‘Why can’t we just do it all in one system?’ has been the line in the sand drawn by many executives somewhere between identifying a need in the business and accepting that vendor solutions will need to be considered and with a few memorable exceptions (check out our other case studies and our new and upcoming ‘Insights’ articles) it’s not an unreasonable starting point.
Our experience is that the changes in how and when content is consumed by the audience is outstripping the processes and solutions media and entertainment companies have relied on to deliver that content to the marketplace and there is a dearth of newer solutions designed for the converging model which are feature-rich enough to support the full business requirements.
As a result, most solution evaluation projects reach the same junction with four possible paths, take a mature solution and hope it evolves, gamble on the roadmap of a newcomer, abandon the ‘one size fits all’ approach and go with multiple best of breed solutions or the nuclear option of going in-house and building the perfect system for your business.
It’s this junction Rogo Scott helps our customers to navigate and a recent example was an evaluation of whether a solution originally designed for the linear broadcast market could be pivoted to meet the non-linear requirements for a content owner and distributor which could create a foundation of a common set of rights for the business and support not only an aggressive non-linear growth strategy but also a new linear model.
Our process started with agreeing a number of key principles most importantly keeping an open mind and not allowing exceptions to drive decisions at the expense of identifying commonality across the requirements and the solution. In that approach the due diligence levels must remain high enough to ensure there is no risk of an insurmountable gap creeping in through a back door created by the willingness to adopt the solution. Positivity and creativity were also important factors which accept that whilst the solution may not have been originally designed for the task at hand the ability of configuration and business process change to meet the requirements should be prioritised over trying to prove why the solution will not meet the requirements.
There is no doubt that this path introduces risk and such a project can easily fail with an aggressively sales led vendor and an inexperienced client project team (again, covered in other upcoming case studies and ‘Insights’ articles) but if the vendor acknowledges the gaps and demonstrates a collaborative strategy to addressing them you have already overcome the single biggest risk to the project.
By following this methodology, we were content that progressing with the solution was the right decision and that by providing the client with experienced resources to deliver the project and partnering with a collaborative vendor the solution would deliver the initial non-core requirements and then adapt to create a single solution that would scale across multiple divisions and territories.