Since the beginning of the digital age, we have rightly talked about agile development, optimization tests, in short, initiatives that are sometimes light, sometimes temporary, which allow ideas to be quickly validated before they are give greater scope. We have all heard (or even said) that going digital is faster and more progressive than preparing and validating a paper publication before it is printed in hundreds of thousands of copies.
The world of start-ups and Web pioneers amplifies this perception by starting “from a garage” to gradually build empires. In business, we also often hear the saying “you have to learn to walk before you run”… But when it comes to large-scale strategic projects, do established companies have the time to act like start-ups ?
From a tactical point of view, this gradual approach has obvious advantages, but does it really help large-scale strategic projects?
A step-by-step approach might sound appealing to any established company looking to test digital channels without disrupting their traditional way of doing business. On the other hand, this seemingly good idea could cause a lot of harm in the long term. Here's why.
1. WE ONLY ATTACK EASY FIGHTS
By aiming for short-term gains, the “ quick wins ” approach ignores the most complex processes that are often the most profitable for the organization.
However, one of the principles of agile methods is to attack as a priority the area carrying the most risk, but also of potential business value. In doing so, it creates unrealistic expectations for the future of digital: the transformation of the core of the processes will not fail to be more difficult than the launch of a small initiative in parallel with the real issues.
2. WE PLAN WITHOUT AN OVERVIEW
Digital adoption can and should affect the very architecture of a business.
By betting on speed, we adopt systems on the fly, proud of the apparent progress, we spend on sites and campaigns filled with features and content that could prove to be useless or misaligned in a context that will soon be transformed ; worse, we align the priorities and motivations of our teams on these ephemeral efforts rather than on the real challenges.
3. WE ACCUMULATE LUGGAGE WITHOUT SACRIFICING ANYTHING
Successful digital companies such as Facebook, Google or Amazon have in common that they started with a clear and simple offer that goes straight to the point.
However, companies that really need to transform are experiencing a completely opposite situation: with their years of history, they have accumulated a wealth of assets, processes, services and even skills that respond well to the challenges of past… and sometimes still apparently to the current situation.
However, these choices can be detrimental or inefficient in a digital context. By launching ad hoc and gradual efforts in digital, they accumulate even more baggage without questioning their adaptation to the world of tomorrow.
4. WE ATTACK COMPETITORS RATHER THAN DISRUPTORS
To guarantee incremental results, one usually explores a known market, without developing new prospects. If this is tactically acceptable, the approach will not find the next big opportunity.
Developing a truly new initiative, which would allow the company to be a disruptor itself, carries real risks. If, on the one hand, the proposal for a step-by-step approach often arises from an aversion to this risk, on the other hand, if a test project explores a truly innovative avenue, its success is absolutely not guaranteed and it will be even less guarantor of the results of the following tests.
Tactical growth should not be confused with strategic testing.
5. WE DO NOT INNOVATE ON THE BUSINESS MODEL
The adoption of digital offers unprecedented opportunities for organizations to transform themselves: transforming their products into services, transforming their services into products, reaching new markets, completely reviewing their value chain, renting rather than buying, renting rather than selling , pay or bill as you go, etc.
These changes are major and concern almost the entire organization: from finance to marketing, from technologies to customer service, including procurement and human resources.
By attacking only too light a part of the business model, for example the logistics processes or marketing, there is no chance of achieving synergy.
On the other hand, if we want to involve as many business units, or simply manage the change with them, the process will take some time before bringing immediate gains (and yet this internal transformation is itself a gain).
6. WE ENTRUST THE PROJECT TO A SINGLE TEAM
By their very nature, small projects must be light and efficient for the organization, but can we really calculate the performance of truly promising projects in the same way as small streams?
Whether it's IT, marketing or even the team of a Chief Digital Officer (CDO), no team can carry the weight of a real digital transformation alone: it is a project of company, which depends on senior management, often taken as a whole.
Without this deep buy-in from leaders for digital, even the most competent and well-intentioned team will have difficulty obtaining all the conditions for digital to really be a priority (read: more than other channels) in the company. enough to transform it… We too often see tactical projects in marketing or IT being referred to as “digital transformation projects”, when several years later, the operations of the same company are still not transformed.
Moreover, e-business can scare all kinds of actors in and around a company. Under-informing or restricting a project to one team is a good way to slip a project through without properly involving all stakeholders.
7. WE AIM TOO LOW TO REALLY INSPIRE
A large-scale digital project necessarily involves many actors, internal and external, and these actors must fully understand and commit to the project for it to be a real success.
On the other hand, projects that are too small, aimed at too superficial or too short-term results will never motivate the best resources as much as those that promise to change the world.
It is easier to have internal collaborators, to recruit and even to obtain financing if what one proposes inspires or promises significant spinoffs.
8. WE ARE MOVING SLOWLY EVEN IF TIME IS RUNNING OUT
Another important issue with small-scale digital projects is the time required to make significant progress.
While it's easier to get small budgets and minor approvals in the short term, small-step projects suffer from this subdivision of budgets and approvals that ties up — and demobilizes — teams and vendors.
If some less daring managers believe that they will have an easier time selling the project step by step, nothing is less guaranteed: each round of approval adds delays and risks to the project, while making the big picture even harder to grasp for an approver, who quickly will have absolutely no commitment to the undersized project.
In other cases, the impression is given that the transformative project is a series of small initiatives, whereas the aim is precisely to obtain a whole that is more than the sum of its parts.
9. WE RELY ON A PHASE TO REACH CRITICAL MASS
A constant in digital projects is the use of technologies to scale up activities that are less profitable by non-digitized means: for example, products are marketed online to more easily communicate their characteristics to a broader, and we implement a process to automate tasks.
Whatever the strategy, the profitability of digital is directly related to the scale at which it is used. It is therefore certain that the results of a partial implementation (e.g. in a single region, on part of the orders, etc.) will be much less positive than those of a more successful project... which paradoxically risks harming the outcome of the project if a manager gets scared along the way.
Do not be impatient not to see in a few quarters the type of results that even the most resourceful companies have taken five or ten years to achieve.
9. WE RELY ON A PHASE TO REACH CRITICAL MASS
A constant in digital projects is the use of technologies to scale up activities that are less profitable by non-digitized means: for example, products are marketed online to more easily communicate their characteristics to a broader, and we implement a process to automate tasks.
Whatever the strategy, the profitability of digital is directly related to the scale at which it is used. It is therefore certain that the results of a partial implementation (e.g. in a single region, on part of the orders, etc.) will be much less positive than those of a more successful project... which paradoxically risks harming the outcome of the project if a manager gets scared along the way.
Do not be impatient not to see in a few quarters the type of results that even the most resourceful companies have taken five or ten years to achieve.
11. WE SPEND ON OPERATIONS RATHER THAN INVESTING IN VISION
Most managers need to know how to navigate between day-to-day operations, tactical initiatives and major projects. However, since short-term results are usually easier to prove than long-term potential, the temptation to judge long-term strategies as one performs short-term tasks should be resisted.
Whether it is when prioritizing projects, choosing a technology or even hiring and training staff, it is increasingly essential to think about our goal: do we want to operate quickly or invest for the future? ? Often, the race for immediate results is directly to the detriment of investments for the future.
In the end, we hide the status quo behind a small reassuring project
While there is room for quick online success for a few ultra-niche business models, very attractive markets (usually those of long-established companies) are already being aggressively exploited by big online players, and more time advances, the higher the expectations.
In this context, the projects that will make a real difference are usually the most transformative for organizations.
It's time to stop replacing “ you have to walk before you run ” with “ you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs ”.
.jpg)
