Podcast: Why is it so Hard to Sell Geospatial Technology to the Enterprise?
By Joe Francica and Adena Schutzberg
May 05, 2008
Classified Ads:
If you are still wondering which mobile GPS you should buy for your GIS data collection and mapping projects: Download our white paper to see how our MobileMapper 6 GPS beats the competition with better accuracy and lower price. Visit Magellan ProfessionalSenior executives from leading technology companies, speaking at our Location Intelligence Conference last week shared that the entire value proposition for spatial enablement is a "push" to the market rather than a "pull" or demand for the technology. Our editors ask: Are we doing an adequate job of selling the technology to more of the people who will eventually implement geospatial tools with other IT solutions? Why is it still so hard? What are we not doing well? Will it take another "Google Earth" to push the technology deeper into corporate computing or a new crop of graduates to be more geospatially enlightened?
 |
 |
 |
 |
|||
|
||||||
|
 |
 |
 |
|||
Show Notes
No links this week. Coverage of Location Intelligence 2008, including details of Ceri Carlill's talk, will appear at Directions Magazine and All Points Blog throughout the week. The agenda for the conference and other details are available at the conference website.
|
Your Comments Post a comment All comments provided in this section are those of the individual who has created the post. These are not the opinions of Directions Media, its editors, staff or owners unless otherwise noted. Directions Media retains the right to edit or delete any comments posted herein.
|
|
||||||
| A number of years ago I was in a position where I had close contact with a very successful mail order company. The activities of my company were funded by the profits of this business through a foundation. Wanting to make sure their profits continued, I volunteered to take some customer information and perform some basic location review. I was surprised when I was told “thanks, but no thanks.” I later learned that there is a very active sharing of mailing lists between these companies and this source of potential customers met their needs. In short, the adages that if it is not broken, don’t fix it rang loud and clear. For those of us in the GIS business and who really do think spatially, it may be hard to understand why a company would not want to use this technology. I don’t pretend to have the answer, but I would close by asking the question: Does the modifier “enterprise” conjure up the image of a simple, low cost technology to a business manager? |
||||||
|
||||||
| CIO Magazine Australia/Computerworld today offers up an article called "Six Innovative Uses for GPS During Your Business Day." I thought great - a plug for enterprise use of geospatial! No, it's about GPS for golf, fishing, finding coffee shops, not real business. Oh, and they are not innovative either! http://www.cio.com.au/index.php/id%3B816126122%3Bfp%3B4%3Bfpid%3B20 |
||||||
|
||||||
| I have multiple experiences very similar to Gary's. Sometimes I think that in the paranoia-laden world of business enterprise, a voodoo charmer may often find himself (or herself) more welcome than a GIS analyst. Especially if the voodoo charmer does not seek access to the enterprise database. |
||||||
|
||||||
| As an understatement, Einstein was a genious... Much of that genious comes out years after his death as people read his many quotations about not just math and science, but life, religion, politics and human-kind. One such quote that aptly describes the scenario of this podcast is: "The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them." I believe this quote can be appropriately applied to the 'rules' of technology investment justification in use by most large companies. Technology has changed more in the last year than these 'rules' have changed in the last twenty years. It is not surprising that people encounter difficulty when attempting to justify investments in technology using processes that were many times created before the cell-phone. It just doesn't make sense. It's like trying to fly a kite with coax cable (pun intended). We need to modernize and view technology as a fundamental infrastructure of business, not as an expense to be minimized. You don't justfiy the computer and telephone you provide to new employees; they are simply tools that are necessary to do the job. Management processes and policies need to be as fluid, dynamic and engaged as the technology that is used to drive the business. Change is our friend; let's treat it as such. We also focus way too much on the short term and not the long term. You can thank the financial analysts on Wall Street for that. Maybe smaller, flexible and focused companies, working together, can be more effective. And last, but certainly not least, that 'new' technology is the 'stuff' that the new employees (you know, the ones in short supply and high demand...) you need and are trying to hire, are looking to work with. Connect the dots and see the relationships. |
||||||
|
||||||
| I believe that the issue is that we think that GIS is such a big thing that it deserves a category of its own. If we think of GIS as an enabling technology that assists an organisation to solve some small part of a bigger problem, and that we are therefore involved in selling that component of that requirement we will see ourselves as NOT selling GIS. We will be selling something that is much bigger, much more important, that just happens to solve a problem using spatial technologies. When we isolate our clients from geocoding, projections, map layers or files, and only talk about what the ultimate benefit is, then the problem goes away. Not many people (comparatively) understand GIS/Spatial technologies. Most business people understand their business. What we have to understand is how to solve their problems using our technologies without boring them with the underlying complexities. We all use computers but if we had to understand the intricate detail of the operating system, then not many of us would use our PC’s, for me GIS/Spatial is the same analogy. Isolate the client from the boring detail, sell them the benefit, not the technology, and the world will change. |
||||||
|
||||||
| Some people think verbally, some think spatially, some think emotionally, and others think numerically. If you're a spatial thinker (of course you are, you're reading this) it's often difficult to understand how a verbal/numeric person can be so ignorant of spatial thinking. On the other hand, the verbal/numeric executive probably looks at you and sees an inarticulate manager unable to define a quantifiable return for that mapping thing you keep bringing up. If it's your business, it pays to find a way to cut costs using maps. If you can't, find a way to make more money. If you can't find a way to either where you work, and you really like maps, go find another job. And someone who thinks spatially/numerically. |
||||||
|
||||||
| The language of business is in financial documents. We've all be taught how to read maps and interpret what we see, but it does not tell executive management how they will make their quarterly numbers. If Gary had shown his boss how he could increase revenue or decrease costs with his analysis, then he would have received a green light. And its not just "mail smarter" - its making a complete pro-forma P&L and showing precise impacts to the top and bottom lines - which means understanding the impact to their list rental strategy. Atanas may think management performs voodoo (they do); what does management think about us? The communication breakdown is language - map code & spatial analysis versus financial documents. Very few bridges exist. Laurie, Mark, and I are saying the same thing: we are lacking the language to communicate. My point is that the language is financial documents. |
||||||
|
||||||
| I agree with several of the comments above. I have been thinking about this issue for a while as it is my job to sell spatial technology at an enterprise level. While there are many existing markets where spatial is a primary component, utilities, land departments etc, new enterprise markets need to be seen in the light of spatial as being a secondary component. This means that spatial is not as business critical as in those organsiations where it is of primary importance. We then need to adjust the way the concept is sold into these organisations. Solutions need to be easy to use without too much complexity and most importantly be sold in based on providing a solution with a tangible return. Finally the other issue I see is that traditional business is based around mainly left brain functioning so when you bring the visualisation component of spatial into the enterprise all of a sudden staff are being asked to start to also engage the right side of their brain for which the business systems and processes are not necessarily in place for. |
||||||
|
||||||
| As geospatial practitioners, we continue to force our marketing terminology and GIS jargon on those who are completely unaware of our industry. The "push" factor perpetuates itself because those advocating geospatial technologies have not refined their message to the appropriate audience. But simply adapting the message is not enough... GIS practitioners need to be recognized within the industries they are serving and supporting to be perceived as credible. With the explosion of new technologies coming to the market, how does a reasonable business leader sort out the "wheat from the chaff". They turn to professional networks and opinion leaders they trust and respect. I'm pursuing an advanced degree in Public Administration because our leaders need to recognize new approaches to decision making. Knowing how today's technologies helps us find answers allows us to invest in the proper technologies to address everyday questions. When a leader is responsible for defending the ROI model for geospatial investment, they are assuming risk by requesting the necessary capital dollars to deliver results. If the solution is not commonplace in the market, the perceived risk increases. It takes time and a fundamental change in the way we do business to adopt new technologies. We should be advocates for the industries we work in to be seen as industry insiders. |
||||||
