The level of process in an organization is a pretty esoteric topic that I haven’t seen discussed very often, or in very much depth. Yet I believe it is critically important to any CEO looking to grow a company, particularly a software or hardware technology based company.

The reason I believe it is so important is that, in aggregate, how process-oriented your company culture is effects every nook and cranny of company operations. Oftentimes, however, senior management doesn’t even explicitly think about how much process they want governing company operations. More often than not, this part of the culture grows in a random and haphazard manner, driven by unforeseen key events that shape the level of process. Sometimes the level of structure varies dramatically by department. In these cases, managers below the senior executive level usually are driving department cultures that may or may not be process-oriented, depending upon their own operating styles. The key takeaway here is that process levels often aren’t being driven strategically, but occurring tactically or even haphazardly. This is usually a mistake–here’s why I think so.

In technology companies, in particular, the level of processes can make or destroy your business. There are three reasons that I feel there is much more sensitivity in high tech companies to process levels:

1. The rapid evolution of technology and technology markets
2. The need to innovate if you want to thrive in technology businesses
3. The necessity and difficulty of constantly ‘taming” new technology

I’ll use as an example a recent experience with a client to illustrate my point. The client is a small but growing software company. They have in their culture a high level of chaos, as is common with many growing, young software businesses. The company was bootstrapped and grown out of what started as a service business, and possesses very little in the way of corporate controls or processes.

On the positive side they are very responsive, fast-moving and innovative, able to capitalize on changes in technology and inefficiencies in the market. These are very important qualities in a software startup, particularly one of the thinly capitalized variety. These attributes are the very reason they’ve been able to crack through the very early stage that kills many startups, and has allowed them to grow and thrive.

But there’s a flip-side to this type of unstructured corporate environment, however. This company lacks the discipline that is required to “stick to the plan”. Indeed, there is very little planning going on to begin with! This operating style fits great in the segments of the business where innovation is critical, such as conceiving new products. But in other areas where a more disciplined, structured approach is important, performance is much lower and is a drag on company results. While excellent at conceiving and quickly prototyping new products, follow-on releases often come out much later than planned. QA is not a formal function and the initial new releases and documentation are lower quality than they could and indeed should be. The website has very little oversight and is littered with a lack of consistency, broken links, old content and grammar & spelling errors. We’ve  worked on correcting these problems — carefully — without killing the very environment that is enabling success. It’s tricky to fix without “throwing the baby out with the bathwater”.

This is just one example, and of course the level of process needed to run IBM optimally is fundamentally different from that of an early stage software startup. In your particular company, it may be very important to have a high level of formal process in one department–and just as important to minimize the level of process in another. This may be quite different altogether in other companies.

So how do you know that you need to adjust your level of process in a strategic sense? Here are a few guidelines to get you thinking about where your process level stacks up vs. what may be optimal:

Your competitors are beating you to the punch

This is a sure sign that you are bureaucratic and process-oriented relative to your market. While there may be good reasons for the processes you have installed, being consistently behind in responding to market needs can have a very negative effect on your growth prospects.

You are constantly releasing “flawed” products into the market

This is the converse to the first point above. It usually indicates you moving too fast, with too little process and structure in product development, QA and release. In truth, the end results of this approach is usually worse that being beaten to market.

Employees are complaining about so much process

I always listen to what employees are saying; they are the “canary in coal mine”, often a leading indicator of issues that later show up in your financial statements. The caveat here is that these types of complaints can also indicate a hiring problem. Make sure you’re not hiring people who’s operating style aren’t a good fit with the way the company needs to operate.

Employees are complaining about the lack of process controls

The converse to the point directly above is when employees are complaining about how much chaos exists in the company. While the point above about watch for hiring mismatches rings true here as well, this is often the time you need to take a hard look at adding some structure to how you operate.

There’s absolutely no “chaos” in your organization–and little or no innovation as well

I have a rule of thumb when it comes to pricing new products: if no one is complaining about price, you probably are leaving money on the table. My “chaos corollary” is similar: if there is no chaos in your operations that folks are complaining about, you probably have created an environment so process-oriented it will limit your innovation and resulting revenue.

Generally speaking, I have a bias towards a little less process and a bit more chaos in software and hardware companies. Often excessive process is just a bad band-aid covering up poor hiring practices. Nothing allows you to minimize process like a strong, responsible, empowered group of employees. Creating the environment to hire and retain highly responsible people generally leads to a company getting done everything it needs to, with a good level of innovation to boot–while keeping formal process to a minimum.

I recommend holding off adding new processes until you absolutely have to, because going the other direction is much more difficult. But in fact, it’s important to have the proper balance if you want your company to function optimally. Analyze what the proper level of structure and process is not just for your company overall, but in each discrete operating segment of your business.

There you have it–my view on how to analyze and instill the proper amount of formal process for your company. What’s your view on this topic? Post a comment to expand the discussion.

Follow Phil Morettini and Morettini on Management via Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, RSS, or the PJM Consulting Quarterly Newsletter. Contact Phil directly at info@pjmconsult.com

Bookmark to:

The focus of my consulting practice is on commercial software product businesses, whether traditionally licensed, mobile, open source, SaaS–or some combination of all. While many software product businesses are originally organized with that purpose in mind, a remarkably large number of others started in another business. Let’s take a look at a few service-oriented scenarios which tend to grow into or spin off software product businesses:

Software (consulting) services

It’s very common for a product to be developed out of a software services company, which can mean a range of services such as consulting or outsourcing. These companies are being asked to design/create full applications, either for internal use by end user customers or as actual commercial software products. As a result, these service companies are in good position to recognize software product opportunities; sometimes these products are created by a funded service contract (if the service company is savvy enough to retain code rights!).

Government contracting

This is a very similar situation to the Software Services example above, with a couple of important differences. Government contractors are often not pure software development organizations; they may create hardware or provide other services as their government customers dictate. So they may not have a culture which emphasizes software development. Even more importantly, it can be tricky to retain rights to code developed with government funding–contracting expertise and an upfront emphasis on rights retention are critical in these circumstances.

Hardware/Systems

Another common scenario is software developed within a hardware or systems-oriented company. While not strictly fitting into the service category, I’ve included this example because it’s another common way software product companies are started that doesn’t fit the traditional methodology. The fact is that even in hardware companies these days, most of the innovation and IP is software-based. So it’s not at all unusual to see software developed as part of a systems approach that is later seen as having a market as a standalone application, apart from the hardware. Many successful software companies have started as spin-offs from hardware or systems-oriented companies.

VARs

Here’s another slightly different flavor of the Software Consulting Services example we began with. VARs are solutions providers for end user customers and are frequently asked to extend existing applications which are lacking in some way, integrate these solutions with other applications, or even write a standalone custom application. They are therefore well-positioned to get an early view of (and sometimes a customer-funded head-start developing) products needed to satisfy unfilled end users needs.

End user

End users often have in-house development capabilities and develop their own applications. In this case, the “service” organization is the internal IT department. These applications are often developed because of a “hole” in the existing commercial product offerings available in the marketplace. Forward thinking organizations may further develop and then spin-off these internal applications into commercial products.

So that’s a look at how organizations which aren’t-software product-oriented end up with a software product business. It can be a really great way for a software business to start–but there are many things that can prevent the successful transition into a going concern software product business. Here’s a list of a few:

Issues Which Can Prevent Success:

Culture

This is a frequent culprit in the failure of product businesses which are developed in the various service environments as discussed above. Depending upon the parent’s business, a mismatch in culture can come from a lack of understanding of either the software or product aspects of the resulting new business. For example, the management team of and “end-user” company that has developed a product may not be sufficiently software-savvy to make the right decisions to put the new business on a solid footing. A business executive in a software services company may not understand what it takes to develop a product to commercial product standards, or successfully market it. One of the biggest mismatches in culture often occurs within a government contractor. The “common business sense” required to be successful in the contracting business is shockingly different than that of a commercial software product business. The cultures are nearly polar opposites–It’s like English vs. French.

Capitalization

Often the cultural differences listed above or low overall capitalization of the parent company leads to the most common problem of these software product spin-offs: lack of proper initial capitalization. One of the attractive aspects of the software business is that it requires much less investment capital that a manufactured goods business–but it’s still a product business. Product businesses require more capital than service businesses. So even if you’ve created a great mousetrap, if you don’t have the money required to continue to develop it as well as market it–at least until you’re cash-flow positive–failure is quite likely.

Not productized

Maybe the most common problem of all is the lack of “productization” of the software application prior to launch as a commercial product. The level of usability, functionality and reliability required in the commercial product marketplace far exceeds the standards of the custom software application market. When you are supporting a single company directly with a custom app, you can afford a level of support which can overcome minor deficiencies in the areas listed. Once rolled out to a mass market of users in the software product marketplace, these deficiencies can kill a promising new product very quickly.

Me-too Products

One of the areas of expertise lacking in a service-oriented company (almost by definition) is Product Marketing/Management/Planning. The lack of this functional expertise can lead to a number of mistakes. One of the elementary mistakes that I see surprisingly often is not ensuring that you are making a novel “contribution to the market”. A software product startup with the 19^th product to enter an existing market, with no discernable competitive advantage, is a great way to lose money.

Lack of software product industry experience

If you add up the potential mistakes listed above, most of them can be mitigated by the addition of software-product company operating experience. Sadly, in many instances the parent service company senior management is too proud or simply ignorant and unable to acknowledge this weakness. This potential weakness can be alleviated by hiring an experienced operating executive, or retaining a software product industry management consultant such as PJM Consulting.

The bottom line to all of this is that there are alternatives to the more conventional approaches of creating a traditional investor-funded or founder-bootstrapped software product company. Whether created intentionally from the beginning or a “happy accident”, companies started this way can provide an advantage of significantly reduced capital-requirement-to-profitability compared to traditional startup methods. But there are potholes and roadblocks that must be avoided to prevent crib death of embryonic software startups born this way.

So that’s some of the lessons I’ve learned with regards to creating product businesses from service companies. Is this something you’ve done or witnessed others attempt?–what were your results? Pitch in with your two cents — post a comment to expand the discussion.

Follow Phil Morettini and Morettini on Management via Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, RSS, or the PJM Consulting Quarterly Newsletter. Contact Phil directly at info@pjmconsult.com

Bookmark to:

One of the least well understood activities in growing a hardware or software business is the building of distribution channels. This looks very easy to the uninitiated, but in reality it’s extremely difficult. There are many subtleties that are far from obvious, and some aspects that are necessary for success are downright counter-intuitive. Building a distribution channel for your company is difficult in the best of circumstances.

How hard is it when there are no current, obvious existing channel partners already selling your category of products to start with?

It’s very hard. In fact, most people in the know would likely tell you to forget about it, and not even try. That might actually be pretty good advice, because this activity could easily become a real time and money sink if you’re not careful.

But the other side of the coin is that this might be the circumstance where building a channel carries the very highest potential payoff. One of the great truths I’ve discovered in my career is that the most effective marketing and sales strategies are the ones that haven’t yet become mainstream in your marketplace. Once a strategy or tactic becomes very popular, the results become watered down until at some point it’s marginally attractive at best. In terms of strategy, this move fits in the “high risk, high reward” category. But the payback, if successful, is extremely high.

In terms of strategy, creating your own channel definitely fits in the “high risk, high reward” category. Because while it’s very difficult, if successful, you alone among all competitors in your segment will have the leverage and resulting strategic advantage that a well-executed channel strategy can provide.

So the question is how do you go about this? Where do you even start if there are no existing channel partners for your category? Let’s take a look at a few places to mine that I’ve found some success in the past:

Adjancent Markets

This is the most fertile place to begin, imo. The first step is to think strategically about what type of software application or hardware product is complementary to yours. Whose product might it make sense to integrate with your own, for example? These types of potential strategic partners might also have existing channel partners that might be interested in selling your product as a companion product. An example scenario that I recently successfully implemented for a client was an analytics software company that uses a lot of data to help forecast and mitigate decision risk. We were able to attract a number of channel partners in two adjacent categories: Business Intelligence (BI) and Project Management. Both of these categories are large, with good-sized existing channels selling their solutions. BI creates a lot of date which could be used by my client’s software for forward-looking action, and the Project Management category involves a lot of complex decision-making and risk mitigation which was a natural fit for my client’s software.

Private Label/OEM products

Potential OEMs are another great place to look for channel partners. One obvious possibility is hardware OEMs for a software company, where the software might be integrated with the hardware for a full solution. If the hardware OEM has a channel, Voilà! you have a channel. Even if the hardware company isn’t interested in an OEM relationship, you might be able to entice them into a more vanilla reseller relationship with light or no integration. Lastly, you can always approach their channel directly to sell you software as an add-on product to the hardware vendor’s.

Former Employees

The first two categories above are pretty fertile with respect to creating a channel from scratch. After mining those two approaches, we’re getting into the area where you’ll need some really creative thinking. The first idea is former employees; I’ve seen many VARs who have started their systems integration business by specializing in their old employers products after leaving the mother ship. Another similar possibility is a former employee who lives in or moves to another country; they might start an entrepreneurial “exclusive” distributorship in that country.

Former Competitors

Very similar to the “Former Employee” category above is partnering with employees of former competitors whom you may know or come across. They will likely have similar knowledge and skill sets to your former employees, so the same type of potential applies. The only caveat here is you need to be careful of any existing relationships with your competitors or special agendas that could poison a potential relationship.

Product Fans

This category of prospective partner is again very similar to the former employee and competitor categories in terms of potential. A user or former user who loves your product and who you have a good relationship with can be a good candidate for an entrepreneurial VAR/distributor startup, whether domestic or international. The area to be careful of here is they may be very skilled in your product and some internal operating specialty, but may be poorly prepared to market, sell and run an overall business. This of course is a potential risk in the former employee and competitor categories as well.

These are some ways you can take the difficult step of creating your own channel from ground zero. Has anyone else tried this–what were your results? What are your ideas on how best to go about it? Please post a comment to expand the discussion.

Follow Phil Morettini and Morettini on Management via Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, RSS, or the PJM Consulting Quarterly Newsletter. Contact Phil directly at info@pjmconsult.com

Bookmark to:

I’ve been reading Bill and Dave (subtitled: How Hewlett and Packard built the World’s Greatest Company) by Michael Malone. He’s a great writer, and it’s an important business story; I heartily recommend it.

Being an ex-HPer, I have tremendous respect, bordering on reverence for the “HP Way”, which was the basis for the culture at Hewlett Packard for so many years. With the benefit of hindsight, it wasn’t perfect and there were definitely things I’d change. But you can’t argue with the results. Bill and Dave essentially founded Silicon Valley, and built an unbelievably successful company that grew like clockwork for nearly four decades. The HP Way is long gone and the company is nearly unrecognizable from the one I worked in. But to this day I don’t believe they’ve ever had a full year of negative profit results.

The term “Corporate Culture” has been defined many different ways by a lot of people, some of them so complex as to be unreadable. Here’s a definition that’s probably as good as most:

“The specific collection of values and norms that are shared by people and groups in an organization and that control the way they interact with each other and with stakeholders outside the organization.”

Maybe you have a better definition, but this one’s probably adequate for our discussion here.

Anyway, Malone’s book got me to thinking about corporate cultures at tech companies and their effect on a company’s performance. It’s something that I think is really undervalued in too many of today’s corporations. It’s often dismissed as a squishy, “soft” issue that’s unimportant to analytical senior managers.

Regardless of my HP bias, there have been a lot of very successful companies that have been built with very different cultures relative to HP’s in its heyday. One notable contrast would be IBM, a peer and competitor which as an east coast-based company had a much more traditional, hierarchical, button-down culture. But the IBM culture was revered as well, and the company was also wildly successful for a long period of time. As the saying goes, there’s more than one way to skin a cat (a very unfortunate idiom–who thought that one up?).

Cultures have been categorized many different ways including but not limited to “Work Hard, Play Hard Culture”, “Tough-Guy, Macho Culture”, “Process Culture”, “Bet-The-Company Culture”, and many more. In my mind, none of that matters much. What matters, in my opinion is does the culture drive positive results.

So you might surmise that the easiest way to define a great corporate culture is to look at financial results. That’s fine in the long run; with the benefit of hindsight, there probably is no better way to identify a great corporate culture than the decades of financial success such as HP and IBM enjoyed. But in the short run, financial results can be deceiving. It’s entirely possible to have a great short run of success even with a poisonous company culture.

So what’s the best way to measure whether you’ve built a great culture? The details vary at various successful software and hardware companies, but what are the common ingredients of a culture that sets the stage for long-term success? Here’s my shot at a list of the key attributes of winning corporate cultures:

Employees want to stay

For me, this may be the best gross indicator of a winning corporate culture. I know, you might say “That could means it’s a country club” with excellent compensation and low demands. But how often do you actually see that in a high performing company? Very seldom in my experience. In reality there is a great propensity for employees to take the view that “the grass is always greener”, and long to go somewhere else.

The best people rise to the top

This is another really key indicator of a company culture “clicking on all cylinders”. Particularly in larger organizations, political skills often are the dominant talent required to rise to the top of the org chart. There’s nothing wrong with this–it’s a skill set that’s very important to successfully influencing large, complex organizations and moving them in the right direction. The ability to connect with people and bring them to your position cannot be understated as a needed attribute of a corporate leader. But it’s important that these political skills are also paired with strong business savvy. The best leaders not only have the ability to “win the internal meeting”, but also the analytical and decision-making skills to drive the company to win in the marketplace. Sadly, all too often I’ve seen that those rising to the top are not exceptional in both these categories. A great corporate culture should facilitate the identification, retention and promotion of such well-rounded leaders.

Employees speak well of the company to outsiders

Everyone loves to bitch about their job and idiosyncrasies of where they work. But I find that in companies with the very best cultures, the word gets out about how great a place is to work, because great places to work are frankly, very rare. This means that you’ve created such a great environment that your employees brag about it to their friends and external colleagues, overcoming that very strong human propensity to view their jobs in a negative light.

Opinions flow freely without fear of retribution

This one probably isn’t a hard and fast rule. I’ve seen traditional hierarchical organizations that were very successful. In those instances, you tend to see opinions flow down from the top much more often than you see them flowing openly from below. But I believe in most successful “modern” corporation cultures, this is a pretty typical attribute.

Don’t have to overpay to attract talent

You might think of this one downstream result of positive vibe from the previous four categories. If you’ve created a fair, stimulating, challenging and comfortable work environment, you don’t have to work very hard to restock it with new employees. In many cases you won’t even have to look for them–they will find you. In companies with the very best cultures, outsiders practically beat down the door to get hired. That means your pay packages won’t need to “set the market”, they’ll just need to be “in the market” to attract great talent.

So that’s my list–what’s yours? What’s your view on which company has the finest corporate culture? Post a comment to expand the discussion.

Follow Phil Morettini and Morettini on Management via Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, RSS, or the PJM Consulting Quarterly Newsletter. Contact Phil directly at info@pjmconsult.com

Bookmark to:

Many software and hardware businesses, particularly smaller ones, are religiously focused on a specific vertical market. As well they should; focus is one of the most important attributes that can bring a business from startup to a strong growing business. This is often one of the key areas I concentrate on with many of my consulting clients. Many businesses just can’t turn down any sort of deal, no matter what the effect it has on their existing product development plans or other key corporate initiatives.

But there is another side to the focus issue. Many tech companies have developed excellent, mature technology bases at huge expense. If that basic technology has a horizontal appeal, it can be quite profitable to spend a modest amount of additional effort to bring that technology to other adjacent markets that the company is currently not serving.

Care needs to be taken, of course, to not spread your marketing efforts too thin. But if you’re smart about it your company can increase, sometimes dramatically, the return on its product development investments. Let’s take a look at a few potential tactics, all of which I’ve used successfully both at companies I’ve run and with consulting clients:

Customize your products for adjacent markets

As an example, maybe you have an ERP software package aimed at retail markets. It might be quite easy to customize the product for other inventory-oriented businesses, such as distribution or service/repair businesses. By doing this you’ve created a potentially large new revenue source, at a fraction what building that product from scratch might cost. The trick in this instance is often marketing the product–read below for a couple of ideas on how to accomplish that without doubling your marketing budget.

Private Label/OEM products

Private labeling or OEMing your product to another vendor can be an excellent way to extend your product development ROI. It might be as simple as partnering with a non-competitive vendor who takes your existing product “as is” or with minor modifications, as well as changing the product identity and labeling. The target partner would be a company very strong in a market segment that you aren’t successful in, have no interest in directly marketing in, or simply is beyond your resource level. If done well, this is a win-win for both companies. Your company gets additional revenues with little to no additional costs (“pure profit”), while your partner gains additional revenue in it’s target market–without any product development investment.

Integration & bundling with other products

One of the best things a software vendor is to create a “developer’s version” of it’s product, which essentially consists of creating APIs (application programming interface) to the software. This allows easy integration with complementary software applications and even hardware. Back when I was CEO of a mapping software company with limited resources, we created a developer’s version which enabled both integration and bundling with a number of complementary applications, notably in the real estate and CRM segments. Once again, this tactic required only modest product development investment and enabled us to draw revenue from a number of different markets. We would never have had the resources to pursue these markets if we tried to build a new product from scratch as a company would traditionally do.

Different price points

Using my favorite mapping software company example, we were often forced to think creatively to wring out as much revenue as we could out from our existing technology. One of the other tactics we used was “de-feature” our existing $99 high-end consumer application to create a $9.95 version, which we then sold through mass market retailers of all kinds. Not only did this create more revenue, but the high volume business also created a bunch of opportunities to upgrade these entry level customers to our higher-end core product. This is a strategy I’ve used many times; you almost can’t go wrong when creating a larger customer base for your technology. I use the simplistic phrase “the more you sell, the more you sell” to illustrate the advantages of this approach.

Business vs. consumer version

At that very same mapping software company we used one other great approach to extending your technology: creating a B2B version of our consumer product which was aimed at road warriors such as sales and service professionals (the converse works just as well). The B2B version had a few additional features and we sold it via different channels and strategic partners. It didn’t have the unit volume of the consumer version, but the margins were much higher.

So there are a few ideas on how to extend the use of your IP to increase your overall ROI. What are your ideas on creatively utilizing existing assets to create additional growth? Please post a comment with your own thoughts so we can all benefit.

Follow Phil Morettini and Morettini on Management via Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, RSS, or the PJM Consulting Quarterly Newsletter. Contact Phil directly at info@pjmconsult.com

Bookmark to:

This article is written primarily for my US readers, although anyone participating in the US marketplace may also have an interest.

As I write this article, US unemployment has been stuck stubbornly at 9% or above for 2 ½ years. The after effects of what has become known as the Great Recession are lingering, and there is no sign of a fast turnaround coming down the pike. The reasons that the Great Recession occurred have been reported and debated ad nauseam for the past several years. Basically it was a severe financial bubble, and historians have told us from the beginning of this downturn that recessions born of these circumstances lead to particularly slow and painful recoveries.

A major question comes to my mind as we endure this long-term economic pain: Is the US in a long-term structural decline? Looking at the issue dispassionately, all great civilizations/powers/countries in history that have risen to great prominence had an inevitable decline. In my business career, I’ve had a tendency to consider this question every time we’ve entered an economic downturn, which has happened several times in my adult life.

At times I’ve been pessimistic about the reasons that the great days of the United States may have run its course: Depleted natural resources, ballooning debt, declining educational standing, hollowing out of the manufacturing base, high costs of doing business and a high standard of living leading to a much has “hungry and motivated” populace. All have played a role in my thinking previously. Other emerging countries without the above stated disadvantages seemed to be poised to run past the US.

Added to these older fears has been a new one, high unemployment, which appears more then ever to have a structural rather than cyclical basis. This is being caused in part by a phenomenon which from a business standpoint is considered a good thing: The previously highly inefficient large corporations in this country have finally figured out they didn’t need all of the people they used to employ (and lay off during recessions, only to rehire them at the peak of the next upturn).

I have worked in and with very large corporations as well the smallest startups. If you’ve read this column for a while, you’ll know that I’m a long-time critic of the inefficient ways of big business. But finally, large corporations seem to have figured out that you don’t need layers and layers of bureaucracy to conduct business. There are many reasons for this change, including primarily productivity increases from technology, and a trend toward flatter organizations. But the net result is that large corporations have been, in aggregate, extremely profitable during the worst economy of our lifetime. This is great for shareholders, but terribly frightening for job-seekers and economists. Because it appears this do-more-with-less attitude means that many people will be out of jobs (in their former professions) permanently, with the economy stuck in the mud due to reduced consumption growth.

This is a pretty dire picture, and not an unrealistic one. Is this the end of the line for the US as a great economic power, with a reduced standard of living going forward for its citizens? I am optimistic that it’s not the case– and here are some of the key factors why I believe in a better future:

Entrepreneurship and Small Business Capitalism Unleashed

One of the very greatest strengths of the US economy, and indeed US culture, is the tradition of entrepreneurship. I believe it’s because we are a nation of immigrants and everyone had to create there own place in society. Relative to other countries, there are fewer people who were handed what they have. Go back no more than a generation or two in most families, and someone was pulling themselves up by the bootstraps. We have entered a phase where many people are again being forced to reinvent themselves, just like our immigrant forefathers. The way many previously earned a living is no longer possible. As stated above, those large corporations have figured out that they won’t need legions of people anymore; as many of those tasks are now being done by automation. Even those still in the biggest companies can’t expect to be there long term; lifetime employment is mostly a thing of the past. People will need to view their careers in a much more self-sufficient manner. There is much pain that has already come with this, and there will be much more yet to come. But this represents the efficient redeployment of labor that is at the core of capitalism. While painful, these labor resources will eventually find a way to make a living in a new way, ultimately expanding our economic activity and renewing growth. They will start new small businesses, invent new things or re-brand themselves as efficient “on-demand” contractors for larger companies. This will be a gradual process, but over time it will lead to a larger and more stable economy.

Innovation

We need the next big thing! The last time the economy was looking this moribund from the long view; the mainstreaming of the Internet saved the day and unleashed a torrent of innovation and economic growth. Of course, this also led to one of our more recent bubbles, but that’s a subject for another day. Over the history of the US, inventions of this type have created great economic progress: the cotton gin, the light bulb, telephony, the airplane, the mass production line, the computer, the Internet, etc. These great American inventions have played a major role in building the world’s largest economy, and indeed the world economy as a whole. Have we lost the recipe for these creations? I don’t think so. The American culture of capitalism and individualism is still the perfect crucible for great innovation. My only questions are what the next big thing will be, and when will it happen? I can’t wait!

Renewed Work Ethic

While the US has in fact become a bit fat, dumb and happy over the years as prosperity ensued, I for one don’t believe this is necessarily a permanent condition. The new economic conditions have a way of rekindling work ethic. Indeed for some the competitive instincts are flowing like never before. For many survival instincts are kicking in, and there’s nothing more powerful than that. All in all, I believe that the United States populace still possesses a very strong work ethic, and this will be one of the factors that kick-starts our economy once again.

Renewed Savings Rate

This is something that hasn’t received as much attention as some other adjustments to the economic rough times. The US has historically been a country of savers; however, in the go-go years of our latest bubble the savings rate actually went NEGATIVE. This is of course completely unsustainable by anyone’s math, and portended the economic collapse. The renewed savings rate over time will heal consumer’s balance sheets, leading to greater spending down the road, a more stable economy based on purchases aren’t made largely on credit, and greater capital formation for new enterprise. This is one of the more bullish signs I see for a renewal of economic growth, although this will have a long-term effect rather than a short term one.

Political Reconciliation

Winston Churchill famously said: “The Americans will always do the right thing… after they’ve exhausted all the alternatives.” The right thing that needs to happen today is for the political culture to come back toward the center, where historically elections were won and deals consummated during governance. The two ends of the political spectrum currently look very far apart and unable to deal with each other well enough for the government to run effectively. Indeed, the two parties are as far apart as they ever have been in my lifetime with moderates having been run out of both parties. But if you look back at the longer history of our country, this isn’t an unusual situation; the political classes have always come back to the center eventually, as the electorate inevitably gets sick of extremism and governance gridlock. The sooner this happens, the better, no doubt. But history tells us that it will occur.

So those are my crazy thoughts of optimism as we slowly crawl out of the Great Recession hole. What’s your forecast on the future growth of the US economy? Where are we headed, and does it end happily?

Post a comment with your own views on this subject. Follow Phil Morettini and Morettini on Management via Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, RSS, or the PJM Consulting Quarterly Newsletter. Contact Phil directly at info@pjmconsult.com

Bookmark to:

As regular readers will know, I am a Hewlett Packard alumnus and a longtime admirer of the company. I worked at HP in the eighties, and with hindsight it was one of the finest periods of my career. It was a GREAT place to work, as documented by books and case studies written about the company. My time there definitely had a major effect in shaping my management philosophies.

The more recent -periods at HP have seen a lot of change and a fair amount of turmoil not typical in the company’s first 60 years or so.

Let’s analyze some of the recent events and assess the overall strategic situation:

Firing of Leo Apotheker

What a disaster this was. To hire a new CEO with a major change in strategic direction in mind, then let him go in less than a year is not good. What isn’t known is was the new strategy totally conceived by Mr. Apotheker, or was he brought in to support a new strategy favored by the HP board. Either way, it’s an awful mess for such a major company, and the HP board has not distinguished itself in the last decade.

The new strategy itself while risky on the surface wasn’t the real problem, imo. The communication of the new direction was the real disaster, and smacked of incompetence. Don’t announce you’re “going to sell the business”–that does nothing for valuations. If you’re going to sell it, get on with it and sell it without premature public announcements. By most accounts Mr. Apotheker’s short reign was punctuated by missteps, retractions, chronically missing financial targets and general bumbling. My sources inside the company say that he had lost just about everyone’s confidence, from employees to shareholders to the board. It’s hard to say if that’s fair; new managers can be sabotaged by entrenched forces against change. And major changes were on the way. But the buck needs to stop with the CEO, and it certainly did in this case.

Planned Sale of the PC business

To be honest, I go back and forward on this one. Back in my HP days the PC business was a money-losing, also-ran business with tiny margins. The corporate line of thinking at the time was that HP HAD to be in the PC business, it was so central to everything else the company wanted to do, and the computing world revolved around PCs. I never bought it. In fact, the PC folks got in the way of many things we wanted to accomplish in the peripherals segment of the business, specifically connecting to and partnering with all the other PC makers.

The PC business remains a low margin one today, but one that HP has established a leading position in. I haven’t studied the balance sheet, but I doubt the PC business is so capital-intensive that it would prevent HP from having the money to adequately invest in a new direction. I don’t think selling it off is a stupid move, but announcing it as a first step seems extreme, and only served to make everyone involved nervous about what the future holds.

Eliminating the Tablets/WebOS

Another PR disaster and one that was totally avoidable. The problem was in buying Palm in the first place, and paying a billion dollars for a company that had almost completely failed in the marketplace. Then introducing a new line of tablet computers to great fanfare, almost immediately obsoleting them, and then announcing you’ll be making a few more because everyone love the fire-sale obsolescence pricing–it appeared that the left hand didn’t know what the right hand was doing.

By most accounts the WebOS is a nice piece of software. The problem is that this move was so very late to the game. If it had been done a few years earlier, it might have been a savvy deal, and allowed HP to make a major move into mobile devices with a differentiated product offering. But by the time of this acquisition, Palm was already discredited and Apple, Android and Blackberry had solidified the top leadership positions. And the price was completely ridiculous for as failed company. You can put this one on Mark Hurd, as it came on his watch.

Buying Autonomy

HP recently announced completion of the Autonomy acquisition, paying a dear price for this enterprise software company. Autonomy is a good acquisition if you’re intent on growing software as a share of revenue; the only issue is the price. It was very high, but one must remember that HP’s overall revenues are north of $125 BILLION. Autonomy adds less than $1B in revenue, which is a drop in the bucket relative to HP’s size. With a purchase price of over $10B, HP paid more than 11X revenues–pretty pricey even by today’s inflated SaaS valuations. Autonomy will have to be an exceptional growth in engine for this to pay off. Only time will tell.

Copying the IBM playbook

The IBM playbook was to sell off low margin, lower growth hardware business such as PCs (IBM sold its PC business to Lenovo, a shocking move at the time). Then focus on increasing software and services revenues relentlessly, for a long period of time. It’s worked extremely well for IBM, although I remember there were some tough times in the beginning. Would it work as well for HP, who appears interested in copying IBM’s strategy? I’m not a big fan of copying other company’s strategies, although on the surface the two companies are similar. The key to success or failure is usually execution in most cases of corporate strategy. Executing this strategy would also take a very long time to have an impact on HP’s financials. HP’s software share of total corporate revenue was less than 3% in 2010.  There are only so many $1B+ software companies out there. Most software acquisitions on their own will have a minimum effect on HP’s overall revenues, unless they went after one of the few industry giants–which would truly shock me.  HP has become strong in services after it’s acquisition of EDS in 2008, but is still much less prominent in services than IBM. So even with an aggressive acquisition program and strong organic growth, HP looks to be a hardware-dominated company for a long time in the future.

Meg Whitman appointed CEO

It’s hard to say what influence this will have on the corporate strategy. Ms. Whitman is a seasoned CEO who has been involved in great success, although one could argue that she was very fortunate to benefit from a snowball rolling downhill with Ebay. In addition, her background is heavily consumer products with almost nothing in the enterprise space, which is HP’s supposed new direction. HP’s business is only 25% consumer products, and if you eliminate the massive PC business, it becomes a whole lot less. I never underestimate smart people or their ability to adapt, and she definitely fits in the smart category. But experienced business people also tend to fall back on the comfort level of their past experience and what they understand best. It will be very interesting to watch as Ms. Whitman’s tenure evolves, especially how she affects the previously announced strategy.

What happens next?

I think that HP ends up keeping the PC business, while at least in the short term attempting to become more software and services intensive. You’ll see more software and services acquisitions. But I wouldn’t be surprised to see the flight away from consumer-oriented businesses to abate as long as Meg Whitman is CEO.

I also think that the original IBM-style strategy will be difficult–but not impossible–for HP to implement. For this approach to work, shareholders, employees and the board will all need to be very patient and supportive of the plan. Meg Whitman will really need to believe in it as well, and as discussed above, her background is far from a perfect fit for where they’re headed. My guess is that this strategy won’t be given enough rope for it to work and we’ll see another change of direction in the medium-term, but you never know. That’s what makes this kind of speculation so much fun!

What’s your take on the future direction of HP? Where are they headed, and does it end well or not?  I’m interested in your analysis of recent events at the company; post a comment to share your views and continue the discussion.

Follow Phil Morettini and Morettini on Management via Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, RSS, or the PJM Consulting Quarterly Newsletter. Contact Phil directly at info@pjmconsult.com

Bookmark to:

The big question is why is Google doing this? Media reports and analysis of the potential deal has been all over the map. Much speculation has centered on the real value being in the large Motorola patent portfolio, to help defend Android against lawsuits. There has been other commentary which points to the possibility of using the Motorola set top box business as an entrée for GoogleTV to finally penetrate the market. One pundit has even suggested that Google will eventually be giving away Motorola/Android handsets, in an effort to disrupt the marketplace and further drive mobile advertising revenue.

The only folks that really know are those inside Google, and they aren’t saying.

I’ve seen this called a “Bold” move–but it is Bold or a really bad idea? Let’s look the deal from several angles:

Deal Price

The price, $12.5B seems very rich to me for an also-ran commodity hardware maker, but I’ve of course not modeled it and done rigorous “what if” analysis like the quants at Google surely have. As mentioned above, a lot of the analysis of this deal has centered on Motorola’s 17,000 held and 7500 pending patents, supposedly to help defend Android against a recent spate of lawsuits. That’s a lot of patents, not doubt. But how many of them are actually relevant? A Motorola shareholder has recently filed suit on the basis of the deal being below fair value, so maybe my opinion on the deal price being rich is off base. Of course, anyone can file suit for anything.

Hardware vs. Software, Margins & Commoditization

This is the biggest issue to me. Google has a beautiful, high margin software business. In most cases, I am baffled when a successful software company wants to buy into or otherwise enter the hardware business, as I have written previously about Oracle. In addition to higher margins, software tends to commoditize much less quickly as well, as you can constantly tweak and go vertical with your applications to stay ahead of competitors. Motorola Mobility is in a high volume, hit-driven business which tends toward low margins pretty quickly. You can make money in this segment, but results tend to change quickly, and it really helps to be one of the big two or three market gorillas.

Android Licensees

Of all the negatives, this one baffles me the most. Google is positioning itself to compete with its customers–the Android licensees. I realize this is the age of “coopetiton” and all that. But from a strategic perspective, it’s far better NOT to compete with your customers and partners if you don’t have to. This strikes me as one of those times that it’s not really necessary. The Google pundits are spinning the story that Google can use all of those patents to defend the Android licensees against business-damaging lawsuits, so they’ve really done this FOR the licensees. Maybe this is true, but it sure smells like spin to me. I think that handset manufacturers will be much more careful about investing in Android-based systems going forward.

Apple vs. Microsoft

Google Android has been positioned as hardware-agnostic system software, which has allowed it to grow extremely fast and shoot past the Apple iPhone in volume. Think Microsoft Windows in PCs in the old days vs. the MacIntosh. Apple is the world’s darling now and Microsoft isn’t held in high regard like it used to be. Apple has always used a strategy of tightly coupling their software with only their own hardware. But Microsoft built a hugely profitable software business with 90% market share by following a software-only business model, centered on partnering with hardware vendors–and swamped Apple in the PC business. Of course, Apple has won big in some major categories recently with their favored approach. The final verdict for each of these two very divergent strategies isn’t yet clear in the smartphone segment.  How important is having the software and hardware under one umbrella in this particular market, versus the ability to propagate your technology more broadly with 3^rd party hardware partners? We shall see.

Business Complexity

A software-only business is far simpler since you don’t have to deal with the complexities of hardware supply chains, obsolete equipment, and inventory forecasting. Because of this, it’s much easier to focus your resources on fewer key business drivers, and much easier to “turn the ship” when necessary. Google is getting to be a very large, complex business as it is. Adding hardware to the mix will only make it more complex, and harder to manage as a result.

What Does Google Really Do with Motorola Mobility?

I have seen a lot of speculation in this area, some of it ridiculous. As I stated earlier, One VC speculated that he expects Google to eventually give away free handsets to somehow drive advertising revenue. Although on the surface this seems to fit with the Google business model, it’s one of the silliest things I’ve heard, and a great way to lose money.  Google announced that they will run the acquisition as a separate subsidiary, implying somewhat of an arms length relationship. Like we bought it, but we’re really not going to pay that much attention to what they’re doing, let alone influence how the company is run. Right — I’ve got some really attractive swampland you might want to buy if you believe that one. They just paid $12.5B–fair price or not–it’s not exactly chump-change. I think they have some plans and will be actively involved. But what are those plans? That’s being held close to the vest–it will be interesting to see what unfolds.

There are a lot of different ways to look at this deal. So many angles to view it, and a lot of information about Google’s true intentions aren’t available to us. But remember, most acquisitions fail. My own feeling is that if the Motorola patents aren’t worth $12.5B, Google will regret this deal. And unintended market fallout could make them regret it even if the patents are that valuable. It would not surprise me to see Google jettison the hardware business in a couple of years.  I want to hear how you analyze this move, so post a comment to share your views on this deal and continue the discussion.

Follow Phil Morettini and Morettini on Management via Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, RSS, or the PJM Consulting Quarterly Newsletter. Contact Phil directly at info@pjmconsult.com

Bookmark to:

By now, every company has grasped the importance of having a social media presence on the web. Or have they?

In discussions with potential clients and others I am actually amazed how many folks have done little or nothing in the area of social media marketing.

Why do you think this is? Some business executives immediately associate “social media” solely with consumer-oriented activities on social medial sites such as Facebook, Twitter and MySpace. You know the stereotypes that are popularly characterized by the mainstream media: pictures of wild high school parties, viral invitations to flash mobs, and inane posts about what people are having for breakfast.

But there is serious business going on in the Social Media world. The fact is that Social Media marketing has definitely become not just a mainstream activity, but a critical one. No longer are at an advantage if you are heavily using social media in your marketing mix; you are falling behind if you aren’t!

Social Media is obviously very important in B2C software and hardware marketing. Because it is less well understood, I will be focusing on B2B marketing in this article.

Blogs

A Blog is the single most important step into Social Media for a B2B tech marketer. In addition to being a great way to bring traffic directly to your site, it provides the content to use as bait for all of your other social media activities. There are almost too many benefits to list here, but let’s try a few:

• New and high quality website content which increases SEO (search engines LOVE fresh, high quality content. This assumes a self-hosted Blog–it’s critical for your Blog to be hosted on your domain to maximize SEO benefits)
• Direct traffic to your website
• Fast & Easy search engine crawling and indexing due to the large number of Blog ping services, Blog indexes and Blog search engines
• High quality backlinks from the Blog services mentioned above, as well as from happy readers who link to your Blog
• Content you can repurpose in a number of ways such as publishing in newsletters and posting on appropriate social media sites
• Positions your company and key employees as “thought leaders” in your category

This is just a taste of what a Blog can do for you; the uses and benefits are limited mostly by your imagination. It’s a bit of work, no doubt, but has a high return if you dedicate reasonable resources to the effort.

Linkedin

After creating your Blog, this is the second most important social media activity for a Business-to-Business technology marketer. Key employees should create a complete profile (for professional development purposes, if no other reason) and a profile for the company should also be created. But that’s just where the fun starts. Here are some additional important activities to consider:

Join and Use Groups: Other than setting up a complete and effective profile for both you and your company, the most important thing you can do is join groups. You’re allowed up to 50, and if you choose the groups well they can be a very effective segment of your online marketing efforts. Become known and respected by participating in discussions. But most importantly, post links to your Blog content, press releases, newsletters, webinars, etc. If you’ve targeted the right groups, this will create a good deal of qualified traffic to your website and other online vehicles.

Build your Network: This is the place where you want to go fast, but don’t hurry. The more people in your business segment you know, the easier it will be to market your product over a long period of time. The key is to take a long term perspective. You don’t build a network by being pushy or “all about you”. It’s like any other form of networking. Reach out not only to connect, but to actually assist those in your network. In the long run, you’ll have a stronger position and it will benefit your business.

Search for Prospects: People are listed on Linkedin that you wouldn’t find elsewhere. It’s a great place to search for both companies and high level executives that you’d like to connect with. Be very careful in your targeting efforts and try not to be too obviously sale-sy. But if you are respectful and careful, an excellent source of targeted prospects awaits you, that you can contact directly (with a premium account) or connect with through your mutual contacts.

Ask and Answer Questions: This Linkedin feature provides a great, low key way to both show off and improve your knowledge. By answering questions posted by others you can demonstrate your knowledge in a forum without having to appear to be bragging. Don’t be afraid to ask questions either; there are a great many resources out there to fill in the blanks in your current knowledge base.

Twitter

This is a great place to connect with like-minded people. As profiled time and again in the mass media, it’s also a great place to waste time. So unless you find that you can become a productive and efficient Twitter networker, make sure you don’t become addicted to tweeting. Some people love it, some hate it–what’s important is to leverage it optimally for your business. I personally don’t waste a lot of time on Twitter, but there are some folks who have dedicated a lot of time–to great effect for their business. Especially if you have more time than money for marketing, there’s a lot you can do to gain exposure and goodwill for your business here. At a minimum you should post your Blog content, press releases and other important external communications. You should also think about assigning members of key departments (PR, customer service, tech support) to Twitter, giving your users and potential customers an easy, informal way to interact with appropriate parts of your company

YouTube

Yes, Youtube! Everyone loves to go to YouTube to view that video of the 6 month old baby surfing in the bathtub while smoking a cigar (Ok, I made that up, but if you do a search you might just find it on YouTube). But it’s also a great place to post a short intro video about your product or service. You can even put up training videos to show the depth of your knowledge in a particular area, or the depth of your product or service offering. The videos are hosted on YouTube, but you link to them and feature them on your website. These videos will give you a leg up in search engine ranking as Google, et al love video content and provide it with preferential search result positions.

Facebook

Yes, use Facebook as well! Facebook is certainly not a core platform for business to business marketers. But 750 million users (and still growing like a radioactive weed) shouldn’t be ignored. So create a personal profile and company page and post your Blog content and other external communications pieces there. If nothing else, you’ll get some quality backlinks to help your SEO efforts with very little effort. Don’t waste time here, but it makes no sense to completely ignore this platform, either.

Coming Soon — Google +?

This is a real wild card that could have a big impact on the Social Media Marketing landscape. As I write this article it’s too early to tell what Google+’s ultimate impact with be on B2B social media marketing. Most people don’t yet have access. I haven’t used it yet, so I only know what I’ve read. It’s still in pre-release phase (although it seems that most things at Google are!), and the features are still being developed. But so far it appears to be off to a very promising start, with 25M users in only a few weeks of controlled beta release. Reviewers have raved about the elegance of the “Circles” feature, which allegedly makes it very easy to segregate those connected to you into logical groups, a real problem on Facebook. Of course, Google is aimed far past B2B social media with Google Plus, taking aim squarely at Facebook as a mass-market social media network. But I think this new platform also has particularly strong potential for the B2B crowd, with possible integration with tools like Google Adwords, Analytics, Apps, Docs, etc. We’ll have to wait and see where this goes, and I’ll be watching closely.

There’s certainly much more that can be written on this topic. This was just a quick look at what I think about the importance of social media marketing for B2B Software & Tech companies. For example, there are new vertical social media networks popping up every day–there may be one perfectly aligned with your market.  This is a varied and rapidly evolving topic–what are your questions or opinions? If you need help with your marketing mix or other aspects of managing your software or hardware company, please contact me at your convenience. In the meantime, post a comment to share your views on this topic and continue the discussion.

Follow Phil Morettini and Morettini on Management via Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, RSS, or the PJM Consulting Quarterly Newsletter. Contact Phil directly at info@pjmconsult.com

Bookmark to:

I was reading an article recently about how the number of new tech startups in my local San Diego area has doubled, to 70 new companies, compared to the same quarter last year. More than half of those startups were in software, computer hardware or communications. The article included a number of other criteria useful in measuring the health of the local technology market.

The direction of these measuring criteria for technology market health was somewhat mixed: Local tech employment was up, patents up sharply and M&A activity was up as well. Total Venture Capital fundings, which is an extremely important factor in tech company formation, came in less than half the comparable quarter a year ago.

So are these results a good proxy for the state of the broader technology business overall? I think they represent a very good set of indicators. Let’s take a closer look at some of these factors in a broader geographic view, in addition to a couple of additional indicators that I’ve added to the mix:

TECH EMPLOYMENT

I’ve added tech employment as it’s obviously a very key indicator of the health of any sector. Challenger, Gray & Christmas stated that the number of planned layoffs in technology fields fell to just under 47,000 in 2010, the lowest yearly total for the sector since 2000. The firm says this signaled that technology is recovering more quickly from the economic downturn than employers in other sectors.

During the next 10 years, the tech sector is forecast to experience one of the fastest paces of job creation of any industry. There are many anecdotal reports of strong demand for tech talent, especially in the crucial Silicon Valley market. Nearly 150,000 tech jobs are expected to be added in the US in 2011, says Sophia Koropeckyj, an economist at Moody’s Analytics. In February, there were about 6.1 million tech jobs in the U.S., up 2.4 percent from a year ago.

Tech sector employment trends appear much more positive than in the overall economy.

VENTURE CAPITAL FUNDING

The estimated market value of venture capital-financed companies in the U.S. rose 19% in 2010’s fourth quarter and 23% for 2010, according to the Dow Jones U.S. Venture Capital Index. The bulk of this is technology, and past returns are a very good indicator of amount of VC capital that will be available going forward. When VC funds have good returns, more money pours into their new funds, creating greater amounts of capital available to new startups in the future.

CB Insights report on Venture Capital Fundings in Q1 2011 showed total invested capital rose to $7.5B, up from $6.5B in Q4 2010 and $5.9B in Q1 2010. While a bit choppy, the funding trend has been generally up since Q2 2009. Again, this is bullish for the tech sector, which relies more heavily than most industries sectors on VCs for capital formation. Venture capital is still harder to come by than before the recession. However, while still down significantly from the go-go days prior to the recession, Venture capital availability is still a positive indicator of the tech economy’s health going forward.

M&A

The best tech M&A data currently available is from the first quarter of this year, and it is very bullish indeed. Mergermarket’s report on global M&A activity, published in April 2011, paints a bullish picture for acquisition activity in the early part of this year. This report shows the total value of worldwide technology M&A deals rose to $27,872,000 in Q1 2011, up very strongly from $10,729,000 in Q1 2010, even though the total number of deals decreased by 3 in this period. The numbers for North America were comparable.

It should be noted that while Q1 2011 compared very well to the same quarter in 2010, in both North America and Worldwide the trend was down from Q4 2010. So while M&A activity has picked up very strongly since the recession officially ended, the short term trend of the last quarter wasn’t a positive indicator for the future. This means that M&A activity is a bit of a mixed bag with respect to measuring the health of the tech economy.

TECH CAPITAL SPENDING

Forrester Research predicts that IT spending will increase in 2011 by a healthy 7.5% in the US, and 7.1% worldwide.

InformationWeek conducted a survey which showed that 55% of information technology professionals said their companies will increase information technology spending in 2011, while only 19% expect it to fall and 26% expect it to remain unchanged.

“Technology executives clearly see a sustained recovery of relevant Products/Services and a strong appetite for technology-related purchases by U.S. companies and consumers, which helped raise the position of the U.S. market,” said Gary Matuszak, partner, global chair, and U.S. leader for KPMG’s technology practice. “Coupled with demand from emerging-market countries, this combined opportunity bodes well for the industry.”

Technology capital spending trends, particularly in the US, provide a positive sign for the health of the tech economy.

TECH STOCK MARKET VALUES

The Dow Jones US Technology Index is up almost 20% over the last 12 month period. Stock values are very volatile and are affected by many factors other than the overall health of the sector, particularly in the short term. But over time they are a very good indicator of the health of the sector.

What Does It All Mean?

The indicators that we’ve taken a look at offer a mixed bag of conflicting signals up and down. While it appears more of the signals are pointing up than down, we are in an economy with a lot of uncertainty, and no definitive direction that can be predicted with any confidence. However, the software and technology sector appears to be in much better shape in the near term than both the US and worldwide economies overall. Farther out, the prospects for the tech sector appear to be much more bullish, especially when considering very long-term timeframes such as the next decade. Every company needs to draw their own conclusions about the economic impact on their market segment and individual company prospects. But in a larger sense, the arrow for the tech economy is more likely point up than down. If I’m the CEO of a software or tech company, the overall tech economy would be a positive factor in my decision matrix going forward.

So where do you personally think we’re at? Have we recovered, in the process of recovering, or is the tech business still treading water or going backwards? Post a comment and let us know where your own company’s situation stands with respect to recovery and future prospects.

Follow Phil Morettini and Morettini on Management via Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, RSS, or the PJM Consulting Quarterly Newsletter. Contact Phil directly at info@pjmconsult.com

Bookmark to: