Writers Note: This post is about what’s possible for those of you facing an opportunity to accelerate your organization to a higher level of value. It showcases a company that had the courage to challenge the status quo and heavy-duty competition. The story is longer than normal, but it’s a compelling case study that needs room to unfold.

Did you catch the news of IBM’s latest software acquisition a few weeks ago? Business as usual for Big Blue? Certainly. But, who and what is Platform Computing? Click here to find out.

We had the same questions in late 2009 when 21 Weeks was retained by Platform Computing, Inc. to help position and package Platform as a credible enterprise software player in cloud and big data against behemoths like IBM, HP, EMC and VMware.

For 17 years, Platform Computing was a well-respected leader in the niche field of high-performance computing (also known as technical computing). Its clients were companies who relied on large, mission-critical applications, like models used in financial services, discrete manufacturing, and oil & gas. Platform not only helped such companies maximize application run time, but Platform helped them optimize infrastructure costs as well. Before cloud, such infrastructure configurations were known as clusters or grids.

Platform was successful because its software had at its core a highly intelligent algorithm that optimized the balance between effectiveness and efficiency, run-time and cost, performance and capacity. The smart algorithm enabled Platform to achieve levels of optimization that far exceed other software companies. And because Platform’s open architecture worked equally well on any operating system or infrastructure configuration,  it helped its clients avoid vendor lock-in, the unspoken cost of doing business with the dominant players.

That was all well and good, but Platform’s year-over-year growth slowed considerably by 2009 as its niche market of high performance computing matured. So, Platform plotted its  move to the much larger and faster-growing enterprise software markets for cloud and big data. Platform’s expertise and experience were a good fit, and the markets provided the opportunity for geometric growth.

That was the plan, but the move came with significant risk. Platform would be expanding outside its big fish/small pond comfort zone to arguably the hottest segments of enterprise computing — markets dominated by iconic brands and enormous companies with marketing departments larger than the whole of Platform.

How did Platform transform from a relatively unknown company to become a credible player in the enterprise software markets for cloud and big data?

How did Platform achieve year-over-year double-digit growth?

How did this niche company from Toronto become important enough to be acquired by IBM, one of the most powerful companies in the world?

It did so in two ways:

1. Platform made the smart decision not to focus on the broad-based cloud market, but rather on the emerging space of private cloud favored by enterprises running large, mission-critical applications. Not only did this space closely resemble Platform’s roots in high-performance computing, but it was an area that was still forming. The same held true for big data. Focus gave Platform the the chance to compete.
2. Platform embraced a classic challenger brand stance. It established a compelling positioning platform around a provocative point of view. To Platform cloud — and whatever they call that which inevitably comes after cloud (like big data) — is simply an iteration of what came before cloud, like clusters and grids. To Platform the fundamentals of managing applications in cloud and big data computing environments are the same as running applications in clusters or grids environments. It all comes down to optimizing an application’s run time and minimizing infrastructure costs. Nowhere was this more true than in the emerging areas of private cloud and big data where critical applications and big enterprises played.

A simple, but bold refrain became Platform’s provocative point of view, positioning platform, and rallying cry: Clusters, Grids, Clouds, Whatever.

Everything flowed from that compelling, challenger positioning platform:

• The opportunity for growth

— The move beyond technical IT to corporate IT brought with it the chance for double-digit growth versus single-digit growth in the maturing technical IT market

• The acquisition of talent with enterprise computing and market formation experience

— New talent was enticed and secured for  product management and marketing, sales, business development, and corporate marketing

• Clarity of market sector

— Cloud had correlation to Platform’s roots, but private cloud had highly credible      relevance and no clear market leader. The same was true with big data. Focus increased Platform’s odds of success.

• Internal alignment

— The positioning platform provided a clear framework for internal decisions and    actions: Product development (best performing software for clusters, grids, cloud and whatever came next like big data); sales (cross-sell existing relationships with technical IT to get to corporate IT; attract new, enterprise customers); marketing (win over analyst and media influencers; drive awareness, interest & adoption)

• Brand Identity

— A change in identity is an effective way to get people to look at you in a fresh, new way. Platform’s new identity not only demonstrated exactly what it did, but it did so in a memorable way thereby achieving two strategic goals with one effort

• Messaging

— Platform lived the role of the challenger brand by being provocative and embracing bold in speeches, booth displays, advertising, webinars, its website, etc.

• Analyst  Relations

— Industry analysts are critical influencers to buyers, which is why Platform set out to become the advocate for private cloud, for example

• Recognition

— Leaders need to be recognized as leaders so Platform worked important industry and trade media to win and promote Platform’s technical credibility and prowess

• Thought Leadership

— Emerging markets are often led by the company that owns the customer problem so a series of Point-of-View booklets were created and marketed

• Sales Training

— Selling into the enterprise is where the best software selling machines operate. Platform needed a new kind of sales executive and a different mode of selling — from  feature/function focused to one that was value-oriented

• Partnerships

— Rarely does a company achieve rapid growth in a new market sector on its own. Hand to hand combat (i.e., selling to one prospect at a time) doesn’t scale. Finding one-to-many distribution opportunities is an effective match to direct sales

In two years, Platform achieved what it set out to do. It grew at double digit rates. It attracted new talent. It won over new important enterprise relationships. It generated credibility with customers, analysts and the media for its newest products.  It got noticed.

Could Platform have made it big if it continued on an independent path? It’s hard to say. But, Platform certainly transformed itself from a niche market, technical computing expert into a credible player in the hottest categories in enterprise computing today — important enough that IBM wanted to buy the company.

Platform’s Founder and CEO, Songnian Zou, summed it up this way in his post-acquisition blog. “Platform Computing as a standalone company may come to an end, but the journey continues to clusters, grids, clouds or whatever comes next.”

Will you be ready when you have that rare opportunity to transform your organization into a more valuable entity?  Will you be ready? Or will your attitude be one of … “whatever”?

Third, given the importance of transformation should organizations consider making transformation a business function? I would argue, yes. Organizing for success is key. Where can we find the best candidate to lead the transformation effort?

The Office of the CEO would seem to be a natural candidate, but it’s not my choice. While the Office of the CEO sets company vision and strategy it does not have the time or operational bandwidth to physically drive the transformation agenda day in and day out.

Who then? Who is best equipped to lead the cross-functional, enterprise-wide effort of making transformation happen?

I believe someone from Marketing should lead the transformation function. Why?

1. Marketing sees the whole. To do marketing well, it must understand customer needs and integrate the core of every organization – sales & service/product/marketing.
2. Marketing drives positioning. It brings vision to life. And it activates strategy.
3. Marketing is the point of the corporate spear. Everything lines up behind it as proof.

The original business can’t get to next level by working off of the old framework. Transformation to a new, higher-value business requires hammering out new boundaries and values that the sales & service/product/marketing functions can use.  Unlike the original business where boundaries and values were established under different conditions, there are three problems facing any new business that’s built on top of an old one.

1. Holistic understanding. The business is too big for any one person to fully grasp.
2. Alignment. Different camps derived from different functions, origins and cultures have built-in biases and agendas.
3. Accountability. The lack of common language and detailed cross-functional commitments and dependencies doom the group to under-achievement.

A cross-functional group does not have the time nor the expertise to solve these problems through the many execution iterations required. Nor will CEO-led management off-sites. The only way to give sustainable transformation a chance of sticking is to organize for success and select the right leader. For my money, that’s establishing transformation as a business function and selecting someone from marketing to lead the effort.

The Future of the Enterprise is at Stake

The job of driving transformation is critical. The future of your entire enterprise is at stake. The decisions on how to organize for success and who to select to lead the effort are politically loaded, that’s for sure. But, they are probably the most important decisions a CEO and board can make. They are decisions that will make the difference between success and failure – between remaining an organization stuck in its past or one whose value is vital to the interests of its customers.

This is the second part of a 2 part post. Read part 1 here.

Let’s take a look at what usually happens.

Transformation efforts are commonly dominated by the planning and setting strategy. As you have surely witnessed anything having to do with strategy is a natural magnet for opinions, points of view, and involvement. That’s all well and good. Strategy requires input from a range of internal and external voices – from customers, analysts, partners, competitors, the product group, sales, services, marketing, finance, shareholders, and the board. But, once the strategic direction is determined transformation efforts often suffer a precipitous – and predictable – drop-off in attention, focus, and follow-through.

Why? Why do transformation efforts fall down as you shift from strategy to execution?

Making it Happen is Hard

First, the actual making-it-happen and bringing-it-to-life work is a lot harder than simply identifying what to do. Look at what’s required to achieve sustainable transformation.

1. Your entire organization needs to be galvanized to do things in a purposeful way – a way that is often different than how things were done before.
2. The new way requires a steadfast focus on what needs to happen.
3. Inertia, a force more formidable than momentum, will rear itself. You need to be resolute in your commitment to doing battle with the inevitable return to how things were done before.
4. You’ll also need to be courageously clear. Shutting down work that’s not on the transformation agenda is a lot harder than starting new things.

No One’s in Charge

Second, someone needs to be in charge, but often no one is. You don’t have a Chief Transformation Officer in your company, do you? What would such a transformation leader look like?

1. A transformation owner/driver needs to have the executive charter to make transformation happen and hold people accountable for new behavior.
2. Charter aside, the job requires someone who has the credibility, intellect, and leadership qualities to gain commitments from critical stakeholders across all functions of a business.
3. A transformation leader needs to have a full grasp of the opportunity, a deep understanding of the state of the current business, a pointed plan for where it needs to go, the wherewithal to orchestrate the effort inside the organization, and the personality to motivate, inspire, and drive momentum.

I am sure you would agree that people don’t often put ‘brand’ and ‘business model’ in the same sentence. While both are critical to the success of a company, they are often seen as different and separate. Does that make sense – especially in an era where vision, velocity and precision must go hand in hand? I think not.

Before you introduce marketing and sales best practices into a company, you need to FIRST transform the brand to the business model or the business model to the brand. Skipping this step wastes tremendous resources downstream — not to mention the loss of time in the marketplace.

Why do I say this?

Vision is execution done properly. A solid, powerful, even compelling vision is only as good as how well it’s executed. Before you engage best of breed capabilities on the execution side — publicity gurus, marketing program experts, sales effectiveness training, marketing benchmarks, creative talent, and the like — you must FIRST transform the brand to the business model or vice versa. Disregarding this imperative is not only wasteful in terms of money, it costs the company its most valuable asset – time in a fast-moving marketplace.

At the end of the day, it’s not about logos, thought leadership, catchy slogans, brand attributes, vision statements, product strategies, sales messaging or compensation programs, it’s about getting your market position and strategy aligned with your business position and strategy. It’s about setting up the brand and business model to reinforce and build off of each other. Only after this alignment is assured does it make sense to put your marketing, sales, and communications to work.

Thomas Butta