The answer is 23. 23? 23 what? Not what, just 23. I could have just as easily substituted the 23 for any acronym SaaS, various standards, SOA, CRM, ITIL, CMMI, BRE, AVM, “e-something,” or a multitude of other advocated approaches. Have we become an industry more worried about the implications or catalysts over the operating principles, rationale and outcomes these very important solutions were designed to facilitate? What is there efficacy?
For technologists and business personnel having an answer, even a correct one, does not help if it has no context or relevant association. Within our operating environments we have competing nexuses of priorities and solutions that are often cumbersomely interrelated and poorly supported with foundational directives. Let me eliminate the “spin” — we don’t understand the interrelationships and the implications as they relate to desired outcomes.
With all due respect to the excellent vendors, providers, and their marketing gurus, from the outside many offerings simply sound similar if not the same. These highly sophisticated and extensively researched offerings are increasingly viewed as commodities in a contracting market — their premium is now at a discount. So how have these market innovators and innovations “lost their way” and been driven into commodity discussions with their customers and prospects? Yes it is the market, but there is something more architectonic underneath the meltdown?
As I have noted in this column before, innovation is only innovation if it is relevant to the business drivers, process events, and market demands. Simple, right? Moreover, using a syllogistic approach one can then assume that the following axiom also holds truth — using advanced technology, low-cost labor, having a fully integrated solution, and improving quality and margins will yield continued profitability and sustainability?
The flaw resides in a failure to understand the comprehensive, end-to-end “equation” of mortgage and finance technology in relationship to the drivers. Hence, innovation for the sake of innovation often yields commoditization of efforts as the buyers struggle with applicability, while the offerings merge towards adequacy. The following illustration provides a foundation to comprehend the challenges facing our technology providers and the opportunity for buyers in deciding which products and services best meet their organization demands.As the illustration points out, results = organizational foundation + integrated priorities / objectives + business and technological solutions (aka technological offerings). Some may look at this model and argue it is “old school” or linear in construct ignoring the “new models” of consumer interactions. Uh, no, those wonderful options would be part of the channel and delivery effort — not the fundamental foundation for deployment — and only a method or technique to gain the result. Let’s not confuse methods, techniques, architectures, standards, and tools as the reason for business adoption. The illustration can be expanded many fold and along several, non-linear dimensions.
Much like the lessons in Plato’s Allegory of the Cave or Machiavelli’s The Prince, our failure to internalize events outside the traditional operating practices can lead to a catastrophic rebalancing. Commoditization is frequently the result of an inward, singular focus and market group-think. Perhaps, given the acidic spray of failures, bailouts, discount window barrowing, and consumer confidence, we should begin to break up the commoditization moulds and thinking once and for all?
