Of course you have. Typically it is in the context of music. Harmonies are pleasing and enjoyable.
In business, however, harmonization means something different, and it isn't always bad. For example, when I was working and consolidating acquisitions, creating harmonization of process made perfect sense. Creating a standard by which everyone involved understood how to do their jobs was critically important in many ways. Eliminating redundancies and overlap always led to improvements in morale, efficiency and profitability.
However, when harmonization happens in the context of production, there can be some problems. In this context, the objective of harmonization is cost reduction. Now, you will hear this from me, probably ad nauseum, that there is no problem with a company striving to grow revenue and minimize expenses in order to maximize profitability. This HAS TO exist in business. The critical issue is HOW this is accomplished. And this is one of the fundamental challenges of a public company. In a public company, shareholder value is paramount. And too often, accountants/controllers make decisions in the service of this objective...and with the unintended consequence of the expense of their company! Here is a great example:
When Ford bought Jaguar in 1999 it "harmonized" the production of the Jaguar. The component pieces that "no one would notice" were produced in Ford production and assembly plants ("raiding the Ford parts bins").
The list of harmonized parts increased over time. Accountants determined that the cost savings per part ("economies of scale") justified the decision as they assured their current and prospective customers that there was no compromise in quality.
In the end, they killed Jaguar. Enthusiasts didn't want it because it was a Ford with a Jaguar emblem.
Ford didn't understand the business they had purchased. Ford executives attempted to build a cheaper car and sell it for less WITH THE IDEA THAT THEY WOULD SELL MORE OF THEM.
Ford sold Jaguar in 2008 to Tata Motors, and Indian company, losing tens of billions on the deal.
Here is an excerpt from one article on the deal, "Ford did purchase some extra prestige with the two acquisitions, particularly in Great Britain and among some segments of the motoring press. But prestige and goodwill don't pay cash dividends and Ford certainly could have used the money in other ways."
So, where the balance between good, sound expense management (corporate stewardship) and killing the unique product or service offering in the name of "efficiencies" and the bottom line? Of course there is no one-size-fits-all answer. A good test or question would be, "what do we give up in exchange for this expense reduction in the form of harmonization"? If the hard, fast answer is "Trust me! Nothing"...that might be a place to look.
If harmonization brings all product offerings to a median, or some average of all products involved, or if the effectiveness or efficacy of products are reduced in any way, then the decision maker is faced with the difficult decision of factoring qualitative (the tough to measure part of quality, real or perceived) and not just the quantitative (things that are easily measured, like expense cost) elements of the decision to harmonize.
The Ford executives chose poorly. They allowed their accountants to run away with the production decisions, almost certainly in order to maximize short term profits (and their bonuses, which is another story) without understanding the longer term consequences of their decisions. Tens of billions of dollars later, they have learned a lesson...or have they?
Are other companies willing to learn that lesson? Or do they continue to think they can make it work without diminishing their product or service offering? I think we can all see the answer to that question.
The scorpion will always sting the frog.
Comments