Technology and the Bottom Line
Several weeks ago I read an article in the Los Angeles Times about Petrobras, the Brazilian oil giant. The article was largely about how they were having financial challenges in spite of the high price of crude oil and record profits of other oil companies.
Fast forward four weeks and the LA Times reported that Petrobras was a darling of international investors due to their efforts to privatize the organization and take advantage of foreign investment. This week I see articles regarding Exxon’s law suit against the Venezuelan government over—you guessed it—oil. Sometimes it feels like oil is the source of a lot of worldwide problems. A good argument for going green!
What amazes me is that in all the articles reporting which company is outperforming “the market” or their competitors, the Wall Street analysts never mention technology or the roll it plays in that performance—or in this case “outperformance.” Those of us who move in the process world understand the significance of technology and the impact it can have on a company’s bottom line. I’m just not sure the MBA’s get it. Case in point: My stockbroker often laughs at my choices for investing my 401K and other retirement savings. My logic just doesn’t make sense to him. Largely, I take a look at companies I’m doing business with. I look at their investment in training and technology, and then decide if I think they have a long term future. Companies that appear to have recognized the importance of technology to the bottom line are the companies I invest in. So far, my track record is pretty good—better than my broker’s I might point out. But the big question remains: Why don’t Wall Street analysts look at this information? Why does corporate management fail to see the connection?
The answer may lie in Dr. Peter Martin’s editorial comments for a magazine article as reported in Joe Lewis’s blog for Processing, “Most financial systems cannot measure the improvements that engineers make,” and, “Engineers must step up and assume a lead within their companies by helping drive new levels of business performance.” As business systems merge with plant floor control systems this effort might become easier; however, it will require the reorientation—perhaps even the re-education—of three distinct groups within most organizations: IT, Business Management / Finance, and Operations.
When engineers grab the ears of the corner office with clear, concise information about how their operational improvements deliver to the bottom line or financial performance of plants, maybe the MBA’s controlling our financial markets will recognize the value engineers, technicians, operators, and technology bring to the party.
Fast forward four weeks and the LA Times reported that Petrobras was a darling of international investors due to their efforts to privatize the organization and take advantage of foreign investment. This week I see articles regarding Exxon’s law suit against the Venezuelan government over—you guessed it—oil. Sometimes it feels like oil is the source of a lot of worldwide problems. A good argument for going green!
What amazes me is that in all the articles reporting which company is outperforming “the market” or their competitors, the Wall Street analysts never mention technology or the roll it plays in that performance—or in this case “outperformance.” Those of us who move in the process world understand the significance of technology and the impact it can have on a company’s bottom line. I’m just not sure the MBA’s get it. Case in point: My stockbroker often laughs at my choices for investing my 401K and other retirement savings. My logic just doesn’t make sense to him. Largely, I take a look at companies I’m doing business with. I look at their investment in training and technology, and then decide if I think they have a long term future. Companies that appear to have recognized the importance of technology to the bottom line are the companies I invest in. So far, my track record is pretty good—better than my broker’s I might point out. But the big question remains: Why don’t Wall Street analysts look at this information? Why does corporate management fail to see the connection?
The answer may lie in Dr. Peter Martin’s editorial comments for a magazine article as reported in Joe Lewis’s blog for Processing, “Most financial systems cannot measure the improvements that engineers make,” and, “Engineers must step up and assume a lead within their companies by helping drive new levels of business performance.” As business systems merge with plant floor control systems this effort might become easier; however, it will require the reorientation—perhaps even the re-education—of three distinct groups within most organizations: IT, Business Management / Finance, and Operations.
When engineers grab the ears of the corner office with clear, concise information about how their operational improvements deliver to the bottom line or financial performance of plants, maybe the MBA’s controlling our financial markets will recognize the value engineers, technicians, operators, and technology bring to the party.
Labels: Technology
posted by ISA at
11:19 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home