NTBS Blog

Suite Vs Best of Breed - let the battle commence

2012-02-21T10:35:00.001+13:00

A hot debate currently among business software solutions is that of Suite versus Best of Breed.

We have all heard the proverb “A chain is only as strong as its weakest link”, a concept especially true among business solutions - A solution is only as strong as its weakest integration. Often an overlooked idea, integration is a key factor in resolving the suite versus best of breed argument.

Such an argument is supported by business analyst Ben Kepes of www.diversity.net.nz, who attempts to shed light on this over played debate. He believes that this notion of integration is what sets suite and best of breed apart.

“On the one hand we have a bunch of independent vendors, building their own individual products and attempting to stick them together via a plethora of APIs, these vendors would have us believe that in this day of so many differing, and specific needs, no suite approach can truly meet the needs of an organization. An approach that lets them cherry pick apps left, right and center will always dominate”.

Sure, at a superficial level, best of breed will look like the best option. Applications designed for one specific purpose, and made to be the best at the one job they do. However, when it comes to integrating these with other applications, designed by other companies, things can start to become a bit of a jumbled mess. Things like legislative changes and altering business needs makes integrating these systems extremely costly and complex.

Kepes balanced article on this issue Suite vs. Best of Breed – Let the battle begin (again) can be found at http://www.diversity.net.nz/suite-vs-best-of-breed-let-the-battle-begin-yet-again/2010/05/26/

Synergy

2012-02-21T10:33:00.001+13:00

Synergy; Can be defined as two or more things functioning together to produce a result not independently obtainable.

We see synergy everywhere in everyday life, in business, at home or even in nature, yet the true power of cohesive effort seems to be lost on some - especially in the financial services sector. As an example, a lone wolf can hunt and forage but will unlikely be successful in a decent kill. Conversely, a pack of wolves working in cohesion can down even the largest of prey with little to no effort, all because of synergy. It is undeniable that things that work in unison will ultimately prevail over individuals, even if said individuals seem superior in one or more aspects.

What we see commonly in our industry is groups that create the perfect system for one task. And so, the next group creates the ‘perfect’ system for another task and if you strap them together you end up with a system that can do two tasks exceptionally well. Or so you would think. The problem lies not necessarily in the systems themselves but in the process in which they communicate (if they communicate with one another at all). Looking at the problem holistically we can see that choosing individual units to do one job exceptionally well with no regard for other tasks is simply an ineffective means of problem solving, I guarantee you that you will run into trouble along the way.

For example, let me speak metaphorically for a minute; this morning Graeme Henry released a statement about the fate of English rugby, he talked of excellent players producing below average results. He put this down to group cohesion – put simply, the pieces to the puzzle may all look pretty but they don’t necessarily fit in with one another. Over time the comparison has also been placed on the English football team – a team full of some of the highest earning and arguably most talented men in global sports, yet they do not surprise anyone when they crash and burn. Critics put it down to the team dynamics rather than any particular lack of skill, for the football World Cup, English players from all around the world get plucked from their respective club teams and are thrown onto the field together with the expectation that miracles will happen. These players hardly play together and when they do it is in a high stress environment, a combination that is destined for failure.

Anyway, I digress, my point is that one can spend millions of dollars on getting the best equipment, players or employees but at the end of the day if they cannot communicate and run together effectively you will be spending your money in vain. The best solution to this problem is integration. For financial services, start by choosing a system with a holistic approach where every thing is integrated under one umbrella of cohesion. This way, you effectively minimise any chance of information discrepancies across your system.

An anecdotal example will help clear this up for you. Lets say that Mr. Andrew R. Girvan has a savings account with your company, and also has kiwi saver and a mortgage with you too. If you were to use an un-integrated system searching for Andrew could be very difficult, he may be named Mr A R Girvan in your Savings system, Mr Andy Girvan in the mortgage section and Mr Andrew Girvan in your Kiwisaver system. Searching for a comprehensive history of Mr Girvan may lead you to having to scour the entire system database for 3 names, which all represent the same person. In a totally integrated system, the name would be entered once and then disseminated across all areas of the systems as the need arises. Single keying of information into one system allows for little to no human data entry error. Fewer errors or bugs in the system will produce a more time-efficient method of finance management; less cost yet more timely and accurate data all in one solution.

Simply put, forming a team or in this case a system, which can effectively communicate amongst its peers will undoubtedly be more efficient and easier to use than individual systems built for a single purpose glued together in the hope of harmonious day-to-day running. Success is about keeping things simple; construct a system that is purposely built for you and your company rather than finding the best system solution for each aspect of your business and hoping it will mesh with your existing programs. At the end of the day, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to work out that putting a Ferrari engine in your Toyota Corolla, will not mean it is as fast as a Ferrari.

Organisational Behaviour

2012-02-21T10:32:00.000+13:00

I found the following article particularly relevant to how I view the world and decided to reproduce it below for your benefit. The article is entitled four destructive myths of organisational behaviour and comes from a blog by Tony Schwartz President and CEO of The Energy Project.

Myth #1: Multitasking is critical in a world of infinite demand
This myth is based on the assumption that human beings are capable of doing two cognitive tasks at the same time. We're not. Instead, we learn to move rapidly between tasks. When we're doing one, we're actually not even aware of the other. If you're on a conference call, for example, and you turn your attention to an incoming email, you're missing what's happening on the call as long as you're checking your email. Equally important, you're incurring something called "switching time." That's the time it takes to shift from one cognitive activity to another. On average, according to researcher David Meyer, switching time increases the amount of time it takes to finish the primary task you were working on by an average of 25%. In short, juggling activities is incredibly inefficient. Difficult as it is to focus in the face of the endless distractions we all now face; it's far and away the most effective way to get work done. The worst thing you can do as a boss is to insist that your people constantly check their email.

Myth #2: A little bit of anxiety helps one to perform better
Think for a moment about how you feel when you're performing at your best. What adjectives come to mind? Almost invariably they're positive ones. Anxiety may be a source of energy, and even motivation, but it comes with significant costs. The more anxious we feel, the less clearly and imaginatively we think, and the more reactive and impulsive we become. That's not good for you, and it also has huge implications if you're in a supervisory role. As a boss, your energy has a disproportionate impact on those you lead, by virtue of your authority. Put bluntly, any time your behaviour increases someone's anxiety - or prompts any negative emotions, for that matter - they're less likely to perform effectively. The more positive your energy is, the more positive their energy is likely to be, and the better the likely outcome.
Myth #3: Creativity is genetically inherited, and it's impossible to teach
In a global economy characterized by unprecedented competitiveness and constant change, nearly every CEO hungers for ways to drive more innovation. Unfortunately, most CEOs don't think of themselves as creative, and they share with the rest of us a deeply ingrained belief that creativity is mostly inborn and magical. Ironically, researchers have developed a surprising degree of consensus about the stages of creativity and how to approach them. Our educational system and most company cultures favour reward the rational, analytic, deductive left hemisphere thinking. We pay scant attention to intentionally cultivating the more visual, intuitive, big picture capacities of the right hemisphere. As it turns out, the creative process moves back and forth between left and right hemisphere dominance. Creativity is actually about using the whole brain more flexibly. This process unfolds in a far more systematic - and teachable - way than we ordinarily imagine. People can quickly learn to access the hemisphere of the brain that serves them best at each stage of the creative process - and to generate truly original ideas.

Myth #4: The best way to get more work done is to work longer hours
No single myth is more destructive to employers and employees than this one. The reason is that we're not designed to operate like computers - at high speeds, continuously, for long periods of time. Instead, human beings are designed to pulse intermittently between spending and renewing energy. Great performers - and enlightened leaders - recognize that it's not the number of hours people work that determines the value they create, but rather the energy they bring to whatever hours they work. Rather than systematically burning down our reservoir of energy as the day wears on, as most of us do, intermittent renewal makes it possible to keep our energy steady all day long. Strategically alternating periods of intense focus with intermittent renewal, at least every 90 minutes, makes it possible to get more done, in less time, more sustainably. Want to test the assumption? Choose the most challenging task on your agenda before you go to sleep each night over the next week. Set aside 60 to 90 minutes at the start of the following day to focus on the activity you've chosen. Choose a designated start and stop time, and do your best to allow no interruptions. (It helps to turn off your email.) Succeed and it will almost surely be your most productive period of the day. When you're done, reward yourself by taking a true renewal break.

Richard Schipper