Supply chain disruption is testing channel loyalty
What do you do when the sh*t hits the fan? It’s something we’ve all faced at some point in our lives. But before we get to the faeces, I think it’s probably worth asking where did that phrase come from? I mean, who throws excrement at a fan? Why would someone do that when the consequences could be so horrible?
It’s bad enough having sh*t in the first place without opting to throw it at a fan. Take a moment to think about what kind of person would, first of all, arm themselves with faeces and then decide to throw it with some precision and force at a fan. Not easy, is it?
Anyway, from what I can ascertain, no one is sure exactly when the excrement hit the fan for the first time but it dates at least as far back as the 1940s, so there’s been a lot of faeces flung into fans over a lot of years.
But to the particular projectile poo in question, which was highlighted in some recent research from Westcon-Comstor, namely hardware pricing volatility and supply constraints and the project delays they can cause.
According to a survey of the value-added technology distributor’s global Tech Xpert community, partners view project delays as the single biggest risk arising from supply constraints and pricing pressure.
Much of this risk occurs because of the need to redesign or revalidate solutions when components become unavailable or specifications change, adding time and complexity to project delivery.
As many as 87% of those surveyed said they were taking steps to protect customers and keep projects on track when this particular sh*t hits the fan.
A majority (60%) were seeking to better align supply with demand through improved infrastructure capacity planning and 52% said they or their customers have accelerated hardware purchases to mitigate risk. Just under a quarter (23%) reported delays or cancellations.
Close to a third (29%) have switched vendors or platforms in response to availability constraints.
The research reported that disruption was being felt across the infrastructure lifecycle, in hardware refresh cycles, new procurement and system expansion.
Callum McGregor, chief operating officer and chief financial officer at Westcon-Comstor, argued that hardware pricing volatility and supply constraints were “reshaping customer buying decisions and having a profound impact on the IT channel.”
In response, partners were helping customers “plan earlier, adapt architectures and stay flexible so they can keep projects moving despite uncertainty.”
He argued that the ability to balance immediate performance and long-term requirements was becoming increasingly critical. It also demonstrated “the strategic role that channel partners, supported by distribution, can play in building resilience and helping customers navigate the pressures that have quickly become a systemic feature of the market.”
If you’re in the privileged position of playing a strategic role, you have opportunities and responsibilities. In this instance, the responsibility is to navigate a safe passage for your customers and to shield them from the effects when the fan is busy indiscriminately dispersing brown stuff all around them.
It’s not a job for everyone but it’s something that should suit channel partners very well. The age-old role of trusted adviser has, to some extent, required channel companies to protect customers as best they can from market volatility and to try and ensure the smoothest possible path for their projects utilising their partnerships with vendors and distributors.
The finding that 29% have switched vendors or platforms in response to availability constraints demonstrates the resourcefulness of partners, but it also shows that the dedication of some partners to fulfil their role for customers takes precedence over any relationship, however deep and long, they might have with a vendor. As it should.
If there’s a way to help customers complete a project that involves sacrificing vendor A in favour of vendor B, so be it. The only potential downside is that it makes harder, possibly, to argue the case for vendor A over vendor B for another project in the future. If the customer sees that, to all intents and purposes, they are interchangeable, it will be difficult to claim that they’re not when the next project comes around.
But that’s a separate pile of poop hitting a different fan on another day. In the meantime, it seems an entirely logical step to take to help customers avoid delays to their projects. Logical to the point of being inarguable but it says something about the dynamics of the IT channel that people might look askance at it.
Why? If you or I said, for instance, that we were going to buy milk brand B because we couldn’t get milk brand A, it wouldn’t cause any fuss at all. It’s so unremarkable that if we mentioned it to anyone, they would be so unimpressed as to retort with a reference to Dr Watson’s description of his bowel movements, or lack of them, to one of the world’s most famous literary detectives. I might add that judging by this response, the doctor would be in no position to fling faeces at any fan.
“No sh*t, Sherlock.”
Subscribers 0
Fans 0
Followers 0
Followers