Just around the corner there's a rainbow in the sky,
but IT managers will be keeping their umbrellas handyand their wallets
coveredwell into the new year. That consensus translates into continuing
flat (or declining) budgets, with phrases like "IT portfolio management"
and "leveraging existing assets" replacing "the Internet changes
everything" as industry mottoes. Hard-headed business is the new New Age
wisdom. Yet while few would argue against focusing on value when planning
software projects, deciding how to generate value with Internet technology is
a much dicier proposition.
Before the Web threw gold dust in our eyes, for instance, the basic metric
for estimating the return on software investments was the FTE: the number of
full-time employees the new system could displace. Under this regimen,
technology is economically justified when the costs it eliminates or avoids
exceed the system's total cost of ownership (TCO) over a specified time frame.
Organizations love this veneer of mathematical precision, which is why
cutting costs through automation has been technology's most dependable benefit
since the Industrial Revolution.
But not for nothing is economics called the dismal science. Like the
nineteenth-century machines that displaced cottage industries and turned generations
of craftspeople into assembly-line drones, information systems built on the
backs of FTEs have a grim feel about them. They tend to kill morale, for one
thing. For another, replacing people with CPU cycles overlooks a firm's potential
to do things better, rather than merely cheaper. All too often, the bottom-line
benefits of automation come at the expense of missed top-line opportunities
based on new services, new partners and new markets. Innovation and differentiation
are the output of a creative, empowered workforce, not commodity laborers employed
because their jobs have not yet been streamlined away.
What the Internet really changes
As good a measure as any of how far we've come since the Web revolution is
that phrases like "empowerment" and "creativity" now have
a quaint, naïve ring. Nevertheless, these terms, together with "community,"
"collaboration" and evenwhoa, Nelly"cyberspace,"
are the right concepts for elevating fussy econometric arguments to the level
of human enterprise.
Back in the day we knew this. We recognized the Internet to be more than a
non-proprietary infrastructure for business communications. Intuitively, we
apprehended the Web as a self-organizing, spontaneous community with no center
but lots of value. That, rather than HTTP or the stateless soup of documents
it enables, was the revolutionary aspect of the new medium. It still is.
This sounds a whole lot nicer than paying for technology with paychecks, but
is there a shred of business sense in it? Or has building community on the Web
become a piece of late-1990's kitsch, as admirably high-minded as putting flowers
in a gun barrel but just as irrelevant to current events?
The answer is that facilitating creative dialogues between people is the Internet's
greatest, and perhaps only, contribution to business culture, much more important
than selling things online or lowering supply-chain costs. Contrary to many
companies' mission statements, Internet commerce is an oxymoron. B2C
and B2B Web sites have found it hard to sustain earnings not because they're
missing a trick, but because open standards are all about leveling the playing
field, giving everyone the same undifferentiated efficiencies. This is not
good news for markets. When every player has access to the same process-streamlining
technologies, no one can gain a meaningful cost advantage; when, at the same
time, buyers have no exit barriers and substitutes are a click away, the market
doesn't just become friction-free, it goes into free fall.
Cost-conscious analysts have been misreading the commoditizing power of open
standards as a competitive advantage since they put the 'e' in e-business. While
it is true that open technologies lower costs, they erode margins and weaken
industry structures even faster. Making
openness your business strategy is like stoking a fire with home furnishings:
eventually, it leaves you homeless.
The place to look for value in an Internet strategy is the top line. In a marketplace
of equals, competitive advantage is a matter of innovation and differentiation,
qualities that customers are willing to pay for. But being first or being better
are the province of enterprising people getting together to create cool stuff.
What Internet technologies like e-mail, the Web and XML do best is lower communication
barriers. Let them. Recognize that self-organizing, unmediated communitieswhether
Web-based discussion forums, mailing lists, or Usenet newsgroupsare by
definition creative and self-motivated. Identify and invest in technology and
processes that harvest this creative energy toward the goal of making your organization's
products and services compellingly unique.
As one example, consider this publication's Intranet
Exchange discussion forum, a simple, low-cost collaboration system. This
virtual environment attracts a community of intranet professionals who, without
formal affiliation or oversight, have generated around 40,000 pages of technical
dialogue. That's a heck of a value proposition to keep in mind as you ponder
your organization's next Internet investment.
Gordon Benett is a technology strategist with over 16 years experience
analyzing, architecting and developing information systems. He is currently with
Aberdeen Group (Boston, MA), where as a Senior Research Analyst he follows the
Enterprise Java and Middleware markets. Gordon founded Intranet Journal
in 1996 and remains a reader and contributing author. He welcomes your comments
at gbenett@mediaone.net.
Printer Friendly Version