4 Practical uses for a Wiki in Pharma

You’ve lived and experienced the nightmares associated with document management and collaboration in an enterprise environment. E-mails follow multi-branched and reply all paths. Spreadsheets and Word documents get passed around and everyone asks – “do I have the latest version?” Or what about the times when you need a new job posting on your corporate site or to perform an urgent update to content. Do these problems sound like your organizations? Even worse do you have a over burdened process that governs what you need to do to make simple changes?

Enter the wiki: collaboration software that solves all these problems yet, unlike many traditional content management systems, remains simple enough for non-technical employees to use.
Although wikis have been around for a decade, they're just starting to take off in business. Like the Web did when it first caught hold in the corporate world, wikis will likely go through a period of wild growth, fierce competition, and inappropriate usage. Proceed with caution. Any “crazy” technology will cause undue distress amongst your management team. Baby steps are usually best for “crazy” technologies. Likewise as you all know making the business case is just as important. That said, I’ve outlined 4 practical (or crazy) uses for Wiki’s below that will help align a powerful collaboration tool with emerging business needs for the pharmaceutical industry.

• Create an internal communication portal: Prior to wikis, an expensive enterprise application would have been required for sophisticated information management. But because most wikis are based on open-source code, they're free for companies who opt for an open-source distribution, or relatively cheap for companies willing to pay for their implementation and support. That said portals are implemented very often in pharma companies. For example marketing teams are asked to develop a communication website specific to a particular brand that will help align all internal messages regarding one or multiple indications. Typically when marketing types are asked to create web sites, they have to rely on the chance that someone in a group knows how to make a web site, or that some sort of training is available or even worse spend several thousand dollars to get a static website from an interactive agency. The wiki eliminates all three obstacles, because it provides a ready to use site with a simple user interface, ability to easily add pages, and simple navigation structure. Imagine a wiki that would allow the marketing people to concentrate more on strategy and content development, instead of trying to learn how to put font tags around a section of text. The simplicity of the wiki syntax, or language for formatting text, inserting images and creating links, means your employees spend less time trying to figure out how to make the site do what they want. Easy and empowering
  
• Develop a peer reviewed paper: Publish or perish. That’s the tenant that many researchers live by. Publishing is the main vehicle to advertise the positive (and negative) effects of a particular drug, however often times the peer review process is tainted with inefficiencies and lack of a true peer review. A wiki makes it easy for researchers to write, revise and submit a manuscript, since all three activities can take place in the wiki. Imagine a researcher that is provided access to a wiki page to develop an outline. First the researcher will begin by tracking their background research and bibliography. This allows the fellow researchers, to see what they’re using, help them if they’re off track, suggest other resources/searches, or even get ideas based on what others find useful. Next, the researcher can draft the paper in the wiki, taking advantage of the wiki’s automatic revision history that saves a before & after version of the document each time s/he makes changes (sound like EDMS). This allows the peers to see the evolution of the paper over time, and continually comment on it providing transparency. When the researcher completes the final draft, admins and/or agencies can ready all elements of the manuscript for submission to a journal and/or congress. Efficient and transparent.
  
• Simplify the maintenance of processes: Just about every pharma/biotech company I’ve worked with has an emphasis on process, however they face 2 challenges in their change management efforts of a process: a) getting buy-in from all who use the process and b) effectively implementing changes and distributing a consistent communication stream to all involved. Imagine a wiki where processes are published for the entire organization. Say the process for reporting expenses is slightly inaccurate and Judy from accounting makes a recommended correction. The process excellence folks see the error and republish the change. Now the challenge, disseminating the change effectively. Imagine then all users who have been trained on the process are distributed an alert and notified to refresh themselves on the revision. This collaboration happens automatically without any human intervention. Impactful and lean.
  
• Track emerging regulatory trends: The need to track emerging pharmaceutical trends, especially regulatory ones is a need that pharma companies pay millions for in subscription based services every year, while their most important resource – their people – already have this information in small doses. Built together in a collaborative workspace such as a wiki, a pharma company can be nimble in addressing emerging trends. For example in the news as of late was a re-hash of the PHRMA ethical guidelines. Imagine an internal wiki where a researcher places a notice about the amendment that he/she read on a blog. A medical writer who recently attended a conference posts a slide kit that was posted by a leading opinion leader in the regulatory space. All this in a centralized location where users can sign of real time alerts to get the data. Powerful communication without having to pay for it.
  
  Stay tuned for my next post – Why a Wiki wouldn’t work for you…
  
  About the author –Hassan Mahmud is a Principal of WEKGroup, LLC a project and management consultancy specializing in forward thinking and technology adoption within the pharmaceutical industry. He is an early adopter of lean process management and has implemented Wikis at leading pharmaceutical and professional service organizations. For more information on Mahmud and WEKGroup’s services, you can visit them online.

Web 2.0…that’s so last year

Let the version numbers role. In case you missed it, people are putting version numbers to the internet as it’s some sort of application. I suppose that’s what technology folks do to differentiate concepts. Unless you’ve been living under a rock or still styling your member’s only jacket there is a concept out there called Web 2.0 which in my opinion in one word means, community. Everyone’s doing it from pharma companies (as long as you can get past adverse event reporting) to FOX to your grandma who posts a blog based on her travels and cookie recipes. That said - Enter Web 3.0.

Some smart folks over at Yahoo seem to have a formula down for what Web 3.0 looks like. It goes something like this
Web 3.0 = (4C + P + VS).
3C = Content, Commerce, Community 4th C = Context P = Personalization VS = Vertical Search

I happen to agree with the later and believe context will drive the next version of business services, marketing programs and public websites. It’s now main stream to have a MySpace or Facebook account. Google is working hard on customizing searches via Local Search, digitizing hoards of books, and providing you different avenues to shop, but not many systems are effectively providing artificial intelligence a.k.a 4th C; Context. The Semantic web as many refer to Web 3.0, is a place where machines can read Web pages much as we humans read them and deliver information through handhelds and browsers that you actually want.

Below is a reinvention of what Sramana Mitra has already intelligently portrayed on a personal shopper sample. I’ve taken the idea and put a spin on the article, as it relates to Web 3.0 and the pharmaceutical/biotech industries.
Imagine….
- I am a respected oncology sales rep (a rep of the future) located on the east coast who works for a major biotech organization. (Context)
- I want my personal online toolkit to provide the ability to purchase reprints, download vis-aids and access an ordering system for samples. (Commerce)
- I also want to be able to have medical conversations with physicians through an interactive online tool based on therapy and disease state. (Content)
- I want to collaborate with my west coast colleagues through my wireless device as I’m in-between visits to see how they handle certain questions from oncologists. (Community)
- Once I learn of an approach from a colleague, I want to prep for my next visit by searching online publication bases by author, subject and MeSH heading to familiarize myself on small cell lung cancers. (Personalization, Vertical Search)
Now, imagine the same for a pharmaceutical sales rep who relies simply on doctor visits. and he doesn’t have a clue on how to perform even the simplest search online. Before Web 3.0, he/she could get all vis aids and searches through a department at his company.
With Web 3.0, the internet will be his new department providing lean process and cost savings to the company and hopefully impacting the cost of drugs that consumers see likewise adding value to the physician so he/she can make informed clinical decisions.
As well depicted Sramana Mitra’s formula, I think 1 critical thing is missing. Give me an “I” for Interoperability (or Integration) That said, I’d suggest appending the model as
Interopability = Web 3.0 = (4C + P + VS).
3C = Content, Commerce, Community 4th C = Context P = Personalization VS = Vertical Search I = Interoperability

Content, Commerce, Community, Context, Personalization and Vertical Search are all governed by Interoperability of systems. There is no 1 mega system or service that handles all the endless possibilities. From my perspective Web 3.0 comes down to 1 word…Interoperability, the infrastructure that allows systems and applications to be artificially intelligent.

Increase your Agility

Lessons Learned from Integrating Agile via Scrum

You may recall a post titled “Software Implementation Nirvana” which dealt with the common pitfalls associated with full life cycle development or SDLC (akaWaterfall). Agree or disagree with my position, it is clear that organizations and groups are adopting “lean” development techniques such as Scrum. According to the Agile Alliance adoption of Agile frameworks within organizations has increased by 24% over the past year and a record number of participants have attended user conferences, up 45% since 2006. Fad? Maybe, but I believe there is more to it. Though I’m partial and believe in Agile/Scrum and have seen it in motion, this post will hopefully help you navigate the waters if you’re thinking about implementing. I wish I would have known some of these before I got started.

Lesson 1 - Scrum is a state of mind.
Your either republican or democrat. You eat meat or you don’t. You like cats or hate them (I hate them). You accept Scrum or you don’t. Scrum isn’t for everyone. I’ll say that again, it’s not for everyone. If you’re used to rigid process and everything being completed at the end, it’s not for you. If you’re working in a regulatory environment, it’s probably not for you. If you’ve got a mix of believers and non-believers, proceed with caution. Nothing brings down the adoption of Scrum into an environment more quickly than the “negative voice”. If those negative voices exist, you will be challenged to implement however not totally crippled. What you need to do is get alignment. Agree or disagree with the voices, if people don’t have an opportunity to buy into the process then they will never believe therefore causing noisy chatter during the process. Make sure you include the biggest nay sayers in all the discussion and make it a point to ensure their voice is publicly heard. Needless to say don’t forget to get that all important executive buy in. If influential juggernauts are not pushing the initiative from top down, you’re doomed regardless of the intentions within the team.

Lesson 2 – To off shore or not?
This question is like asking my son…”Do you want ice cream?” Regardless on how I phrase the question, the answer is yes. I think the questions we should really be asking re:off shoring are a) how you prepare to offshore and b) what roles need to be onshore? If you’re in corporate America, you know there is a trend to save costs which usually equates to off shoring resources. Regardless of your opinion on the matter and regardless of your previous experiences with off shoring you’ll have to learn to deal with communication barriers that exist when dealing with an offshore team if you try to implement Scrum. A few things to remember, patience, don’t degrade, people at your level even thought they don’t make as much money. Treat them with respect and with patience and you will reap the rewards. Learn the culture. If you’re working with and off shore team in India, there’s a whole cast system the pervades the team regardless of role. Take a moment to understand. Also you’ll have to realize to get effective leadership you will most likely have to use a management team onshore. But I’ve seen some odd decisions when people are trying to save money.

Lesson 3 – Does this Sprint look long on me?
Conventional wisdom and all the experts dictate that iteration (aka sprint) should not exceed 4 weeks. In general this is the case, but if you’re Product Owner is plugged in and has context, and the programmers are flying, let them get as much done as possible. The dividends for more accurate functionality will typically outweigh your progress translated out of context from a burndown chart. Key here is making sure the Project Manager keeps all parties aligned and informed.

Lesson 4 – Scrum off the shelf
Just to clarify that Scrum is a project management philosophy within the Agile philosophy. As I said Agile and Scrum are a state of mind. Scrum has roots in lean process management therefore Scrum adapts and adopts continuous improvement within itself. The core tenants of Scrum allow for change in process as long as teams collaborate. Said differently, you don’t have to change it, Scrum will most likely adopt to you.

Lesson 5 – Do we still need testers during Scrum?
Most Agile experts will dictate that test driven development (TDD) is the way to go when testing Scrum projects.. I happen to agree but with 2 caveats. First the programming team should adopt some type of XP skillset (ie Pair Programming). Second there should be a regression testing suite such as the xUnit family. Don’t forget all the scripts for previous development! If you’re shop is like most, the 2 caveats are not reality. A solution to this lack Scrum governance is to adopt some type of derivative of TDD that works for you. The key is to have a strategy on how to perform regression tests, because if you’re moving at a high velocity, the amount of time to regression test is just not built into the sprint. And let’s not forget unit testing. Unit testing is also key to Scrum testing.

Lesson 6 – Psychotic Project Management
Project managers will make or break your Scrum development initiative. A Scrum Master’s (aka Project Manager) role doesn’t change much from a traditional one. They are there to facilitate things and make sure impediments are removed. The key change here is how the project manager tracks progress via burndown charts etc. Lesson learned here, all project managers are not the same. A tactical manager used to plugging in numbers into spreadsheets is not the breed you need for Scrum. You need dynamic thinkers and leaders.

Lesson 7 – Garbage in = Garbage out
Many people tell me those systems developed using Scrum are not scalable b/c no forethought is put into the architecture. I simply respond, if you have good developers it systems developed using Scrum are. Doesn’t matter how good your processes are, if people who developed them cant make it object oriented and scalable, the process will not be scalable thus business clients will not see the value long term value. Simply said bad programmers create bad code.

Lesson 8 – Were you successful?
Success will be measured by your performance objectives which typically are measured by the “Requirements Burndown”. If a team has completed all the requirements within an iteration why wouldn’t they be successful. Don’t get caught up in the budget debate, because the amount resources cost are typically constant.

Lesson 9 – Retrospective isn’t just a buzz word
One of the simplistic beauties of Scrum is the ability not only to realize what continuous improvement is, but adopt learnings almost immediately after the completion of a sprint. Given the teams are self managing; it’s a wonderful thing to see improvements come to life in subsequent sprints. It’s almost as everyone on the team understands the context of the improvements and the approach the team members are taking. This part of the process is my favorite as it’s like a marriage, it gets better with time. Just like those of you who have a significant other and can read their mind so to speak, the same begins to happen after the retrospectives thus creating a channel for continuous improvement

About the author –

Hassan Mahmud is an Principal of WEKGroup, LLC a project and management consultancy specializing in forward thinking and technology adoption within the pharmaceutical industry. He is an early adopter of lean process management and has implemented Scrum on dozens of projects and provides coaching services for organizations investigating the implementation of Scrum by providing coaching services. For more information on Mahmud and WEKGroup’s services, you can visit them online.

Internet Killed the Pharma Sales Star

Well it doesn’t exactly roll off your tongue like the iconic hit, Video Killed the Radio Star by the Buggles, but the title is perhaps foreshadowing to the inevitable…the reduction of pharmaceutical sales rep and their role in the drug marketing process.

The infamous Accell report (“Through Our Customers Eyes”) find many revelations in regards to pharmaceutical sales and marketing. There is lots of data in the report, but my key takeaways include –

• Between 1995 and 2000 the number of pharmaceutical sales reps almost doubled, yet the sales generated were not nearly proportional to the increase in reps


• About 10 years ago, adding a rep to the sales force yielded 750,000 visits per year. By 2000, the number dropped to just 17 visits per year. Today, more than 90,000 drug reps compete for the attention of 768,500 doctors.


• For every 100 visits, only 8 reps succeed in speaking to a physician and being remembered.
  

What gives? Did drug companies loose sight of the value that solid pharma reps provide to the physicians? Is the proportion of reps to physicians at its saturation point? Do the physicians simply no longer trust a typical rep? I believe it to be a combination of the later and the three major reasons why eDetailing is on the forefront of many product manager’s minds and also of execs with companies such as Pfizer, Seprocor and GSK who have slashed their sales forces. Bob Dylan said it best…Times are a Changing.

Against the backdrop of the Accell report, electronic detailing (eDetailing) has emerged as an increasingly popular alternative, with 31% of physicians participating in eDetailing according to Forrester Research. For more on eDetailing see (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Detailing).

So will eDetailing kill the pharma star? In my opinion most likely - in due time of course. Like many industries, methodologies and processes, the internet and technology have revolutionized how people do things. Traditional drug detailing is no different. Today’s physicians have less time, are embracing technology and want to talk science. Studies indicate that physicians do not listen or care for pharmaceutical reps. The most impactful value proposition that a rep provides is samples.

There are research firms out there that walk a fine line on this issue suggesting that both eDetailing and traditional detailing can co-exist in harmony by allowing the reps to focus on details for “willing” physicians and leave eDetailing for the hard to reach folks. That doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me. Why not use the eDetailing machine to detail all physicians in a consistent, ethical and regulated manner yielding better educated physicians who can make the right therapeutic decisions. There’s also the potential of adding eSampling to this whole mix! On the flipside there is something to be said about relationship building between the rep and a physician for the pharma company, but as a consumer that’s exactly what I’d like to not happen.

Let’s face it, regardless of how unbiased a rep is, it’s in his/her best interest to spin the data and facts in favor of the company that they work for. If Joe Rep is counting on a huge bonus around the holidays to pay for his wife’s new Tag watch, Joe Rep is going to say and do what he has to, to establish credibility with the physician to net more prescriptions. You may want to take a look at a recent New York Time article (Dr. Drug Rep). The article is an example of the types of behavior that has shed severe scrutiny on pharma sales reps and the traditional marketing process.

Pharma companies are smart…really smart and are facing other promotional issues such as ghost writing, CME, and patent expiration for small molecules. Add the pressure of cost cutting and mergers and you get a perfect storm begging for a clearing. Enter eDetailing. It’s not the answer to all of pharma’s problems, but just may help them sing a different tune and revolutionize medical promotion by enhancing reach and message quality, while performing details with the highest integrity. Perhaps that tune would be Honesty (Billy Joel), or I could be completely wrong and we’ll all be singing Dream On (Aerosmith).

Imagine - The Real Ghostbusters!

Ghostwriting is a topic that plagues the pharmaceutical and biotech industries. See my previous post entitled “Ghosts in the Machine” (http://wekfiles.blogspot.com/2007/10/ghosts-in-machine.html). The ghost writing issue has been debated to death without firm resolution. I promised in a previous post that I had a solution to help with the ghost writing dilemma…well here is one solution. Sorry medical writing firms and publication planners, though many of you are good friends, I don’t believe a long-term solution can be developed with multiple competing interests.

In my opinion the issue really boils down to people. People can be influenced very easily, especially if there is $$$ in the mix. In contrast systems cannot.

I’ve spoken to many publication planners and medical writers about this very topic. Full disclosure, everyone I’ve spoken to, thinks its nuts and there is no way an automated system could ever replace a human being in such a complex set of processes. I think Larry Ellison said it best, “When you innovate, you've got to be prepared for everyone telling you you're nuts.” I’ll also cite the radiation technology industry. 10 years ago, aside from the visionaries no one thought that XRays could be read by a machine….well today they are. Not only are they screens read, they are analyzed and emailed to the physicians who can tend to patients while the processing is occurring. Nuts? Maybe, but who else is going to dream this stuff up?

The idea…

I’d hope Larry Ellison would endorse this one…

There are volumes of data and warehouses of publicly available data on the Internet (e.g. PubMed.com, ClinicalTrials.gov). What medical (ghost) writers will typically do in a nutshell is troll the online data stores, confirm citations, garner permissions from publishers, create an outline, and draft the paper, format it to guidelines - rinse, repeat. This process of back and forth typically takes 30 weeks.

Often times not only are the data freely available but are also consumable by XML technologies. Enter Web 2.0. These XML technologies are commonly used to distribute or get information from disparate sources (e.g. Froogle, weather and news updates). Imagine a tool that pulls information from online medical repositories, based on parameters (search criteria) a user enters through a website. The website in the backend compiles online data intelligently, rendering at the very least an automatically generated set of references and perhaps an outline for the publication. Let’s take it one step further and give the application the ability generate data that is deemed regulatory “safe” and within online and traditional publisher guidelines. Futuristic? Yes. Crazy ? - You decide, but the technology exists today to get what I just outlined done. Of course there are caveats and much alignment needs to be performed to make something like this happen…but wouldn’t information that is disseminated more quickly, more transparently and more completely from sources that cannot be influenced help an industry that is accused of hiring professional writing talent to spin a drug’s messages in the medical literature? I think so.

Who loses? Well of course the ghostwriters. But do they have to lose? Couldn’t they change their business to adapt? Publication planners don’t want to become the Polaroid of the pharmaceutical industry. Take a lesson from Kodak. Moving from traditional writing role to service oriented architecture may give medical writing firms the nimbleness to change with technology as opposed to change with the law.

The Ghosts in the Machine

In my opinion ghost writing is one of the most pressing issues that pharmaceutical and biotechnology firms face today. What better topic for Halloween….

What is ghost writing? According to CBC News: The practice of drug companies procuring professional medical writers to draft articles endorsing new medicines and presenting them to prominent doctors and scientists to put their names to, in exchange for financial (or other) compensation. So what? Who cares?

Let’s put this into context.

Fast forward…
Your father has severe plaque psoriasis and has had it for years. He faces issues with depression, discomfort and unsightly scaly skin. He’s taken every conventional therapy available. He’s sat under UV lights. He’s worn long sleeve shirts as long as you can remember. Essentially he has let psoriasis run his life and accepted there is not cure for the auto immune disease. Now imagine that there are 3 drugs at the disposal of your father’s dermatologist which could potentially help your father’s conditions. Your father’s dermatologist prescribes a biologic, “intolumab”, that has been proven to be very effective in treating psoriasis. The reason: Your father’s dermatologist read of the positive impact of intolumab in a prominent medical journal that was written by a prominent dermatological researcher Dr. Frankenstein. Your father begins treatment and finds out after 2 years of very costly treatment, his psoriasis is no better than it began. He’s had to pay approximately $4K out of his own pocket and his morale is lower than ever. I can hear him rumbling something about ghosts…

Rewind…
6-8 years where research is being conducted in phase II clinical trials for intolumab, the future biologic therapy that will be used to treat your father. intolumab is meeting all safety and efficacy endpoints. Intolumab evolves through the clinical development process and right around Phase III or Phase IV of the process, intolumab’s manufacturer “Bio Odyssey” begin dreaming of the impact their emerging product will have on psoriasis patients. Bio Odyssey begins a “publication planning” campaign; bringing together a cross-functional team consisting of medical affairs and marketing to prove to the world intolumab is the best therapy for treating psoriasis. A communication strategy is developed outlining how Bio Odyssey will promote the effectiveness of intolumab to the world. (Let’s face it everyone reading…the purpose of this “strategy” is to increase prescriptions. I hope we can all agree on this point)! As a part of the communication strategy the cross-functional team develops marketing messages or “key clinical findings” as some may refer to them.

The team hires a medical communications (aka ghost writing) firm to help them draft the publications. The accepted role of the firm is to do research, work with the authors in an iterative manner to more efficiently produce the article. By the way this is absolutely legal and practical to garner the assistance of a medical writing company to help craft a manuscript, review article etc since many researchers lack the ability to draft professionally written articles.
The breakdown…
Along the process, all parties realize the publication will have significant impact on the dermatology community and the positive impact for intoumab. Bio Odyssey asks the medical writing firm to identify a prominent dermatologist to include as an author in the late stages of developing a manuscript. You guessed it…Dr. Frankenstein. Dr. Frankenstein does contribute in periodic reviews and posting comments for the “ghosts” to incorporate, however Dr. Frankenstein has not analyzed any of the data. The medical writing firm has accidentally forgotten to include important subset of data that shows intolumab being not as effective in patients who are 50 and older. Uh Oh Casper, what’s that you say your father is 62?

Do you see the dilemma here? It’s not my intent to make you think that all pharma/biotech companies and medical communications firms are real monsters that don’t adhere to ethical publishing practices. It’s my intent for readers to recognize that this does occur. Even if the occurrence of inaccurate information posed by ghost writers is minimal, it should be none since the core publishing principal is “publish only your own work”.

I’m scared are you? Who’s to blame? It’s complicated since there are competing principles all which have merit. Many observers tend to point the finger at pharma/biotech and the medical writing firms. Regardless of where the blame falls, I think we can agree that a solution is needed so my hypothetical father can live a better life with psoriasis. I think the question we should all be asking is how do we solve this problem and make sure all the ghosts in the machine are friendly. Interested? Stay tuned.

Disclaimer on “intolumab” and “Bio Odyssey” are completely fictitious. Any accidental match of current drugs or organizations is simply coincidence.

Software Implementation Nirvana

I want that, I need that, why does it cost so much, why didn’t this work, who am I going to blame…

You’ve been there, you’ve heard it. Dominatrix CIO has laid down the law not once, not twice but 3 times…”failure is not an option for this initiative”. The earth shakes and everyone under her cowers. But they still fail…why? Was there lack of motivation? Did she not yell or point her finger enough? I don’t think so.

No matter how much that CIO rants and raves, sometimes people still fail, when implementing business software, web portals, and applications. But all is not lost: There are some strategies to help avoid the perils of a bad software implementation.

It’s true. After a company puts themselves through the rigor of an RFP-driven software selection process, they might think they are on the trail towards software bliss. Committees of users, executive sponsors, line managers, consultants and other miscellaneous bits and pieces have aligned to help select a system via arduous all day demonstrations and PowerPoint decks articulating the benefits and ROI of said system (aka by committee). How could this effective process not result in the right tool for the organization? It’s inconceivable, but maybe they weren’t focusing on the most important things.

When implementing a system there are 3 success factors that will ultimately determine your success or demise. 1 – The Software 2 – The Consultants 3 – You. Hold on there Tiger, did you say me. Yes I did, just keep reading.

Success Factor #1
First, the software. Most people believe the most important factor for success is the actual code and/or platform. If we could only take each of the Christmas ornaments (features) and hang them on our tree (application) then implementation nirvana will ensue. It’s true if an application has features you need, then you logically have a better chance of success, but get ready for success factor #1. Your ability to easily change the software is more important than the features.

Does the software allow you to change or customize it all? If so, how expensive is it to make the changes? Changing a process can at times be much more costly than simply changing an application. Do you own the source code? When the vendor mention’s flexibility to what extent is it flexible? What are the reports like? Regardless of how attractive your software package looks like (even if it looks like Eva Longoria), don’t purchase it if you can’t customize it within reason. You know your business will change.

Success Factor #2
Next consider the consulting firm you work with to implement the system. You might think the consultant’s knowledge of your industry is the most important factor for success and I’ll admit it can be very helpful if a consultant knows your business, but here is success factor #2 – experience in a wide variety of industries may be better than specialized experience. Yes, your industry may have some very specific needs (it’s called self-preservation), but it’s also true your industry has many things in common with other industries. A consultant with broad experience could bring to light some best practices from other industries that may apply to your business that may be overlooked by consultants working in a cookie cutter format. Tying back to success factor #1, the consulting firm should have the ability and flexibility to change the software in a cost-effective way (yes this sometimes means outsourcing). Looking at the consultant’s history should give you an idea on their philosophy and approach to such tasks. Ask for examples and case studies.

Success Factor #3
Let’s talk about you. You are the missing link, assuming you picked a good software package and consultancy. You and your team will tip the project scorecard to red or green. Ask yourself: Is your executive team fully aligned with the change? Are the users aligned with the change? Do you manage internal projects well? If you answered no to any of the later, that’s ok. You’re being honest. So how do you surpass your shortcomings? Plan A – rely heavily on the consultants. That’s expensive and often the consultants don’t have the authority to drive change within your organization. You must do something else, it’s Plan B or success factor #3.

You don’t have to alter the personalities of all your people, send them to desensitizing chamber or try to brainwash them. (Side bar: perhaps water torture would work? Maybe another post?) The key to success here is you need an internal champion A change maven that have the power and desire to make the change happen.

All those nay sayers will come along for the ride if they see real progress occurring starting from the top down. Sometimes this person comes from accounting, sometimes from client services, sometimes from marketing but always they have business savvy, computer skills, and intelligence. They should be very aggressive about learning and have the curiosity and hunger to tackle new challenges. You must find this person within the ranks or hire them. Also you must structure their job so the change maven has time to adequately focus on the new system.

This person will work with users as they are getting started with the new system and be a first line of defense of issues. This person will drive the business processes, training, change control and ultimately a sustainable plan for the solution within your organization. For a small to mid size company this individual can make or break the project. I know what you’re thinking…there are no more Jedi, but try to think creatively. Do you currently have a FTE that is itching to do something new and is well respected professionally within the organization?

So will you achieve Implementation Nirvana? That’s entirely up to you, the team you work with and the key decisions you make along the way. I know I know, that doesn’t tell you anything, but hopefully these 3 success factors will help you avoid common pitfalls.

Oh by the way when you’re done, you’ll be cursing me for not mentioning anything about “waterfall” or “agile” techniques consultants use….stay tuned.