According to the recent CNN Money article, IBM has failed to meet analysts’ revenue targets for four out of the last eight quarters. (In the interest of full disclosure, I am an IBM shareholder, and am not advocating buying or selling the company’s stock.) So, did it work? Did the marketing campaign drive sales, or was it part of something larger?
If you view Smarter Planet as part of a long-term re-focusing of the company’s brand, it makes sense. It’s a strategy to help move IBM away from just software services, into more of the actual creative and innovating technological consulting it has the capability (but hasn’t necessarily) supplied in the past. As part of the Smarter Planet campaign, they’ve been on a recruiting binge for anyone with any real analytical know-how, and have been buying and leveraging their analytical software portfolio (which includes Cognos) to try and win large projects aimed at improving resource efficiency.
Myself, I’m coming from an ERP Systems background, where about half of the systems implemented either a.) fail to go-live, or b.) fail to obtain a positive return-on-investment. (One article I found claims that as many as 72% of ERP implementations can be considered a ‘failure’. ) The main issues plaguing ERP are the same ones that are likely to affect Smarter-Planet-type campaigns. Namely:
- Insufficient funding
- Lack of support from key stakeholders / senior management
- Insufficient training for users of the new system
Anytime you hear about a new system, followed by the phrase, “Let’s try to do this on the cheap“, you know you’re in for a long road of heartache. Is the same true for Smarter Planet projects? Are they being shortchanged by near-sighted cost-consciousness, or are the stakeholders involved looking at the long-term cost benefits that can be obtained by starting these projects now when labor and material rates are at historic lows?
Any thoughts?
Leave a Reply