic expertise of the G8 “cave interactions.” 

Finally, after a year of debate and blame, in an effort to create a new “virtual” cave, the G8 proposed new guidance for their surroundings.  This guidance was designed to ensure their relevancy and standing in the “new world order.”  They would “set things right.” 

Creating a sweeping series of changes, captured in hundreds of thousands of words and legal language, the G8 sought to create an innovative reality – a “better” reality.  It was a new set of standards for all to follow and admire – to ensure that the collapse of the new, virtual cave can never happen, like the “real” cave did. 

In an effort to adapt to its new global surroundings, the G8 members lobbied, shouted, projected, and cajoled not only each other, but those new relationships they needed for survival and prosperity.  The new world order was now close at hand as the G8 demanded adherence and respect.  But, were these “sound laws” enough?  Too Much?  Or was it all just another illusion – more than business justification and markets demanded – to wield influence and “stake out territories?” 

Rebuilding Against the After Shocks

So dawns a new quarter as the G8 lobby for and lament against financial reform and revolution.  Nearly three years after their cave collapsed, those original eight who were holistically linked have fractured and polarized.  As the pillars burn, for many innocents caught in a financial disruption not of their making, the Four Horsemen have arrived in rumbling droves. 

However, from the ashes of illusion, hope arises – and we believe prosperity will be forthcoming, driven by new guidance and innovation.  But when?  Who will be the beneficiaries?

Contrary to the hope of G8 members, rebuilding does not mean the same or even retro.  Very little will be the same, and the time machine is out-of-commission.  The old cave light taken for granted as the “Sun” by the G8 is now larger providing illumination for all the global dwellers – not just those within the destroyed bunker.  This “New Sun” (rising in the East) is not easily controlled, and it must be harnessed differently if a new ecosystem of co-dependent business models is to be sustained. 

However, for those adjusting to the global dwellers and their “strange” relationships, there is a material risk.  If they adopt and adapt to new behaviors and methods of business, will they be shunned (or worse) should they return to their original G8 members?  Will they recognize their old friends and foes?  Will they be cast aside by those who still favor those dogmatic methods, which once led to prosperity – but sowed the seeds of the largest financial seismic disruption in 80 years (but the largest in net losses)?

For the G8, questions remain in the effort for transparency and viability.  A cursory few include:

·         Consumer:  Will their new “cave” be dependent upon old ideals?  Will they behave so differently that only “educated” owners will be allowed to participate in the new society?

·         Banker:  Will their longing for the historical, be the seeds of their slow demise?  Have their sunk costs of cave participation become so culturally ingrained that they only are perceived to change when forced?

·         GSE:  What will their role be after the “period of convenience” ends?  Are they the next “public-private” villain as the global dwellers seek a new leader(s)?

·         Financier:  Where’s the deal, what’s the spread, and how can it be hedged?  Is this new world really any different than the old one?

·         Investor:  What will be recoverable and who was to blame for their loss of stature and capital?  We were “mislead,” right?

·         Regulator:  What are the implications and impacts of action or inaction?  Is it a global world or “each cave / clan for themselves?”

·         Politician:  Am I interfering in the life and property of “my subjects” with “proper justification?”  Is it safer to be “feared than loved?”

·         Technologist:  Do we have the new skills, processes, data, and architectures needed for conformance and compliance?  Will the existing become immaterial?

Rebuilding, as Machiavelli wrote in 1513, is a torturous compromise, “Men have imagined republics and principalities that never really existed at all.  Yet the way men live is so far removed from the way they ought to live that anyone who abandons what is for what should be pursues his downfall rather than his preservation; for a man who strives after goodness in all his acts is sure to come to ruin, since there are so many men who are not good.

* * * * * * * * *

So even after nearly 2500 years of allegorical symbolism, it still appears that our parable has not reached its conclusion – not yet.  For lurking within the woods and waters surrounding the recently combined global dwellers, including the G8, are bears, bulls, bugs, horses, reptiles, lions, sharks, snakes, and may be an iceberg.  The environment has changed, the interactions uncertain, and predators are many.  The only axiom still valid is that a new equilibrium has not been achieved. 

Looking Back at the Strategy of Why Some Succeed — and Many Fail

Monday, March 15th, 2010

by Mark P. Dangelo

www.Innovative-Relevance.com

It was a decade ago, at the peak of the NASDAQ Composite, that the world began to truly comprehend the potential of the “nets” (i.e., Internet, intranets, extranets, and more recently the “clouds” and mobile 4G).  As new firms rose to trailblazer prominence (e.g., Amazon, AOL, Atomic Tangerine, Egg, and others), the phrase “brick and mortar” increasingly became linked with traditional, unwieldy, hierarchical, and candidly, resistant to change enterprises “destined to go the path of the dinosaur.” 

Yet, what was once dismissed out-of-hand (i.e., layering[i]) is now set to become a top-5 strategy challenge for every management team, vendor, and outsourcer surviving in this decade.  A critical question remains if organizations have the vision and humility to leverage the past, while innovating for the future.

A Decade for the Record Books

Since 2000, the removal of the old became a classic win-lose corporate context framed by:

·         enterprise solutions (e.g., SAP, Oracle, and PeopleSoft),

·         consultants, outsourcers, and advisors (e.g., Accenture, TCS, ACS, and McKinsey), and

·         channel-specific solution providers (e.g., Cisco, Sun, and IBM). 

Within the finance and mortgage groups (FMG’s), the implementation value chain solutions became inverted with technology ideals frequently trumping business models, as volume, any volume drove people, and processes over sound management judgment. 

Inadvertently, brick and mortar principles were perceived as outdated and discarded as organizations chased the markets – and the most debt-laden homeowner in history.  With 2010 set to produce the largest volume of delinquencies and foreclosures on record perpetuated by a jobless recovery (9%-10% until late 2011), the surface indicators might support the frustration that once again, we need to start over.  Throw out the legacy models and lessons learned in favor of new approaches and technologies.

Today, pundits declare that the FDIC interventions, TARP injections, and Federal Reserve market actions are merely perpetuating the foundational decay long hidden within traditional FMG’s, operating on axioms defined back in the 1930’s. 

The belief remains that the greatest financial meltdown ever (in real USD lost) was just waiting to happen.  It could not be stopped even if we understood what “irrational exuberance” really meant.  All it needed for the traditional firms to fail were vast real estate bubbles spread across developed nations to provide the spark that lead to the vanishing of 10%-12% of global wealth (since 2007).

Learning, Layering, and Looking Forward

Indeed it is time for sustainable change, new ideas, fresh industry blood, and elimination of systems that benefited so few.  So, why reexamine 20th Century principles that have already been cast aside by 21st Century attitudes and doctrines?  In a virtually connected world that never sleeps, who needs brick and mortar dogma when continuous technological innovation is what consumers are demanding?  Why indeed. 

Nevertheless, when examining those “Jurassic” systems with their layers of front and back office control procedures, history has now shown that the brick and mortar strategic operating principles remained very viable and stable.  When glancing backwards, it is the techniques and underlying implementation methods that have been permanently transformed (see Figure 1 for a list of principles, demands, and techniques). 

As portrayed in Figure 1, it is precisely those brick and mortar operations that not only survived (albeit slightly dented), but continue to grow – JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, and Bank of America to name but a few.  Moreover, each FMG holds valuable lessons learned — as well as publically exposed pitfalls.  If the U.S., like the new stress test ordered for the UK banking community, enters a pause or retracing of economic growth in 2010 (i.e., double bottom), the value g leaned from the surviving FMG brick and mortar principles may be the difference between survival – and receivership.

Layering Tackles Strategy, Complexity, and Uncertainty

Layering for 2010-2013 is best defined as the utilization of principle driven models (i.e., process, business, and technology across the mortgage pillars of origination, servicing, and securitization).  This often missed strategic approach allows organizations to employ the “best-in-class” solutions, products, and services even if they might be viewed as competitive (see Figure 2). 

It is the assembly of these “building blocks” that provides the distinction and profitability so badly demanded within struggling FMG’s.  Stated more pointedly, how many of those “pure-play” offerings survive after just five years?  With VC investments now just 30%-35% of 2006 levels, you only have to look at their investment web pages to notice the portfolio rot driven by a failure to anticipate consumer change and uncertainty. 

If truth be told, the deployment of layering is inherent within all viable business models – domestic or global – as their usage surrounds the assembly of strategies, processes, technology, and people.  Analogous to the building of a foundation with stone, cement, and metal, the use of layering for sustainable business resonates with profitable innovators.  It is now fundamental criteria in investor minds as well.

As shown in Figure 2, if the “foundation” of layers cannot be assembled properly (e.g., the laying of brick for a wall meeting industry “building codes”), the ensuing channels, offerings, and markets will collapse onto the basement floor – much like investors in RMBS and CMBS experienced during the last four years.  Yet, are organizations fully equipped with the skills and abilities to critically examine the successes and failures?  What about the performance of partners and channel providers?  Or will it become a situation where teams are sent out to perform “bring me a rock” analysis?

Stated bluntly for those who still fail to see the building block challenge and financial opportunities, if everyone utilizes the same standards and electronic delivery strategies, how come everyone isn’t equally successful?  The aforementioned are merely the vehicles of delivery – not the layering of complex business requirements that if assembled wrong, lead to failure.  In some cases, career ending failure.

In Closing

If you have any doubts on the strategy of business and technology layering, then take a look at the survivors from the companies previously mentioned.  What were the key principles that lead them as pathfinders succeed and adapt, while others failed or were acquired?  Did they lack technology, people or the “right” idea?  Did they shun brick and mortar principles entirely or selectively apply the fundamentals that worked for their business operations and technological implementations?  Did they let their egos drive their actions?

So now, 10 years after the great market corrections of 2000, it is the innovative business leaders who are gleaning safe and sound practices from the old brick and mortar.  For vendors and outsourcers, those operational leaders that can deliver scalable, interoperability layers of processes and technologies will be the household names across the industry.  How many will act?  How many will continue to be froze in place holding on to the ideals misplaced and misrepresented?  We can all think of a few.

Enterprises (i.e., the core business, their vendors, and outsourcing providers) able to rapidly adapt to changing consumer needs, and more recently, radical mutations of homeowner behaviors will be able to weather any downturn or changing market conditions.  It seems the lessons and principles of the past have become the guides of the future.

Funny, sometimes to go positively forward, you must start out in reverse. 



[i] Analogous to a “method of propagating plants by covering a branch or shoot with soil so that it takes root while still attached to the parent plant.”