We are 5 weeks away from the start of the Formula 1 racing season. Depending upon your point of view this is the greatest show on earth or a mind-numbing procession simply showing how well people can waste world resources and hundreds of millions of pounds.

True, the last two years have seemed boringly predictable with Michael Schumacher in his Ferrari so dominant in the races that fans have stopped betting on the outcome.

However, last month the sport's governing body, the FIA, announced that they will be trying to reduce the cost of racing and re-introduce some more competition. Over the next few years we will see the end of teams using much of the electronic trickery upon which they now rely. There will be no more telemetry to allow teams to adjust settings on the car whilst they are on the track, no more radio communication, and driver aids such as traction control will be banned by 2004.

Draconian measures; but will it change anything? Perhaps not. Schumacher's driving skill is such that other teams will have to be lucky to end his dominance, but it will probably balance up the rest of the field. Ferrari's dominance is in part down to his skill but much is due to his team's attention to detail.

For a number of years the Ferrari team have relied on increasingly sophisticated computer technology and the car he now drives is set up by laptop not just for each circuit but even for each corner, the detail is so precise.

The use of technology has blossomed amongst all the teams over the past years as evidenced by the increasingly large logos of the technology suppliers on all the cars. For example, Jaguar uses the most powerful computer available, a Cray, to calculate airflow over the body of the car without needing a wind tunnel. Even so, the calculations require the computer to run for a week before the results can be seen.

Thus, world domination in Formula 1 has for the last few years been the result of the effective application of technology. And yet, the difference in performance gained by the leading teams is only 7%. The teams qualify to race only by setting lap times which are within 107% of the leading car. Most teams always make it onto the grid and therefore, despite Ferrari being funded maybe 6 times as well as Minardi, the smallest team, the difference in absolute performance is small.

In business the difference between first place and the rest of the pack is more complex and much greater than 7%. However, over the last year, we have seen definite leaders emerging who are using technology effectively to improve performance. GE Real Estate were one of the first to adopt e-business and they have reported savings of $54million pa through their newly automated procurement processes. Equity Office Properties in the US is changing their relationships with management and tenants by working without paper reports. Closer to home, Jones Lang LaSalle have revised their investment agency processes through new technology and Threadneedle Property Investments are making significant savings through electronic document management.

These are the property market leaders that have applied technology to transform business processes. This technology is now available off the shelf and it is only the lack of its adoption by companies that is slowing a more general migration to greater efficiency within the property industry.

Unlike Formula 1, in property there is no ban on gaining competitive advantage through attention to detail and the adoption of technology. As Murray Walker once said, "The battle is well and truly on if it wasn't before, and it certainly was." Is this your company's chance to take the lead?

 
First published in Estates Gazette - February 2003
http://www.estatesgazettegroup.com