Is Dick’s making the right move by bringing its software development in-house?
Paul Gaffney, chief technology officer at Dick’s Sporting Goods, is leading an effort to bring the chain’s software development in-house rather than rely on third-party tech vendors, according to a Wall Street Journal report. The goal of the program is to give Dick’s the ability to create and control solutions that meet its specific business needs and, in turn, place it in a position of competitive advantage over rival retailers.
Mr. Gaffney, who led a similar effort at Home Depot before joining Dick’s, began by having his team tackle the retailer’s inventory management system. The goal of the program, which is about halfway to completion, is to create a system that would earn at least 10-times in annual revenue the cost of the eight-person team that developed it.
Before the end of the year, Mr. Gaffney and team are planning a complete overhaul of Dick’s e-commerce platforms, including how products are displayed online and how search, checkout and shipping estimates work.
The changes to Dick’s systems is reportedly enabling the retailer to be more responsive to its customers and internal stakeholders, as well. In speaking with the Journal, Mr. Gaffney pointed to Dick’s ability to list new merchandise online within 30-minutes of breaking news such as a team winning a championship. Previously, the same task took up to five days to complete.
Dick’s, similar to other retailers, has placed greater emphasis on e-commerce operations as more consumers go online to research products and make purchases. On the company’s fourth quarter earnings call earlier this month, CEO Ed Stack said that online now represents 23 percent of Dick’s total sales, up from 19 percent a year ago.
Lauren Hobart, president of Dick’s, said the company is building two new e-commerce fulfillment centers to open in the third quarter. The new facilities located in California and New York will enable Dick’s to deliver the majority of online orders within two days.
“Our technology investments extend beyond just improving our website. We will continue to increase our investments in technology, talent and capabilities to make the shopping experience easier and more convenient for all athletes (customers) regardless of when, where, or how they shop with us,” said Ms. Hobart (via Seeking Alpha).
Dick’s is also heavily focused on providing technology to its teammates (associates) to improve productivity, as well.
“We recently delivered an application, which we’ve named merch search, to all Dick’s stores nationwide,” said Ms. Hobart. “This app provides real-time product information including detailed product descriptions, inventory availability, and alternative product recommendations so that our teammates can guide athletes through their shopping experience.”
- Dick’s Tech Chief Goes All Out on In-House Software – The Wall Street Journal
- Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc. CEO Ed Stack on Q4 2018 Results (Earnings Call Transcript) – Seeking Alpha
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS: Do you approve of the decision by Dick’s to bring its software development in-house rather than rely on solutions from third-party vendors? What do you see as the pros and cons to be considered by retailers considering a similar move?
Join the Discussion!
26 Comments on "Is Dick’s making the right move by bringing its software development in-house?"
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Founder and CEO, CrunchGrowth Revenue Acceleration Agency
Dick’s Sporting Goods is a retailer. They should focus their efforts on being a great retailer and taking care of their customers the best possible way they can. They should focus their efforts on retaining customers. Becoming a software developer when you have no core competency in it will distract from being a retailer. There is no competitive advantage to be gained from this initiative. Too many great development teams are already building systems far beyond what Dick’s can think of.
If you want something custom, partner with a development group that can do it better than you and stick to being a retailer.
Chief Executive Officer, The TSi Company
Founder, CEO & Author, HeadCount Corporation
Internal development is a double edged sword. With internal development you gain greater control, but you’re limited by your own capabilities. With external development, you should have access to a broader range of expertise and theoretically save cost, but you lose some control. The pendulum on build vs. buy decisions swings in both directions. It seems that Dick’s believes that these systems are mission critical and that the greater advantage is to bring development in-house. While I respect Dick’s decision to move development in-house, I think more retailers are looking to outsource than build/expand an internal development capability.
Vice President of Marketing, OrderDynamics
Director, Solutions Marketing with Alteryx
This is interesting given the very small relative size of Dick’s versus Home Depot. Diverting a lot of resources in this direction as opposed to sourcing best in class tech may be risky. Absent in the news is anything about Dick’s investments in analytics to better inform how it runs its business through technology. If anything, retailers need to invest more here and have a strategy.
Chief Amazement Officer, Shepard Presentations, LLC
So Dick’s wants to get into the software development business? With plenty of third-party software vendors, which most would be happy to customize to their needs, I’m surprised Dick’s would want to spend the money and time it takes to develop their own solution. Retail is what they do best, and most might say, “Stick to what you do best.” The exception to this may be that they can’t find what they want (highly doubtful, but possible). If that’s the case, it might make sense to create their own software. And to recoup some of the effort and cost, they may want to license their solution to other retailers.
Principal, Retail Technology Group
There are two schools of thought. After decades in this business, I belong to the school that says: unless you have devised the better mouse trap, and no commercially-available software comes close to supporting your need, buy it! There are many reasons for this. The next best thing to re-inventing the wheel at huge costs, which a single retailer cannot amortize over a customer base of 50, 100, or 200 other retailers, is to license the best available solutions, and modify them to suit your business, but I don’t recommend this either.
EVP Thought Leadership, Marketing, WD Partners
Having been a retailer, I REALLY like this idea. A little like private label development though, it’s not anywhere near as easy as it sounds. But to have the ability, let’s say, as a merchant, to talk to your developers and tell them what kind of reporting you thought you really needed and then to work with them on-site and then actually get it? That is SUCH a home run (opening day, sorry) for all involved.
Also, think of your insights team having the ability in-house to sort information and derive what they think is most relevant and apply it to the business they are intimately involved with — wow. When you consult or are a vendor to a brand, it’s like being a grandparent. But if you ARE the brand, you’re absolutely the parent. That metaphor really holds in this case.
Principal, Cathy Hotka & Associates
In-house development is nothing new; Crate & Barrel did it for years, and Target had a huge development farm in India. I’ll defer to Mr. Gaffney’s good judgment.
Senior Vice President Marketing, PDI
My gut says, “Bringing it in house is difficult and resource-intensive.” BUT – they’re looking for something that is purpose-built for their business. If the tech isn’t available, they have to innovate. I agree with Cathy, Mr. Gaffney has a vision and a track record of success. I wish them luck!
CEO, One Door
“Transform our technology stack into a weapon?” Good! “Think about solutions ‘store in’ versus ‘HQ out’?” Great! “Get a 10x return on our software investment?” Check! “Write all our own software?” Wait, what? You lost me.
There is a lot of business value in the innovation happening in the retail software industry, and it is hard to understand how Dick’s could be smarter and faster than the industry at large.
I am guessing (and hoping) that the Journal’s editing of this piece and headline misinterprets the spirit of Mr. Gaffney’s intention. But if not, then the bright side is at least his inbox will be less clogged with vendor meeting requests.
Chairman Emeritus, Relex Solutions
Many online retailers see themselves as tech companies first and hence do much of their development in-house until they realize there are significant disadvantages to doing so. The argument that they get “just what the business wants” also means they are limited to the knowledge within that business. The fact that it is slower and unless he builds a huge empire will create a big backlog of projects and the projects delivered get out of date very quickly are just a few reasons why this is a flawed strategy.
It is a brave or foolish man that believes he knows better than everyone else. I thought most retailers had grown out of this some years ago. Technology moves too fast, especially in the dynamic world of retail.
Director of Planning & Loyalty, Moosylvania
Co-founder, RSR Research
Um, how do I say this nicely? I think it’s a very strange decision. I thought we were over the “do it yourself” era of software development.
President, Circular Logic
I think this can make sense for Dick’s, but only if they can achieve something referenced in the first paragraph: a position of competitive advantage over rival retailers. If they believe they understand their business better than the tech vendors and have identified genuinely unique solutions that they want to protect, then I think this can work.
If this is simply to develop in-house capabilities or software that is currently available or that can be developed quickly using a third party, I am less enthusiastic about this approach.
Contributing Editor, RetailWire; Founder and CEO, Vision First
Investing in getting products online faster and gaining insights from data will improve experience and sales. I’m not convinced taking ALL software development in-house will do this as well.
Principal, Retailing In Focus LLC
It sounds like I’m in the minority on this one (and I don’t claim any expertise on software development), but it seems like a smart move on Dick’s part — provided that they can hire the right talent to execute the strategy in a cost-effective manner. After all, who knows more about the specific complexity of Dick’s business than the company itself? As the demands for system development get more complex (driven by real-time inventory management and omnichannel initiatives), Dick’s is at least trying to control its own destiny.
Chief Executive Officer, Progress Retail
I agree with many of the sentiments here. Being a retailer is hard enough, but staying at the cutting edge of emerging technologies while trying to maintain the age-old inventory and POS solutions would require one hell of an internal team.
Founder, Grey Space Matters
We’ve seen a few retailers (attempt to) do this before with customer marketing and loyalty applications with very mixed results.
In one case, an in-house dev group developed an application for a pilot program and it worked reasonably well but was largely absent a rich feature set. In another case, a similar size retailer earmarked $15 million for a new platform and after spending $9 million pulled the plug.
Whether Dick’s is successful depends on its IT leadership and ability to attract talented people to their team. Starting with a hurdle rate of 10x incremental revenue for the business case is reasonable but spending 10 percent of incremental sales on new technology seems high for retail. Let’s hope they got their incremental revenue right.
CEO, FutureProof Retail
Dicks’ current software vendors should take this as a wakeup call – Dick’s would rather reinvent the wheel than use yours!
Executive Director, Global Marketing, Toshiba Global Commerce Solutions
As a solutions provider for retailers, one of our core tenants is to empower our clients to become better merchants. As such, most aren’t by nature software development shops (with some exceptions). But I get it. The belief and determination that controlling ones own destiny, building and protecting ones “secret sauce” and staying more agile are significant. All that said, I think the reality is more nuanced. More likely, collaboration with a trusted partner to enhance and extend an existing platform for unique business needs is probably the path for the majority of clients.
Retail and Customer Experience Expert
The challenge of doing it in house is that you are limited by the expertise available and you don’t get the scale of knowledge of requirements in the future that you haven’t thought of. Also third party vendors would be reluctant to share information with you.
I remember long time ago working at a retail software company and we were told not to show our software to certain retailers who are known to leverage vendor IP for in house development. You also create a proprietary platform that is difficult to maintain when the talent changes.
Managing Partner Cambridge Retail Advisors
Building a best-in-class software development team is an expensive proposition and it is typically only feasible for very large retailers. While having an in-house software development team has some benefits – agility, control and focus – the disadvantages often outweigh these benefits. Internal development team don’t have the breadth of creative expertise as a lager IT organization that has the luxury of a team of specific focus areas with detailed expertise in a wide range of topics. Also, companies (software vendors and creative agencies) that work with multiple retailers can draw upon best practices of successful development designs and implementation approaches and apply them to your project.
Why would you forge nails when you can buy them at the hardware store.
CEO, President- American Retail Consultants
There is no magic to writing and developing software for a business. Bringing it in-house for a company the size of Dick’s is a logical move and one that makes logical sense when empowering the company to better manage its inventory, logistics, and retail trackability. I applaud Dick’s and believe that there is no difficult move to their bringing software development in-house.
I’m personally observing something of a trend more back to bespoke development, driven by pace of innovation, and reduced cost to deliver. It’s certainly not a defacto approach for everything, but in consumer facing areas the package approach can’t keep pace, resulting in increasing customisation and integration pressures that make in-house development more viable. I wrote some thoughts about this very subject on LinkedIn recently, here.