Monthly Archives: November 2008

How Marketing-Savvy is Your IT Organization?


marketingI find marketing to be a tricky subject for the IT profession – there are some fine lines that can be easily crossed, and it’s not a discipline that IT organizations have typically been founded upon.  Project management, business process reengineering, infrastructure – these are more likely than marketing prowess to be among the core strengths of most IT shops.

But marketing is an important discipline in which IT should develop some competence, for several reasons:

  • The ways that the Internet and digital tools can impact a business’s marketing capabilities, and the integration of these capabilities into the entire customer acquisition process, are multiplying and changing fast. The IT organization needs to partner proactively with marketing and sales functions, and with the customer acquisition process owner.  If the company has not yet moved to a managed process approach to the demand chain, IT leaders must educate business leaders and help take them in this direction.
  • Contemporary business analytics and simulation technologies play a key role in understanding market segments and characteristics, and especially how these are changing.  Whether established as part of the IT organization or elsewhere, business analytics and business simulation Centers of Competence need to be established and encouraged, and IT has a key role to play in enabling these functions.
  • Regardless of the role of IT in business marketing efforts, the IT organization itself, in many companies, would benefit significantly by adopting selected leading practices from marketing and customer experience  – from understanding its own market segments for IT products and services, to creating an environment where those products and services are “discovered and bought” and used to great effect, to creating consistently excellent customer experiences for recipients of IT services.

In the opening paragraph above, I mentioned “fine lines” and I want to highlight one of those with an anecdote.  I recall a CIO client, who, in the interests of raising internal business partner awareness of IT accomplishments and to give them a better sense of what the IT organization was working on produced a 50 page glossy “IT Annual Report” rich with charts and graphs, and nicely illustrated.  When I interviewed business executives as part of an IT capability assessment I was involved in, this IT Annual Report surfaced frequently.  Unfortunately, the impact had been the opposite of what was intended.  “IT is clearly overstaffed and insensitive to their impact on corporate overhead if they are putting together expensive puff pieces like this!” was the common complaint I heard about the report.

I think a couple of things were going on here.  First, the CIO misjudged the mood of his internal market.  This was an environment that had been through some significant IT challenges under prior leadership (including a major outsourcing initiative that had failed miserably and had been recently “undone”).  The general attitude was that “IT costs too much and delivers too little!”  No wonder the IT Annual Report was greeted the way it was.  To the uninitiated, this looked like a very expensive piece of marketing collateral.  (I’m sure it actually was not expensive – it was desktop published, spiral bound, with most of the charts and graphs generated out of a project and portfolio management tool.)  In my experience, these types of IT Annual Report work best in an environment with high business and IT maturity.  Even then, a more marketing-savvy IT group would better understand their audience, and would produce a document that spoke to that audience – in this case, about the business, in business terms, with simple descriptions of how IT played a role, and perhaps suggestions of how to find and pursue more opportunities for value creation enabled by information and IT.

Another common marketing mistake made by IT organizations is thinking of marketing as simply “public relations, advertising and promotion.”  Good marketers begin by understanding the markets they serve (or should be serving).  What are your primary and secondary market segments?  What do they need from IT – in terms of baseline expectations (table stakes), like to haves, and things they do not even know they need, but will “wow” them?  This type of Kano analysis can yield invaluable insight into the IT customer base – as it is today, and, more importantly, as it could be tomorrow.  Very often, the analysis will reveal that the customers we are closest to (we know each other well, have a comfortable relationship with them) are not where IT can have the greatest impact.  What are we doing to reach deep into those customer segments where we don’t have a strong relationship?

I know – the last thing most IT leaders wants to hear is about some new competency or capability they need to develop!  I hear you remind me, “Everyone is working flat out, under increased budgetary pressures, and we’re ony just keeping our heads above water.  We don’t need to be getting into new stuff!”  But, the reality is, marketing disciplines are essential to ensuring your are truly delivering the right services in the right ways to the right people – and that is surely an even more critical need today than it ever was?

About these ads

IT in a Recession – What’s Different this Time?


dolphin Like most of us, I’ve been thinking about the current economic climate and its implications for IT leaders.  I posted back in early September in The Economy, Information Technology and Opportunity Creation that it is now more important than ever to find creative and constructive ways to drive growth and innovation by whatever means.  I’ve also bemoaned the fact that many CIO’s have taken an alternate approach – that now is the time to hunker down and lay low.  In my post A Tale of 2 CIO’s: Proactive Innovator vs. Reactive Operator I drew the distinction between two types of IT leader – “Cecil the Controller” and “Ivan the Innovator.”  The former essentially is inclined to hunker down and “do no harm” when the financial conditions get tough, while the latter sees the financial conditions as a challenge that is best addressed head-on – proactively looking for ways to stimulate growth and innovation.  For them it’s a time for IT to shine, not to retreat deeper into the shadows!

We’ve been in recessions before, and the innovator versus controller behaviors – ever present – do tend to stand out during such times.  I guess the appropriate variation on the old cliche is “When the going gets tough, tough CIO’s innovate!”  Anyway, the question I’ve been pondering lately is, “Is there anything different with this recession that should influence IT leadership behaviors?”  The familiar knee jerk reaction of “take out costs” – stop discretionary spending and be the responsible corporate citizen by cutting IT costs might deserve a second look.  Here’s what I’ve come up with so far.  What’s different this time?

  • If you have been a responsible IT leader, you’ve already done the reasonable cost cutting and cost take-out measures, and run an efficient IT operation.  Cutting any further is likely to cut into bone and muscle rather than fat.  Is the best thing we can say about IT that when money is tight, we should do less of it?  My problem with the knee jerk reaction is it reinforces the perennial perspective that IT is only a cost to be contained, rather than an investment to be leveraged.  This time, and under current global economic climate, it seems to me that finding growth and business innovation (be it process, product or service innovation) is a better strategy – a more constructive IT response.
  • But, you’d better be able to prove the investments are going to pay back in a time frame that is consistent with business needs.  Therefore, robust business cases, a clear business-driven IT portfolio strategy and ongoing portfolio management are essential.  Similarly, superb program management and a real focus on value realization become key.  As is rapid business experimentation and analytics.
  • This time you might be able to get into or accelerate the use of SaaS and Cloud Computing – these approaches are inherently less capital-intensive, and, arguably, lead to lower operating costs.
  • For those that have not already done so, you might need to get more serious about global sourcing – not just as in outsourcing, but as in leveraging temporary and contract workers, retirees, and the growing body of unemployed who will be happy to work for lower rates than might have been the case 6 months ago.  Unlike in other recessions where the IT ranks felt almost immune, this time around there are many well qualified people out there in the unemployment lines – and with life saving perhaps seriously depleted, they are hungry for work.
  • This is a great time to take advantage of the “air cover” that the economic climate provides and get really aggressive and focused on ‘weeding and pruning’ – rationalizing and consolidating the legacy environment.
  • This time most companies have the basic infrastructure (broad band web access, desktop videoconferencing, services such as WebEx and LiveMeeting to support virtual work arrangements.  Given that much of the IT operating cost base is people, it might be worth getting creative about not only facilitating, but proactively encouraging alternate work arrangements (e.g., work from home, work part time).  People may be willing to give up some base pay to take advantage (including cost savings plus green benefits) of work-at-home arrangements.
  • Some IT expense is depreciation – with many companies coming off several years of capital investments, you might need to get creative about moving assets off the books. This was one of the forces driving outsourcing 15 years (or so) ago, and it may be worth exploring some creative (though legitimate) financial schemes.
  • Some organizations have been improving IT service levels year over year, and are now in a situation where service levels are higher than is truly needed.  You may therefore need to reassess and re-balance service levels/demand constraints. (e.g., take help desk response times from 15 min guarantee to 1 hour.
  • Lastly, Web 2.0 and all that it means (cloud computing, SaaS, etc.) promise a relatively quick and easy way to find and conduct experiments in business innovation and collaboration, without the investment and effort of building all the infrastructure and developing a whole bunch of code.  For many companies there is a potential gold mine in the application of social networking to business growth and innovation.  Now is a great time to look hard and identify opportunities to connect with employees, customers and the company ecosystem in new and productive ways.

What Does Your Blog Say About Your Personality Type?


intj1I’ve been a believer in Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) for many years.  I went through a certification course about 18 years ago when I was in training for an organizational change management certification.  Over time I learned to be pretty good at assessing someone’s type preference just by observing and listening to them for a relatively short time.  I’ve found this exercise to be very useful for several reasons:

  1. It gives you a conscious reason to really focus on people – intensive listening and observing to decode personality type preferences is a valuable skill that better sensitizes you to where people are coming from and their preferred thinking and communication styles.
  2. Once you’ve figured out their MBTI preferences, you have insights into why they may enjoy working the process more than they value getting to a result, or vice versa, and into other preferences they bring to their work.
  3. Once you’ve figured out their MBTI preferences, you’ve gained insights into how to most effectively communicate with them.

Anyway, be that as it may, with thanks to the Cognitive Edge blog, and in turn to Richard Oliver’s blog, I was just made aware of Typealyzer that purports to determine a blog author’s MBTI preferences by scanning their blog.  Seemed intriguing, so just for chuckles, I pointed Typealyzer at my blog and it came up with:

INTJ – The Scientists

The long-range thinking and individualistic type. They are especially good at looking at almost anything and figuring out a way of improving it – often with a highly creative and imaginative touch. They are intellectually curious and daring, but might be physically hesitant to try new things.  The Scientists enjoy theoretical work that allows them to use their strong minds and bold creativity. Since they tend to be so abstract and theoretical in their communication they often have a problem communicating their visions to other people and need to learn patience and use concrete examples. Since they are extremely good at concentrating they often have no trouble working alone.

For good or bad, the conclusion that I’m INTJ is spot on!  This was how I tested years ago when I took the “official” test.  It’s also how I’ve tested several times since then when I’ve re-tested through various web sites.

Not really sure how significant this is, but I do find it interesting (and perhaps not surprising) that one’s blog writing reflects one’s MBTI personality type.  I guess that next time I want to comment on a bloggers post, I will first scan their blog to determine how to frame my comment for maximum impact!

IT Portfolio Management – Avoiding the Tool Trap


nest_eggOver many years of preaching and teaching IT portfolio management, I’ve been frequently frustrated and disappointed by seeing IT organizations screw up portfolio management, and as a result, miss out on the significant and important benefits this discipline holds.  They do so by buying into the concepts, then jumping to a tool choice, implementation, declaring success, then moving on to the next IT management challenge.

This is sad, to say the least.  It typically means that not only do they not get the real benefits of portfolio management, but also they’ve spent money on a tool and implementation effort that they can ill afford, and next time when the perils associated with a lack of effective portfolio management surface, they will assume that it can’t have anything to do with portfolio management because they’ve already fixed that.  So they look elsewhere, tweaking and probing, trying to figure out how to improve business-IT alignment.  It might take them several years (or a change of CIO, whichever comes first) to figure out that at root, they still have a portfolio management problem.  And its much harder to fix something you already think you’ve fixed!

To illustrate the point, let me describe a typical IT capability assessment engagement (I’m involved in these several times a year).  The first day usually comprises interviews with the executive leadership team followed by a lengthy meeting with the CIO.  In addition to describing their hopes for IT, each of the business leaders describes how and where they see the IT organization falling short.  This typically includes descriptions of various symptoms of portfolio management dysfunctionality:

My unit constantly gets short-changed by IT.

I’m not a demanding kind of guy, but I get punished because IT only supports the people who always make the greatest demands – I keep getting squeezed to the back of the line!

The costs of IT are spread across the business units, but only some of them are getting real value.

IT is not sufficiently service oriented!

When I meet with the CIO, I probe around these issues.  Frequently, at this point I’m told with great pride about the sophisticated IT portfolio management tool they’d implemented in the last year or so.  The CIO will often grab a spiral bound report and display page after page of glossy, colorful pie charts of portfolio data.  “See!  Portfolio management is now a real strength of the IT organization.  And we drill into all sorts of resource allocation and time tracking data in the very same tool.  It’s really helped us!”

What he may as well have said was, “We took a powerful portfolio management tool and use it really well to do resource tracking and allocation!”  When I ask, “How do you know that the portfolio allocation model is consistent with business strategic intent?” I get a blank look as he processes the question, followed by, “Oh, well they get all these reports!  And, in fact, they can get at this data on line if they’d like – it’s all totally transparent!”

Let me explain what’s going on here through the imperfect analogy of managing one’s personal investment portfolio (I know – not a very popular thing to be reminded of just now!)  It’s as if my financial planner took my savings, then sent me (or gave me access to) all sorts of fancy data about my personal investment portfolio, but had never educated me and taken me through the crucial decision-making (and regular review) of my financial goals, needs and ambitions (these are not the same thing!) and my risk tolerance, financial situation, time to retirement, and so on.  Then one day I call him up and say, “Fred, I’m retiring tomorrow but see that all my savings have vanished!  What happened?”  And he says, well, you were in and extremely aggressive portfolio of very high risk investments, and unfortunately the market tanked.  Weren’t you tracking the portfolio reports I sent you every month?”  In other words, this would indicate that I never sat down with my financial planner and figured out my family’s financial strategy – made informed decisions about the right portfolio mix for my circumstances, how that mix changes over time and how I will monitor the portfolio performance.  If he had taken me and my family through this process, several important things would have happened:

  1. My family and I would have become educated in investment strategy.
  2. We would have created an investment strategy appropriate to our situation.
  3. My family would be aligned around that strategy, understanding and making the needed tradeoffs between education needs, family vacations, degree to which we can afford discretionary items like a fancy sports car, and so on.
  4. We would have understood the portfolio performance data our investment manager was sending us.
  5. We would have make appropriate adjustments as our family situation and investment performance changed.

Translate this into the process of IT investment portfolio strategy and planning, and how this process can align the business leadership team and CIO.  You begin to see the dangerous trap of confusing the implementation of an IT portfolio management tool with the process of IT portfolio strategy and management.  Does you organization really have IT portfolio strategy and management?  Or is it simply going through the motions of tracking spending and resources?  If the latter, and not the former, what dysfunctionalities might it be causing?  What will you do about it?

Process vs. Outcomes – Striking the Right Balance


alice_croquet I was watching BBC America World News the other day, and there was an interesting piece on the G20 summit.  Dr. Irwin Stelzer, Senior Fellow at the Hudson institute made the assertion, “Europeans are very much in love with process, while Americans are very much in love with results.” As a European who has lived and worked in the US for 30 years, I resonate with this statement – gross oversimplification though it might be. I’m not sure where the US/Europe biases regarding process and outcome originally come from, but in my experience, they are biases rather than universal dogma.  Americans can get deeply (and sometimes overly) enamored of process at the expense of outcomes just as Europeans can sell process short in a jump to outcomes.

The need to balance process with outcomes is, I think, well appreciated.  Even the distinctions of types of work, and how these play into the importance of process are, I think, old news and generally understood.  However, for all of the underlying theory and experience, there do seem to be cultural biases that all too readily derail the proper balance.  One of the great things about the US is its “bias for action.”  This was one of the characteristics that led me to move to the US in the first place, and has helped keep me here.  However, taken too far, a bias for action all too easily becomes wasted effort or a screwed up opportunity.  On the other hand, an overly deliberate focus on process can get in the way of outcomes realization.

I have seen many business process reengineering efforts derailed by a loss of sight of the outcomes.  While these may have been clear at the outset, they somehow got lost in the process of re-engineering.  In fact, for quite a few years I was involved in many client consulting engagements designed to help get derailed ERP initiatives back on track.  Almost always the magic sauce we used was to go back to the original outcomes.  If these had been well-defined up front, it was simply a matter of refreshing them then going through a rigorous triage to determine what features and functions were essential to realizing those outcomes.  Anything else, while perhaps “good ideas” and/or “good things to do” were put on a back burner as “not critical to achieving the outcomes.”  If the outcomes had not been well-defined up front (this was often the case – they were vague, lacked specific metrics and time frames, or were not really outcomes at all) then our task was to define the outcomes.  In every case, once the outcomes were clear and compelling, the process could be brought back on track.

Process can all too easily become a substitute for thinking, rather than an aid to thinking.  When I was at Ernst & Young, I learned (and still apply) the “ODW” mantra – Outcomes, Deliverables, Work-plan.  The idea is simple – get clear on the desired outcomes first.  Then figure out what deliverables are needed to realize those outcomes.  Then you can build the right work-plan for creating those deliverables.  It’s a very simple formula, but one that once internalized can help enormously with this outcome/process balancing act. In some respects, ODW is a process.  And, of course, the work-plan that comes out of ODW is a process.

Finally, I think metrics are an important tool in helping keep the balance right.  Not coincidentally, the Kaplan/Norton Balanced Scorecard has as an underlying premise the balance between outcomes and process (as well as the balance between today’s results and investments for the future.)  It is an important discipline to distinguish between outcome measures and process measures.  The former can tell you how well a process is performing, while the latter can provide insights into how to improve that process.



Why IT Might be Slow to the Web 2.0 Collaboration/Innovation Party


partyLately I’ve been spending time with several IT teams from global Fortune 500 enterprises who are charged with fostering collaboration, innovation and the other hoped-for outcomes of Web 2.0.  It’s been a fascinating experience – plenty of good news, but some aspects I find frustrating.  More importantly, I believe these are things that are slowing progress in exploiting Web 2.0 et al in the enterprise context.

For most companies, the necessary infrastructure, while mostly in place, is not fully there.  Desktop software may not be at the right level.  Videoconferencing capabilities are first or second generation, and need to be upgraded to tap the full potential of today’s telepresence and high definition video.  Instant messaging, previously banned as a perceived “renegade, redundant and dangerous technology is now seen as a useful tool, but the IT infrastructure must now be tweaked to embrace it.  Early implementations of SharePoint that served as interesting experiments, must be updated and redeployed to take advantage of the latest release and goodies.  More complex initiatives such as virtualization, unified communications, shifts from perimeter-based to asset-based security take time, energy and investment to sort through.  Collaboration strategies tend to be emergent rather than holistic,
IT- more than business-centric, push rather than pull, infrastructure rather than application focused.

The good news is that for the more forward-thinking companies, these infrastructure initiatives are funded, resourced and underway.  The people leading them are the best and brightest from the IT infrastructure ranks – they know what they are doing, and move assuredly through this complex space, checking off important milestones, and celebrating successes along the way.

The more frustrating, and ultimately limiting aspects are around the demand management (especially, stimulation/seeding) and application (especially value capture) of Web 2.0 – how to ensure that the emerging collaboration infrastructure is actually used, and used productively and creatively.

A couple of points.  Without the right infrastructure, Web 2.0 doesn’t work, or doesn’t work well enough to sustain itself – it is the table stakes.  But, a shyness in addressing the broader landscape of collaboration and innovation across the enterprise and its ecosystem ultimately limits the value of the infrastructure.

I use the word “shyness” with some thought – there is literally a shyness about getting into things that are thought of as “really needs to be in the business.”   The Catch-22, however, is that without IT leadership in demand shaping/management, you might not have the exact infrastructure you need to really tap the power of the emerging collaboration capabilities.  And I’m taking “infrastructure” quite broadly to include all the shared components and services that support Web 2.0 and its inevitable implications (e.g., Cloud Computing).

So, my recommendations to these teams typically include:

  1. Keep going with the infrastructure plans and deployments!  Celebrate the infrastructure, market its capabilities, keep up the great work!
  2. Step back and look at your broader collaboration strategy.  What other projects or programs are underway that impact or are impacted by this initiative?  What other projects or programs are needed to ensure success?   What does success look like?  How would we measure it?
  3. Add a demand shaping/demand management perspective to the collaboration initiative.  Wrap it into the overall collaboration strategy and plan.
  4. Expand the collaboration initiative team and brief/charter to bring in the business and customer/user perspective, and some “Net Gen” people or really understand how the Web 2.0 world works in the social/consumer space.
  5. Foster adoption from the grass roots up.  Think “chaos theory” and “emergence” – but don’t lose sight of the fact that we are human and ultimately, political and social animals.

Some Principles for Transforming IT Capabilities – Part 2


6transformationI recently started a post on this topic which I am continuing here with some additional principles that you might consider adopting if you are leading a transformation of IT capabilities.  (If you wonder what that means, please refer to the first post in this series.)

Principle #3.  You don’t have to call it a transformation!

Calling a major change program a “transformation” has a nice ring to it – gives it a sense of importance and gravity.  And therein lies the trap!   Transformation programs are often characterized by a high level of communication up front – burning platforms, compelling future state visions, sense of urgency, blah, blah, blah.  They are equally characterized by a gradual fading away of all the hype and noise as people lose interest, fail to see any real action, and get drawn back into the realities of their day jobs, and the magnetic hold of the status quo.

Sometimes it is better to plan on a quiet start and a loud finish, rather than the other way round.  After all, a transformation is an outcome more than it is a plan or intent.  Imagine a personal trainer saying, “I am going to transform you into a fitter, healthier person who will look better, and live longer.  Here are your exercises and diet plan.”  While she might be willing to make that promise, it is false, and I am likely to be disappointed and to lose interest pretty quickly.  Imagine on the other hand she said, “I’m going to teach you some exercises and show you a diet plan.  If you do the exercises as taught, and change your eating habits per the diet plan, you will over time transform into a fitter, healthier person who will look better, and live longer.”  Now that is an authentic promise.  It is believable, realistic and a far more authentic approach for her to take.  The real transformation is for me – can I really get myself to exercise and eat per her recommendations?  Rather than promise an IT transformation, lets focus on what we are going to change, what we are going to do differently, what new outcomes will result, and why these outcomes are valid and worthwhile.

Principle #4.  You can’t transform IT by transforming IT!

It is said that businesses get the IT they deserve.  This is a round about way of saying IT organizations exist for the businesses they serve, and that it is the unique confluence of business and IT that ultimately creates value from IT investments.  When we talk about “the performance of the IT organization,” except for basic IT infrastructure services, we are talking about the product of business-IT performance.  In other words, it is ultimately the way that businesses harness the potential value of IT that is being transformed, rather than the IT organization as the subject of transformation.  It’s of little use if the IT organization introduces a new investment prioritization process designed to shift IT investments to a more innovation-focused profile if this is not embraced by business leaders.

Please let me know about your experiences with IT transformations.  Have you developed any principles that might be of interest to others?

Ways to Stifle IT-enabled Business Innovation


santiniWe are getting close to wrapping up our multi-company research project on “Redefining Employee Computing.” This was focused on the emerging trend of moving away from a highly controlled and locked-down approach to what used to be known as “end-user computing” to a more open and self-service model.  One of the research team came across this post in Forbes.com about the “Un-marketing of IT.”

I thought the post was spot on!  It includes a short interactive survey (4 questions) and you can see the results instantly. It’s not a pretty picture.  Overwhelmingly, respondents conclude:

  1. IT’s limiting of the the use of technology creates a poor impression of IT.
  2. IT does not provide an adequate explanation for limiting the use of technology.
  3. When IT limits the use of technology, it does not provide alternative ways to accomplish tasks.
  4. IT does not provide a responsive support structure to address issues caused by limiting the use of technology.

Like so many things in life, service providers seem to care mostly about making their own lives simple – as opposed to thinking through the entire customer experience, and making lives effective and productive for the customer.  I see too many business executives who have to tote two laptops and two personal organizers (one of each for business use and one of each for personal use).  If personal computing is the most visible face of IT, it’s often not an attractive and welcoming face.  And then we wonder why business executives cry, “IT costs too much and delivers too little!”

I know I will get hate mail for this post – “It’s not our fault, it’s the lawyers and HR folk!”  “We’re only trying to protect the company and its assets!”  I recognize these factors, and why the locked down PC environment was necessary.  However, a new day is dawning and it’s time to enable the enterprise.  Some constraints are OK – but they need to be explained, alternative ways to work need to be made available, and a responsive infrastructure is essential if we really want IT to be a strategic capability.

Some Principles for Transforming IT Capabilities


I want to tackle the thorny and often controversial topic of transforming IT capabilities – probably through several posts over the next few weeks.  I first started looking at how large companies went about transforming IT about 20 years ago.  I got very focused on it in a formal way about 16 years ago when I was leading a multi-year longitudinal study of 25 global corporations under the auspices of the Ernst & Young Center for Business Innovation.  This research led to the infamous Business-IT Maturity Model that I refer to from time to time on this blog (it has evolved substantially in the last 10 years), to a normative IT Process Landscape (which has also evolved somewhat over the years) and to a great deal of insight about IT transformations – things that seem to work well, and others that seem to fail consistently.  Finally, it led to a book, which was very satisfying to write, well regarded at the time, but is now somewhat too dated to try to hawk on this blog!

First, a couple of observations.  Defining transformational change can be somewhat tricky as it is inherently subjective.  We might believe, for example, that a change in a business analyst’s role to shift from a focus on a business area to a focus on an end-to-end business process (order-to-cash, say) is an incremental change, but to the analyst it might feel transformational.  Notwithstanding this subjectivity, I think of transformation as change that is:

  • Broad in scope (for example, encompassing change in processes, tools, organization structure, vision, mission, rewards and recognition)
  • Deep in nature (i.e., intended to lead to a significant change in organizational outcomes)
  • Far-reaching in impact (i.e., affecting a broad base of stakeholders)
  • Recognized to be risky in that the absolute details of the end state may be unclear or ambiguous at the outset

Further complicating the definition of transformation is that not all transformational change is labeled as such.  Sometimes the infamous “butterfly effect” leads to transformational change as a result of an intervention that looked on the surface to be purely incremental.  For similar reasons (the unpredictability of the behaviors of complex systems), not all programs labeled transformational actually result in transformation – in fact, the vast majority do not!  How many programs do you recall titled something like “Quality First,” or “One Company,” or “Journey to Innovation,” and so on that are now distant memories with little more to show for them than the printed tee shirts and embossed paper weights?

Why do IT organizations feel from time to time they need to transform?  Reasons, of course, vary but the typical rationales include:

  • A shift in business operating model – often from a holding company model with independent business units to a more integrated model, with common and shared capabilities.
  • A shift in underlying technology paradigm – for example, from mainframe to client-server (historically) or from client-server to Web 2.0 (currently).
  • A shift in sourcing model – for example, outsourcing major pieces of IT, and then transforming the “retained IT” organization for an increased focus on business value, growth and innovation.
  • A change in CIO where the new boss wants to shake things up and make her mark by driving IT performance to new heights.

Why do I feel that I need to post on this subject?  Because I’m tired of seeing the same transformational issues time and time again!  It seems to me we ought to be better at reinventing the role of the IT organization, delivering more value from costly IT investments, getting significantly closer to the businesses we serve, and being more sympathetic to the IT professionals who have heard it all before, want to keep their heads down until the latest transformation wave passes, or who just want to know, “What’s in this for me?”

I’m also tired of seeing so-called transformational change programs so badly bungled that the organization learns to ignore strategic change initiatives (the “this too shall pass” syndrome).  I’m tired of seeing so many IT leaders tackle transformational change as if they were the first ever to try it, and that there is nothing to be learned from all those who have gone before – especially learning from the failures, as well as from the success stories.  I often (with prior permission) put CIO’s in touch with clients I’ve worked with who have successfully transformed their IT capabilities – I do this in response to a request, but 8 out of 10 times discover that they don’t follow through!  The client who has been through the pain is more than willing to take their time to share their experiences, but the CIO who’s asking the questions does not even take the time to make to the call.

Also, I have to say that I come across many IT organizations that are frankly so out of touch with today’s business and technological realities that they need a major dose of transformation.  Week after week I talk to IT managers and leaders who have no idea what RSS, Wikis, and Cloud Computing are, and what their implications might be for the business they support.  The don’t know what an RSS reader is, or why they should want one.  They have never participated in a social network, and so have no opinions or ideas about how Web 2.0 capabilities might be turned to  business advantage.

So, let me suggest the first couple of transformation principles:

Principle #1. Communicate from the outset with absolute integrity and the unvarnished truth.

Your IT people are smart and will not be easily fooled.  In fact, trying to fool them will undoubtedly backfire.  So engage them in the dialog; be honest about what is going to be needed; don’t take anything “off the table” as sacred cows not to be discussed.  In most transformations, some people will not make it through – that’s a fact than cannot be hidden or avoided.  Make it clear to people that those that get engaged in the journey are more likely to come out as winners, but there’s no guarantees.  On the other hand, those that stand in the background lobbing stones will absolutely come out as losers!

Principle #2. Take the time and effort to collaboratively build a compelling but plausible vision for the future.

The temptation is to short-change this step – IT leaders already have the vision in their heads and assume everyone else in the organization “gets it.”  They don’t!   The next temptation is to develop the vision with a subset of the IT leadership team, and then emboss it in a paper weight or memorialize it on wall-sized posters.  After all the wordsmithing and polishing, the “vision statement” (which is not what I mean by “vision”) means nothing to anybody except the select few who created it.  Visions need to be rich and multi-faceted.  They need to be in peoples heads, hearts and stomachs.  They need to be compelling and to serve a higher purpose that gets people up in the morning and that merits putting themselves through the pain and anxiety of change.

Have you been through an organizational transformation?  Did it work?  Why?  If not, why not?  And please watch for more to come on this topic in subsequent posts.