Planning v. Dumb Luck

Planning is key to success, but anyone that tells you that dumb luck is not part of the equation for success is a liar. Everyone at some point gets lucky. Stars align and something takes place that greatly benefits your situation. Purely relying on dumb luck would not be a prudent decision, but business people need to understand that circumstances outside of your control can sometimes come together and greatly assist you in your situation. The key is that managers still have a well-developed plan and leave themselves open to the benefits of dumb luck.

Another Outsourcing Question

When thinking about the future of outsourcing, the question of expense could have a very interesting answer. Outsourcing has always been looked at as the cheaper way to do many business operations. If trends continue, businesses will continue to use outsourcing to cut costs. Historically, the more popular something becomes the more expensive it becomes. In a capitalistic society, what trend would bow first? One would have to think that outsourcing would become the more expensive option.

Outsourcing

I feel that as a manager you need to be making the decision if your business will be outsourcing. IT can give you the necessary information you need to decide if you will outsource, but the final decision needs to be made by the manager.
When it comes to the question of whether to use best of breed or single-sourcing in terms of IT, I feel that the decision is clear. When using a best of breed approach, you are creating a great deal more work for managers. Managers have to keep up with multiple businesses that are responsible for your company's IT. Not only do managers have more work to do, but the different companies that perform various IT functions may not work together harmoniously. These issues show that a single sourcing approach is the safer option for a corporation.

Outsourcing and Virtual Offices

Outsourcing is obviously a great way to take a business process that is not one's core competency and let another person, or group of people, handle that task in a sufficient manner. Outsourcing can also be a way for companies to save money by assigning certain tasks to a cheaper workforce. Although their are these obvious benefits, outsourcing can lead to some very serious problems. British Petroleum is the perfect example of the failures that can arise with outsourcing. Outsourcing is all about relationships. When you delegate a certain task to another organization, you are giving them the responsibility to represent your interests. In other words, their mistakes become your mistakes. BP's failure to track performance, safety, and a variety of other factors led to problems with the Deepwater Horizion.

Another interesting topic is the subject of virtual offices. A company goes virtual when they no longer perform their normal day-to-day operations in a physical location, instead choosing to work from home and use an office as a home base for activities such as client meetings. I have a friend that works for a company that uses a virtual office. He designs web pages, which he could much easily do at home. They use their office as a home "hub" that allows them to have a meeting place for clients, employees, and contact. The idea of a virtual office is one that may gain popularity due to the rise in technological jobs.

IT Transformation

Dr. Stephanie Mills talk on the new types of IT implementation at OLOL was an intriguing topic. Doctors are a group of people that are not very open to new ways of doing things. With that being said, it seems to be a tall order to implement a new IT system that combines, automates, and archives many different types of hospital activities. Where as a hospital seems like a likely place to implement comprehensive technology,   doctors and hospital employees might make it difficult to implement such technology. Dr. Mills really showed the benefits of the new technology, while illustrating the difficulties in getting the medical community at OLOL to "buy in."

Change

It seems like many companies get stuck in their ways and refuse to adopt technologies that would most certainly help their business. The first step has to be someone that sees the benefits of change and brings new, helpful technology to the attention of decision makers. Many people are just not willing to change and the only way they will adopt a new technology is if they are sold on it. The tactics are not going to change, the difference between an organization that accepts change as a part of business and an organization that stubbornly refuses to adopt new technology usually comes down to one or a few decision makers. How that company moves forward depends on how persuasive a proponent of change can be toward those decision makers. The best way to convince one of those decision makers is to show them the bottom line of accepting new technology. Accepting "system A" will streamline "process B" and save you this much money. Other than drawing people a picture of the benefits, most people are unwilling to change what they see as a "good thing."

Finding Your "Game Changer"

First of all, when it comes to whether or not a company should invest in IT, the choice will usually be invest. The benefits of using the most state of the art technologies greatly outweigh using a creative or "maverick" approach. Although that answer seems clear, a company like Zara blurs the lines of whether an investment in IT is actually the right move. Personally, I couldn't deal with that sort of shopping experience. I want to get in and get out, easily finding what I need and getting the help I need. I also like my clothing to last more than a week, but hey that's just me. Zara, though, has found a market that is the anti-me. A company must look at their core competencies and decide if a move toward updated, state of the art IT goes with those core competencies. Although I would push for Zara to institute some sort of hybrid IT system that would still allow them to be innovators as far as their trendy approach goes, I think Zara might be one of those companies that is better suited to being a "maverick" in the clothing industry.
I think that one of the important things that companies must do is try to make the new competition move closer to them. Creating a system that works for you is important. Creating a system that others see as a system that they must make work for them is a game changer. IT or no IT, if something makes you the industry leader go with it... for a while. Always be fine tuning your system. Zara had no IT, everything was on the racks and all styles were "first come, first served." A hybrid system is a way in which Zara can keep their trendy system in tact, while jointly making their system more error free. Their system was a game changer giving them control of the market. The addition of IT is a way for Zara to maintain that hold.