The law on the IT side

Things seem to have changed since I was working in IT (information technology) projects for the financial industry...But others remain the same. 

At that time I remember having to explain to a lawyer the requirements of a software package that my company was about to buy.  She was on our side and drafted a contract that was forcing the software supplier to deliver what they promised.  I had been dealing with this supplier and had agreed to these requirements.  

Our boss thought that it was better to put these requirements in the contract.  A rare occasion to do so I thought, because I was used to the idea that IT people more or less trusted each other in our competence and promises.  If we say it can be done, it should be done.  Part of our professional ethics, or our own ego perhaps.  Part of my own education.  I had learned the hard way at university and in my first job as a software programmer what happens when you do not deliver projects.  

At the time of this contract there were several (and long) meetings, and when the supplier attended them, this lawyer got them cornered.  The supplier was more versatile in IT matters, less in legal ones. The contract became a long document. We had to draft it several times because requirements changed due to the negotiation that took place. We did not seem to trust each other.  

Did this long process have to do anything with fairness?  Well, it turned out to be a matter of not losing money and getting more that we initially bargained for.  It was a kind of competition.  Avoid losses, make the other pay for penalties.

As of today what I see is that IT people have become experts at putting the law at their side.  Think of Amazon and Google (not) paying taxes.  They abide by the law, regardless of the morality of their acts. Even Obama has recently taken the side of Apple against Samsung and the judges have ruled out in Apple's favour.  The US judges. In this case there does not seem to be any written contract, only the laws of (fair) competition. But if this is about fairness, why does the end result have to be stopping your competitor from selling their products?  

So maybe this and other cases will set a precedent that says that an IT project/product needs to have a lawyer (or a team of lawyers) as a permanent team member.  Project management techniques will have to focus not only on ensuring successful project completion but also on protecting economic interests of the project.  

Or perhaps it should be a case of making IT contracts fair to all the parties. But still, many people could fear that the invisible hand of the market (or their competitors) will play against them.  

We have advanced much in developing new technologies.  But we are still not trusting each other.

Quality when you need(ed) it

Today there were news about the inevitable sale of Blackberry...

Another giant has to bow to its rivals.  Or maybe its golden days are past.

Talking to a student about this, we realised that many companies might have their own idea about quality of their products.  And then this idea might not be the same that customers have.

It seems that we are changing our idea of quality.  Or we are fed different ideas as if we could choose. As if choice was ours to make.  Remember: you can choose any colour of your car as long as it is black.

Quality for me is still an elusive term.  As a man I associate it with reliability, specially when it comes to technology.

In the case of mobile technology it seems that appearance has taken the upper hand.  I do not know about Blackberry's competitors idea of quality, but it seems they have been able to convince the customer that they are the ones having the upper hand in terms of quality.  As if quality had to do with fast innovation and development of products at our fingertips.

Another take on quality which could help us here is that of quality of relationships.  Blackberry still strikes me as a stand alone company.  Very good, reliable, but with no allies with common goals.  Specially mobile operators and software companies.

What could the future hold for Blackberry?

Maybe a very specific customer niche well exploited, maybe going back to basics (I always like this). Maybe innovation at a different and meaningful pace. Maybe a soul search...Maybe making things simpler, for illiterates like me.

Amazon and its biggest CRM challenge

Amazon, the omnipresent virtual retailer of almost everything has announced this week that it no longer offers free delivery in the UK on some articles that are less than £10. 

The funny side of the story as someone has pointed out, is that the company is seeking additional sources of revenue in order to pay tax, once and for all.

Reading between the lines though, one can see that there could be other interests at play.  The interest to sell more, so that if you want an item but it costs less than £10, pair it up with another cheap item so that your bill exceeds £10 and you get free delivery this time.  

There is also a clever marketing strategy.  We as human beings get caught in the comparison syndrome as Rolf Dolbelli states in his book "The art of thinking clearly" (which I bought recently from Amazon!).  When you have two things or people and you compare them, you would select the one that stands out from the other.  This is regardless of the price you pay.  The decision is as rational as it can be, considering that there is a sample of only two.  So for Amazon this means you will sell the ugly thing with the less ugly one. But you will sell two.  Whereas for the customer, in reality, it means she bought two things, when she thought she bought the nicest one.  

Strategies like this get on the way of a good and responsible customer relationship management (CRM) activity.  If the goal is to strengthen and maintain good relationships, why does not Amazon look first into who were the customers buying small things? 

In my view, Amazon has a CRM strategy that encourages people to buy more of the same, based on our previous purchases, regardless of anything else we might like to do next.  Again, this works well by comparison, so that for instance you have a book and you can be tempted to buy a similar one, only cheaper, or more interesting that the one you already have.  

But is is not good CRM.  Good CRM is about understanding where customers are in their lives, anticipating what you and I might need in the future.  Just like a good friend.  And also caring for other stakeholders.  Like a socially responsible business.  

As insignificant as a small item appears to be, it could be an indication of where you are at in your life.  True, this item could be paired up with bigger ones.  Amazon has an opportunity here, by looking at a broader picture and responding. But Amazon should not try to milk the small customers here.  They either seem to be loyal, otherwise why should buy from Amazon, or they could be very weary of transport costs.  

If the issue here is cost of transport of small items (and I keep saying in my blog that this is just an excuse not to care for customers), then Amazon is inadvertently leaving the space open for other companies who could provide those small items at cheaper cost.  For some customers, buying only what they need is a more logical way of proceeding.  For others, it would be preferable to bite the dust and buy things themselves from a nearby shop.  In any case, their relationship with Amazon might be no longer desirable.  Other companies will show up on the door step and will offer, by comparison, a better deal. 

I am a book and CD buyer by nature.  But what assurances do I have that I will not be the next on target from Amazon? I thought we were friends...not sure anymore dear Amazon ! Please show some care not only for your balance sheet but for the rest of organisations and people involved.  Maybe Yu need to change your idea of CRM.