How Much is Enough?

This week’s post sparked from a phone conversation I had with a friend who is now an IT QA Manager at a company in Los Angeles (to go unnamed). What struck me was his comment on how there was a lot of chaos at the company due to a rapid rise in new business which was not matched by a proportional rise in IT resources and capabilities. When I commented that it sounded like poor management to me, he countered by claiming that the IT management was doing well to manage the situation. But to me the balancing act of taking on new business in proportion to the resources and capabilities available is under the domain of management as well.

Which brings us to the question of when to say “no” to the customer. Or to handle it another way, the company could raise prices high enough so that demand falls to levels that the organization can provide at adequate quality levels and without putting undue stress on staff. I suppose marketing purists might insist that any and all new orders must be taken on at all costs or there will be irrecoverable market share damage. However, I would counter that taking on new business to the point that your quality levels drop and disruptions and defects are common is no way of maintaining market share either. In any case, this particular company (that my friend works at) has obviously chosen the take all customers at any cost approach. My personal experience in my own career has been that most companies tend to make this choice. But is this wise?

Now there are no obvious answers here and a lot depends on various factors such as the economy, the goals and objectives of the organization (long term and short term) etc. However, in my experience, it has always been negative in the long term when an organization has adopted the approach of taking on all orders and actively seeking out more orders even when the rest of the organization is struggling to keep up with demand. This is especially puzzling when we consider how easy it is to manage demand by simply charging higher and allowing market forces to balance things out without hurting customer’s feelings. When the organization has upgraded its capabilities and capacity, it can always lower prices to re-stimulate demand for its service.

To me, it seems like the goal of meeting large quarterly targets is based on a desire to rake in bonuses and stock price returns at the cost of the company’s long term success. In other words it is a case of greed. However, unlike as depicted in fiction, greed is not good. How much is enough, Mr. Gekko?

Excess Capacity

The characteristic feature about IT that makes it different from other types of industries is that there is very little potential for storing or maintaining an inventory of the services being provided. In manufacturing, for example, the manufactured product can be stored in a warehouse and sold later. However, in IT that is usually not possible. Of course, in the case of a manufactured application like say Windows Vista, the boxes of Vista could be stored in a warehouse but due to the short lifespan of software products, this could only be done for so long before the app is obsolete and incapable of being sold. Furthermore, as the software apps can’t be recycled (like steel pipes for example) the stored quantities that aren’t sold are a complete loss. And in the case of non-product services the resources (people, tools, apps, computers) are simply sitting idle if not used to full capacity. The loss in this case is instantaneous and unrecoverable.

Now a certain amount of buffer capacity is necessary so that in the event of some problem or spike in customer requirements, things are still under control and manageable. However, a disturbing trend that I have seen very often is that a lot of capacity is kept as a buffer to compensate for poor management of IT. The efficient and consequently competitive and profitable IT organizations manage their capacity so that they are only taking on the amount of resources and capabilities that deliver value and no more. How can this be accomplished?

To fine tune the resources so that just what is needed is being delivered requires a number of factors to be in place. The first and most important is the correct analysis and understanding of customer demand cycles. This is where the demand management process is of great value.

An ongoing formal relationship with the customer utilizing Service Level Management is also crucial to establish the correct point of contact with the customer in order to fully understand requirements and to implement continuous improvement measures.
Financial management is important in keeping track of the expenses with respect to the planned budget. This monetary bookkeeping can greatly assist with keeping track of customer demand patterns.

At the center of it all, of course, is the capacity management process which plans for and monitors service capacity. However, this process cannot function adequately without correct inputs from the aforementioned processes and other sources.

It is possible to fine-tune and optimize capacity delivery to the customer but only after a proper planned effort is made with other processes in place that provide the relevant information. Organizations seeking to be competitive must make the effort to optimize their delivery or else they will be overtaken by competitors that make this effort.