Articles

3 Posts tagged with the enterprise_architecture tag

DavidBriskman.jpg

 

These days generics are the hottest growth market in the pharmaceutical industry. And Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited ranks as one of the eighth largest generics producers in the world. With annual revenue of about $1.7 billion, Ranbaxy offers generic drugs that cover the majority of chronic and acute segments. The company sells in 125 countries and has a physical presence in 49 countries. It also distributes about 80 percent of its products through the three top pharmaceutical distributors: AmerisourceBergen, Cardinal Health, and McKesson. Emphasis on new drug research into areas such as metabolic diseases, oncology, and urology help distinguish Ranbaxy from its global competitors.

 

Several years ago Ranbaxy underwent a business transformation to do a better job of carrying out its mission deliver value everyday to customers. This transformation included making sizable technology investments so Ranbaxy could both accelerate and lower the cost of bringing new products to market, and streamline the process of developing new chemicals and new chemical entities. The results paid off for Ranbaxy. In early 2009 Ranbaxy became an operating company of Daiichi Sankyo, an $8 billion global manufacturer of branded pharmaceuticals and the 15th largest company in this marketplace.

 

Enterpriseleadership.org recently sat down with David Briskman, Ranbaxy's chief information officer, to talk about the strategic integration of technology to better enable the company's key business processes.

 

EL. Can you describe the structure of your technology organization?

 

DB. We have a centralized technology organization comprised of both internal technology staff members and outsource partners in about 30 countries. Most of our applications, technology support, and our governance process follow a centralized model. Our key technology areas include the following research and development, drug discovery, and manufacturing technology.

 

EL. How will your business model change because of the Daiichi Sankyo relationship?

 

DB. Daiichi Sankyo ranks number 15 globally in branded drugs. We plan to follow a hybrid global business model that combines generics and the branded drug globally.  Our growth opportunities will include leveraging our capabilities with those of our parent.

 

EL. I read that your CEO wants to use technology to drive business transformation. Can you describe the areas where technology provides the most strategic value to the company?

 

DB. Developing a molecule that falls into the multimillion-dollar drug segment, and keeping that intellectual property for years have driven the traditional branded drug market. In the generic market, you have to be very efficient as possible if you want your business to thrive and to be successful. It is a highly competitive business, much like private label, consumer packaged goods. You have to produce a very good basket of goods or else you will not be successful. For us to accomplish this goal, we depend of technology to support our three key business cycles. One key cycle includes moving the product form the research and development cycle to the filing and registration and finally delivery to a particular market.  Our supply chain, another cycle, needs to be incredibly efficient, given our product diversity.

Our third cycle looks at how we run our business. For example, we market directly to doctors in India where customer intimacy is less of a focus. For the rest of the world, our business growth opportunities depend consistently on delivering a good quality selection of diverse products.

EL. Can you describe some of the key technology investments you made to improve the business cycles you mentioned?

 

DB. We have moved our research and development for new products from a manual process to a highly automated one. We submit all documentation electronically to the U.S. regulatory authority using a specific format. We are one of the early adopters on that technology. It has enabled us to obtain faster approvals on the submissions and subsequently to bring faster products to market. We also have deployed our global regulatory database that allows for our tracking, monitoring, and managing of all our regulatory submissions. This database has facilitated our ability to look at our product suite in a more meaningful way. Before this database, we had to figure out what we registered across all of the products in all of our markets.

 

We invested very heavily in business intelligence and our SAP supply chain suite. In fact, a variety of our business intelligence initiatives focus on enabling the business to respond better to customer demand. Some of those areas include everything from mobile phone-based automation tools in India to the different data mining, and dashboard tools.

 

EL. What changes did you make to your enterprise architecture for some of the things you mentioned?

 

DB. Because we have to be efficient, we prefer not to dabble in lots of different technologies. We have a different architecture and set of applications in research and development. Our enterprise architecture, however, revolves around our supply chain backbone and our Microsoft capabilities. We try to leverage these two platforms.  Our current enterprise architecture is less than ideal on the sales force automation front.

 

EL. Can you describe how you are handling sales force automation to make your organization efficient?

 

DB. We have 17 different sales force automation systems. That might sound like an inefficient number of systems. On the other hand, this number of systems complements the way we operate geographically. We have different business models for certain countries. Most of the business advantage does not come from the architecture of a given system, but from the local market intelligence available on those sales force automation systems. Our global studies show that we are far more effective growing our business with our regional and local players versus an enterprise approach to sale force automation.

 

EL.What is your governance process for making these investments?

 

DB. We have both formal and informal governance for making technology investments.  Our formal governance process is very straightforward. I sit on both the budget committee and the operating committee.

 

Each year we go through a very rigorous assessment based on a value framework we adopted from Gartner. It accesses all of the different technology investments to do a multi-cycle review process.

 

Throughout the year we have councils comprised of leaders from the different business areas. These councils also include my direct reports and me. We meet quarterly to assess the amount of progress we have made against the specific plan. These business councils provide a formal structure for what we must work on, along with any unexpected projects.  Depending on the region and business function, a business council might have as many as 25 people sitting around the board room to an informal gathering of five people.

 

Most technology projects have steering teams, which comprise our informal governance process. These teams include mostly technology professionals and some representatives from the business units. Together they work with the different business leaders to understand their priorities, vision, and strategies beyond that quarter.

 

EL. How will your governance process change because of Daiichi Sankyo?

 

DB. The governance model going will grow because of our relationship with Daiichi Sankyo. We have made most of the strategic investments and put in place the platforms that enable our generic business to run efficiently on a global basis. The exciting opportunity for me is the ability to extend that efficiency to our parent.

 

EL. Do you link technology to new sources of revenues, new products, or new improved processes?

 

DB. We rank all of our technology investments on this value framework. The framework's four areas include the following: financial metrics such as ROI, strategic implementation, compliance, and feasibility. The last one involves the ability of our business to take advantage of an implementation.

 

I produce an annual report that quantifies the business value associated with each investment. We have been through several cycles on this. In the first year we used this value framework, we focused on ROI. I found that we spent too much time trying to quantify dollar values where we should have been looking at qualitative capabilities.

 

We can say that our new supply chain platform drove our inventory reduction, but other factors contributed to this reduction.  We make sure we can have quantifiable metrics associated with each project. For example, pharmacovigilance is the compliance process for tracking adverse events in drugs used by patients. We do not put a financial benefit on that system per se, but we have started to improve the timeliness of our regulatory reporting.

 

By focusing on the metrics directly attributable to the investments, we have improved the overall perception of the investment's value. For example, for many of the dashboard and collaboration platforms we have set up, we measure efficiency factors, such as how many reports we run and how many active users we have. We prefer to do it this way rather than this particular report helped us improve revenue by so much. That type of process leads to much interpretative discussions and in turn does not lend credibility to technology. By focusing on the business capabilities we provide, we will derive a perceived value from the knowledge we provide with those capabilities.

 

EL. How integrated is technology into your business?

 

DB. It is integrated into the business on several levels - as a centrally managed function and as a strategic driver. We have moved from the perception of being help desk order takers to playing a strategic role in the business. We have become more proactive in our ability to propose business changes and technology investments that will improve the business.

 

This year my team is leading a project sponsored by our CFO to streamline the financial close process. We are in partnership mode on this project. The same goes of our sales force automation and CRM efforts. We have taken a more strategic stance in bringing solutions to the business and suggesting changes to business operations. For example, we worked on how we could improve our customer management process in India.

 

EL. What is your process for reviewing the corporate strategy? How will change because of the Daiichi Sankyo relationship?

 

DB. We have been on a three-year cycle for reviewing and setting our corporate strategy. Our relationship with Daiichi Sankyo, however, will influence how we look at our corporate strategy. I told my team that we do not have to sit down every few years and figure out our corporate strategy and alignment for generics. Instead, we need to get as many good quality products to market and to make sure we deliver them in a timely and efficient fashion. We also have to accomplish this in a compliant and profitable manner.

 

The generic drug industry is very simple. We support the industry's best practice for new drug development. As our business model evolves with Daiichi Sankyo, we will move forward to leverage our cost advantage in the global branded pharmaceutical market too. Many of our competitors have a federated business model versus our forthcoming centrally controlled business model.

 

EL. How has the global economy affected your business?

 

DB. Before 2009, we had been growing at 12 percent per year. Our growth rate is now about six percent. The global economic downturn affects about 10 percent of our business. We have refocused our efforts on becoming more efficient by enabling the appropriate technology and business process to achieve productivity. It has also helped us to leverage and to stick to carrying out more standard policies and procedures that facilitate productivity. For example, we rolled out unified communications and IP telephony to the increase the use of collaboration technologies.

 

Elizabeth Ferrarini is a technology writer from Boston, MA. Reach her at elizabethferrarini@yahoo.com

| More
788 Views 0 Comments Permalink Tags: article, strategy, it_management, best_practices, business_transformation, enterprise_architecture, governance, technology_investments

CKPrahalad.jpg

 

Core Competency. Many business leaders use the term core competency to describe where their companies put most of their efforts. Few of these people might be aware that C.K. Prahalad coined that term in 1989.  This university professor's best selling books, Competing for the Future, and The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid, have changed the way CEOs think about business strategy.

 

Now C. K. Prahalad, the Paul and Ruth McCracken Distinguished University Professor of Strategy at the University of Michigan's Ross School of Business, has set out to change the way CIOs think about business strategy and their enterprise architecture as new business models force their companies to become more consumer-driven or customer-focused in a global economy. His new book, The New Age of Innovation: Driving Co-Created Value Through Global Network, provides CIOs with both a blueprint of Prahalad's strategy and a host of examples of how it is already in work on some of today's best companies.

 

Prahalad says, "Established companies can no longer think of themselves as just selling discrete products, but how these products can provide customers with a unique experience." He cites the example of how Unilever, a traditional multinational company, encourages Ponds' skin care customers to specify their budget and their skin type to create a customized set of skin care products."

 

Recently, enterpriseleadership.org saw down with Prahalad to talk about how these new business models with alter the CIO's role, and what can both CIOs and other business leaders do to avoid any disconnects between IT and businesses processes. Here's what he had to say:

 

EL. Ten years  from now, how will the CIO's role be different from what it is today?

 

CP. Within the next 10 years, the CIO's role will change because the CIO in a major company will sit on a major source of competitive advantage for the company. Flexible, adaptive, and response business practices will become a key source of competitive advantage. At the same time, focused analytics, which will allow managers to define the behavior of one person or one supplier at a time among millions of consumers, will offer another source of competitive advantage. To this end, the CIO plays a critical role in building the new information communications technology (ICT) architecture, which looks at these opportunities, and then it rethinks the way you can collaborate and be flexible. IT is going to matter significantly.

 

EL. What  must CIOs and business leaders do to avoid any disconnects between IT and the  business?

 

CP. In the book, we talk a lot about the emerging disconnect between business leaders and CIOs. Yes, CIOs need to have good technical expertise. However, CIOs must begin to have a distinct and clear point of view about where the business is going. They must begin to start talking the language of the business and to understand the possible directions of the business. Likewise, the business unit leaders must take responsibility for understanding the opportunities that the information communications technology architecture provides. CIOs will miss the boat if they continue to gravitate mostly to managing IT more efficiently, and if all of the return on investment calculations are based on savings in the IT organization rather than profit growth in the business.

 

EL. Do CIOs really understand the economic impact that IT has on the business? To be more specific, how many CIOs think in terms on how a change will affect the gross margins?

 

CP. Some do, but most of them don't.  The architecture of the company has it exists today can become an impediment for the growth of business. Therefore, we need to establish a new dialogue between business unit leaders and CIOs. This's inevitable. If the current CIOs don't want to engage in that debate, they'll loose out and just become technology managers, not partners in creating new business opportunities.

 

EL. How many companies  really have the business strategy and IT strategy in one  entity?

 

CP. If you think of ICIC example in my book, I'd see that no one in senior management at that company thinks of the IT strategy and the business strategy as two distinct spheres. They can't isolate IT from the business strategy and the business from the IT strategy. They think of it as one in the same.

 

In the financial services industry, the IT strategy and the business strategy should be one in the same. The interesting question is this: Can you be a strategist and a business leader in a company like MasterCard, VISA, or Wells Fargo without a good understanding of not only where the technology capabilities are, but where it is likely to go?

 

On the other hand, if you're a CIO in one of these companies, can you participate in business discussions without a deep understanding of where the business is going? The technology strategy, the HR strategy (what we call the social architecture), and the business strategy are facets of one in the same. You can't do one without the other. So, how we start seeing the three sides of the same problem using different lens, but recognizing it's the same thing we're looking at and describing.

EL. What's the most important  requirement a company needs in order to innovate?

 

CP. You can't innovate unless you have a point of view. N=1, which says companies must co-create value with each customer individually, and R=G, which says that access to global resources is a key factor in continuous innovation, are points of view.  It's very simple. You can draw a simple decision tree if you agree that convergence, connectivity, social networks, and digitization are taking place. If you deny all of them, which is totally factual, you can't dispute the existence of an installed base of three billion cell phones. We can argue that it's 2.9 billion or 3.1 billion. With digitization the cost goes down. That's a fact. If you say yes, then you ask an interesting question:  Will the natural relationship between the consumer and the form change or not change? That's where the dispute is. If the answer is yes, it has to change. If so, then you look at what I call the new age companies, such as google and ebay, and Netflix. These companies didn't have to start with legacy. They could go right to N=1 and R=G, directly.

 

The second question is this: Can the same transformation take place in traditional business which has a 100-year history? That's why we took the cautious approach in the first chapter to avoid talking about companies such as google. If we did, readers would dismiss it and say but my industry makes tires or provides insurance. Instead, this chapter talks about what a Goodyear or Bridgestone can do to change its business model.

 

We need to do to develop a point of view and then say, 'If that is the point of view, than how does the role of the CIO change?' If CIOs stay on the same path, you'll see them wallowing in the same activities - a little more efficiency here, and a little more reorganization there. 

EL. Many  companies talk about innovation, but how many really understand what it is?

 

CP. Many people talk about innovation, but few really have a deep understanding about how it works. To understand innovation, you need to do a lot of blocking and tackling about how things work at the ground level. People easily forget that innovation at the ground level is very different. If you're in a large company, you can create any type of strategic idea. On the other hand, if you want to make it happen, you still have to figure out the business model and business processes.

 

EL. Aren't a  company's businesses processes apparent to managers?

 

CP. Business processes can easily get lost in most large companies. They become orphans without anyone to take of them. Here's an interesting example. Look at order to cash which cuts across so many processes. Ask 10 business managers from random companies to write down how the order to cash process works in their company or in their business. If you can get anyone to give you an 80 percent accurate answer, then give the person a metal. y deserve a metal. I don't know too many people who can do this. This functions if delegated deep down in the organization. No one pays attention to how it works.

 

Look at all of the big problems Sony has always had. Sony couldn't change its business model and didn't understand how to do micro billing. Likewise, Napster didn't understand how to do it either. Napster built the business for ITIL, but drove out the business model and micro billing.  It's a business model innovation resulting in a business process innovation, or it's a business process innovation allowing them to a business model innovation. That's how simple it is at one level and how complicated it is at another level.

 

Author: Elizabeth M. Ferrarini - She is a technology writer  from Boston, Massachusetts. Reach her at elizabethferrarini@yahoo.com.

| More
417 Views 0 Comments 0 References Permalink Tags: article, business_process, enterprise_architecture, business_strategy, innovation

LynneEllyn.jpg

 

Lynne Ellyn, senior vice president and CIO at DTE Energy, doesn't mince words when she talks about the complexity and diversification of one of the largest energy companies in the U.S. With revenues of $9 billion, DTE Energy owns Detroit Edison, an electric utility with 2.2 million customers; and Michigan Consolidated Gas Co., a natural gas utility with 1.3 million customers. The company's non-utility businesses fall into four categories: power and industrial projects, unconventional gas production, coal and gas, and energy trading.

 

Ellyn oversees IT strategy, development, and operations for all of the DTE Energy companies. She also serves as a corporate officer and member of DTE Energy's Executive Committee.

 

Beginning her career as a programmer, Ellyn has been consistently recognized as an exceptional business and IT leader. In 2007, Baseline named her as one of the top 100 CIOs, and Computerworld awarded her one of the Premier 100 IT Leaders in 2005.

 

Enterpriseleadership.org recently sat down with Lynne Ellen to discuss how she IT creates value for an organization with both regulated and non-regulated business segments.  Here's what she has to say:

 

EL:  Can you give me an overview of your responsibilities and the structure of your  IT organization?

 

LE: I'm responsible for all IT functions among our various companies. We have two large regulated utilities, and a number of non-regulated energy businesses. We're very diversified, which is important to understand. We have everything from a regulated gas utility to a non-regulated energy trading, as well as a business that does non-conventional gas exploration and rail services. We're a complex company.

 

About 1,000 people report to me. IT has a centralized, but federated structure. Information officers who report to me also have a dotted line to a business unit. They are the account managers or the major representatives who sit in the staff meetings for the various business lines and broker all of the services that we provide. This model has been working extremely well for us. It keeps us online for the enterprise issues, and, at the same time, it keeps us focused on the local issues of the various and diverse businesses. This model helps us to live in the paradox between local issues and enterprise issues.

 

EL: What is  the company's operating model?

 

LE: The enterprise strategy for the company consists of a balanced strategy between regulated and non-regulated businesses. We try to keep a percentage of the business being in the growth part of the business and a larger percentage being in the regulated side. More recently, we've actually pulled off some of our growth businesses.  We create them, help them to grow up, then monetize them, and reinvest in some other growth strategy energy business.

 

Our strong core foundation of the company has been in the gas and electric company that services Southeastern Michigan. That's a regulated strategy. It's a highly political type of business of interest to the state and the regulators. That's a good part of our business.  On the other side of the business, we're interested in growth, niche energy markets and eventually harvesting that growth by monetizing those businesses as they reach a certain level.

 

EL: How does our  enterprise architecture align with the company's operating  model?

 

LE: To bring together all of the different kinds of financial models in the company, we went through a large process to consolidate all of that on SAP. Another big piece of the business focuses on how we run plants and operational areas.  We consolidated them into a product now owned by IBM called Maximo.  We put two large things together to underline the normal flow of information from work to financial accounting.

 

EL: What  specific technology platforms have you standardized on?

 

LE: When you look at desktops, we're consolidated around Dell PCs, Citrix servers, and Wyse thin client devices. People connect to the network through either a PC or a thin client.  We're moving more aggressively toward thin client devices because of the better cost ratio.  At the server end, we largely have IBM servers. We also have HP, Dell, and some of our legacy on Sun. We don't have mainframes any more.

 

EL: What is the status of the automated metering system?

 

LE: We're early in the process (working our way through the vendor selection process and pilots) for an automated metering infrastructure. That's a very critical utility-specify strategy. It's an irrelevant strategy for the non-regulated businesses.

 

EL: Given the nature of the  business, how do you go about deciding what business process improvements you  make?

 

LE: At the enterprise level, we have just completed a huge business process reengineering around finance, accounting, supply chain management, work management, and HR. These processes cut across every single entity. They are common corporate processes carried out on common platforms. We need at that level to optimize the enterprise, not to optimize each individual unit.  At the individual unit, at a business process reengineering level, we'll look at what is necessary in order to optimize that particular business unit, and then those business units would fund those business-specific activities. If we're going to refresh the software and hardware architecture for energy trading, then we'll look for funding by  energy trading. We'd approach that process engineering within the context of that business. That's part of our governance model.

 

EL: How does your governance model work at the  corporate level to begin that process?

 

LE: For things of corporate interest, we have a steering function composed of the senior vice presidents and vice presidents. We'd be making those decisions collaboratively. For an investment in security or document management, I would in the past put together a business case and take it to the executive committee, which includes the president and the CFO. I sit on the executive committee. At a senior leadership level an investment like that would go through the corporate capital funding process, just like an investment in a plant. The corporate governance model would be in operation for any corporate or enterprise sort of project. The governance model allows for the heads of business units to make the decision of what they would be funding in order to meet their business objectives. This process fits very nicely with my own model that the business decides what gets done. IT, for IT activities, decides what is the most effective way to do that. IT decides how and the business units decide what gets done.  Together we deliver those results for their business.

 

EL:  How are you  building the next generation enterprise?

 

LE: I read this term and various people's definition of it. We haven't stated a strategy moving to the next generation enterprise.  Instead, we've looked at the need for the business, to be both in control and to be responsive to what, for us, is an intention to be dynamic in our businesses, especially the way we go about doing things.

 

You can use many ways to get to the same intersection. May be the intersection is this thing people are labeling the next generation enterprise. The way we're going about that is to look very specifically at the need of the corporation to be flexible, to be agile, to be in control, and to be interconnected and collaborative for corporate issues. From that, we're engineering our activities to meet those goals.

 

EL: Is speed,  the ability to execute on things, something you have to improve  upon?

 

LE: We are working on that issue in a variety of ways. Our business always faces a challenge it comes to large and complex things, like a new automated meter reading system, a rollout of a totally SCADA infrastructure, or the rollout of something like SAP across 100 legal entities. Speed is a relative issue in that case. Those aren't projects one can rush through. However, we have at any one time 50 to 75 projects going on. Only a few of them have that type of magnitude.

 

At the level of local projects, medium size projects, we've deployed a very, agile and collaborative process that is really quite speedy. Unfortunately, it has created one slight problem.  Once business units experience the agile method, they start asking why everything can't be like that. So again, we need to achieve some balance between things that have local importance and things that have enterprise importance.

 

EL:  Where is the company with renewable energy initiatives and what is IT doing to  be green?

 

LE: Our company has many renewal energy initiatives. We recently rolled out something called GreenCurrents current where our electric customers can elect some part of their utility bill to go to renewable energy sources. The corporation is working on aggressive strategies in that regard. In IT, we've been on a multi-year journey of virtualizing our data centers and only doing business with hardware providers where they recover and recycle the components. We had been on that path within IT for the green data center for a couple of years. Our industry has a ways to go in this area. I would put our results up against anybody's so far.

EL: What do you get from  your relationship with the Cutter Consortium?

 

LE: It has been a great relationship because Cutter has a consortium list of who's who in IT consulting. I also write for Cutter. I can call any of these people and essentially get free advice or a free perspective.  I also like participating in the trends council via monthly calls about the articles we plan to write. We get together a couple of days a year. Interacting directly with the likes of Rob Austin and Ken Orr has been great. CIOs have many industry research sources to select from, whether it's the Conference Board or the Gartner Group. Every time I compare what everyone else might offer to me, I have some flavor of that in dealing with Cutter.

 

Author: Elizabeth M. Ferrarini - She is a technology writer  from Boston, Massachusetts. Reach her at elizabethferrarini@yahoo.com.

| More
257 Views 0 Comments 0 References Permalink Tags: article, business_process_improvements, enterprise_architecture, governance, operating_model


Actions