I recently sat in a presentation about supercomputing. They showed an application that helps Formula 1 teams prepare visits for the windtunnel and helps to analyze the results. Formula 1 teams need to comply with strict rules and need to find ways to optimize their results within an elaborate set of regulations. The presentation also described how to drive the fastest round. Did you know that Formula 1 cars can drive as fast as 400 km/h, but usually don't go faster than 360 km/h? The reason is that if you go too fast on the straight end, you need to brake more in the curves, and the race is won in taking the curves in the right way. Coincidentally, a few days later I read an interview with a Formula 1 driver. He said that winning is not only in being a good driver, but also in being a good communicator. While test driving, you need to tell the team in the pit and the design crew how the car "feels." I'm just making this up, but telling the crew that it feels a bit "itchy in the left middle of the center-back" must mean something to the crew. This only happens if they are tuned in to each other.
I realized that this is almost the perfection description on competitive advantage in business as well. Every organization has the same access to critical data. The key question is what you do with it. Being a little bit faster in seeing correlations, having just a little deeper insight in what certain patterns mean, being simply a little bit smarter than the others. At the same time, speed is not the differentiating factor, it's agility. You can have the fastest, leanest, meanest business process in the world, you're just not gonna win if you can't quickly translate new insights into how to modify your processes. Lastly, organizations don't stand alone, they interact with their stakeholders all the time and, like a formula 1 driver and the crew, they need to be tuned-in to each other, they need to be aligned.
Being smart, being agile, being aligned are the key competitive differentiators for the years to come. The EPM promise is to enable that.
--frank
Comments (2)
What a great analogy Frank. I think it illustrates just how connected and just how much we need to communicate with our own internal people, the external stakeholders and suppliers and customers in order to achieve sustainable performance in the market place.
You mention communication which is key, but I think what a lot of companies get wrong is that they communicate, but in their own language. For example, the strategic layers of the business so often communicate with the operational layers of the business in financial terms, assuming that the operational parts of the business have time, or even can, translate that into operational actions that need to support the financial desires/goals of the business. What happens? Well, it gets lost in translation and the "itchy in the left middle of the center-back" becomes "hurts like hell in the leg" - you get the point. Either way, there's a disconnect. If companies can just focus on what counts, (drives the business), in this case not the speed necessarily but the way you take corners and how the car, (or company) is optimized for the track layout and conditions, (or business environment/market). This only happens if you are prepared to be agile and can communicate in the right way, using the right language in the right context and around the right measures. All companies need to do now is leverage EPM .....
Posted by Simon Tucker | March 20, 2008 12:34 PM
Posted on March 20, 2008 12:34
Frank and Simon, you hit the nail in the head. Yes, communicating is important, but iti??s more important to communicate in the right manner. Remember, communication is only effective if a message is passed along and understood in its entire entity.
Being a F1 fan myself, I always thought that the reason why Michael Schumacher was so successful in F1 was because of the Ferrari crew (which I believe is one of the best in the world. But as Frank pointed out that it is the driver's responsibility to give the correct information to his crew, I now realize how good Schumi was in communicating with the team. Just adding my two cents to this entire discussion, I would say that experience helped Michael learn this art. He improved and learned from every race. This is "the key". Thus it is pivotal that we learn from every change/transformation that has occurred, not only in our organization but also in other organizations. I guess, this is where Oracle clinched the win by understanding the needs of the clients, and figuring out how to make them happen. No points for guessing why Oracle went on to buy PeopleSoft and then Hyperion, because Oracle was quick to realize that the demand was going from data level to transaction level and then to business intelligence level.
What would you change if you were the technical head of F1? If I were one, then I would change my engine and use the one which could run at 360 kmph. This would mean that my car is slightly less heavy and will take lesser space than before. I could then use this advantage in my favor by either making the car model sleeker or by increasing the size of my fuel chamber, which would allow me to store more fuel, and thus lesser time in the pit-stops.
PS: No points for guessing that Schumi is my all time favorite racer and Ferrari is my favorite team.
Posted by Pranav Nayak | March 31, 2008 1:43 PM
Posted on March 31, 2008 13:43