Software = Workforce
Much of the current thinking on software is trending towards this idea already, but software is part of your workforce. The “Job to be Done” framework has you take a hiring approach to reviewing software, asking that you consider platforms as you would employees. Additionally, the “Augmented Workforce Framework” and “Digital Employee Concept”, have taken this a step further in grouping software, and technological tools, with your employees. This makes a lot of sense, especially as tasks continue to be digitized and completed in cloud platforms. It is becoming less of a concern whether automation, AI, or Michael from Accounting reconcile bank statements, as long as they are reconciled. Where does this leave us with other platforms though and how should we view ITs role in this?
First, and I’m happy to hear differing opinions, but I don’t think IT was ever meant to oversee software. They need to be involved, definitely, but it isn’t in their purview to define how work gets completed. We already ask a ton of the IT department even though they seldom are equipped with all the man power they need. As we digitize our processes, they are the front line for ensuring the computers, phones, devices, and all other paraphernalia the business needs are working, updated, and secure. Additionally, they manage the connectivity of the office spaces, have a huge role in cyber security standards and structure, and responsible for asset management and assignment. Asking them to then learn everyone else’s position so they can define, vet, and implement software needs is as insane as it sounds.
Software, as with your team, will always be defined by the managers. Those responsible for the company/department/section and its results will be the ones who have the clearest understanding of what needs to be done and the best judgement on effectiveness of the routes available. This can get a little hectic considering everyone involved may have their own feelings on platform preference, but the evolution of business productivity software means there are likely compromises that can be made. In many instances, platforms can be adopted that both appease the individual and adhere to the overall company guidelines. The assumption, of course, being that there are guidelines to follow. With AI being utilized, automations and integrations considered, and the sheer breadth of business focused apps in existence, it is more imperative than ever to create a clear vision and intent for the digital tools you adopt.
Working with a large sampling of businesses in identifying, defining, and implementing more efficient processes, it has become evident that guard rails are not typically in place. Without clearly defined guidelines, there seems to be two major reasons why managers adopt software platforms. The first is someone on the team has experience with the platform and can clearly illustrate its value to management. The second is that the platform is ubiquitous and the sentiment that you’re less likely to get fired, if it’s the “best” platform, resonates. While this might work out in some cases, it leads to a lot of tech bloat and other issues for the business. Often employees may adopt tools the company is unaware of, in an attempt to make themselves more efficient, and this creates fragmented databases that may not be accessible. More concerning still, is adopting a platform that requires specialized help to manage even though the company does not necessarily even need the platform.
Salesforce is a very common culprit. Its ubiquity is unfounded as it does not serve a clearly defined purpose within a business like Quickbooks or other marquee platforms do. This isn’t to say that CRMs are not valuable tools, but I would argue that most business do not have need for a CRM as robust as Salesforce is. Banks, investors, and other parties prefer to see a business using Salesforce, true, but if you look at the overall impact of hiring the platform, its benefits become less clear. We won’t delve too deep in to issues it raises, but considering the topic of software being part of a company’s workforce there is one glaring problem. Why are Salesforce administrators so common?
Again, this isn’t an attack on CRMs or even Salesforce in general as benefits are apparent, but there aren’t many other platforms, or employees, who need the level of micromanagement the role of a Salesforce administrator implies. No business is surviving hiring an additional role to ensure one of its other roles is working correctly. Now maybe in a gigantic company that has multiple instances and complicated processes running in the platform, this could make sense, but I’d argue this is a part of a data administrator’s duties. In the last 3 months, there have been approximately 4,500 - 6,000 job postings for Salesforce Administrators, and to me that is more indicative of mismanaged expectations and a bad software fit, then a legitimate need based on the breadth of Salesforce use. With all that said, how confident are you about the software you’ve hired?
