I recently came across a full page advert in the FT digital business section placed by BT, the headline of which read 'Innovate or die: the new strategy for 21st century business'. This is incredibly ironic considering their own track record of being left behind in innovation...perhaps in this statement they are in fact speaking from personal experience?
In the advert Gary Bullard, BT's UK managing director of Global services mentions the success of on-line gambling websites over high street betting shops as proof that new competitors with updated networks will automatically out perform traditional companies who do not make sufficient use of technology, and, without any quantifiable qualification, states that "new entrants [to markets] are increasingly going to spring from nowhere". Ironic then that in the same issue of the FT there is an article about the ailing and continued downward spiral of the on-line gambling market, the bubble for which has definitely burst.
Although his analogy is correct in some respects (there will indeed always be new entrants to any market, and in the long term technology is key in progressing business beyond the local), it is very dangerous to make the assumption that technology automatically leads to success. One only has to remember the dot com boom for proof that having technology, electronic networks and an on-line presence does not necessarily lead to a profitable business.

Technology management is a complex subject in itself, and simply throwing technology at an issue, rather like throwing money at something, does not always make for a better solution. Companies should take stock very carefully of precisely what they have, how well they make use of it, how well it functions and precisely what benefits would be offered by upgrading, before very cautiously considering technological investment, and should be well prepared for the conclusion that actually more technology, internet presence or e-networks have very little or indeed nothing at all to offer them in the immediate future.
Looking at the longer term benefits of technology investment is also important, as a company may realise that in time to come they will be less competitive in their market if they don't begin to find new ways of delivering products and services. However, caution should once again be employed, as investment in technology too early will only result in expenditure on installation, upkeep and eventually upgrading before the capability even exists to earn any revenue from it. Once again the message is, look at what you have, make full use of it, reuse and recycle it, find new use for it and generally speaking get the absolute most out of it before considering upgrading rather than trying to jump on the technological bandwagon just to keep up with Jones' Inc. next door.

In the advert BT goes on to use businesses that were founded as solely internet based enterprises as proof that using technology leads to success, yet the ad is
aimed at convincing existing traditional businesses to spend money on changeover to technology, which is a completely different situation involving very different parameters.
Finally, one of the advert's featured 'experts' (commentators from outside of the company) points out that, for commercial companies, having robust networks would only improve things by a small percentage. Does this not suggest that BT's outsourced experts are rather more clued up than they are?


Ben Sassen's blog | add new comment