Skip navigation

Blogs

7 Posts tagged with the change_management tag
0

The Center recently hosted a virtual roundtable on an important topic to CIOs, Partnering to Drive Change through Analytics, where we explored how organizations are applying analytics best practices today, the business value that the best performing organizations are experiencing.

 

In preparing for the session, I developed some observations on the topic that I think provide a useful perspective for CIOs as you all consider taking action on getting value from leveraging analytics and creating business value in your own enterprise.

 

Not a new topic

In researching the literature prior to the session to provide some historical perspective on how far back this topic goes, I discovered that people have been talking about what we describe as this massive explosion of data, initially called information overload, for longer than many of us have been in this industry. From what I could ascertain, the earliest known attribution of the term “information overload” was credited to an IBM advertising supplement in the New York Times on April 30, 1961. So obviously this is not a new topic.

 

So what’s different now: more data than ever before

That being said, we are clearly at a new frontier of information overload and explosion of data, which is astronomically more challenging, but at the same time very exciting from the point of view of being able to impact the way we do business.

 

To put this into a context for today, I like to look at the retail industry, which is at the forefront of collecting massive amounts of data, and more importantly putting that data to use in changing the way they go to market, manage the customer experience, streamline the supply chain, and create the next generation customer. Walmart is often cited as a great example as a retailer leveraging data and analytics across all of these elements. A fact that I found particularly noteworthy - as of about nine months ago, Walmart was processing over a million customer transactions per hour, feeding databases that were estimated in excess of two and a half petabytes (roughly the equivalent of 167 times all of the books in the Library of Congress.)

 

Walmart has unprecedented insight into what their customers are doing, what they want, and how to respond across their 8,500 stores worldwide. At the same time, they need to find a way to translate that insight into actions that drive customer benefit and stakeholder value.

 

How should CIOs respond to this incredible opportunity?

“Revolutions in science have often been preceded by revolutions in measurement,” said Sinan Aral, a business professor at New York University, in a 2010 article in the Economist. He went on to say that just as the microscope transformed biology by exposing germs, and the electron microscope changed physics, the proliferation of data is turning the social sciences upside down.

 

I see that as representative of the conversation we as CIOs should be having now – how to apply this insight, these data, to become the microscope for how businesses can learn and advance ourselves and our industries. There are a few takeaways for me from Katharyn White’s presentation that I would encourage CIOs to consider in looking to manage these conversations.

 

  • It’s a journey – the research presented reflects the evolutionary process of adopting, implementing, and embedding the value of analytics in the enterprise. And as Katharyn emphasized, the process of gaining buy-in and creating change is actually a core part of the implementation. In leading change management efforts myself over the years, I see that implementing analytics is the type of program that requires deep change across the enterprise, and core shifts in the way people make decisions, operate and go to market. CIOs can leverage their expertise in change management, as well as their enterprise-wide view of data and information, to make the journey more successful.

 

  • Learn from others – the research also showed that companies can be successful getting to value across many industries; success in analytics is not industry dependent, or even geography dependent. There are companies of all types applying best practices and getting exciting results – whether it is in growing sales, increasing efficiencies, or improving individual customer interactions. Katharyn shared the view that success with analytics benefits greatly from a cross-industry perspective, and from seeking out examples from many other environments as a way to leapfrog in your own industry. This echoes my own experience – and that of the Center’s commitment to peer-sharing. CIOs should seek to systematically leverage learning from others to innovate in an emerging area like analytics.

 

  • Leverage your C-suite relationships – by definition, getting value from analytics, especially as companies migrate from aspirational to experienced or experienced to transformed (as described in the research), clearly requires data or information to be collected across functional silos and/or across multiple business units. Whether or not the data collection and management moves to the point of being centralized within the enterprise, there needs to be an integrated and shared view of who is doing what, and how they data can be cleaned, verified and leveraged across the silos. This is an important opportunity for CIOs to leverage your hard-won C-suite relationships, and reach out to connect on an integrated view of the possibilities to move to value in your enterprise. One partnership in particular that Katharyn mentioned – the one with the Chief Marketing Officer – struck me as interesting for CIOs to consider. Analytics is at the forefront of where marketing and technology are coming together, and the partnership represents an emerging opportunity for CIOs to truly push the needle on analytics and how the company goes to market.

 

What are you doing in your organization to move the needle on the path value through analytics? What lessons can you share with others?

0

I wanted to underscore the comments made by Katharyn White, in the Virtual Roundtable "Partnering to Drive Change through Analytics" on March 23.  In my experience, surfacing IT Cost Transparency analytics for a large financial firm, the reporting alone was not the big win.  What took equal if not more effort, and helped produce actionable results was the leadership messages coming from IT to frame the new information and reporting—that this was a process that would transform the internal budgeting and cost allocation process, not simply another element added to the existing process.

 

The ability for a business partner to see exact detail of their IT spend is only valuable if the costing context is provided and the variables explained. So the CIO's role is far beyond finding the resources to get the job done, but must lead the transformation and communicate and manage expectations clearly across the organization.

 

In another area, we were able to collect an enormous amount of "people data" from a variety of systems and weave it together to help leaders get a panoramic view of their Talent Portfolio (so successful in fact, that we have since spun off a company to do just this for other organizations). The technology is of course the easy part, it's the negotiation around data ownership, data privacy and pre-existing conceptions around data transparency that required a determined approach to produce valuable analytics on the human capital spend.

 

Once the pieces are put in place, the objective view is priceless in driving strategy and measuring and reporting back progress in critical initiatives.

 

How have others experienced this?  How is IT providing leadership in your transformation?

 

 

1

The Trojan horse outside the walls of Troy had an alluring appeal, but it was the stratagem that allowed the Greeks finally to enter the city of Troy and lead to the capture of the city.

 

This story is an extreme view point of some IT people on the concept of IT Consumerism. On the other side of the balance it may well be an over-bloated and melodramatic view of this new paradigm shift.

 

It may be necessary to try and introduce/define the concept to create some context. Generally speaking IT Consumerism refers to the increasing influence that technology experiences of individuals as consumers—both hardware and applications—have on the technology that they expect to use at work.

 

I would bet that most of CIOs are already experiencing some form of this in their organizations. How many CIOs can still fetter access to internet usage? Or block access to IM and social networks like Facebook, Twitter, etc.?

 

The reality, however, is that employees already use these technologies as part of their everyday lives. With the pervasiveness of technology and the increasing always-on connectivity of devices and end-points, users come to work expecting the same experience, convenience and flexibility they have elsewhere in their lives. Unfortunately, at work they meet the strong wall of opposition -- namely “IT Governance” -- that spells out what can and cannot be done within the corporate network.

 

The real challenge is that the enterprise has suddenly lost the monopoly of “cool, cutting-edge, and latest” gadgets as users today now experience the “latest” in terms of innovative technology and applications even before corporate IT can offer it. This is partly due to the conservativeness required to secure the enterprise and also the cost-benefit challenge of multiple needs and demands competing for an ever reducing IT budget. Added to all the mix is the increasing influence on the work-force by the “X-generation folks”, who have never been held back from experimenting with and experiencing technology growing up, and typically take inter-connectivity as given.

 

What does this mean for enterprises? It means that the influence of consumer technologies on the corporate workspace and the workforce is unavoidable – with implications on enterprise security, employee satisfaction and retention. Gone are the days when IT dictates which technologies the enterprise implements without push back and discussion. Going out the window very quickly is the “veto-power” of IT in making decisions on IT investment. So many users are already marking those technology choices and decisions in their private and personal lives, they cannot understand why they should not have such powers within their companies.

 

Since this is a trend that we cannot run away from, I would say that the relevant question is how do we leverage it for the advantage of the organization?

 

For my own view on this, truthfully, I am undecided. I do appreciate that federating IT and empowering users has productivity value, and that ignoring the consumerization of IT trends possess some risk. Benefits to consider include:

  • The impact on employee productivity.
  • Using social computing to engage customers.
  • Integrating social computing with enterprise business processes to unlock new value

 

But at the same time how do you:

  • Ensure you don’t lose control of the enterprise environment and expose the organization to unnecessary risk in the bid to provide user convenience and flexibility?
  • Strike a balance between enabling new technologies and securing data?
  • Establish clear policies for the use of social networks?

 

The responses I’m looking forward to getting from this blog are: how would you approach consumerization of IT? And how can you help embrace the trend to help boost productivity and increase your competitiveness and flexibility of your IT organization?

0

I recently read a Forbes article Solving National IT Issues: We must address national strategic issues from a technology--not political--standpoint, written by CIO blogger, Mike Schaffner.  While I respect Mike’s point that issues cannot be addressed from a political standpoint, I think he is missing the mark slightly, and doing a disservice to all CIOs.  The more I read and reflected on the article, the more it seemed to me that this is a movie that we have seen many times before.

 

Forget, for a moment, that we are talking about the CIO of the United States of America.  Imagine the more familiar context of a huge enterprise that is 200+ years old, complete with policies, procedures and methodologies – ways and means of doing business that give new meaning to the term "legacy systems", not to mention business silos.  Could there possibly exist a more complex (polite term for dysfunctional) environment in which to effectively transact business?

 

Now bring a newly appointed CIO into a newly created position – enterprise CIO, and by the way, define the newly created position in a way where it has an incredible sphere of influence (reporting to the CEO of one of the world's largest enterprises) yet has limited to no real authority, i.e. the line of business (silo) CIOs do not actually report to the new enterprise CIO.  When all of that dust settles, we have a glorious position with lots of responsibility (or at least expectation) and limited to no authority.

 

Now surround all of this with the worst economic condition that any of us (c-suite included) have seen in our lifetime.

 

Given that scenario, do you know anyone that would focus on why digital rights management is an important priority?  Not to make excuses – in spirit, Mike Schaffner has focused on a good set of important technology issues.  His list of strategic priorities is an excellent one.  His observation that Vivek Kundra has largely focused on "keeping the lights on and reducing expenses" (my words, not his) is, from what I have seen, correct.  At the last government CIO roundtable that I attended with the IEG and Public CIO Magazine, Vivek Kundra in fact presented his IT agenda and was most proud of the fact that he eliminated $80 billion in government IT projects that appeared to be either misdirected, not needed or so far off the tracks that they could not be saved.  He was able to then both cut expenses and re-direct a portion of the savings to other more productive efforts.

 

Sound like a familiar theme?  This is an example (on steroids) of why we created the Center for CIO Leadership – to help CIOs rise above the role of IT cost center manager and to transform themselves into better business (or government) people.  While I don't think that we ever envisioned transforming an enterprise quite as large and complex as the government of the United States, I believe that our understanding of the challenges, the opportunities and, to a growing extent, some of the solutions that we are developing are completely applicable.

 

If you were CIO of the US, what would you do?  Would you focus more on strategy, technology or politics?  Feel free to respond and share your opinions and suggestions…

0

Todd’s bio on Twitter says he’s an audit and turn-around specialist, IT and High Tech Manufacturing specialist, author, speaker and blogger.  I must say I’m most familiar with Todd as a blogger and haven’t read his books or heard him speak.  He has some very interesting perspectives and a pretty prolific Tweeter, something I don’t do a lot of myself.  Tweeting must be a learned talent, which I’m still working to fully understand its value.

 

One of Todd’s recent blogs “Good Estimates Only Have a 50% Chance of Being Made” ( http://ecaminc.com/index.php/blog/59-generalblog/217-2010-09-13) is an interesting discussion of why, from a purely theoretically perspective, project estimates only have a 50% chance of being met.  His argument is that we shouldn’t assign positive or negative assessments to meeting individual estimates.  This aligns with my experience that the law of large numbers argues that things balance out in the end.  My experience is and was that it’s the task you forget to estimate that are the problem as they represent a 100% negative variance to plan.

 

In a comment to this specific blog, Peter Kretzsman (someone who will definitely make my who’s worth following list) points out “An IT organization which fails to deliver to expectations half of the time, as you suggest, will be regarded as hopelessly unreliable and flaky, all mathematical protestations aside”.  These types of discussions, which I would really like to encourage, are where real learning takes place.  Two points emerge.  First, people who prepare and use estimates need to understand they are most like wrong and that their estimates need to be updated as more is learned about the project and second, what’s really important is how estimates are communicated.

 

Here is Todd’s information to add to your list of “Who’s Worth Following”:

Let me know if you think this is a valuable service and helps you define a set of useful people to follow on the social media of your choice. Also, if you think of someone I should add to the list let me know.

 

Footnote – Todd and I just connected today through a relationship with Michael Krigsman and his company Asuret.  It’s a very small world.

 

William A. Crowell

wcrowell@asuret.com

Twitter: billcio

Facebook: William A Crowell

LinkedIn: Bill Crowell

5

I just finished listening to the recent press conference of Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, on his planned restructuring and rationalization of the Department of Defense. I was struck by his description of the IT function within the Department as inefficient and the duplication of basic IT capabilities across the organization. It sounded as if every command at all levels had their own independent IT functions.

 

This in and of itself is not surprising in a large bureaucracy, but it does cause one to wonder who is running the show. There is an overall Department CIO and most likely many Command level CIO’s. I’m sure they all want to protect their turf but there is a more important public service responsibility to run IT in as cost effective a manor as possible using the technologies available today.

 

Addressing this problem requires that senior management at all levels understand two basic principles of managing IT. First, the value of IT is delivered through applications and the design, development or purchase of these applications needs to be close to and under the control of the end users. Second, the technology tools supporting these applications (data centers, servers, networks, desktops, mobile devices and most support functions) need to be managed at the enterprise level of the organization. The reason is simply that there are enormous economies of scale in acquiring and managing these resources.

 

One additional reality is that end user demands drive the need for IT resources and this demand needs to be controlled in two ways. First, the enterprise needs to make sure the capability being requested doesn’t already exist within the organization to avoid duplication. Second, truly new capabilities need to be justified by a strong business case.

 

So what does DOD need to do to get it’s hands around the issues it faces? Here are some ideas:

 

  1. Consolidate data centers into an overall DOD network. EDS and all the major outsourcers have known for years that there is an optimal size for a data center, and all suboptimal centers should be closed and their functions transferred to the enterprise’s data centers. I’d did exactly this years ago at McGraw Hill and we generate substantial savings, though I admit it was a difficult political job. I also supported doing this in Oregon’s state government, proving the politics can be overcome if the rational is strong enough.

  2. Consolidate networks which are a major IT expense and in most cases duplicative and overlapping.

  3. Virtualize servers where ever possible. We all know that servers dedicated to a single application are typically underutilized and that the technology now exists for servers to support multiple applications

  4. Centralize the purchase of desktops and mobile devices to gain the purchasing economies of scale.

  5. Centralize all support functions into centers of excellence.

 

I would not be surprised if DOD could cut it’s IT cost by as much as 50% without negatively impacting service. This was exactly my experience at McGraw Hill when I was asked to rationalize the IT organization in the early 1980’s.

 

The principles for effectively managing IT in large organizations is not a mystery and they have been proven over and over again. Unfortunately, there have been classic failures in applying these principles, the Texas and Virginia debacles come to mind. It’s essential that leadership at all levels clearly understand they are wasting valuable resources that as Secretary Gates said can and should be redeployed to meet the organization’s primary mission, goals and objectives. Selling these principles to the organization’s leadership and then executing these principles is the primary mission of the Department’s CIO.

 

I would appreciate your thoughts on this blog through your comments or you can contact me direct at any of venues below.

 

William A. Crowell

Wcrowell@asuret.com

LinkedIn: Bill Crowell

Twitter: billcio

0

CIO Magazine had a very interesting article by Stephanie Overby published this week entitled “Don’t Mess with Texas: 7 Lessons from State IT Outsourcing Disasters”.  Her 7 lessons learned from IT outsourcing debacles in Texas, Virginia and Indiana included:

 

  • You Get What You Pay For
  • You Get What You SLA For
  • When the Going Gets Tough, The Tough Go Public
  • You Can't Sue Your Way to a Better Relationship. But You Can Try
  • Outsourcing Means Never Having to Say You're Sorry
  • Outsourcing Will Not Cure Internal Inertia
  • If At First You Don't Succeed, Try Again. And Again

 

The article goes on to say “It took San Diego County two outsourcing contracts—and three different CIOs—before it got its outsourcing deal on the right track”, which is a reference to a May 2006 article that Stephanie wrote (“Government Outsourcing: San Diego Tries to Learn from Contract Mistakes”).

 

The problem with Stephanie assessment, especially the idea that San Diego got it right the second time around, is the belief that the outsourcing contract is the basis for success.  My argument is not that having a sound contract is a bad idea but simply that any third party relationship has to be based first on a solid foundation of mutual respect, empathy and trust.

 

The contract is like a prenuptial agreement, if things don’t go well it’s the basis for resolution of any disputes.  Once the marriage is consummated and the deal signed, the players on both sides need to work on developing their relationship.

 

The starting point for this relationship is mutual respect.  The client needs to understand that they have hired expertise in IT from the outsourcer because IT is not their organization’s core competency and that their organization has made the outsourcing decision based upon a belief that the outsourcer will provide more efficient and effective IT services.  Anyone in the client organization that is not committed to these fundamental principles should not be involved in the outsourcing relationship.

 

From the outsourcers perspective, they need to demonstrate from the get go their core competency in IT and clearly document the ways in which they are improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the IT services they are providing.  The profitability of their relationship should be the result of the superior services they are providing and not the principle goal of the relationship.  Here again, any member of the outsourcing vendor that doesn’t embrace these principles should be removed from the account.

 

Empathy is a second essential element of the third part relationship.  The client needs to understand that their outsourcer is not a charity and needs to generate a reasonable profit if the relationship is going to be sustained over the long run.  The outsourcer needs to understand their client’s cost concerns and make sure they are clearly demonstrating that their services are competitive.  Empathy implies flexibility on the part of both parties.  The client’s demands must be reasonable and not place an unfair burden on the outsourcer and the outsourcer must be willing to give when there are issues with the quality or effectiveness of the services being provided.  If the outsourcer has over promised the services they can provide for the price they quoted, not an unusual situation, then these issues need to be addressed head on.  The question can best be addressed by determining a fair price and an appropriate discount that reflects the outsourcer’s prior commitments.

 

If mutual respect and empathy have been established, then the conditions exist to build the third leg of the stool - trust.  Trust clearly takes time to develop and is the most valuable element of any relationship.  Any actions by either party that would violate the others trust is a strategic relationship issue and needs to be effectively addressed by the senior management of both parties.  Nothing can cause a relationship to unravel faster than the loss of trust.

 

If your considering outsourcing or have already entered into an outsourcing relationship, develop a sound contract and then put it on the shelf.  Focus on developing a solid relationship based upon mutual respect, empathy and trust, and my bet is you’ll never need to refer to the contract again or at least only in the most unique circumstances.  If problems develop, consider working with a marriage counselor before ending up in a failed relationship.

 

 

William A. Crowell

wcrowell@asuret.com

twitter: billcio

LinkedIn: Bill Crowell

My Blog: http://bcrowell.wordpress.com/