IT strategic objectives that mean something

One of my business partner Jim’s favorite soapboxes is that most strategies don’t really say anything. And he’s right. I could go on about business strategies in their own right, but I’ll start with the problems with most IT strategic objectives since that’s where we tend to get involved. They go something like this: “we want to be more responsive to our clients, optimizing our costs, improving quality of solutions, and developing and engaging the best people around”. You can’t really argue with any of it, but it sure doesn’t give your employees much focus. And it doesn’t have any specific tie to what the business does as a whole. It’s just that it could be the IT strategy at any company, in any industry, with any variety of business objectives that might require very different focuses from their technology organization.

Thanks to one of my clients for sending me this article from Global CIO the other day, which gave me hope that some organizations out there are really getting it. Chevron’s IT objectives go something like this, as described by their CIO, Louie Ehrlich:

"First: connecting people, partners, and businesses. We're a global company, with lots of different types of relationships around the world with governments or joint ventures or business units, and whatever those relationships are or wherever they may extend, we need to be able to allow our people to connect easily and securely.

"Second, accelerating insights: for a company like ours, it's finding ways to improve how we view things like the subsurface more effectively, or how we look across the business and gain insights. And doing that implies improved data, and a single source of truth, which is difficult if we've haven't set things up properly," he said.

The third objective is keyed to automating, integrating, and optimizing business assets around the globe, infusing IT more deeply and strategically into the global Chevron central nervous system.

Now that’s what I’m talking about. Good stuff. It actually defines how IT contributes to business value and helps employees engage with their ultimate business objectives.

Scrummerfall: Pitfalls of Mixing Agile and Waterfall

One of my colleagues just sent me this article : Scrummerfall: The World's Worst Software Development Methodology - it is worth a quick read if you are interested in development processes. Most agree that there are pros and cons to Agile versus Waterfall depending on the organization. Pretty much everyone agrees that half-assing Agile is worse than not doing it at all. Hence the definition:

Scrummerfall. n. The practice of combining Scrum and Waterfall so as to ensure failure at a much faster rate than you had with Waterfall alone.

For those who are well aware of these pros and cons, this won't offer any deep insights. But it is a pretty funny take on it all, with spot on analysis of many organizations' cultural resistance to Agile.

THOUGHTful meetings

Back in the day (okay, a few months ago), Jim and I would constantly call each other to talk through ideas, ideas for client recommendations, ideas for advice to friends, ideas for industry changing frameworks or thoughts. These days, we are juggling clients across multiple geographies and starting to grow our team. It would be very easy to fall back on the ways most of us have worked in previous consultancies, focused on delivering to our clients and coming together primarily to manage the company, maybe with some more strategic thinking happening in sporadic pockets or centrally from a knowledge management group.

I thought I’d share a bit about what we’ve been doing to build a culture of thinking, since it seems to be working well so far. Now that we have added John and Claudia to the team, we have two weekly meetings, an Ensemble meeting to focus on management of the company and a Thought meeting to discuss ideas. In the Thought meetings, one of us shares an article or presentation with the group for feedback or we just pose open-ended topics. Last week, I was talking a lot with one of our clients about the differences between a software organization and an internal IT department. In past lives, I probably would have done a little thinking myself, maybe with a little research and possibly some conversation with someone from my company. This time, I “hijacked” another less urgent topic in the Thought meeting and we spent the entire hour brainstorming up the different pressures and probable recommendations for an organization trying to make the shift from “internal IT” to “software company” mentality. We came at it from very different perspectives, which I suppose you’d expect from a group of four that includes a couple technology backgrounds, a couple MBAs, a PhD in organizational psychology and many years of varied experiences.

To be honest, we were all grumpy at the start of the meeting. We met at 7 AM (6 AM for Claudia) so as to be done in time to kick off client meetings at 8 AM. Everyone was busy, logistics were challenging that morning, but after five minutes in we were having a healthy debate that started the day off just right. Not only was it fun, it gave me some great additional ideas to take back to my client. I think the weekly meetings also remind us to stay engaged with each other in a “thoughtful” way throughout the week via email, phone and impromptu meetings.

Too often, I think organizations try to relegate innovation or strategic thinking to a small group of people or force it into rare windows of time throughout the year. Meetings are all tactical, without enough room for real thinking. Organizations may have the capability to think strategically, but not the structure and practice. I’m not going to say it is easy, and check with us in a few years on how we are working this with 75 people, but I think these Thought meetings could be onto something ….

Letting go ... of my data

Geek Squad just called. They can recover the Quicken file off my old PC for only $519. I can probably buy a new PC for that, which I guess I will have to do, along with another copy of Quicken, if I want to get back up and running. If you haven’t read previous blogs on this, the short of it is that since I moved to my Mac, I’ve been running my personal finances on Quicken on a computer purchased in 2002. This is the only left over process/technology from my PC days. The Mac version of Quicken just didn’t offer all the functionality I “needed” and most importantly couldn’t import my data, which has every transaction back to 1997.

If a process improvement firm offered me a consultation, they would probably ask me why I’m doing this process anyway. It surely does not change my spending habits. It kind of supports my business expense data gathering, but there would probably be a more efficient way to do that. Really, I just can’t let go of the ability to run all these reports on my data. I find it all kind of interesting. And I get to relive happy moments by seeing where I went to dinner or what fun toy I bought.

It makes me wonder how many processes and technologies are in organizations just because people can’t let go of their old way of doing things. It IS hard … so hard to let go. I promise to be more compassionate when I tell people their processes and technologies are antiquated and not achieving their business objectives.

P.S. I do welcome advice on better ways of managing this; maybe if I can come up with one I can give up on this file, and the antiquated process and technology. I haven’t let go yet, even though I do think this is some kind of sign from the universe that something needs to change.

The value of executive assessments

One of my friends is on the management team of a startup that recently received a large VC investment. He was telling me about the process they went through, which included a full assessment of him and the rest of his management team. He was telling me of the exorbitant fees, which the VC brilliantly made his company pay, that the assessment company charged to spend a day with them and write up a report. I was not surprised, as I had interviewed with a company a couple years ago that focuses entirely on those types of assessments and charges similar fees. And I told him I thought it was worth it.

So we got into a lively little debate about how reasonable it is for these high-end firms to charge a five-figure fee to complete a single assessment. I think it is, as long as the company and/or individual conducting the assessment is one of the few who are truly very good at it. If the investors want to invest in the company in large part for their management team, and usually they do, knowing the risk areas and strengths of the individuals and of the team as a whole is information worth every dollar. That’s why these VC and Private Equity guys are more often than not making this a part of their due diligence. They often go through the same assessment for key new hires and as a foundation for individual and team coaching.

Similar to an investor looking at an investment from the outside, business executives often do not have the visibility they need into the IT organization to make key leadership decisions. Exacerbating the problem are those CTOs and IT directors who are performing poorly but holding their business executives hostage with their threat of walking away with critical technical knowledge that cannot be replaced. Business executives often need support and an outside perspective to make key leadership decisions and to help their leadership improve their individual and team performance.

[Before I go on, in the spirit of full disclosure, we provide selection, assessment and coaching services at Thought Ensemble, both as part of other projects and as an independent offering. So I am not entirely objective when offering this opinion that this is a high value service ]

Here’s why I think business executives should consider getting some outside support when making decisions about their IT leadership: For both selection (recruiting) and assessments (on existing leadership), they often do not have the skills in house to appropriately evaluate leadership, or even know what criteria on which to evaluate. From a coaching perspective, not only is the understanding of the specific challenges IT leaders face important, the external perspective is very valuable. The costs of hiring the wrong leadership, keeping the wrong leadership, or of not helping potential leadership develop are too high. Sometimes executives who are not performing can get some coaching or supplement themselves with other leaders to address their development needs; other times these executives have flaws that cannot be addressed and should be replaced. Either way, having that information and acting on it is incredibly valuable.

Kill the translator!!

Sorry for being grumpy but the guy behind me on the plane has showered me with about twenty sneezes and I’m fired up, trying to get posts out before I catch swine flu.

I won’t take you through the gory details of what’s gotten me on this tirade, but I’m getting really sick of people describing their job as “you know, I’m the translator between business and technology”. I just think it is so 90’s and you’d think anyone who had seen the movie Office Space would be reminded of the pathetic guy who validated his existence for doing the same thing.

Some of you out there are saying, “but technology people and business people NEED that translator!” Maybe so, but I say it is a dying profession, rooted in traditional processes and organizational structures. This assumption validates and perpetuates the box we draw around technology organizations and the people within them. It holds back organizations from quickly responding to business needs and opportunities with technology innovation.

Good technologists must speak the same language as the business, especially those who are in any kind of leadership role within projects or organizations. Business people have to embrace technology if they are going to be successful. And since we are in technology for business, not in business for technology, so I’d say this lingual challenge is directed more at the technologists.

Probably not one of my favorite things...

I'm on a flight from Dallas to Philadelphia right now. Yes, right now. I'm typing this from the plane using American's new gogo internet service since the Admirals Club gave me a free pass. I know this has been around for a little while on certain planes, but this is the first time I've been on a flight and have had a chance to test it out. It isn't really all that exciting, but I am wondering how this will change the world of business.

I have been flying a lot lately (I'm on a 6 flights in 7 day streak right now) and have actually really been enjoying the opportunity to take a nap during the day, catch up on more in depth reading and make some progress on some of our bigger writing objectives. And I've churned out a couple of killer slides that probably wouldn't have made their debut without some kind of disconnection from the real world. So here I am re-connected to Facebook, skyping with co-workers, updating my blog, ping-ponging on email and not really doing anything particularly important.

I'm feeling quite a bit of ambivalence about this. As long as they have rules that ensure people "do no harm to their neighbor's disconnection", hence AA's rules around not viewing porn, not video conferencing and not making calls, I suppose it can be useful to be connected and I just have to be more personally disciplined on how I use my time. Isn't it sad I secretly hope they charge by the minute so that I have to be thoughtful about how long I'm online like when I'm on vacation typing from an internet cafe?

P.S. The coffee sucks. But thank goodness for exit rows.

A few of my favorite things

If I utter the words “I love dropbox” one more time today, my coworkers may fire me, so I’m going to blog about it instead. Actually, I think I’d like to rank my top 5 life enhancing technologies, with a new #5 entering the picture… think ala sound of music … “these are a few of my favorite things” …

My current top five are, in order:

1. My iPhone, and its applications that do everything a type A person needs to manage their life (except talk on the phone without dropped calls)
2. My Mac, especially for its ability to store practically everything important – pictures, data, music, etc - and then search my file and email archives to answer my questions immediately
3. The Nav system in my car, because I no longer have to follow directions, it continually adjusts as I choose (read: accidentally miss exits) to go a different way
4. Dropbox, because I feel completely connected to my coworkers file-lives; I’ve basically made a fundamental shift from local to cloud work

This week, I have added a new technology to the list … Web Presence by Cisco, for its ability to truly connect with people in other locations. The last time I tried video conferencing, other than skype-ing and web-exing from my computer, was in 1999, to conduct interviews on one of my early IT strategy projects. When my new client suggested this week we do interviews over Web Presence, I figured it was better: it had been 10 years. But I was blown away by the engagement I felt in these interviews. It was so lifelike, I could catch every eyebrow raise, every subtle sigh, every eye-sparkle of an idea. And while it might have only been 90% as effective as meeting in person, it was 200% more efficient than typical interviewing, which at least involves shuttling between offices if not traveling all around the nation or globe. We interviewed back to back, just pressing the button to connect to the next location. 1 PM: POW, we were connected to Philly. 2 PM: POW, we were connected to Denver (which kind of threw me since I live there and hadn’t been there in two weeks). 3 PM: POW, connected to Ann Arbor. I know it is not the same, but I really felt like I met these people. I can’t wait to see how this technology changes and also impacts our business lives in another 10 years…

What's the right amount of attrition?

I was pondering with one of my colleagues today the question of “how much turnover is good?”, after meeting with an organization that believed the long tenure of their entire staff helped certain processes run smoother. “Some” turnover is good. Companies who brag about 0% attrition are either not aggressive enough in hiring or they are holding on to people they shouldn’t. How to define “some” depends on the industry, function, company size and growth path, among other factors.

The more interesting question is “which kind of turnover is good?” Is it better to do layoffs when necessary or regularly purge the bottom performers? In either case, what’s the right way to identify the people to let go? Usually, the wrong people are let go. Companies down to the wire may send an edict down the chain to cut the same percentage across the board. They cut people in functions not critical at the moment. They cut the most recently hired. Or those who aren’t staffed on billable work at the moment the decision is made. These seemingly “fair” or “just” decision criteria rarely result in the best long-term outcome and usually alienate the remaining employees more. The hallways ripple with conversations related to the insanity of letting the best talent go – it seems everyone is in on the insanity of the decisions except the people making the decisions.

I know companies have been experiencing tough times and must respond to the pressures from their investors or the realities of king cash. It is too bad most companies have not planned an attrition strategy before it is too late to be strategic about it.

IT Performance Management Imperative #3: Measure Client Satisfaction. Completely.

This blog is part of a series focused on IT Performance Management.

Any performance management system should include some measure of internal client satisfaction; this is arguably as important as the standard project and operational measures as well as the “holy grail” business value measure I wrote about in a previous post. Especially as clients are able to go to outside vendors as a substitute, the internal IT organization needs to do what it can to raise awareness of its challenges and make good investments.

I hear all kinds of excuses for not measuring client satisfaction. Some say their employee satisfaction survey has a few questions on IT and should be sufficient (this could only substitute for an annual survey and still only if the IT organization has constructed the questions to cover their needs). Some say the results would be too grim and shouldn’t be highlighted (acknowledging the feedback and then acting on it is the fastest way to improve the situation). Others say they already know how people would respond and should not bother (I’ve never executed one of these and not gotten some insights).

How this measure is constructed depends on the company and its specific types of needs, but several best practices should be integrated at a high level:

• Make sure to include multiple measures that capture the various types of work of the IT organization (e.g. project work and operational work).
• Combine both targeted surveys (end of project, incident closure) with annual surveys.
• Combine some quantitative and qualitative feedback in the details of the satisfaction survey(s). Quantitative is critical for assessing performance and trending, but much of the details needed to make the improvements will be in the qualitative comments.
• While some adjustments may need to be made over time, try to maintain the majority of the questions. Client satisfaction measures are most insightful when trending can be shown, since the pure data is so subjective.
• Act on the feedback. Acknowledge that feedback has been heard and show what is being done to improve results. If nothing is “marketed” about the results, the participation in the survey and the scores themselves will likely drop the next year.
• Tie incentives to client satisfaction surveys all around. Incent people to complete the survey through little gifts. Incent IT employees to improve results by giving rewards for one-off positive comments or all around improved results.

My favorite re-org tool

I do a fair number of reorganizations, usually in the IT or technology organization space, and many of my other projects involve some level of organizational design. The stories I hear about why the organization is designed the way it is, which are often told apologetically, are usually amusing and rarely surprising (anymore). And of course some of the real stories take a couple of weeks to come to the surface. You’ve probably heard a few of them in your halls: “The marketing business unit refuses to work with anyone but Mike so we have one decentralized application development group that he runs. They don’t really report into IT which is fine since the CMO and the CIO don’t speak anyway.” And “Well, what really happened is that Jen threatened to quit so we promoted her to VP and gave her the rest of Chad’s organization.” Or “Yeah, about Dmitri. He doesn’t have a team because no one will work for him, or any clients because no one will work with him, but he knows so much about the technology we went ahead and made him CTO.” Most organizations don’t have all these situations, but almost all have one or two that just make you go “hmmm”.

The leadership often knows how ridiculous these situations are but not what to do about it. Or sometimes they know exactly what the right answer is but do not have the political power or will to make the transition. That’s where my favorite re-org tool comes in …

It goes something like this: First, divert attention. Trying to engage in conversation related to the stories above, while sometimes entertaining, is not the fastest way to the appropriate outcome. Next, infuse some good, old-fashioned logic, a medicine most do not want to swallow. Finally, sit back, facilitate a little and watch the magic happen. Consulting witchcraft? Not really, it is actually quite simple intellectually, just takes a little thought and a bit of perseverance to pull off. The secret sauce is to transition thinking from organizational structure to a process model (or value streams, or delivery model, or many other names, but something that explains what the organization does on one page). I’ve seen some organizations go “ah-hah” as soon as they create the model. The rest is a breeze. Some fight through the assessment, but once they agree to the current state issues related to that delivery model, they have to be intellectually honest about what to do about it. And some hold on till the bitter end, fighting issue after issue through the new organization design. But this same model helps facilitate that issue resolution process. The key is to get organizations out of their silo’d thinking and story-telling. Over and over again, I’ve seen the process model approach turn organizations 180 degrees from political to productive.