Brian Sommer has written on why analytics will not lead to new revenue streams, improved customer service, better stock options or other signs of salvation:
The Ossified Organization Won’t ‘Get’ Analytics (part 1 of 3)
How Tough Will Analytics Be in Ossified Firms? (Part 2 of 3)
Analytics and the Nimble Organization (part 3 of 3)
Why most firms won’t profit from analytics:
… Every day, companies already get thousands of ideas for new products, process innovations, customer interaction improvements, etc. and they fail to act on them. The rationale for this lack of movement can be:
- That’s not the way we do things here
- It’s a good idea but it’s just not us
- It’s too big of an idea
- It will be too disruptive
- We’d have to change so many things
- I don’t know who would be responsible for such a change
And, of course,
- It’s not my job
So if companies don’t act on the numerous, free suggestions from current customers and suppliers, why are they so deluded into thinking that IT-generated, analytic insights will actually fare better? They’re kidding themselves.
What Brian describes in amusing and great detail are all failures that no amount of IT, analytics or otherwise, can address. Not a technology problem. Not even an organization (as in form) issue.
It is a personnel issue. You can either retrain (I find unlikely to succeed) or you can get new personnel. it really is that simple. And with a glutted IT market, now would be the time to recruit an IT department not wedded to current practices. But you would need to do the same in accounting, marketing, management, etc.
But calling a department “ossified” is just name calling. You have to move beyond name calling to establish a bottom line reason for change.
Assuming you have access, topic maps can help you integrate data across department that don’t usually interchange data. So you can make the case for particular changes in terms of bottom line expenses.
Here is a true story with the names omitted and the context changed a bit:
Assume you are a publisher of journals, with both institutional and personal subscriptions. One of the things that all periodical publishers have to address are claims for “missing” issues. It happens, mail room mistakes, postal system errors, simply lost in transit, etc. Subscribers send in claims for those missing issues.
Some publishers maintain records of all subscriptions, including any correspondence and records, which are consulted by some full time staffer who answers all “claim” requests. One argument being there is a moral obligation to make sure non-subscribers don’t get an issue to which they are not entitled. Seriously, I have heard that argument made.
Analytics and topic maps could combine the subscription records with claim records and expenses for running the claims operation to show the expense of detailed claim service. Versus the cost of having the mail room toss another copy back to the requester. (Our printing cost was $3.00/copy so the math wasn’t the hard part.)
Topic maps help integrate the data you “obtain” from other departments. Just enough to make your point. Don’t have to integrate all the data, just enough to win the argument. Until the next argument comes along and you take a bit bigger bite of the apple.
Agile organizations are run by people agile enough to take control of them.
You can wait for permission from an ossified organization or you can use topic maps to take the first “bite.”
PS: If you have investments in journal publishing you might want to check on claims handling.