Author / anthonysmoak

by anthonysmoak

Interpret Big Data with Caution

One caution with respect to employing big data (or any other data reliant technique) is the tendency of practitioners to have an overconfidence in understanding the inputs and interpreting the outputs. It sounds like a fundamental concept but if one does not have a strong understanding of what the incoming data signifies, then the interpreted output is highly likely to be biased. As is the case with the concept of sampling, if the sample is not representative of the larger whole then bias will occur. Example:

“Consider Boston’s Street Bump smartphone app, which uses a phone’s accelerometer to detect potholes without the need for city workers to patrol the streets. As citizens of Boston download the app and drive around, their phones automatically notify City Hall of the need to repair the road surface.” [1]

One would be tempted to conclude that the data that feeds into the app would reasonably represent all of the potholes in the city. In actuality, the data that was fed into the app represented those potholes in areas inhabited by young, affluent smartphone owners. The city runs the risk of neglecting areas where older, less affluent, non smartphone owners experience potholes; which is a significant portion of the city.

“As we move into an era in which personal devices are seen as proxies for public needs, we run the risk that already existing inequities will be further entrenched. Thus, with every big data set, we need to ask which people are excluded. Which places are less visible? What happens if you live in the shadow of big data sets?” [2]

[1] http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/21a6e7d8-b479-11e3-a09a-00144feabdc0.html

[2] https://hbr.org/2013/04/the-hidden-biases-in-big-data/

by anthonysmoak

The Importance of Standards in Large Complex Organizations

Large complex organizations require standards with respect to developing strategic goals, business processes, and technology solutions because agreed upon guiding principles support organizational efficiencies. Without standards in these spaces, there is the increased potential for duplication of functionality, as localized business units implement processes and technologies with disregard for the enterprise as a whole. When the enterprise as a whole considers items such as applications, tools and vendors, standards help ensure seamless integration.

Examples of enterprise standards might be:

  • “The acquisition of purchased applications is preferred to the development of custom applications.” [1]
  • An example of an infrastructure-driven principle might be, “The technology architecture must strive to reduce application integration complexity” [1]
  • “Open industry standards are preferred to proprietary standards.” [1]

These hypothetical top down standards can help settle the “battle of best practices” [2]. Standards also provide direction and can guide the line of business staff’s decision-making so that the entire organization is aligned to strategic goals. Furthermore, the minimization of diversity in technology solutions typically lowers complexity, which in turn helps to lower associated costs.

Enterprise Architecture standards also have a place in facilitating “post merger/acquisition streamlining and new product/service rollouts” [2]. Successfully and rapidly integrating new acquisitions onto a common framework can be vital to success.

Here are two banking examples where post merger system integration problems arose in financial services companies:

  • In 1996, when Wells Fargo & Co. bought First Interstate Bancorp, thousands of customers left because of missing records, long lines at branches, and administrative snarls. In 1997, Wells Fargo announced a $150 million write-off to cover lost deposits due to its faulty IT integration. [3]
  • In 1998, First Union Corp. and CoreStates Financial Corp. merged to form one of the largest U.S. banks. In 1999, First Union saw its stock price tumble on news of lower-than-expected earnings resulting from customer attrition. The problems arose from First Union’s ill-fated attempt at rapidly moving customers to a new branch-banking system. [3]

Having robust Enterprise Architecture standards in place may have helped to reduce the risk of failure when integrating these dissimilar entities.

References:

[1] Fournier, R., “Build for Business Innovation – Flexible, Standardized Enterprise Architectures Will Produce Several IT Benefits.” Information Week, November 1, 1999. Retrieved from Factiva database.

[2] Bernard, Scott A. “Linking Strategy, Business and Technology. EA3 An Introduction to Enterprise Architecture.” Bloomington, IN: Author House, 2012, Third Edition

[3] Popovich, Steven G., “Meeting the Pressures to Accelerate IT Integration”, Mergers & Acquisitions: The Dealmakers Journal, December 1, 2001. Retrieved from Factiva database.

by anthonysmoak

ADP: Mergers & Acquisitions

This small sample is taken from a group paper drafted for a strategic management class (MGT 6125) taken back in the Spring of 2007. The class was taught by the esteemed professor of strategy, Dr. Frank Rothaermel. As part of the class our project group interviewed an executive from ADP, wrote a strategic analysis of the company and then presented our findings to the company (complete with Q&A). The experience was enriching but contributed to the number of late nights experienced during that semester. It should be noted that in 2014 ADP spun off its Dealer Services business into a separate company now called CDK Global.

 

Mergers & Acquisitions

ADP has become highly successful in its strategy of pursuing growth via horizontal integration. Although current CEO Gay Butler has maintained that ADP has no interest in “large, dilutive, multiyear acquisitions” [1], the company will acquire smaller industry competitors. Acquisitions give ADP the opportunity to grow inorganically, increase its product offerings, acquire technology and to reduce the level of rivalry in its industry.

A perfect execution of this strategy can be seen in its January 2003 acquisition of Probusiness. Probusiness was a much smaller California based provider of payroll and human resources services. Before the acquisition, Probusiness cited eight new large competitors who had an interest in expanding their roles in the payroll business [2]. Amongst those eight competitors were notable companies such as International Business Machines Inc. (IBM), Microsoft Corp. and Electronic Data Systems Corp. (EDS) [2]. True to form, ADP decided to react and proceeded to acquire Probusiness. The acquisition effectively prevented large competitors from acquiring approximately 600 new payroll clients in the larger employer space and reduced future competition.

The Probusiness acquisition was also a boon to the company in the fact that it offered ADP advanced payroll processing technology. Probusiness utilized PC based payroll processing as opposed to ADP’s more mainframe based technology [2].

A key acquisition for ADP in terms of increasing its global footprint was the December 2005 acquisition of U.K. based Kerridge Computer. This particular acquisition was significant in the fact that it increased ADP’s Dealer Management Services (DMS) presence from fourteen countries to over forty one [3].

ADP along with its main DMS competitors in the European market, Reynolds & Reynolds and SAP, began to realize the significant growth opportunities for the region. The European market for DMS unlike the United States market, is much more fragmented which means there are more opportunities for a larger player to standardize product offerings [4]. In 2003 the European Union lifted rules that had previously banned franchised car dealers from selling rival brands [4]. Demand for pan-European systems to help multi-brand dealers manage their stores, sometimes in multiple countries and in various languages increased dramatically [4]. ADP shrewdly realized that many smaller DMS providers would not be able to meet this demand and acquired Kerridge to bolster its position.

Strategically, the Kerridge acquisition has allowed ADP to have first mover advantage over its main competitors with respect to China. New vehicle sales growth in Asia is expected to be at 25.3% by the year 2011 [5]. By becoming a first mover in the region, ADP will have the opportunity to lock customers into its technology since it currently has a 96% client retention rate [5]. ADP will also have the opportunity to create high switching costs for its customers and make it difficult for rivals to take its customers.

Other recent acquisitions by ADP include “Taxware which brings tax-content and compliance solutions to the table; VirtualEdge, which offers tools for recruiting; Employease, which develops Web-based HR and benefits applications; and Mintax, which provides tools for corporate tax incentives. [6]” All of these acquisitions represent small fast growing companies with complimentary products and services. These products and services can be incorporated in ADP’s vast distribution network and provide potential bundling or cross selling opportunities with ADP’s current offerings.

Endnotes:

[1] Simon, Ellen “ADP chief looks at expansion, not acquisition” ASSOCIATED PRESS (7 March 2007)

[2] Gelfand, Andrew “ADP Seen Holding Off Competition With ProBusiness Buy” Dow Jones News Service (6 January 2003) :Factiva

[3] Kisiel, Ralph “Reynolds, ADP aim for European growth” Automotive News Europe Volume 11; Number 3 (6 February 2006) :Factiva

[4] Jackson, Kathy “Dealer software market is booming; Multibranding boosts demand for dealership management programs” Automotive News Europe, Volume 11; Number 21 (16 October 2006) :Factiva

[5] ADP Annual Financial Analyst Conference Call Presentation. March 22, 2007

[6] Taulli ,Tom “ADP Tries Getting Even Better” Motley Fool (November 2, 2006) Accessed 4/14/07 <http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2006/11/02/adp-tries-getting-even-better.aspx.

by anthonysmoak

An Analysis of the Pharmaceutical Industry

Innovation

Innovation in the pharmaceutical industry is driven by the protections provided by intellectual patents. In theory, these patents temporarily grant innovative pharmaceutical companies a monopoly over their new product or innovation. This monopoly in turn allows pharmaceutical companies to recoup their research and development costs. Companies are able to reap high margins on their products and thus obtain a competitive advantage in the industry. Pharmaceutical companies that participate in the innovation sector are always under intense pressure to find and develop their next “blockbuster drug” quickly, cheaply and effectively. Those companies who are not able to innovate and bring a successful new product to market will experience financial difficulties. For example, pharmaceutical giant Pfizer Inc. has not produced a blockbuster drug since its introduction of the erectile dysfunction drug Viagra in 1998. As a consequence of not successfully innovating a new product since that time, the company will have a diminishing revenue stream in the future. Generic competitors will begin to steal market share from Pfizer as it loses its exclusive monopoly on highly profitable drugs.

While intellectual property protection can encourage innovation in the pharmaceutical industry it can also hamper innovation. Pharmaceutical companies can easily obtain new patents by making minor changes to existing products regardless of whether the drugs offer significant new therapeutic advantages [1]. Typically, minor changes are made to blockbuster drugs before their patent expiration date in order to increase the lifespan of the monopoly. In essence it is much faster and cheaper to receive new patent protections on these “me-too” products than to innovate and bring “new molecular entity” drugs to the marketplace.

Alternatives to the current monopolistic patent protection have been proposed to help foster more meaningful innovation. A drug prize system has been bandied about in intellectual discussions for some time. Under a prize system, the U.S. government would pay out a cash prize for any new drugs that successfully pass FDA regulations. The drugs would then be put into the public domain thus creating a free market system for drugs. “Generic drugs (‘generic’ being another way of saying the rights are in the public domain) already do a wonderful job of keeping prices down. While the price of patent-protected drugs has been rising at roughly twice the rate of inflation, the real price of generics has fallen in four of the last five years.” [2] The prize system has its benefits in the fact that marketing costs would be significantly reduced as companies would have already been paid an upfront prize for their efforts. Large awards could be provided to the pharmaceutical innovator who produces breakthrough results while smaller rewards would be paid for incremental “me-too” innovations.

A prize system could also help increase the number of innovations concerning critical diseases that affect the third world. Government intervention can help direct R&D resources to areas where the private market has failed to concentrate. Breakthroughs are badly needed in the fight against AIDS or the search to develop a malaria vaccine. Advanced industrialized nations could pool their resources together and decide to create a large bounty for any drug that provides a real breakthrough in this area. The desired end result would be enhanced access to better medicines for the third world. Obviously the prize system would have some drawbacks. One major drawback would be the duplication of efforts encountered by firms that would compete for the biggest prizes. It is possible that R&D resources concentrated on the highest prizes would encourage a majority of companies to compete to be the winner in these races even more so than in the current patent system.

Research and Development

Pharmaceutical companies are heavily dependent upon acquiring patents and innovating in order to compete in the industry. As a consequence, massive amounts of funding are needed for research and development in order to keep product pipelines full. The Tufts center for the study of drug development estimated the average costs of developing a prescription drug to be 802 million in 2001, up from 231 million in 1987 [3]. This estimation includes the costs of failures as well as the opportunity costs of incurring R&D expenditures before earning any returns.

A price/R&D tradeoff exists in the pharmaceutical industry. If pharmaceutical companies lower prices for drugs in the marketplace it is feasible to believe that profits will fall for these drug manufacturers. As profits fall, R&D is affected which in turn lowers the amount of new drugs coming into the marketplace. Fewer drugs in the marketplace could potentially lead to future generations of less healthy people.

The pharmaceutical industry is one of the most profitable industries in our nation’s economy, thus the companies that develop new drugs are quite content with the current structure in which R&D costs are high. Of course this means that prices for consumers will continue to remain high. Consumers on the other hand need access to new drug products for illness prevention or treatment purposes. Consumers would prefer that prices fall for new drugs while innovations increase. Given the current nature of the pharmaceutical industry this outcome will remain a paradox.

EndNotes:

[1] http://oversight.house.gov/Documents/20061219094529-73424.pdf

[2] http://www.forbes.com/2006/04/15/drug-patents-prizes_cx_sw_06slate_0418drugpatents.html

[3] http://csdd.tufts.edu/NewsEvents/RecentNews.asp?newsid=6

Image courtesy of amenic181 at FreeDigitalPhotos.net