Comments

Solution seems to designate the difference between a product and a service.

When IBM rebranded themselves to be a 'Solutions Provider' they moved more from the focus on products like PCs, mainframes, to a service that provided all of these things, plus advice on infrastructure, and the support to go along with it all.

Another example would be business coffee suppliers. They don't just sell coffee, or coffeemakers. They sell a full-blown service which includes everything, including the installation of the coffeemaker and the regulary delivery of coffee.

So I tend to see 'solutions' as turning a strictly product-based business or brand into full blown, customer-pampering, hand-holding service.

Posted by Eric von Rothkirch at January 13, 2006 11:43 AM

It’s a tough one. A solution, as I understand it, is anything that makes a process, whether it is for your company or your customer, faster, smoother and easier.

What do you think?

Posted by Andy Skinstad at January 13, 2006 11:44 AM

Any good solution is scalable and flexible enough to change with evolving requirements. A solution isn't a noun - it's a verb. It's action that supports a need. Trying to define solution and fit it neatly into a box will only limit its potential to respond effectively over time.

Posted by Tom O'Leary at January 13, 2006 11:54 AM

Here's my take - solutions do not always require products, hence the need to differentiate between the two.

Sometimes, a solution involves ideas and methodologies that lead to using existing products already invested in by the client. Sometimes solutions don't require products at all.

So Chris, if your CEO client is marketing a product and calling it a solution - yes, that's Marketing speaking.

But if their company provides ideas that don't necessarily result in their product being supplied, or those ideas extend their offering in ways they couldn't manage through product development, then that is truly a solution.

Posted by Stewart Rogers at January 13, 2006 11:59 AM

I think it really boils down to this - are you solving a problem, or just a part of a problem? Eg let's say I want to be able to print documents at home. If you sell me a PC, printer, and paper, you are selling me products. On the other hand, if you come to my house with the PC, printer and paper, and connect everything together, and give me a test print-out to prove it works, and perhaps show me how to take print-outs, then that's a solution.

On the other hand, a product can also be a solution - say I want something to write with, and you sell me a pen. That's a solution too.

To that extent, I think the customer defines whether or not what you offer is a solution. If you've solved his problem fully, then you've provided a solution. If he still has to buy other stuff and ask for more help from others, then you haven't.

Posted by Chetan Dhruve at January 13, 2006 1:04 PM

A solution solves the clients needs yesterday (requirements), today (pain points), and tomorrow (dreams). In the IT world, most technologists believe that if the lights are on then the transaction is complete. But they forget that client support is one of the most critical aspects for hardware and software delivery. If the project fails to deliver value over the long term then what perceptions do we have of that application, vendor, or staff?

Posted by RTodd at January 13, 2006 1:05 PM

If a customer has a problem, and a company can solve that with a product/service/idea/method without creating any additional problems, the company has provided a solution.

There are times when a company's "solution" creates additional problems, which probably disqualifies their offering as a "solution."

Posted by Mike Sansone at January 13, 2006 1:09 PM

Solution solves my specific problem.

Product solves a subset of everyone’s problems, so that it can be efficiently marketed.

Posted by vishi at January 13, 2006 1:28 PM

The problem is not whether "it" is a product or a solution. The problem is that the company istelf doesn't know or cannot articulate what it does. Besides, does it really matter if they sell a product that solves a problem or that they have a solution to a problem and the solution just happens to be a product?

Management(&*%$ !

Posted by Jim Outland at January 13, 2006 1:29 PM

Drop the "solution" speak for a sec. Way overused and tired. blah-blahhh...everyone says they offer "solutions." Yawn.

First, make sure you and the customer are on the same page re what the problem is (and why it is a problem.) If you're a "solution" looking for a problem and the client doesn't already recognize they have a problem (or don't care about it) - then all the solution palavering in the world isn't going to cinch the deal.

A solution can be a product, a service or "simply" the customers' perception that you're the best pain reliever. (Are they in sufficient pain to buy your particular thing? Switch from a competitor? Change their processes to incorporate your technology? and so on.)

Posted by Mary Schmidt at January 13, 2006 1:52 PM

P.S. Service is a product and can be packaged as such. This can get confusing for sales people who are used to selling a physical "box" of some sort.

Posted by Mary Schmidt at January 13, 2006 1:55 PM

Aren't products and services the individual pieces of a "solution", the building blocks so to speak?

Posted by Brett at January 13, 2006 3:21 PM

Thank you for posting this interesting subject matter and inquiring on it. Yes, it seems that when one has an already “packaged” (defined/designed) product/service to a client, he/she may say “this is too good to be true.” Without the provider’s violating its copyright and trademarks, it has been proven useful to get the product closer to the client’s ethos and ethnology. This--by no means--will represent any damage either to the client or to the provider. First and foremost, the solution must be defined by a major discussion (friendly and professional conversation at once) between the client and the “provider.” Who can provide the “solution” must pay huge attention to a number of things (1details and [2] the granularity of details from the “systems” stance), (a) What the client is saying, (b) What the client is saying between lines, © What the client is not saying but as per the provider is crucial to get to the solution, (d) What the client might inadvertently, un-deliberately be distorting in the “core message,” (e) If the client is exuding some type of fear. The provider, in my opinion, must also pay attention to (i) connotations, (ii) semantics, and (iii) contexts. These three aspects are increasingly important as technology growth is more “rampant” and as (would-be) “collaborative” environments are more diverse and dynamic. Any noise must be identified and taken away from THE TRUE, UNAMBIGUOUS SIGNAL. Often the client’s message can be a problem if it is cumbersome. Occasionally it is superficially awkward but sufficiently daring for the provider to have a migraine. One has to understand the culture of the organization. Regardless of the culture of the organizations, each one has his/her own personal cosmology without a fail. Both must be respected and considered at the same time to succeed. But one must also understand the “psychology” of the client’s official making the request. Sometimes the provider is using “analog words” (similar parlance) as those of the client. The client gets, anyway, so angry and sometimes offended because the provider didn’t use the exact words he/she likes or prefers the most. The more complex the topic under discussion regardless of your “educating” the client--the better off the provider will be if he/she tries to explain the solution with the client’s vocabulary. For providers this might prove to be challenging. But any provider must “bridge any gap” between its product/service and the client’s requirement. It is good to pay maximum attention to the “body language” of the client’s official as well. Having “ice-breaking” dialogues in other settings outside the formal “business-like” one is often crucial to understand (empathy) the person. Facilitating a client a “business-based breakfast” has offered me an “extraordinary clue” to get back to the business-like setting with a greater understanding of what the client’s official is trying to tell (request/expect from me). Whenever possible, it is key to ask questions about the requirement/expectations to the people under and above the client’s official to try to gain a more illuminating (discerned) insight. Anyway, to me a “solution” is in no way a “quick fix” but a “fundamental, optimum solution.” A more fundamental solution is even a more holistic one, especially when it is practiced/rendered systematically. Some people mistakenly associate “solutions” (optimum) to “quick fixes” (sub-optimum). Every company not only has its own culture. It also posses a “defined glossary,” by means of which they interrelate within and beyond the organization’s boundaries. If a provider can use this defined glossary, the psychological connection will be better. In advance, the provider can tell the client that --as metaphor(s) or a “clean cut” communicational resource--and in order to be more effective, he/she will use some of the company’s language with great respect. This can save time, money, headaches, and clients. Quite often --as of these current times impose is becoming almost impossible not to see someone “engaging in a confrontational debate.” I would do always my best to make it an amicable, “fluid” dialogue to get the win/win (optimum) results in due place and timely.

Posted by Andres Agostini at January 13, 2006 3:35 PM

A solution is typically multi-dimensional. A solution brings together ideas, processes, methods, hardware, etc. to address a problem. Therefore, a solution is not a product. Take the word dissolution, it is not a product either; dissolution is ideas, processes, methods, hardware, etc. working together to break something apart.

Posted by David Haas at January 13, 2006 3:39 PM

I agree in part with comments from Mary Schmidt, Vishi and Chetan above.

You can't package a solution. You can promise to roll up your sleeves and dive into the dirt with them and help solve their problem(s).

If you are going to make that promise you better use something besides "solutions". Mary said it, "way overused and tired."

Posted by kirk at January 13, 2006 3:41 PM

Products can be stand-alone self-contained answers to particular problems - iPod if you want to listen to music while jogging or an SAP Warehousing Product if you want to manage your warehouse with a ready-made software package that has benefited from usage in other warehouses. However "Solutions" may be needed if a certain degree of customization is needed of the product and requires additional work even outside the product. Guess what? Invariably SAP Warehouse products may require more customization than an iPod!! That's where the iPod is a product and the Warehousing Solution becomes SAP Warehouse Product + Product Customization + Additional Customization needed outside the product.

Solution = Product A + Product A customization + Customization external to Product A

Sometimes you can build solutions around iPods if a store sells you a skin for it, a pair of wireless headphones for it and a service that will take all of your 100 CDs and send you ripped Mp3 versions in CDs that you can transfer to your iPod!!!

My 2 cents!
Nari

Posted by Nari Kannan at January 13, 2006 3:59 PM

A product or service is impersonal: it is what it is, you decide whether it fits your needs in whole or in part. A solution is tailored: it is unique to you, designed with your needs, desires, objectives, etc. in mind. It's the difference between buying a living room at Rooms To Go and having an interior decorator create a living room for you from scratch.

Posted by brett pawlowski at January 13, 2006 4:18 PM

Well on the one hand perhaps this problem is just one of semantics, depending on how you define product, but I think that there is something more subtle going on here, and it has to do with the "market as conversation meme." Suppose I buy an expensive piece of electronics equipment (e.g. for recording music) and a particular supplier has live training videos for how to, a blog for keeping up with the equipment/industry, 24/7 live chat in case you are stuck with a particularly difficult question/problem, podcasts of how other users produce better quality music with your equipment,etc. I would tend to see the "solution" as all these other things that surround/enhance the product. The solution has to do with the ongoing conversation. Granted this is a contrived example, but you are starting to see these conversation enhancing technologies appear all over the place in support of product offerings.

Posted by Carlos Leyva at January 13, 2006 4:45 PM

Interesting question. I think, as suggested above, it is largely a question of semantics. And, as with so many words, one of the problems is that the meaning gets mangled so badly by so many people that the word can become a bit meaningless in any definitive sense. But here's the Wikipedia definition, which I think is pretty good. A solution is:

a product, service, or combination of both which provides a solution to a business problems

Posted by Mark J Foscoe at January 13, 2006 5:35 PM

Speaking briefly in my view, solution brings context into the equation and provides for fusion with related elements and build inside the ability to extend and scale up/down, integrate with other blocks and in the process facilitates the customer to meet his current requirements to actualize future aspirations. Solutions would in general involve methodologies & tools that encompass better parts of learning gained elsewhere. Invariably solutions look at cost/benefit tradeoffs, local/global optima balancing and in general would strive for better TCO - by maximizing benefits in the resource/time/cost/benefit dimensions.

Posted by sadagopan at January 13, 2006 6:25 PM

Chris :coming fr a MOD school if thought, me thinks you should have figured this out some time ago :)- ..gee... just pulling your foot.

The stumbling block to "solutions" for most companies is that they see a world in which only one of the participants in the interaction is open to change. This would be the customer, by default -- they are the ones who are putting their money down and making room in their lives for your product. The company providing the product has historically not been open to change in the process. Thus companies never provide a solution, becuase they do not want to change. Soultions are a bundle of products, services and interaction all rolled into one. companies should be agile enough to be able change for their customers.... thats the solution !!
....and not just lipstick on the corporate memo !! :)-

Posted by /pd at January 13, 2006 6:27 PM

I have seen this happen with my clients too. I guess I'd say you're thinking about 'solutions' when you spend a lot of time trying to understand what your customers are trying to achieve, and do that for them, often including a lot of trimmings (e.g. a payroll 'solution' would mean all the resources required to do payroll, 'in a box' as it were, including lots of expertise about customisation.)

Products are more functional tools, that (as /pd mentioned) the customers might have to make some changes to use.

I wouldn't say that 'solutions' are necessarily the right choice for everyone either. Low cost airlines do quite well by designing their business around what works well for them, not for their customers. It's possible that the 'solutions' mindset means that your company ends up trying to be all things to all people, and isn't able to say no to customer needs that will cost more than they are worth.

In IT I have recently seen the difference between a standardised product (the customer has to fit their processes to the platform) and a customisable solution (platform fits processes) of five times the cost (or revenue, to the provider.) The solutions provider had such complex systems to deal with every eventuality that their costs were massively higher, and they didn't have any ability to compete with the low cost 'product' provider.

I imagine the discussion around products and solutions was fairly interesting in exploring what your client wanted to achieve, and who their customers actually are.

Posted by Dave at January 13, 2006 6:56 PM

Ultimately, it points to the mindset of your client.

"Product" companies tend to have a great idea for a product or service, and then try to take that product or service to market.

"Solution" companies tend to notice problems, then try to develop a marketable solution for said problems.

Neither style is necessarily better than the other. In the end, Product companies can create something that ends up being a brilliant solution for problems in the marketplace (let's face it, initially, there was no need for the PC...but it was a cool product that ended up solving lots of problems).

Likewise, Solution companies can create something that ends up being a great product, taking on a life of its own in the marketplace (the cell phone is now an entertainment/fashion item).

Posted by Danny at January 13, 2006 7:35 PM

I wrote an article quite a while ago about this. It's a term that is mis-used throughout the software industry. The fact is that software is a tool or a product, but usually not the solution. Solutions providers are the companies who not only sell you the software or develop the product, but actually help you to integrate it and optimize your use of it!

Take a look at any major provider on the internet and they'll all tout themselves as a 'Solution'. But when you need to modify the software or implement it according to your business processes and requirements, they want to charge you ten times the cost of their product in order to use it as a 'solution'!

Posted by Doug Karr at January 13, 2006 9:25 PM

Products are generic. Solutions are specific. A product fulfills a set of requirements that are common to a market. Successful products fill requirements that are common to a very large market. But they're still common, and by definition not complete for an individual customer. Most products are "good enough."

A solution fulfills all of your requirements for a specific problem or situation. A product can't handle the combinatorial explosion of requirements across multiple customers, and shouldn't try. A solution focuses on one customer, one set of requirements.

The interesting part is that most customers don't have all their requirements in hand. Hence, the path to a solution usually starts with a product or a set of products, and their use results in more and better requirements defining their problem space. Good, comprehensive solutions take time. Any vendor that promises to provide a quick "solution" to your problem through customization of their product(s) is delusional.

A good solution provider will say "Here, take this product, and use it for a while. See how well it works for you. After the initial breaking in period, tell us what itches, and we'll see if that product can be customized to scratch most of the itches. Eventually, you'll have itches it can't scratch, and we'll need to explore additional products for those."

Posted by John Zoltai at January 13, 2006 10:14 PM

Andres Agostini

Let me define solution for you: paragraph!

Posted by carbonboy at January 13, 2006 11:30 PM

From my reading, most of the comments are similar.

Instead of reiterating, I'll offer something different.

The big bugbear about this - and the same with most 'management speak' is that the words begin to lose meaning and context.

The first question I always ask when someone tells me they are a 'solution provider' or similar is: Solution to what? The answer is usually about a product or products. Or to put it another way, they talk about "what", not about "how".

So a Solution can be a product, but a product is not always a solution...

Posted by Michael Vanderdonk at January 14, 2006 1:01 AM

Tom's ex-employer, McKinsey, has a good article on what constitutes a solution:

http://www.mckinsey.com/practices/marketing/ourknowledge/pdf/Solutions_SolutionsSelling.pdf

It has helped me! Hope it will do the same for you!!

Posted by Victor at January 14, 2006 4:07 AM

I spent a number of years as an IT consultant delivering "solutions" so I have lived and breathed this.

The vast majority of orgs talking about solutions are offering nothing of the sort. i.e. it's just buzz word bingo. This is a shame because it has really spoiled what is a very good concept.

To be honest it's like power if you have to tell people you have it - the chances are you don't.

I thought an earlier poster articulated it very well by talking about a verb not a noun - bang on. A solution is something you do Post sales not a thing you sell. This obviously has challenges in costing and presenting

Some random points

Listen to your customer

You have to find out business need not technical feature need - mostly lipservice is paid to this point.

Relevant and customised to the customer (an out of the box solution is really a product or service) Solutions cannot be prepackaged but elements can be designed in advance as long as they are flexible.

Listen to your customer

Reviewed periodically and adjusted if required.

Listen to your customer

Partnership or long term relationhship is a big element. Despite what the blurb says part of the solution has to come from the client org. Great solution providers are very upfront with what will be required.

Listen to your customer

It requires a mind set shift for the whole company. This is not just sales training to talk about solutions. Very few sales people I have met can really do this stuff well. Most sales people are distinctly bad at networking in their own org - as soon as they talk to Support, Consultants etc they get techy stuff thrown at them that may slow a deal down. Sales have to get better at building virtual teams (both internal and partner with other orgs) to find ways to deliver. Really you need a technical project manager pre-sales as well as post. Companies that operate in Silos are better off shifting boxes.

Listen to your customer

It's not applicable to all your customers - some just want boxes - respect this and don't try to put a solution on to them.

Listen to your customer

Most customers are very sceptical of "solutions" and also of binding themselves too closely to one org.

Solution selling is not quick - forget about Qtrs think about big deals taking 6 months - year. These are high risk - high gain. Most vendors don't have the guts to do this.

Listen to your customer

But above all you have to actually listen to your customers(sorry have I mentioned this already!) and ACT ON WHAT THEY SAY - A solution may just be a small tweak to an existing product or service.

Posted by PaulH at January 14, 2006 5:56 AM

It's much easier than it seems. Just pay me half the fees that Tom charges for his advice, and I will solve this inmediately ;-) I would explain now, but there is not enough space in the margins of this comment.

Posted by Artie Artthur at January 14, 2006 7:16 AM

A solution is not the product but what the product will solve for your client

Posted by Sylvia Rimoz at January 14, 2006 9:51 AM

Outcomes and delivering are where it is at. Agostini above is part of the problem as is PaulH with "listen to the customer" drone-talk.

Posted by Sean at January 14, 2006 9:56 AM

i think solutions is taking acquired knowledge in a particular area of endeavour, making it work for a customer in a 'wholistic' manner. That tells me solutions is using acquired knowledge collaboratively. You don't just say because you have a knowledge advantage over a customer in an area, you collaborate with them by understanding what 'knowledge' they themselves have acquired in terms of obstacles and be 'creative' in using yours to bring about satisfactory relationship.

Posted by jesse adeniji at January 14, 2006 10:01 AM

When does a discussion about product vs. solution become a smoke screen for other real issues? Maybe this is to cover an issue about who needs to execute on a task, the sign of a 'passive-aggressive' organization, etc.

Posted by Kurt at January 14, 2006 10:49 AM

Chris, you ask "Everyone seems to talk about delivering solution ... what do they deliver that the excellent product provider does not? "

heres my POV- "a unique experince is the difference" . Products dont have expereinces, soultions do !!

Posted by /pd at January 14, 2006 11:12 AM

Real simple...

Products = Commodity (pressure and focus is on price, this is a "thing")

Solution = Pain (something needs to be solved and focus is on value, this is "anti-pain")

Posted by Stacy Gentile at January 14, 2006 2:07 PM

Solution is higher abstraction term to better map towards needs of customer. It is not just about pushing products out, it is about loyalty and understanding and standing behind as long and as much as needed. Also, solution can grow or be followed by other solutions for other needs. Solution is being applied to the user, his need (think location, operation space). With product you more are buying at sales point. Probably getting it delivered, if it is remote one, usually by third party delivery (solution) provider.

So, abstraction and meanings, that are related to solution term might be justified. And as Tom emphasizes experiences - another abstract delivered from just-product, seems all those abstracts are not only pointing us way to "consumer", but also inspiring to get there with excellence.

With success.

Posted by edis tamosauskas at January 14, 2006 3:04 PM

Correction:
experiences - another abstract derived from just-product

Posted by edis tamosauskas at January 14, 2006 3:08 PM

A product can be a physical piece or a service or a combination of both.

A solution is a product/service that includes a paradigm shift for the client - it guides the thinking - it is a new perspective or approach that uses all aspects of a business process.
Physical products, service packages, knowledge and emotions.

Posted by Boris at January 14, 2006 6:15 PM

Solution=Giving the customer exactly what he wants.
Product or Service=Requires marketing to sell the customer that he/she needs it.
And that's all folks!

Posted by Carlos Gutierrez at January 14, 2006 6:27 PM

Solution requires a problem, and a problem is always a known.

Solving a problem is useful of course, and even necessary - but it will never allow for a quantum leap, a paradigm shift.

The unknown has no known problems, and it is in the unknown where the future lies.

Thus being in the business of delivering solutions you will never be able to jump the curve to the next curve.

Posted by sig at January 15, 2006 1:59 PM

A solution is a specific answer to a specific problem. The solution's effectiveness and value is linked to the problem context in which it is applied.

A product is an imagined solution to an imagined problem or set of problems. Some product producers are better at this than others. Sometimes a product may be used as a solution for a problem never imagined by the product makers as when a sponsor at a recent speaking gig used her shoe as a door stop to hold open the meeting room's door.

I grew up among farmers. Field modifications are a way of life. You learn to make solutions out of what you have.

If I was a product maker I would aim for something as versatile as bailing wire and duct tape!

Posted by Michael Wagner at January 15, 2006 8:02 PM

A product is anything that can be offered to a market that might satisfy a want or need. However it is much more than just a physical object. It is the complete bundle of benefits or satisfactions that buyers perceive they will obtain if they purchase the product. It is the sum of all physical, psychological, symbolic, and service attributes.

A solution is a product or service that will allow a particular business task to be accomplished. A solutions provider is any company or people that provides solutions associated with a product or a final service to the client. The final service may also come with some product that may or may not be provided by the same company or people.

Posted by K.Sriram at January 15, 2006 8:50 PM

Rarely is there just one solution; which suggests that a solution is a method of, or approach to, responding to a need. Solutions then, are options of response.

Good solutions respond effectively to objectives. Unfortunately, many people fail to clearly identify or define their objectives which makes measuring the effectiveness of solutions difficult.

Posted by Tom O'Leary at January 16, 2006 5:16 AM

Hmmm.... this thread is beginning to read like a solution in search of a problem!

Posted by Mark J Foscoe at January 16, 2006 1:40 PM

Some days I sell solutions and some days I seem to sell products.

My take is that if I sell based on cost, then I'm selling a product. If I can sell based on value, then I'm selling a solution.

Posted by Jim Kent at January 16, 2006 4:32 PM

Thank you all. Great food for thought and I really appreciated the McKinsey link, too.

Posted by Chris Nel at January 17, 2006 4:23 AM

Great topic! Wish I had visited sooner.
I am suspicious of the way the IT industry sells aplications as "solutions". Are they really designed to help the organisation or just to sell more boxes? Reseach and most people's own experience shows that most IT projects fail to produce the intended benefits (including the expected costs savings), and that the time and cost of implementation is often way above what was predicted.

A big part of the problem is that managers seize on IT as a saviour to their problem,because they think it will improve their organisation without them having to make difficult decisions and changes to the organisation structure and culture.

Posted by Michael from UK at January 17, 2006 8:50 AM

Michael, I'd venture to say that the most common reason that IT projects fail is because there are no clearly defined objectives to begin with. Many non-technical business leaders think that "IT" is some sort of giant band-aid that will solve everything. The reality is that it can respond very effectively to specific criteria - but that criteria must be clearly defined first so that it can be applied effectively.

Poorly defined objectives will thwart any attempt at a solution.

Posted by Tom O'Leary at January 17, 2006 11:46 AM

Great comments Michael - I am amazed how some promote the ridiculous theory that IT can 'solve' fundamental problems in organisations. If the problem involves people - and it always does - then only paying attention to your people will solve the problem. IT can give information but it will not solve hearts and minds problems. IT is the 'cart before the horse' if you see IT as an answer in itself.

Posted by Trevor Gay at January 17, 2006 12:06 PM

Spot on Trevor/ Michael!
It comes back to what Tom talked about in ISOE as "systems + passion = results". Try telling that to an SAP salesman though. Ask anyone who has endured a ERP implementation and they will know it is max 5% about (tangibles) software/ new job titles and 95% (intangibles) behavioural modification / power politics that determine whether it will be a success or not.

Most of us seem to prefer to (mis) place our faith in the 'more certain' tangible systems and processes rather than investing our resources into the fluffy 'HR stuff'. It costs us dearly.

PS Have there been ANY great ERP implementations ... EVER ... or are they all mediocre successes?

Posted by Chris Nel at January 17, 2006 5:05 PM

Amen - Trevor/Michael/Chris.

My saying for clients back when I was in the IT world was:

Your people skills will fail you long before your technology does.

Posted by Michael Wagner at January 18, 2006 12:19 AM

A solution is a combination of interacting components that wholly solves a business problem or creates an opportunity. It may include software, hardware, and network. If so, a solution also includes the services and the process to achieve the goal including organizational change management. It includes the training of users, the use by and usefulness to all constituencies; all levels of the organization and suppliers and customers. It includes automation of and tight integration with the business process and ties to the business goals, the implementation and sustenance of policies and procedures, the acquisition of knowledge, and ongoing support. A solution is more than the sum of its parts. Finally, a solution may have advantages that were not originally sought.

Posted by Cynthia Cain at January 18, 2006 9:05 AM

No offence intended Cynthia (I do see that you are trying to sum up a lot in just a few very carefully chosen words)
- but my response to that is "Ah - then no wonder these solutions hardly ever work properly".

Seems we have two very different camps here - in one Michael Wagner, Chris, Trevor, and me. The other - pretty much everyone else.

Here are some results from one UK survey (Sheffield University)on outcomes from IT investment. It found:
80-90% did not meet performance goals
80% late and over budget
40% fail or are abandoned
les than 25% intergrate business and technology objectives
just 10-20% meet all their success criteria.

I know that is just one survey but I think it reflects reality across much of the world. Recent article in the Economist on project managment reflected the same message.

Posted by Michael from UK at January 18, 2006 12:33 PM

Michael,

Thanks, I needed to read that 3 times to absorb the HORROR. Can you imagine what all that costs !

I think you may just have found a solution to the UK's National Debt ...

Posted by Chris Nel at January 18, 2006 1:43 PM

Cynthia,
Wouldn't an excellent product deliver all that you describe ... As far as the customer is concerned?

Posted by Chris Nel at January 18, 2006 1:46 PM

Great discussion guys - I love being in a minority don't you Michael? :-)

I can see what Cynthia is saying and IF the world of organisations and business were 'rational' and 'logical' then you are correct Cynthia. When people are involved all logic and rational rules go out of the window. My position is simple - needless to say. Just pay attention to your people first. Managing rationally was fine when things were predictable (about 60 years ago) and information was not in the hands of front line staff. In those days monkeys could do the work. We are now dealing with a more questioning person who rightly challenges managers to justify their position. Amen to that. It is all about respecting your front liners and the job of the manager today - if they have one at all - is to make the job of front line staff easier to do. I rest my case - I did an article on front line staff recently. If anyone wants to see it let me know. trevor.simplicity@gmail.com

Posted by Trevor Gay at January 19, 2006 4:49 AM

We considered cutting down the Agostini comment above. We've edited this person's before because he goes on too long, using this space to promote his own ideas, rather than commenting on the blog entry. But it's a very fine line, isn't it? Of course these are your own ideas.

We're leaving the above comment because:
1) We don't like editing any more than you like being edited.
2) As a later comment shows, other readers will let people know they've crossed a line.

What did he think, that he'd cram two pages worth of words into a very small place by leaving out spaces and breaks, and we wouldn't notice?

Posted by cathy at January 19, 2006 5:38 PM

The Agostini post reminded me of this rather excellent expression that I heard recently for the first time:
TLDR - Too long, didn't read.

Overall I think people here are good at respecting others' time and keeping it short and to the point.

Trevor - on being in a minority, yes I'm with you all the way on that.

Posted by Michael from UK at January 20, 2006 10:28 AM

Awesome discussion! As I read through the comments I had to keep reframing my definitions of solutions and products in an attempt to keep them fresh. This became more difficult with each response. Finally, I am left only with this: solutions are built for customers and products are built for markets.

Posted by Troy Worman at January 20, 2006 4:02 PM

Back in my consulting days, I had a few slides which attempted to debunk the myth that all customers always want solutions.

Ex. If want a new car, I just get PO'd if some salesman tries to sell me a "total transportation solution"

My conclusion was that the distinction is not for the vendor to decide. We should market to what the customers want. It hinges on what the customer is shopping for. Does the customer want a product or a solution?

I used to equate the product vs solution sell question with whether the customer wanted to hear about features or benefits. In organizational sales, you need to figure out what each part of the client's organization wants. In selling to engineers, they can feel patronized when they ask about product features and get answers stressing benefits. It almost always comes across as evasive of their question. Executives however tend to be the other way.

I continue to see many mistakes when vendors are selling features when they should be selling benefits. And I see just as often, benefit sales when the customer wants to hear about features.

I find this question interesting and will blog it on my business site - http://learn-to-market-online116.blogspot.com/.

Posted by john edelson at January 21, 2006 8:27 PM

John,
I love your thought about it's the customer / client who decides what they are looking for (product or solution). There's one in the eye for the Marketing Director!

Is there a third way of describing what a company does that allow clients / customers to choose how they see what they are buying?

I hope you get a good response at your site - I'm going there now!

Posted by Chris Nel at January 22, 2006 1:11 PM

All great comments (for the most part)...

Simplify...

It all depends on what the customer is looking for.

Example Problem:
I have a flat tire.

Product:
I go to AutoZone and buy a patch to do it myself... I have a product.

Solution:
I go to Discount Tire and they take care of it... that's a solution.

Take-away:
Learn how to cater to the customer... offer a product to those that want... be able to offer a solution to those that need it.

Posted by GP at January 23, 2006 4:37 PM

Simple.

Product = a box you install.

Solution = a box someone else installs.

System = a box that someone else installs and returns periodically to fix and upgrade and rap with a hammer at $150 per hour.

Purely a price and perception difference.

Posted by Walt Kania at January 24, 2006 4:51 PM

The answer lies in the question, pretty much.

"a session with a CEO client of mine, and his team, on the nature of the transformation they want to lead their business through"

The CEO & their team are addressing an internal need, not external communication.

Most of the issues arise when we try to work out what "solution" might mean externally.

Presumably they want to move the organisation towards better addressing customer needs. "Solution" is convenient shorthand for the offers and capabilities that emerge from that process. In that context it is not a problem.

The term becomes a problem:

a) When it is used for exernal communication, because it implies that offerings can be grouped into two categories: "solutions to customers needs", and "the irrelevant".

b) When people confuse the label with the reality: calling something a solution does not make it one.

c) When it becomes internal propaganda: "solutions address a customer need", "solutions" involve "services", "products" are not "services" therefore "products" do not address a customer need. This is transparent nonsense: a solution to a customer need will normally involve a mix of products and services.

Posted by Pete Reed at January 26, 2006 7:48 AM