Are We Arguing Over Money, Again? (
Page 1 of 2 )
Money makes the world go ‘round. And money makes our heads spin when it comes to wise technology investments.
We can have logical, orderly, scholarly thoughts about business technology, but when we use the word “investment,” we can get the
flying monkeys in our heads. This isn’t unusual. It’s probably true, for
example, that the whole personal financial advice industry is driven by
intelligent, normally rational people who can’t make decisions on their own
about their own money.
When we start thinking in terms of “investing” in
technology, we stick financial hooks in everything and yank and pull our
decisions accordingly. We think of this quarter’s numbers, instead of next
year’s customers. We think of meeting our budget, instead of meeting our
competitors in the marketplace. We are torn between the organization’s
incentives to cut to the bone and its desperate need for the technology
backbone we know is available.
Of course, companies have always demonstrated an ability
to act boldly when their backs are against the wall. When their existence is
threatened, they do what is necessary to survive, and damn the next quarter’s
numbers. But can they do it year in and year out, through market gyrations and
economic cycles?
They can, if they understand that there is no
steady state today, that survivors are engaged non-stop in innovating, renewing
and perfecting. This demands, among other things, a different time perspective.
At General Electric, Jeffrey Immelt has worked to change the company’s time
frame; executives, for example, can expect to stay longer in assignments to
build up their expertise. And when it comes to investing, he told Harvard
Business Review:
“I have the…broadest time horizon in the company. So
looking at the evolution of the hybrid locomotive, we’re talking about tens of
millions of dollars. For the program manager, it’s huge, the most massive thing
he’s ever managed. For John Dineen, who runs the rail business, it’s pretty
big. For me, you know, it’s OK. We can do it. The program manager wants it to
get done tomorrow. John Dineen says, ‘Jeez, I may be in this job four, five
years.’ But I’ll probably be here much longer. I’ll see the hybrid locomotive─I
absolutely know that. So I can bring to bear the right risk-taking and time
horizon trade-offs.”
At GE and every company, each activity must
eventually be judged by dollars–it either earns them or saves them, and it does
so to a greater or lesser extent than other activities. It is the interim,
between the “go” decision and the financial judgment, that matters. It’s the
inclusion of intangible measures.