[Info-vax] OT: Demise of Target in Canada

[Kerry Main]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Info-vax [mailto:info-vax-bounces at info-vax.com] On Behalf Of
> Jan-Erik Soderholm via Info-vax
> Sent: 31-Jan-16 6:44 PM
> To: info-vax at info-vax.com
> Cc: Jan-Erik Soderholm <jan-erik.soderholm at telia.com>
> Subject: Re: [New Info-vax] OT: Demise of Target in Canada
> 
> Den 2016-01-31 kl. 22:44, skrev JF Mezei:
> >
> > A few years ago, Target USA decided to setup shop in Canada. Instead
> of
> > buying the existing Zellers business from Hudsons Bay Corp, it only
> > bought the leases to stores and built its operations from scratch (not
> > even bringing in systems from its existing US operations).
> >
> >
> > The business failed spectacularly with constant stream of complaints of
> > unstocked shelves ins stores turning away customers. Considering that
> > Target in USA has a very good reputation on that aspect, people were
> > surprised.
> >
> >
> > http://www.canadianbusiness.com/the-last-days-of-target-canada/
> >
> > The above article is worth a read in a "how to not fail" scenario that
> > could happen to any company.  It does include the 3 letters S A P.
> >
> >
> >
> > I am amazed that SAP is still in business and still being deployed
> > considering the number of spectacular failures caused by the move to
> its
> > software.
> >
> 
> I just read the full article, and it doesn't realy blame SAP *as such*.
> This was a fault within Target itself. Most blame is on the buyout of
> 124 facilities from Zellers for $1.8 billion. That put a preasure on
> Target to open their stores according to plan even if their operetions
> and systems wasn't ready yet.
> 
> In no place does that article say that there was specific problems
> with SAP, a part from that "it was a new system", the Target people
> never got enought time to learn it and that the time schedule was
> to anyway for an SAP installation.
> 

[snip...]

Back to basics is how the Lee Iacocca's of the world turn around businesses
that have gone downhill. They look at what their Custs need as well as what 
their field staff needs.

Unfortunately, this is not something well understood with many in senior
mgmt. ranks today. Back to basics is not sexy, so things like "moving to
the cloud" (outsourcing under the hoods) without fully understanding all
of the pros and cons.

At its core, SAP is a very rigid software system based on best practices 
developed primarily in Germany. If flexibility and tight integration in 
business practices is what is needed to meet Customers rapidly changing 
service and/or product expectations, then SAP is not a good fit. You adapt 
to SAP - it does not adapt to you. And as others have mentioned, custom 
integration with SAP requires large teams of very expensive resources.

Case in point (from actual experience) - sales reps from 2 or 3+ BU's 
need to coordinate their offerings to make a solutions sale to a Cust
wanting a custom solution. Unfortunately, Sales Reps are measured 
by BU specific sales (as setup by SAP). There was no way Sales Rep1 
was going to provide the margins needed as his BU would have made 
next to nothing - even though the company would have had enough 
margin and future opportunities to build on the win. The back end 
flexibility was slim to none in allowing cross BU revenue sharing - hence, 
the company lost the bid (after about 100+ nasti-emails up and down 
the chain).

Conclusion - when choosing new applications, one not only needs to 
understand the needs of its Cus's, but also the needs of its Field people 
supporting those Cust's. 

Regards,

Kerry Main
Kerry dot main at starkgaming dot com