“A wise man learns more from his enemies, than a fool does from his friends”

Baltasar Gracian

While details of Osama bin Laden’s capture are sketchy, one thing that is clear is that the U.S. military executed a nearly flawless raid with pinpoint precision.

For me, the most interesting revelation this week was that the CIA had intelligence about bin Laden’s Islamabad hideout as early as August of last year. The intelligence was seemingly developed over years of digging, prodding and fact finding, which eventually yielded a tip about one of his handlers.

While the bravery of the team that struck the compound is absolute and unquestioned, we should be equally impressed with the methodical approach exhibited by our military command, who demonstrated remarkable patience and fortitude. It seems that every detail of the strike was planned meticulously.  With the lives of American soldiers at risk, no detail was left to chance.

Strategy and tactics are born out of military doctrine, and the ability of operatives to plan their attack preciously, and execute flawlessly should give us pause.  The operation lends credence to the notion that any strategy is only as good as that tactics that support it, and that execution of bad strategy can yield devastating results. It is often necessary to have a well thought out contingency plan in the event of a calamity, such as a helicopter being caught in a “vortex”.

Both strategy and tactics are reliant on good information, and to act prematurely without knowing the facts will often generate a less than desirable outcome. As Stephen Covey points out, part of our time we spend planning, and part of it reacting. The greater the time we invest in planning, the less total energy we must expend. Whether it is in the military or business, the cost of a failed strategy can be high.

Once strategies (which is best defined as which battles should be fought) are determined, an organization must develop core competencies and resources to support them.  While the US of A may have taken a hit in recent years, we still have the finest technology and training in the world, and our enemies should still be weary of that lethal combination.

The Wall Street Journal reported that that CIA Chief Leon Panetta thought that there was a “60% chance” that bin Laden was actually present in the compound. Clearly, the decision to strike took guts. Intelligence officials and the military developed the best information available, planned the attack and took a calculated risk.  For that, our nation is eternally grateful. We should run our businesses with a similar level of preparedness.

There is an old saying in poker; if you can’t see the sucker in the room…it is probably you.  The same can be said of advancements in technology. Forrester’s recently forecasted increases in IT spending of 8% in 2011 and 2012[i]. Recent M&A activity suggests the sector is heating up.

In many industries, market leaders create proprietary technologies and information systems that improve the customer experience directly or indirectly through information flow, efficiency, cycle time, etc.  At the current rate of change, a company either realizes a technological advantage, or is likely at a competitive disadvantage.

We have numerous clients who are either in the midst of ERP implementations, or considering similar upgrades to their systems. At some point the business owner must ask the strategic question; are our technology improvements truly game changers, or only an enhancement to existing ways of doing business?

More than 90% of ERP type systems are delivered late, and their implementations can be taxing to small and mid-market businesses. It is not difficult to spend $1 million+ (in hard and soft costs) in such systems, which is a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of disappointing customers due to errors or missed timelines.  If entrepreneurs are going to expend valuable resources (time and money) on technologies, they had better select the right ones, and prime their organization to implement them seamlessly.

I find there are often two extremes during such implementations.  In some companies, functional department heads (such as sales, engineering, design) lack experience in software integrations and do not become invested in the deliverables until it is too late. Other times, companies become so fascinated with perfection, they lose sight of the objective, and become paralyzed in analysis. If a company’s enterprise system becomes dated because of their inability to act, competitors can seize the upper hand.

If you are considering such upgrades to your technology, it is often sensible to take the aggressive but measured approach. In other words, the strategist is always looking to leverage technology that reshapes the customer experience, improves efficiency or reduces costs in some material way while simplifying or automating processes.  Such decisions should not be left to the technologists, but shared by the leadership team who must be equally responsible for selection, scoping and integration.  Failure is not an option as an unsuccessful project can put a company years behind.

Don’t be the sucker.

---

[i] Source: Wall Street Beat: Underlying Confidence Marks Tech Sector IDG News