His accent is entertaining; his message...blunt

Robin Williams does a hilarious bit on his newest HBO Special about trying to understand a Scotsman with a heavy brogue. The bit starts with Williams affecting the accents of a variety of foreign nationals, all of who are inebriated. Decorum and political correctness prohibit me from saying much else about the content of the bit. After lampooning a drunken Irishman, and a karaoke-singing Japanese, Williams moves to the drunken Scotsman. “But the worst of all are the Scottish,” contends Williams, “because you can never understand a word they are saying.”

It would be completely inappropriate to claim that Dave McCann, a native Scotsman and the president and CEO of Carparts Technologies, is not understandable. In fact, quite the opposite is true. He is an engaging, captivating and wholly entertaining speaker and he demonstrated those skills eloquently at the Aftermarket eForum this past August. In fact, McCann has been the highest rated speaker at each of the past three eForums and ranks among the best speakers at any industry event. But while I understood every word McCann spoke, there was at least one observation he offered that I didn’t understand.

But let me start by sharing with you some of what McCann said that I not only understood (both linguistically and intellectually), but that I concur with completely.

From innovator to laggard

McCann opened with an overview of some research done by one Dr. Jeffrey Moore (no relation) on the attitudes of people exposed to technology. That study examined 40 different types of technologies, ranging from software, to cell phones, to PDAs, and other personal consumer technologies. The dominant conclusions were that regardless of the type or complexity of the technology, there were five behavioral barriers and subsequently five categories of individuals that could be identified, each of which adapted to and adopted technology differently. Further, there were three change drivers that dictated how the five groups assessed and ultimately adopted the technology (but I will come back to those later). McCann used that research as a basis for evaluating how the aftermarket is embracing technology.

The five categories of individuals identified by Dr. Moore were 1) innovators, 2) early adopters, 3) early majority, 4) late majority, and 5) laggards. McCann offered his own characterizations of each of the five types as applied to the aftermarket.

He describes an “innovator” as “that guy who wanted to adopt the Internet from the moment he first saw it.” McCann said this was the kind of person who, “screamed at his suppliers to get there even thought he didn’t quite know if or how it would work. And no matter how bad your first Internet application was, he was there using it, even though it took him twice as long. He liked the fact he was using the Internet.”

“Early adopters” he described as a more pragmatic sort or “those guys who followed right behind but waited until they saw something that worked. They examined it, used it and decided it would actually either reduce cost or increase revenue,” so they got on board.

McCann contends that the third group, the “early majority” is just now coming up to speed with new technology, “They have seen it coming, but they have been somewhat fearful and they have needed a lot of convincing. I would say, in 2004, this group will adopt the Internet.”

“The fourth group, the “late majority,” is still a little skeptical, but will probably get around to it in the next 12 months. And the fifth group is the “laggards,” about 20 percent who don’t have a viable system and many of them don’t even have computers. “Believe it or not, even in 2004, it’s a fact,” McCann says.

This is good common sense stuff. It’s good when solid research aligns with practical thinking. I have always had this mental rule of thumb I call the “a third, a third, a third” rule. One third of the population will embrace a new concept right away, another third will be ambivalent and a third will reject it. Dr. Moore’s research validates that thinking as it relates to the acceptance of technology.

While McCann didn’t belabor the point, he clearly intimated that the people who could self-categorize themselves into the first group can be reasonably optimistic about their prospects for survival, while those in the last two groups might want to take stock of their long term viability. His message was obvious; get on board the technology train, or get left behind.

Averting disaster means being prepared

While making the point of the importance of technology, McCann was quick to remind all of we tech-heads at the eForum that just because we think the sun rises and sets on technology, typical business owners have a bit more on their minds.

“First of all, contrary to what all those technology vendors would like to think, every owner in this business doesn’t wake up every day thinking only about technology,” McCann says. “They clearly wake up and think about people costs, the rising costs of insurance, the geographic threat of a competitor, how do they get out of the business, when do they retire, who do they sell to, will they ever get to retire or will somebody put them out of business before they go there?”

That’s an important point. Most business people don’t walk into work each morning looking for ways to implement technology to overcome their problems. All of us are focused on what must happen next to avert disaster and have we precious little time to evaluate the bigger picture. To employ an analogy I am fond of: we’re too busy putting out fires to install an alarm system.

As business people we all understand the need for the alarm system; it’s an issue of finding the time to consider all the alternatives that might be available. McCann makes the point that we must examine the basis on which technology decisions are made that brought him back to the three change drivers Dr. Moore’s research identified. Those were 1) technology usefulness, 2) economic drivers and 3) psychological willingness.

Brilliant simplicity

Like the five groups Dr. Moore identified, this concept is brilliant in its simplicity. And, like most well conceived findings, it so succinctly defines the process it examined that one’s reaction upon hearing it is, “Of course, I knew that.” McCann appropriately laced the three drivers through the rest of his presentation about adoption of technology up and down the aftermarket supply chain.

Let’s start with the last one first. The psychological willingness to accept technology is really about the psychological willingness to change. The desire to try something new to address business problems is where the decision to implement technology begins. Unless…and until…some business person experiences pain or frustration in the way they are currently doing something, their desire to change is non-existent.

Sadly for most of us (gladly for technology providers), there is plenty of pain and frustration around this aftermarket. I’m sure technicians don’t like ordering three of any given part just to make sure they have the one that fits any more than we like sending them three and taking back two. Not many of us are happy with the inventories we hold or the turns we are getting. Nobody is pleased with how long it takes to get new part numbers added to the electronic catalogs on parts counters. The pain, and with it, the desire is everywhere.

Once the desire is there, the other two factors –– economics and usefulness –– come into play. The economic issue is obvious. People must see value returned for any investment they make. The issue of usefulness is not so clear. Usefulness depends on at least two issues: who is using the technology, and what they need from it and when. By that I mean technology must be easy to implement even for the most novice user, but also it must be robust enough to allow the user to grow into increasingly sophisticated processes as they become more comfortable with it.

Scaling PIES

I said earlier that I wanted to take issue and even mildly admonish McCann based on at least one comment he made. I realize this is presumptuous considering that I have never even met the man; but then, tact was never really my strong suit. His comment with which I take issue related to PIES and the usefulness of technology.

The comment is –– “PIES is brilliant, but the data exchange that goes on between a manufacturer and a distributor is very different from the minimum data exchange that goes on between the service dealer and a distributor. So I am preaching that what we need is PIES ‘light.’”

On the one hand, I agree completely that PIES is brilliant. I also agree that the volume of data that needs to be exchanged between a manufacturer and a distributor is much larger than that which needs to be exchanged between the service dealer and a distributor. But what I don’t understand is how someone with the understanding and insight that McCann has, thinks we need a light version of PIES. It’s a bit like saying that there are too many words in the English language, and what we need is a light version of English. PIES, like English, is a robust framework that accommodates a vast range of data that can be included. However, like English, one can function quite nicely with a small range of its complete content. To be truly useful, PIES must be practical when only a few fields are required and accommodating when a robust set of data is needed. While I hate to use techno-speak, it must be “scalable.” And PIES is infinitely scalable. Trading partners can decide to trade as few as four fields: price, part number, description and unit of measure, and get on with electronic ordering.

If McCann is not clear that PIES is totally scalable, chances are many others with less technical knowledge are too. What people need to understand is that it’s not important how much of the standard one uses. That is dictated by need and will, in all likelihood, be different between every pair of trading partners. The critical step is that the PIES specification is precisely followed on the fields that are selected to be exchanged.

Although I must say that what McCann said about PIES light caused me to think. PIES was designed to be exchanged with the use of XML tags to identify what data is being shared. (XML, Extensible Markup Language, is called extensible because it is not a fixed format. It is designed to improve the functionality of the Web by providing more flexible and adaptable information identification…a sort of high tech labeling system, if you will.) Most parts stores and service centers don’t have the technical expertise to get their computers to swap data using XML schema. As such, the idea of having a kind of simple template, like a flat file or an Excel spreadsheet for trading limited data between partners with limited computer capabilities makes sense. If this is what McCann was promoting, I’m all for it. In fact, the PIES subcommittee of the AAIA Standards & Solutions Committee at their meeting in early September recommended creating a simple flat file format that can easily be adapted and utilized by smaller trading partners.

A balancing act

As an industry, we need to listen to McCann. When we are creating standards for the entire aftermarket to use, we must make them complex and robust enough to accommodate where we are going, but at the same time, simple enough so as not to intimidate anyone when it comes to adopting and using them right now. When you think about it, that is a damn tough balancing act.

I said I wanted to admonish McCann for some of what he said. Having thought more about it, I really can’t do that. What he has said in the past, and continues to say, is stuff that we need to hear. I hope he continues to do that, and does it often. But perhaps it is appropriate to suggest caution to McCann. He is such a capable thinker and persuasive speaker that when he says we need a “PIES light,” many in our ranks hear, “What we have now is too complex.”

 I’m sure you would not want to see a parts seller or service center not initiate a technology because they were waiting on a light version to come later. Or worse yet, have a manufacturer say, “I’m gonna wait for PIES light rather than mess with this heavy version.” Too many people have too many excuses to not get on board with the standards without those of us who care giving them an excuse to postpone their decision. Since McCann is an influential member of the aftermarket, it’s to everybody’s benefit that he keeps an open mind on this subject.

So maybe Robin Williams was wrong. You can understand the Scottish if you just listen and think about it a bit.