In the appendix of the book, Lean Integration: An Integration Factory Approach to Business Agility, I found a set of integration laws that I thought worthwhile sharing. I added my comments to each law on the thought it sparked.
Integration “laws” are ways of thinking about the fundamental drivers of integration. The laws reflect the reality of dealing with “systems-of-systems” (or complex systems) that are characteristic of enterprise integration. They represent the reality of “what is” rather than “what could he” and, just like the laws of physics, describe many characteristics of the real world.
I think the authors capture a lot of my belief is attacking a sales and marketing effort for a company. So often, products/markets get viewed in a segmentation theory complicated be some pre-conceived marketing funnel that we try to manipulate both external customers and internal (our own) sales people through. Then we act both surprised and accepting of the fact that some organizations/people drop into the funnel in peculiar ways. I think most segmentation and those funnels of depletion (ever decreasing prospects) break many of the laws of integration. This book, though not written for Sales and marketing, captured a few of my thoughts from a different viewpoint.
Law # 1 – The Whole Is Greater than the Sum of Its Parts: The notion of “process decomposition” is deeply ingrained in most analysis techniques used in modern software development life-cycle methodologies. It is based on the presumption that there are natural boundaries along which to divide a complex system into smaller components for integration.
When viewing sales and marketing opportunities, I first approach them from as large as a system perspective that I can effectively manage. We may group them, yes we still do segment. My preferred method of organizing is through the Job-To-Be-Done method or behavioral mechanics. The less preferred way are the more traditional way of product/markets and services. But most of all, I like to engage and leave the customers form their own natural boundaries of behavior. How do they want to interact? What depth of interaction/solution are they looking for?
In this area of Big Data what is the purpose of segmentation and depletion funneling. It adds little to the customer experience except for the group that is asking to part of marketing automation. The other percentage is more than turned off by it. My interpretation is that segmentation is more of a method of manipulation and a way of measurement that is severely outdated. Are there better ways of measuring customer engagement?
Law #2 – There Is No End State: Organizational entities split, merge, and morph into new structures. Political motivations and boundaries change. Technology evolves, and today’s leading edge is tomorrow’s legacy. An effective ICC approach must consider the full life cycle of a system and be based on best practices that recognize the adaptive nature of complex systems. From the start, we must plan for constant change. Furthermore, ICCs must deal with legacy systems based on prior generations of technology.
No End state could be just another terminology of measuring the lifecycle of customer or groups (clusters) of customers. While allowing the customer to engage in different behaviors or require different jobs. As they do, they would transverse to other clusters. There is not anything that is stagnant. We need to notice the patterns of movement but the edges of the clusters where the needs are developing.
Law #3 – There are no Universal standards: Having too many software standards has the same effect as having no standards at all. … The ICC should strive for and adopt standards within the enterprise but also work externally with standards organizations to gain agreement across the industry.
I think most sales and marketing departments would jump on this bandwagon before really taking the time to read what they actually are saying. It is very meaningful to me from a Lean perspective because I view standard Work as an emergent process. One that develops standards to allow to do more but also to develop standard ways in conjunction with customers and like vendors to create stronger interaction. As these methods are accepted deeper relationships, and better understanding with clusters and industry happens.
On something of a side note combine 3 & 4, I think many times, organizations venturing into the new when legacy systems may have just as well been used with a few tweaks. A new software, a new method of delivering change or some other type of gadget is put in place versus concentrating on the value of interaction.
Law #4: Information Adapts to Meet Local Needs: The information engineering movement of the early 1990s was based on the incorrect notion that an enterprise can have a single consistent data model without redundancy. A more accurate way to look at information is as follows: Information = Data + Context.
This formula says that the same data across different domains may have different meanings. For example, a simple attribute such as “Current Customer” can mean something different to the marketing, customer service, and legal departments.
When I view how sales and marketing, specifically CRM systems have developed it seems based on depletion funnels and in the Lean world Product/Service Value Streams. I think when we look at Customer Information, the Job-To-Be-Done, breaks down that idea of a linear approach. I think you map behavior, JTBD and cluster the groups so that we can interact with them in an effective manner.
One person/company may want automation. They may always prefer service by a Kiosk. Another at a drive-up and another once to go inside. I use this banking analogy because when viewed it may even seem obvious what another service, another opportunity exist to interact with that customer in their preferred way. How difficult would it be to try to force a progression of a Banking customer for higher-levels of service? But many other industries think that way. Information, CRMs, etc., should allow to be more adaptable and understand customer’s needs, not our pre-arranged idea of how they should respond.
Law #5 – All Details Are Relevant: Abstraction is the practice of representing a problem without all the details, developing a model solution based on the abstract problem, and then using the model to create the real-life solution. The success of this approach depends on our ability to build and use abstract models to manage and direct activities. But the effectiveness of an abstract model is inversely proportional to the complexity of the context because no details can be safely ignored. The cost of developing and maintaining abstract models of the system and the project can become an economic black hole, consuming all benefits
How many marketing automation platforms are set-up without adequate insight from the customer? How many are adjusted to adapt to the customer needs and desires? It’s not that I am against automation, I am against manipulation. Details are relevant, and we need data to help us. However, the idea is the better we engage with a customer, the more likely they are to work with us. How would the VP of Marketing sound if he would say our customers prefer a 90 sales cycle instead of a 60 day. Would that get him a promotion? However, what would happen if we could increase the average sale or market share by doing this?
I thank the authors of Lean Integration for sparking a few thoughts. You can visit integrationfactory.com for additional resources.
Job To Be Done Thinking created by Tony Ulwick (What Customers Want)
Lean Sales and Marketing: Learn about using CAP-Do