As a salesperson, my primary objective is getting in front of decision makers to show what Adastra can do to improve their organization’s Information Management processes and infrastructure. Once I get these meetings, the rest of the work is easy: it’s just a matter of understanding what the client needs and matching it to a service we provide, and the right people to provide it.
Too often, the first question I am asked is: “where were you three months ago?”
What has struck me lately is the willingness of organizations to stick with so-called “big names”, in spite of the spotty history many of them have experienced with solution and service delivery. The reasons for such failures are easy to discover: underestimating the work, overestimating the skills the vendor has available, trying to “boil-the-ocean” while scoping, or using a product that simply doesn’t work well, or doesn’t match the needs and infrastructure already in place.
Now, don’t get me wrong. Technology vendors are doing amazing things to make products to meet the needs of complex, information-rich organizations. But integrating those products with actual businesses is not one of them.
Considering the range of options out there, including flexible, responsive organizations that specialize in a particular area, as Adastra does in Information Management, why would business leaders default to entities that are known, but known for poor performance? I put it down to the overwhelming amount of communications going out, and being ignored, by increasingly busy people.
It’s never too late to start fixing a poorly performing solution. We do it all the time. But wouldn’t it be better to go with a specialist in the first place?