The Dark Side of Digital

 Four years ago, I wrote reflecting on my 50 years in IT, and the pursuit of value from the use of IT. I described the changes that had occurred over that time since I started my working life as a computer operator on an IBM 1401, which had a (not really published as such) processing speed close to 10 million times slower than today’s (2013) microprocessors, 8k of storage (later upgraded, with an additional unit, to 16k), no solid state/hard drive, displays or communication capability, and no operating system (that was me!). Weighing in at around 4 tons, it needed a fully air conditioned room, with a raised floor, approximately twice the size of my living room.

I described how my world in 2013 compared with that time. I had powerful technology in my small home office, wirelessly connected within my house, and to the world beyond through the internet. I had access to an ever-growing body of knowledge that could answer almost any question I had, and which enabled me to manage my banking, pay bills, check medical lab test results, organize travel, shop, read books, listen to music, watch videos, play games, organize, edit and enhance photographs and videos, and a myriad of other tasks.

I went on to describe how, beyond my individual world, at the enterprise level, the technology model is changing from computing – the technology in and of itself, to consumption – how individuals and organizations use technology in ways that can create value for them and, in the case of organizations, their stakeholders. I discussed the extent to which technology, and how it was being used, was continuing to change, at an ever-increasing rate, including:

  • increasing adoption of the Cloud;
  • Software (and just about anything else) as a Service; the explosion of “Big Data”, and, along with it, analytics and data visualization;
  • mobility, consumerization and BYOD which fundamentally changes how, where and when we interact with technology and access information;
  • the ”internet of things” (IOT) bringing with it unprecedented challenges in security, data privacy, safety, governance and trust; and
  • robotics and algorithmic computing which have considerable potential to change the nature of work.

I closed by talking about what hadn’t changed, and what needed to change. Putting my value lens on, I lamented that, then, 15 years since The Information Paradox, in which I described the challenge of getting value from so called “IT projects”, was first published, the track record remained dismal, and realizing the value promised by IT remained elusive. I attributed this situation to several factors, the primary ones being:

  • a continued, often blind focus on the technology itself, rather than the change – increasingly significant and complex change – that technology both shapes and enables;
  • the unwillingness of business leaders to get engaged in, and take ownership of this change – electing to abdicate their accountability to the IT function; and
  • failure to inclusively and continually involve the stakeholders affected by the change, without whose understanding and “buy in” failure is pretty much a foregone

 

What a difference four years makes

OK – that’s (probably more than) enough of a recap – I’m now going to fast forward some 4 years (a lifetime in the digital world) to today, 2017. While the challenge of creating and sustaining value from our use of technology described above is still real, our failure to address it, along with an almost total failure of leadership – technical, business and government leadership, have brought us into an increasingly dark place – one that I think few of us saw coming, certainly not unfolding as it is. I call this place “the Dark Side of Digital”. I alluded to it in 2013 in discussing IOT, robotics and algorithmic computing, when I said that they brought with them “unprecedented challenges in security, data privacy, safety, governance and trust…(and) have considerable potential to change the nature of work” – I would now revise and add to the latter saying “…have considerable potential to fundamentally impact the future of work and, indeed, the future of society”.

The elements of this dark side fall into three main categories:

  1. Cybersecurity: This is the most traditional category – one that, albeit not so- named, has been with us since the advent of computers, when cards, tapes or
    other media could be lost/stolen. However, as our connectedness continues to increase, so does our susceptibility to cybersecurity attacks, with a growing number of such threats arising out of machine-to-machine learning and the Internet of Things. There are nearly 7 billion connected devices being used this year, but this is expected to jump to a whopping 20 billion over the next four years. Most cybercriminals are now operating with increasing levels of skill and professionalism. As a result, the adverse effects of cyber-breaches, -hacks, or –attacks, including the use of ransomware and phishing continue to escalate resulting in increased physical loss and theft of media, eroding competitive advantage and shareholder value, and severely damaging reputations. More severe attacks have the capacity to disrupt regular business operations and governmental functions severely. Such incidents may result in the temporary outage of critical services and the compromise of sensitive data. In the case of nation-state supported actors, their attacks have the potential to cause complete paralysis and/or destruction of critical systems and infrastructure. Such attacks have the capacity to result in significant destruction of property and/or loss of life. Under such circumstances, regular business operations and/or government functions cease and data confidentiality, integrity, and availability are completely compromised for extended
  1. The Future of Work: The fear that technology will eliminate jobs has been with us pretty much since the advent of the first commercial computers, but, until the last few years, the argument that new jobs will appear to replace the old has largely held true. Now however, the revolutionary pace and breadth of technological change is such that we are experiencing a situation in which, as recently described by the Governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney.

“Alongside great benefits, every technological revolution mercilessly destroys jobs & livelihoods well before new ones emerge.”

Early AI and IOT systems are already augmenting human work and changing management structures across labor sectors. We are already seeing, and can expect to continue to see uneven distribution of the of AI impact across sectors, job types, wage levels, skills and education. It’s very hard to predict which jobs will be most affected by AI-driven automation.

While, traditionally, low-skill jobs have been at the greatest risk of replacement from automation, as Stephen Hawking says, the “rise of artificial intelligence is likely to extend job destruction deep into the middle classes, with only the most caring, creative or supervisory roles remaining.” He goes on to say that “we are at the most dangerous moment in the development of humanity”.

  1. The Future of Society: On the societal front, a paradigm shift is underway in how we work and communicate, as well as how we express, inform and
    entertain ourselves. Equally, governments and institutions are being reshaped, as are systems of education, healthcare and transportation, among many others.

AI and automated decision making systems are often deployed as a background process, unknown and unseen by those they impact. Even when they are seen, they may provide assessments and guide decisions without being fully understood or evaluated. Visible or not, as AI systems proliferate through social domains, there are few established means to validate AI systems’ fairness, and to contest and rectify wrong or harmful decisions or impacts. Professional codes of ethics, where they exist, don’t currently reflect the social and economic complexities of deploying AI systems within critical social domains like healthcare, law enforcement, criminal justice, and labor. Similarly, technical curricula at major universities, while recently emphasizing ethics, rarely integrate these principles into their core training at a practical level[1]. As Mike Ananny and Taylor Owen said in a recent Globe and Mail article[2], there is “a troubling disconnect between the rapid development of AI technologies and the static nature of our governance institutions. It is difficult to imagine how governments will regulate the social implications of an AI that adapts in real time, based on flows of data that technologists don’t foresee or understand. It is equally challenging for governments to design safeguards that anticipate human-machine action, and that can trace consequences across multiple systems, data-sets, and institutions.” This disconnect is further adding to the erosion of trust in our institutions that we have been seeing over several decades.

Adding to the threats to society is the proliferation of internet and social media. In a world where we can all be publishers, we see shades of Orwell’s 1984 in a post-truth word of alternate facts, and fake news. Rather than becoming a more open and collaborative society, we see society fracturing into siloed echo- chambers of alternate-reality, built on confirmation bias, and fed by self-serving populist leaders, posing dangerously simplistic solutions – sometimes in tweets of 140 characters or less – to poorly understood and increasingly complex issues.

 

So, what do we need to do?

The complexity of these challenges, and their interconnectedness across sectors make it a critical responsibility of all stakeholders of global society – governments, business, academia, and civil society – to work together to better understand the emerging trends.

If business leaders expect to harness the latest technology advances to the benefit of their customers, business and society at large, there are two primary challenges they need to address now.

  1. As companies amass vast amounts of personal data used to develop products and services, they must own the responsibility for the ethical use and security of that information. Ethical and security guidelines for how data is collected, controlled and ultimately used are of paramount concern to customers, and rightfully so. To gain the trust of customers, companies must be transparent and prove they employ strong ethical guidelines and security standards.
  1. It is incumbent on organizations to act responsibly toward their employees and make it possible for them to succeed in the rapidly changing work environment. That means clearly defining the company vision and strategies, enabling shifting roles through specialized training, and redefining processes to empower people to innovate and implement new ways of doing business to successfully navigate this new and ever-changing

As a society, if we are to avoid sleepwalking into a dystopian future, as described in 2013 by internet pioneer Nico Mele as one “inconsistent with the hard-won democratic values on which our modern society is based… a chaotic, uncontrollable, and potentially even catastrophic future”, we must recognize that technology is not destiny – institutions and policies are critical. Policy plays a large role in shaping the direction and effects of technological change. “Given appropriate attention and the right policy and institutional responses, advanced automation can be compatible with productivity, high levels of employment, and more broadly shared prosperity.”

The challenge is eloquently described by WEF founder and executive chairman, Dr. Klaus Schwab.

“Shaping the fourth industrial revolution to ensure that it is empowering and human- centred, rather than divisive and dehumanizing, is not a task for any single stakeholder or sector or for any one region, industry or culture. The fundamental and global nature of this revolution means it will affect and be influenced by all countries, economies, sectors and people. It is, therefore, critical that we invest attention and energy in multi- stakeholder cooperation across academic, social, political, national and industry boundaries. These interactions and collaborations are needed to create positive, common and hope- filled narratives, enabling individuals and groups from all parts of the world to participate in, and benefit from, the ongoing transformations.”

 

A call to action!

We need, as Dr. Schwab goes on to say, to “…take dramatic technological change as an invitation to reflect about who we are and how we see the world. The more we think about how to harness the technology revolution, the more we will examine ourselves and the underlying social models that these technologies embody and enable, and the more we will have an opportunity to shape the revolution in a manner that improves the state of the world.”[3]

We cannot wait for “them” to do this – as individuals, we can and must all play a leadership role as advocates in our organizations and communities to increase the awareness and understanding of the changes ahead, and to shape those changes such that, as Dr. Schwab says, they are empowering and human-centred, rather than divisive and dehumanizing.

[1] Source: The AI Now Report, The Social and Economic Implications of Artificial Intelligence Technologies in the Near-Term, A summary of the AI Now public symposium, hosted by the White House and New York University’s Information Law Institute, July 7th, 20

[2] Ethics and governance are getting lost in the AI frenzy, The Globe and Mail, March 20, 2017

[3] Source: The Fourth Industrial Revolution: Risks and Benefits, Wall Street Journal, Feb 24, 2017

A New Age of Digital Exploration

The first question you may have here is what do I mean by “digital exploration”? Is exploration being disrupted by digital, or does digital require exploration? The answer is yes to both. Although the focus of this piece is on the latter, my thinking about it was triggered by the first. In 2013, my son, Jeremy, was named one of National Geographic’s “Emerging Explorers of The Year”. This was not for grinding trudges dragging dugout canoes through tropical areas, although that was to follow, but for his work in data visualization – translating unimaginable blurs of information into something we can see, understand, and feel—data made human through visualizations that blend research, art, software, science, and design.

img_2788aAs a result of this, and meeting another National Geographic explorer, Steve Boyes, Jeremy became one of the four leaders of the Okavango 2014 expedition (that’s him on the left) – the first ever live-data expedition  across Botswana’s amazing Okavango Delta. Like the expeditions of old, they were pushing into the unknown, in search of measurements but, unlike previous expeditions, they used a set of open-source tools to develop a system that puts every piece of data collected onto the web, in near real-time, for anyone in the world to use and share. This data included wildlife sightings, water quality measurements, and the four leaders’ exact GPS location, heart rate, and energy consumption.

As I reflected on this expedition, and how it was positively disrupting exploration, I went back to thinking about how our use of technology has evolved and continues to evolve. I started to question how I have been describing this evolution. I have described, as depicted in the image below, three stages of evolution: the automation stage, which I characterized as the appliance era; the information stage, characterized as the rewiring era; and the transformation stage, characterized as the rebuilding era.

Slide1

I have always felt uncomfortable with the term transformation – a much over-used and abused word. When the initial version of this image appeared in The Information Paradox, almost two decades ago, it was being used to describe the implementation of ERP, CRM, SCM etc. While these were certainly complicated endeavours, and often required significant organizational change (a requirement usually recognized too late and poorly managed), they were primarily about integrating information, and making it more accurate, accessible and timely. There were  proven practices available to do this, although, they were all too often not adopted, or adopted too late. They did not essentially change what organizations did – they just did it differently and, hopefully, better. It certainly involved major organizational change, but was hardly transformational.

Since that time, there has certainly been real transformation in a number of industries, including entertainment, media, communications, retail and consumer goods, financial services, automotive, as well as around the edges of others, but we are now seeing this happening, or at least the potential for it to happen, across all industries. Indeed, across all organizations, public or private, large or small. This is taking us into unknown territory – moving beyond a complicated world to a complex one. One in which :

  • Technology itself, how technology is delivered, how it used, and by whom are changing at an ever-increasing pace;
  • Everything and everyone will be connected, anywhere, any time;
  • Technology is increasingly embedded in everything we do, and in ourselves;
  • Everything is becoming “smart’ – phones, cars, houses, buildings, cities, etc.;
  • Robots, cognitive computing and machine learning play an increasing role;
  • We are becoming increasingly embedded in everything technology does;
  • Data is available about everything;
  • Analytics are available to anyone; and
  • Everything is available as a service.

This increasingly complex world is moving us to  the next stage of evolution in our use of IT – exploration, as illustrated in the images below.

Slide1This first figure adds the exploration stage to my original three. This is a somewhat different and more fluid stage, as what emerges from the exploration stage could become a combination of automation, information, and transformation type uses of IT. In the next image I take a degree of licence in  integrating the four stages with the concepts of David Snowden’s Cynefin Framework – an analytical, decision-making framework based on understanding the nature of the systems you are working with – simple/ordered, complicated, complex or chaotic, and selecting the appropriate approach and practices to manage them.

Slide2The first three of the Cynefin system types: simple/ordered; complicated; and complex are  mapped to the four stages. Automation, and some basic examples of the information stage map to simple/ordered. Some of the more integrated information and simple transformation map to complicated. Broader transformation and exploration map to complex. The mapping again draws on David Snowden’s work in positing that best practices are appropriate for the simple/ordered systems, proven practices can be selected based on analysis and/or expert opinion for complicated systems, and new/novel practices emerge during the exploratory era.

Slide3While, as proven and best practices emerge, the nature of systems may change, i.e. they may become a combination of simple/ordered, complicated and complex, this last figure shows that when we attempt to apply best practices to a complex system, the result is the fourth Cynefin system type – chaotic. In today’s complex digital world, while proven practices are emerging, most of what we are doing is still very much exploratory in nature.

 

 
As organizations move into the digital world, they will still have simple/ordered systems, although most of these may be XaaS in the Cloud, and complicated systems, some/all of which may also be in the Cloud, but an increasing amount of what they do will be in the complex space. In this space, it will not just be just practices around delivery of products that will be emerging, but also new models of how work is organized, managed, lead and governed. It is, or should be becoming clear that our traditional industrial-age, top-down hierarchical control-oriented approach to leadership and management is simply not cutting it, and certainly won’t do so in a digital world. The engagement level of employees with their organizations is abysmal – ranging between ~13-30% (and its not much better for managers). This is sometimes attributed to generational differences, particularly the rise of the “millennials”, and is certainly not helped by the rising disparity between C-Suite pay and that of the median worker. However, I don’t believe that the aspirations of millennials are any different than mine were when I started work over 50 years ago.

What has changed is the global and social context within which we live and work. We are more globally aware and socially connected, and have 24/7 access to pretty much unlimited knowledge, information and expertise. We are exposed every day to how other organizations are already embracing technologies, including social, mobile and analytics, enabling greater engagement and two-way communication with and between employees, and orchestrating self-managing teams who can work collaboratively in a much more agile and responsive way with limited but relevant and appropriate oversight. Organizations who are “democratizing” their approach to leadership and governance – letting their people use their brains again.

We know what the future of work could be, but don’t see that anywhere close to being universally realized. The challenge ahead is to break out of the straightjacket of more than a century of hierarchical, siloed industrial age mindsets at work which are controlling, mistake-averse and “know it all”. To evolve them into mindsets that are enabling, learning and willing to try new things and fail. To move to a more agile and inclusive approach to governance, leadership and management. A value-focused, data and analytics driven, agile, sense and respond approach that transcends functional and organisational boundaries, and engages employees, customers and other key stakeholders – locating accountability and decision-making at the most appropriate level (based on the principle of subsidiarity), while supporting decisions with broader and more knowledgeable input.

All this is will require a fundamental rethinking of how digital businesses are governed and managed, and the capabilities that are required to ensure and assure that the use of technology contributes to creating and sustaining business and societal value in the digital world Replacing current top-down, hierarchical and siloed processes with leadership across and beyond the C-suite with leadership capabilities recognized, nurtured, and empowered throughout organizations. It will all be part of a new era of digital exploration and transformation.

Does this mean that we have to throw out everything that has come before? No – but we do have to question everything? We do have to look at everything with the understanding of “what could be”, not “what has been”. We have to be careful here not to “throw the baby out with the bathwater” – this must all be done without losing sight of the fundamentals of governance as described in Back to the Basics – The Four “Ares” and A Value-Driven Framework for Change.

Digital Leadership – Much More Than IT Leadership

There has been much discussion of late on who should be responsible for “digitization”. The role of the CIO is being continually questioned, particularly as it relates to the CMO, and. a new position, the CDO, is appearing. And, of course, let’s not forget the CTO. A recent post by Michael Krigsman describing Intel’s IT leadership and transformation pyramid got me thinking yet again about this. The pyramid, shown below, is a brilliantly simple depiction of how digital leadership must evolve (in my words) from an operational “factory” to a business partner to a transformational leader.

 

intel-it-transformation-pyramid

As Michael Krigsman says, “The pyramid reflects the complex reality of IT / business relationships and the need for IT to deliver at multiple levels simultaneously.” This reminded me of discussions I had in New York last month at the Innovation Value Institute (IVI) Spring Summit around their IT Capability Maturity Framework (IT-CMF). The discussion centred around the digital economy, and the fact that organizations are taking an increasingly business-centric view of IT, with the focus shifting from the delivery of the “T” to the use of the “I”. That technology itself, how technology is delivered, how it is used, and by whom are changing at an ever-increasing rate. And that this is blurring the roles and responsibilities of IT and the Business functions, and giving rise to a fundamental rethinking of how IT, and it’s delivery and use is governed and managed, and the capabilities that are required to ensure and assure that the use of technology contributes to creating and sustaining business value.

In an earlier post, The Digital Economy and the IT Value Standoff, I reiterated my long-leld view that the business change that IT both shapes and enables must be owned by business leaders, and they must accept accountability, and be held accountable for creating and sustaining business value from that change. This cannot be abdicated to the IT function. Yet today, in all too many cases, we have a stand-off where the business doesn’t want to take ownership, and the IT function doesn’t know how, or doesn’t want to give up control.

The key question that arose from the Summit discussion was “Why can’t we get our business leadership engaged in this discussion?” Certainly not a new question – how to do so was essentially the underlying theme of The Information Paradox when it was first published back in 1998. The answer to the question, going back to the leadership pyramid, is that the IT organization has to achieve operational excellence before it can start to change the conversation from bottom-up delivery of technology to top-down value from business change. This requires a maturity level of around 2.5, where 5 is the highest maturity – most organizations are still not yet at this level, most being somewhere between 1 and 2.

So, what does this mean for the CIO? Much has been written about CIOs themselves having to transform to fulfil the 3 leadership roles of the pyramid – running the factory, partnering with the business for value, and strategic transformational leadership. There is no doubt that all these roles are required – but is it reasonable, or necessary to expect that they will be found in one individual. Certainly, there are CIOs who have stepped up to the plate, but many more that haven’t, and possibly cannot.  Professor Joe Peppard at the  European School of Technology and Management in Berlin has put many hundreds of participants through an IT leadership program. He describes in a recent article how, using Myers Briggs typing, he has found that 70% of CIOs fall into one particular type: ISTJs (Introversion, Sensing, Thinking, Judging). Further, along the dimension of where they get their energy, 85% have a preference for introversion. In terms of moving up the pyramid, the very things that may contribute to success in their technology role, can be what leads to downfall in a business leadership position. Even where an individual does have the ability to handle all 3 levels, the day-to-day operational demands all too often leave little time for the other 2 levels. Demands that, while they will definitely change with the advent of the cloud and “everything as a service”, will not go away.

The real issue here is not so much, as Michael Krigsman says, “the need for IT to deliver at multiple levels simultaneously”, but understanding the range of digital leadership capabilities and responsibilities required in the digital economy, and where they should reside. The answer is not as simple as renaming the CIO position, getting a new CIO, or appointing a few new CXOs. It requires recognizing that digitization cuts across organizational silos, and across all levels of organizations.. It will take digital literacy and collaboration across the C-suite to ensure that their organization has, as EY’s David Nichols said in a recent CIO Insight interview, “an integrated and holistic plan to really leverage digital”. It will also require recognizing that the digital economy both enables and requires a different view of leadership. As Sally Helgesen said in a recent post, “‘Leadership’ isn’t Just for Leaders Anymore”, leadership no longer, or should no longer equate with positional power and has, or should become broadly distributed.

If organizations are to succeed in the digital economy, they cannot constrain themselves to the knowledge of a few individuals – to put it a more brutal way, they cannot be constrained by the habits or ego(s) of their leader(s)! Organisations must tap into the collective knowledge of all their people. We need effective governance that reaches out to and involves key stakeholders – retaining appropriate accountability, based on the law of subsidiarity – an organizing principle that matters ought to be handled by the smallest, lowest or least centralized competent authority. This means locating accountability and decision-making at the most appropriate level, while supporting decisions with broader and more knowledgeable input.

As a former colleague of mine, Don Tapscott,  has said for decades “Leadership can come from anywhere”. For organizations to survive and thrive in the digital economy, this is not an option!

Transforming governance and leadership for the digital economy

The digital economy

DE
The digital economy is not primarily about technology, nor is it just about the economy. Yes, it is being shaped and enabled by increasingly significant and rapid technological change. And, yes, it will have significant economic impact. But it is much more than that. It is part of a broader digital revolution. One in which, as in the case of the industrial revolution, we will see seismic shifts not just in technology, but in the nature of our lives, our work, our enterprises – large and small, public and private, and our societies. A shift that will not just change the nature of products and services, and how they are developed and delivered, but also how we govern and manage our lives, work, enterprises and societies.

Technology is becoming embedded in everything we as individuals, enterprises and societies do, and, indeed, we are increasingly becoming embedded in everything technology does. If we are to deliver on the promise of the digital revolution, we have to acknowledge that the way we have governed and managed IT in the past has proven woefully inadequate, and that continuing on this path will be a huge impediment to delivering on that promise. Governance of IT has been a subject of much discussion over the last two decades. Unfortunately, most of the discussion has focused on the technology, the cost of technology, failed IT projects, and generally questioning the value that technology and the IT function deliver to the enterprise. Despite all this discussion, not much has materially or broadly changed over the last 50 years, including:
• An all too often blind focus on the technology itself, rather than the change – increasingly significant and complex change – that technology both shapes and enables;
• The unwillingness of business leaders to get engaged in, and take ownership of this change – preferring to abdicate their accountability to the IT function;
• Failure to inclusively involve the stakeholders affected by the change, without whose knowledge, understanding and “buy in” failure is pretty much a foregone conclusion;
• A lack of rigour at the front-end of an investment decision, including, what is almost universally a totally ineffective business case process;
• Not actively managing for value; and
• Not managing the journey beyond the initial investment decision.

We still have what is predominately a “culture of delivery” – “build it and they will come”, rather than a “culture of value” – one that focuses on creating and sustaining value from an organization’s investments and assets.

We have been having the wrong conversation – we need to change that conversation!

Governance of “IT”

GovernanceTreating IT governance as something separate from overall enterprise governance, labeling and managing investments in IT-enabled business change as IT projects, and abdicating accountability to the CIO are the root cause of the failure of so many to generate the expected payoff. Business value does not come from technology alone – technology in and of itself is simply a cost. Business value comes from the business change that technology both shapes and enables. Change of which technology is only one part – and increasingly only a small part. Technology only contributes to business value when complementary changes are made to the business – including increasingly complex changes to the organizational culture, the business model, and the operating model, as well as to relationships with customers and suppliers, business processes and work practices, staff skills and competencies, reward systems, organizational structures, physical facilities etc. Ultimately, it is people’s intelligent and innovative use of the information captured, organized, distributed, visualized and communicated by technology that creates and sustains value. This is not a technology issue – it is a business issue.

Much of the discussion around the digital economy today is on improving the customer experience – as indeed it should be, although we have been saying the same for decades with, at best, mixed success. We will come nowhere close to achieving this unless we put equal focus on our people, and rethinking how we govern, manage and organize for the digital economy such that we maximize the return on our information and our people.

Surviving and thriving in the digital economy is not an IT governance issue, it is an enterprise governance issue. Successfully navigating the digital economy requires that we change how we govern, lead and manage our enterprises – including, but certainly not limited to IT.

What needs to change?

ChangeIn work I have been doing with Professor Joe Peppard at the European School of Management and Technology in Berlin, we have identified 8 things that business leaders, starting with the CEO, need to do. These are:
1. Don’t see IT as something separate from your core business – technology today is embedded in, and an integral part of most, if not all parts of your business processes.
2. Don’t focus on the technology alone – focus on the value that can be created and sustained through the business change that technology both shapes and enables.
3. Do recognize that you are ultimately accountable for the overall value created by all business change investments – and ensuring that accountability for the realisation of business benefits anticipated from each investment is appropriately delegated to, and accepted by, other executives and managers.
4. Do demand rigorous analysis of every proposed business change investment, whether or not IT is involved. Ensure that you and your team know and can clearly define expected outcomes, that there is a clear understanding of how value is going to be achieved, that all relevant stakeholders have bought in to the required changes, and that they are capable of making or absorbing them and delivering on the expected outcomes.
5. Do recognize that the business case is the most powerful tool that you have at your disposal to manage business change investments – insist on complete and comprehensive business cases, including desired outcomes, benefits, costs and risks, and clear explanation of how each benefit will be achieved with unambiguously assigned accountabilities, supported by relevant metrics.
6. Do recognize that benefits don’t just happen and rarely happen according to plan – outcomes and plans will change – don’t think business case approval is the end of the story. Mandate that the business case be used as the key operational tool to “manage the journey”, updated to reflect relevant changes, and regularly reviewed.
7. Do know if and when it’s time to stop throwing good money after bad, or when there are better uses for the money and “pull the plug.”
8. If your CIO doesn’t “get” the above points, and hasn’t already been talking to you about them, get one who does and will!

Enterprise governance must evolve beyond a model rooted in a culture of delivery (of technical capabilities) to one based on a culture of value – creating and sustaining value from investments and assets. In the context of IT, this means recognizing that we are no longer dealing with “IT projects”, but with increasingly complex programmes of organizational change.

Leadership

LeadershipThe most important aspect of governance is leadership. Effective governance in the digital economy requires that leaders truly lead – moving beyond tactical leadership to strategic and transformational leadership. Understanding and taking ownership of the organizational, cultural and behavioural change that will be required to succeed in the digital economy – change that starts with the leaders themselves. We also need to get away from the cult of the leader to a culture of pervasive leadership. As Joel Kurtzman says in his book, Common Purpose, leaders need to move beyond the traditional “command and control” model to establishing a ”common purpose” and creating a “feeling of ‘we’ among the members of their group, team or organization”. This will require leaders who can “park”, or at least manage their egos, break down silos, and really engage with and empower all employees – fostering leadership across and at all levels in the organization. It will also require a dynamic, sense and respond approach to enterprise governance – one that is focused on value, while balancing rigour with agility. Only then will the full potential value of IT-enabled change in the digital economy be realized. The technology exists to support this today – what is lacking is the leadership mindset, will and capability make the change.

There is certainly not for a lack of proven value management practices. Since The Information Paradox was published, there has been an ever-growing proliferation of books, frameworks, methods, techniques and tools around the topic. The issue is the lack of serious and sustained adoption of them. The real challenge is one of overcoming the “knowing – doing gap”, as described by Jeffrey Pfeffer and Robert Sutton in their book of the same name. We know what to do, and the knowledge is available on how to do it. Yet, so far, there has simply been little or no appetite for, or commitment to the behavioural change required to get it done, and stick with it. This has to change!

As I said in my previous post, this will not be easy to do – very little involving organization, people and power is. However, the cost in money wasted and, more importantly, benefits and value lost, eroded or destroyed is appalling. It’s way past time to move beyond word to action. For enterprises to survive, let alone thrive in the digital economy, and for the potential individual, community and societal benefits of the digital economy to be realized, the status quo is not an option! To quote General Erik Shinseki, a former Chief of Staff of the US Army, “If you don’t like change, you’re going to like irrelevance even less!“

The Digital Economy and the IT Value Standoff

The emerging  digital economy, and the promise and challenges that it brings, including the need to shift focus beyond reducing cost to creating value, are adding fuel to the seemingly never-ending discussion about the role of the IT function, and the CIO.  There is questioning of the very need for and/or name of the position, and the function they lead. Discussions around the need for a CDO, the so-called battle between the CMO and the CIO for the “IT budget”, and other similar topics proliferate ad nauseam. Unfortunately, most, although not all of these discussions appear to be about the technology itself, along with associated budgets power and egos, within a traditional siloed organizational context. This akin to shuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic, or putting lipstick on a pig – it’s way past time for that!  As technology becomes embedded in and across everything we do, and we are increasingly becoming embedded in everything technology does, we have to acknowledge that the way we have managed technology in the past will be a huge impediment to delivering on the promise of the Digital Economy. Indeed, it has proven woefully inadequate to deliver on the promise of technology for decades.

Recent illustrations of this include failed, or significantly challenged healthcare projects in the U.S., Australia, and the U.K.as well as disastrous payroll implementations in Queensland, New Zealand and California (you would really think that we should be able to get payroll right). And this situation is certainly not unique to the public sector, although these tend to be more visible. In the private sector, a large number of organizations continue to experience similar problems, particularly around large, complicated ERP, CRM and Supply Chain systems.

All too often, these situations are described as “IT project” failures. In most cases, while there may have been some technology issues, this is rubbish. As I and others have said many times before, the ubiquitous use of the term “IT project” is a symptom of the root cause of the problem. Labelling and managing investments in IT-enabled business change, as IT projects, and abdicating accountability to the CIO is a root cause of the failure of so many to generate the expected payoff. Business value does not come from technology alone – in fact, technology in and of itself is simply a cost. Business value comes from the business change that technology increasingly shapes and enables. Change of which technology is only one part – and increasingly often only a small part. Technology only contributes to business value when complementary changes are made to the business – including increasingly complex changes to the organizational culture, the business model, and the the operating model, as well as to  relationships with customers and suppliers, business processes and work practices, staff skills and competencies, reward systems, organizational structures, physical facilities etc.

From my many previous rants about our failure to unlock the real value of IT-enabled change, regular visitors to this blog will know that I am particularly hard on non-IT business leaders, starting with Boards and CEOs, for not stepping up to the plate. When it comes to IT, the rest of the business, from the executive leadership down, has expected the IT function to deliver what they ask for, assuming little or no responsibility themselves, until it came time to assign blame when the technology didn’t do what they had hoped for. The business change that IT both shapes and enables must be owned by business leaders, and they must accept accountability, and be held accountable for creating and sustaining business value from that change. This cannot be abdicated to the IT function.

However, having spent quite a lot of time over the last few months speaking with CIOs and other IT managers, it has been brought home to me that some, possibly many of them are just as much at fault. There appear to be a number of different scenarios, including CIOs who:

  1. “Get it” and are already seen as a valued member of the executive team, providing leadership in the emerging digital economy;
  2. “Get it”, but have been unable, and, in some cases,  given up trying to get the rest of the executive team to step up to the plate;
  3.  Sort of “get it”, but don’t know how to have the conversation with the executive team;
  4. May “get it”, but are quite happy to remain  passive “order-takers”; or
  5. Don’t “get it”, still believing that IT is the answer to the world’s problems, and don’t want to “give up control”.

The result, in all too many cases, is a stand-off where the business doesn’t want to take ownership, and the IT function doesn’t know how, or doesn’t want to give up control. As Jonathan Feldman said in a recent InformationWeek post, “..enterprise IT, like government IT, believes in the big lie of total control. The thought process goes: If something lives in our datacenter and it’s supplied by our current suppliers, all will be well…my observation is that the datacenter unions at enterprises want “the cloud” to look exactly like what they have today, factored for infrastructure staff’s convenience, not the rest of the supply chain’s.” Until this standoff is resolved, the “train wrecks” will continue, and we will continue to fail to come anywhere near realizing the full economic, social and individual value that can be delivered from IT-enabled change.

At the root of all this is what I described in an earlier post as The real alignment challenge – a serious mis-alignment between enterprises whose leaders have an ecosystem mindset, and adopt mechanistic solutions to change what are becoming increasingly complex organisms. But it’s also more than this – in a recent strategy+business recent post, Susan Cramm talked about “the inability of large organizations to reshape their values, distribution of power, skills, processes, and jobs”. The sad fact is that, as organizations get bigger, an increasing amount of attention is spent looking inward, playing the “organizational game”, with inadequate attention paid to the organizations raison d’être, their customers, or their employees. As Tom Waterman said, “eventually, time, size and success results in something that doesn’t quite work.” Increasingly today, it results in something that is, or will soon be quite broken.

Most of the focus of the conversation about the digital economy today is on improving the customer experience, as indeed it should be – although we have been saying the same for decades with, at best, mixed success. We will come nowhere close to  achieving that success unless we put equal focus on our people, and rethinking how we govern, manage and organize for the digital economy such that we maximize the return on our information and our people.

This will require that leaders truly lead – moving beyond tactical leadership, aka managing, to strategic and transformational leadership. That we move from a cult of individual leadership – “the leader”, to a culture of pervasive leadership – enabling and truly empowering leadership throughout the organization- putting meaning to that much-abused term “empowerment”. That we break the competitive, hierarchical, siloed view and move to a more collaborative, organic  enterprise-wide view. The technology exists to support this today – what is lacking is the leadership mindset, will and capability make the change. As Ron Ashkenas said in a 2013 HBR blog – “The content of change management is reasonably correct, but the managerial capacity to implement it has been woefully underdeveloped”.

I am not saying that this will be easy easy to do – it isn’t, very little involving organization, people and power is. And somehow, throwing in technology seems to elevate complexity to a new dimension. And we certainly don’t make it any easier with the ever-growing proliferation of books, frameworks, methods, techniques and tools around the topic. Many of which have evolved out of the IT world, and are, as a result, while intellectually correct, often over-engineered and bewilderingly complex to executives and business managers who need to “get this”.

So, let’s get back to the basics – governance is about what decisions need to be made, who gets to make them, how they are made and the supporting management processes, structures, information and tools to ensure that it is effectively implemented, complied with, and is achieving the desired levels of performance. It’s not about process for process sake, analysis paralysis, endless meetings, or stifling bureaucracy – it’s about making better decisions by finding the right balance between intellectual rigour and individual judgement. In a previous post, Back to the Basics – the Four “Ares” I introduced the four questions that should be the foundation for that decision-making:

  1. Are we doing the right things?
  2. Are we doing them the right way?
  3. Are we getting them done well?
  4. Are we getting the benefits?

A common reaction to the four “ares” is that they are common sense. Indeed they are, but, unfortunately, they are far from common practice! if business leadership to move beyond words in addressing the challenge of creating and sustaining value from investments in enterprise computing, social media, mobility, big data and analytics, the cloud etc. emphasis must be placed on action—on engagement and involvement at every level of the enterprise,  with clearly defined structure, roles and accountabilities for all stakeholders related to creating and sustaining value. The four “ares” are a good place to start!

 

Reflections on 50 Years in IT- and the Pursuit of Value

SunriseIMG_2908It has been many months since my last post to this blog – the result of continued recuperation from last year’s surgery, involving a good amount of vacation travel, and a reduced work schedule.  Now however, with that all hopefully behind me, as I sit in my office looking out at the sunrise over beautiful Saanich Inlet, and the snow covered Vancouver Island mountains beyond, it seems as good a time as any to reflect on the fact that 2013 marks my 50th year working in, with and around technology. To think about what has changed, what is still changing, what hasn’t changed, and what has to change if we are to really unlock the potential value of our use of IT.

What has changed?

To cover all the changes that have occurred in 50 yrs would need a book, not a post, so suffice it to say that when I started working in 1963 for  C-E-I-R (UK) Ltd., 1401I was working with an IBM 1401, which had  a (not really published as such) processing speed  close to 10 million times slower than today’s microprocessors, 8k of storage (later upgraded, with an additional unit, to 16k), no solid state/hard drive, displays or communication capability, and no operating system (that was me!). Weighing in at around 4 tons, it needed a fully air conditioned room, with a raised floor, approximately twice the size of my living room.

Today, in my home office, I have a (now pretty old) MacBook Air with 256GB of storage, an iPad with 32 GB and an iPhone with 64 GB (I’m still not sure why I did that), and a number of printers all wirelessly connected within my house and to the world beyond through the internet. I have access to an ever growing body of knowledge that can answer almost any question I have, and, generally free through Skype, to anyone in the world I want to talk to (and see). I can manage my banking, pay bills, check my medical lab test results, organize my travel, shop, read books, listen to music, watch videos, play games, organize, edit and enhance my photographs and videos, and a myriad of other tasks. And, I can do the same from almost anywhere  – including from a lanai in Hawaii, a stateroom (we used to call them cabins) on a cruise ship or, unfortunately, now a airplane. And, of course, this doesn’t include all the other computing power in the house,  our security system, appliances, watches, cameras, cars, etc. but you get the picture. And I’m just one guy!

At the enterprise level, we have experienced extraordinary advances in computing power, storage and communications capabilities, and how we interface and interact with all this. Technology is now no longer a “black box” – it is embedded in almost all business processes, and in everything that we do. As described in a recent blog by Mark McDonald of Gartner, the technology model is changing from computing – the technology in and of itself, to consumption – how individuals and organizations use technology in ways that can create value for them and, in the case of organizations, their stakeholders.

What’s still changing?

On the technology front – everything, and at an increasingly rapid pace. We are in the middle of what I first described in a January 2012 post as a “perfect storm” of technological change, including:

  • Increasing adoption of the Cloud, Software (and just about anything else) as a Service which is fundamentally changing the delivery model for technology – and business services and, as a result, leading to seemingly endless debate about the role of the IT function and the CIO as I discussed in a January, 2011 post;
  • The explosion of “Big Data”, and along with it analytics and data visualization – here, as described by Bryan Eisenberg in a recent post, it’s not the “big” that’s so important, although it is impressive and presents it’s own challenges, but rather the shift beyond analyzing samples of data to all the data, historical data to real-time data, and structured data to unstructured data. All of which with a cost structure for using these data tools has now made it more widely available and accessible to a greater number of organizations, regardless of size. Other implications/challenges here include the need to look beyond analytical tools themselves to the creation an environment where people are able to use their organization’s date and their knowledge to improve operational and strategic performance, as described by Joe Peppard and Donald Marchand in a recent HBR article, as well as the increasing personalization of data, and the question of “whose data is it?” as discussed by my son, Jer, in a 2011 TED talk.
  • Mobility, consumerization and BYOD which are fundamentally changing how, where and when we interact with technology and access information – as described by Mark McDonald of Gartner in his previously mentioned post on the technology model changing from computing to consumption;
  • The emerging ” internet of things” (TIOT) where everything talks to everything and which, as described by Andrew Rose of Forrester in a recent WIRED UK article, brings with it unprecedented challenges in security, data privacy, safety, governance and trust.; and
  • Robotics and algorithmic computing which have considerable potential to change the nature of work as described by Sharon Gaudin in a recent Computerworld article.

This is certainly not an exhaustive list – it doesn’t, for example, include 3D printing or wearable technology, both of which will also have significant impact, and it will certainly continue to change and be added to, but it does capture the main areas where change is occurring, and the essence and magnitude of that change.

What hasn’t changed?

Back in 1998, together with what was then DMR Consulting. later Fujitsu Consulting, I wrote The Information Paradox, which described the conflict between the widely held belief that investment in IT is a good thing, and the reality that this, all to often, it’s value cannot be demonstrated. The book’s main premise was that benefits do not come from technology itself, but from IT-enabled change, and that benefits do not just happen, nor do they happen according to plan – they need to be actively managed “from concept to cash”. It put forward the view that this was not a technology problem, but one that business leaders needed to own and step up to – that realizing the potential value of IT to organizations should be an imperative for all business managers. It proposed an approach, the Benefits Realization Approach, to enable them  to address the challenge of value. In the second version of the book, published in 2003,  an Afterword built on the Benefits Realization Approach to address the essence of overall organizational governance focused on enterprise value. (A good summary of the book can be found on Basil Wood’s bazpractice blog). Yet today, 15 years since The Information Paradox was first published, the track record of so called “IT projects” remains dismal, and realizing the value promised by IT remains elusive. Why is this? The answer lies in what has not materially or broadly changed over the last 5o years, including:

  1. A continued, often blind focus on the technology itself, rather than the change  – increasingly significant and complex change – that technology both shapes and enables (more on managing change in this post);
  2. The unwillingness of business leaders to get engaged in, and take ownership of this change – preferring to abdicate their accountability to the IT function (as discussed in this post);
  3. Failure to inclusively involve the stakeholders affected by the change, without whose understanding and “buy in” failure is pretty much a foregone conclusion;
  4. A lack of rigour at the front-end of an investment decision, including, what is almost universally  a totally ineffective business case process (as described in this post);
  5. Not actively managing for value; and
  6. Not managing the journey beyond the initial investment decision.

Overall, despite all that has been written and spoken about this challenge, and the growing number of frameworks, methodologies, techniques and tools that are available, we still have  what is predominately a “culture of delivery”  – “build it and they will come” – rather than a “culture of value”, one that focuses on creating and sustaining value from an organisation’s investments and assets. For more on this , see my recent APM UK paper on the topic.

What needs to change?

In work I have been doing with Joe Peppard, we have identified 8 things that business leaders, starting with the CEO, need to do. These are:

  1. Don’t see IT as something separate from your core business – technology today is embedded in, and an integral part of most, if not all parts of your business processes.
  2. Don’t focus on the technology alone – focus on the value that can be created and sustained through the business change that technology both shapes and enables.
  3. Do recognize that you are ultimately accountable for the overall value created by all business change investments – and ensuring that accountability for the realisation of business benefits anticipated from each investment is appropriately delegated to, and accepted by, other executives and managers.
  4. Do demand rigorous analysis of every proposed business change investment, whether or not IT is involved. Ensure that you and your team know and can clearly define expected outcomes – (value), that there is a clear understanding of how that value is going to be achieved, that all relevant stakeholders have bought in to the required changes, and that they are capable of making or absorbing them and delivering on the expected outcomes.
  5. Do recognize that the business case is the most powerful tool that you have at your disposal to manage business change investments – insist on complete and comprehensive business cases, including desired outcomes, benefits, costs and risks, and clear explanation of how each benefit will be achieved with unambiguously assigned accountabilities, supported by relevant metrics.
  6. Do recognize that benefits don’t just happen and rarely happen according to plan –outcomes and plans will change – don’t think business case approval is the end of the story. Mandate that the business case be used as the key operational tool to “manage the journey”, updated to reflect relevant changes, and regularly reviewed.
  7. Do know if and when it’s time to stop throwing good money after bad, or when there are better uses for the money and “pull the plug.”
  8. If your CIO doesn’t “get” the above points, and hasn’t already been talking to you about them, get one who does and will!

So, what is it going to take to make these changes happen? For myself, I am going to continue to try to make a difference – but more directly, and more directed. Since the initial publication of The Information Paradox, I have travelled the world presenting to, talking and working with many hundreds of organizations and tens of thousands of individuals. Some of the organizations have heeded these ideas, embraced  a value culture, and continue to thrive, many have taken some of the ideas across the organization, or all of the ideas in parts of the organization with some success, and others have tried but slipped back. There are many individuals who tell me that my ideas have changed their lives – sometimes resulting in success, in other cases simply greater frustration in that they understand what has to be done but can’t make it so. At the end of many presentations or discussions, I almost invariably get the same two comments. The first – “You’ve given us a lot to think about”, to which I always reply “Great, but what are you going to DO about it?”  The second comment, which in some ways answers my question – “My boss should have been here”. Getting the “boss” to come to listen to anything that has an IT label has been, and continues to be a challenge as I discussed in my last post. Where I and they have been successful, it is only when we have got the attention, understanding and commitment of of the Executive Team. It has become quite clear that without this commitment, the best we can do is tweak around the edges – and that is just not good enough.

So, it’s time to be more direct – getting this “right” is not an option for business leaders – it’s their job and they cannot be allowed to shirk it. The CEO, supported by the Board and Executive Management Team is accountable for ensuring that effective governance is in place around IT decision-making, with specific focus on value, as well as for the selection, oversight and optimisation of value from the portfolios of business change investments and assets. This should be a condition of employment, and grounds for immediate dismissal if they with fail to do so.

It’s also time to be more directed – to get the message directly to business leaders – a shareholder or taxpayer revolt would be a good idea, but, turning 70 next year,  I can’t wait for that. I will however be working to get in front of more boards, or organizations of directors, targeting articles to more business-oriented publications, presentations to more business-oriented events, and targeting presentations, seminars and workshops to business executives.

We can, and must all play our part in this. In my case, in addition to getting more active on this blog, I am currently working on articles in business journals, as well as executive briefings and workshops – I will be co-instructing one of these, Value Management Master Class: Enterprise Governance of IT for Executives and Senior Managers, with Peter Harrison from IBM at the University of Victoria in Wellington, NZ on April 11th & 12th. If you’re interested and live in the area, or would like to visit Wellington – a beautiful city, you might want to consider this opportunity, or – even better – encourage your bosses to do so.

 

The Real Alignment Challenge

It has, yet again, been a while since my last post – this partly because of both work and personal pressures – I have been helping Diane run one of the largest juried art shows in our province, but also because I haven’t seen anything that caused me to “lift up my pen”. A number of articles and posts that I have seen over the last few days have now pushed me to do so.

Yesterday, I read an interview with my old colleague, Don Tapscott, by Shane Schick in Computerworld Canada  in which he discusses yet another new book, his follow on to Wikinomics –  Macrowikinomics: Rebooting Business and the World (which Tapscott wrote with collaborator Anthony D. Williams). The book is based on the idea of mass collaboration both within companies and between them, with their partners, customers and other stakeholders. Since his first book, Paradigm Shift (which he co-authored with Art Caston), Don has been a visionary in the IT space – he has helped many individuals and organizations, including myself, to have a broader understanding of what could be. Whilst I would also like to think that I am somewhat of a visionary, I am primarily interested in what it takes to turn vision into reality – a reality where the potential of IT turns into realized value. Unfortunately, the gap between vision and reality (and, by inference, concept and implementation) continues to be large, and, as another former colleague of mine, Michael Anderson, once said (or, possibly, quoted), vision without action is hallucination.

This leads me to the second article by Chris Kanaracus in Computerworld – ERP woes blamed for lumber company’s bad quarter . On first seeing this, I thought here’s yet another ERP failure story to file away which, to some extent it is in that, as the article says “Lumber Liquidators is attributing a weak third quarter to a complex SAP implementation, saying the project imposed a significant drain on worker productivity.”  The article goes on to say that  “…lower productivity led to an estimated $12 million and $14 million in unrealized net sales, according to the company. Net income fell nearly 45% to $4.3 million.” Lumber Liquidators’ CEO Jeffrey Griffiths, in saying that “There were a few things that didn’t work quite right, a few things that were unique to our business that we didn’t see as well ahead of time…” , attributed the problems in the quarter to employees’ having difficulty adjusting to the SAP software, which he nonetheless praised. The article concludes by saying that “The situation differs from other troubled SAP projects, such as one conducted by Waste Management that led to a bitter lawsuit, which was ultimately settled.” It may differ in that it did not result in a lawsuit, and the SAP system is still running, but it certainly does not differ in that the significant loss of income, and the resulting drop in share value of 14%, was due to a problem that could and should have been anticipated and headed off – this did not have to happen! The problem here usually comes down to focusing too much on the technology – not the change that technology shapes, enables and require, not applying due diligence at the front-end – to understand the scope and breadth of the change, and not effectively and pro-actively managing the change. In Lumber Liquidator’s case, this view would appear to be supported by today’s ZDNet Article by Michael Krigsman – Understanding Lumber Liquidators’ ERP failure.

The next article, Business as Organism, Mechanism, or Ecosystem by Bob Lewis in CIO provides some useful insights into the nature and behaviour of organizations today. Introducing the article, he asks “Do you envision your organization as an organism, mechanism, or ecosystem?”

In the case of an ecosystem, he suggests that “The enterprise is organized, if that isn’t too strong a word [such that] employees at all levels interact to further their own self-interest. Furthering the interests of the enterprise is an accidental byproduct at best. More usually it isn’t a byproduct at all. The enterprise is left to look out for itself. And so, organizational ecosystems devolve to silos within silos within silos. It’s no way to run a railroad. Or any other organization, from an enterprise down to the smallest workgroup.”

He then goes on to say that, as a result of this proliferation of silos, “Many business executives choose to view their organizations as mechanisms instead — collections of gears, cams, cogs, levers and buttons, connected so as to achieve a coherent result. It’s business-as-automobile and business-leader-as-driver. It’s the view preferred by process consultants of all religious persuasions … lean, six sigma, lean six sigma, theory of constraints and whole-hog process re-engineering for the enterprise as a whole; ITIL for IT, and other process frameworks (I imagine) for other business disciplines. All start by describing an organization as a collection of processes and sub-processes that feed each other’s inputs and use each other’s outputs to achieve the organization’s purpose… the purpose of the executive in charge … the CEO for the enterprise as a whole and the other C-level executives…Business-as-mechanism is far superior to business-as-ecosystem because mechanisms, whether they’re automobiles, power tools or computers, can and do achieve the purposes for which they’re designed, so long as they’re operated by people who (a) have the appropriate skills to use the mechanism; (b) know what they’re trying to accomplish with it; and (c) have chosen to try to accomplish something for which the mechanism is suitable.” Relating back to the SAP challenge described above,  it is this last statement that contains the root of the problem.  Many executives choose to implement ERP solutions, such as SAP, as a way to address the silo problem. However, if insufficient effort is put in up front as part of the change management process to ensure that managers and employees think beyond their individual silos, have a clear and shared understanding of the purpose of the change that they are being asked to make, and how their roles and responsibilities will change across the silos, and if they are not trained such that they have the appropriate skills to operate in the changed environment, the result will be, at best, disruptive, and, at worst, highly visible outright failure.

Bob then goes on to contrast the above with organizations that operate as organisms, saying that “Unlike mechanisms, the organism’s purpose belongs to every part of it. That’s what lets it adapt to changing circumstances. Feet build callouses, muscles harden and bulk up, skin tans when exposed to more sunlight — each part supplies its own energy and figures out the details of its operation on its own without subverting the overall purpose of the critter it’s part of. Organizations that are organisms are rare because leaders willing to invest the effort to build them, and to forgo the gratification of being the sole driver, are rare. While evidence is sparse … Business Management theory hasn’t yet reached even the level of reliability associated with Economics … what evidence we have suggests organizations that operate as organisms are the most successful in both the short and long run.”

The above caused me to again reflect on Joel Kurtzman’s book, Common Purpose, which I referenced in an earlier post The Traveller Returns, in which Joel provides a very insightful critique of today’s leaders. (As I threatened in the previous post, I will review this book in greater detail shortly). What I took away from Bob’s article, and what I see in my everyday work across the globe is a serious mis-alignment between enterprises whose leaders have an ecosystem mindset, but  adopt mechanistic solutions to change what are becoming increasingly complex organisms – this is the real alignment problem! If we are to solve this problem, if enterprises are to survive and thrive, we need to get away from what I have described in previous posts as the cult of leadership. As Joel says in his book, leaders need to move beyond the traditional “command and control” model to establishing a  ”common purpose” and creating a “feeling of ‘we’ among the members of their group, team or organization”. This will require leaders who can “park”, or at least manage their egos, break down silos, and really engage with and empower all employees – fostering leadership across and at all levels in the organization. Only then will the full potential value of IT-enabled change be realized!

Moving beyond IT Cost to Business Value!

I have been meaning to read KPMG‘s From-cost-to-value-2010-global-survey and today’s CIO Article by Beth BacheldorOutsourcing IT Must Create Value Worth More than Simply Savings, combined with a break between working on a couple of case studies (yes, of course, about value from IT) gave me the opportunity to do so. I don’t intend to review the whole document – it’s only 32 pages, many of which are pictures – but I do want to highlight and comment on what I see as the key points.

The management summary states “In the next few years, CIOs envision a shift in focus from cost efficiency and compliance to value creation and innovation“. I will avoid launching into my usual rant here, but would suggest that those CIOs who are not already well into doing this should be seriously reviewing their career options. The summary goes on to say “The days when IT was seen merely as a means of improving efficiency seem behind us. These days, IT contributes directly to realising the business strategy and has a central role in management. According to CIOs, this requires the distance between the business and IT as small as possible.” Again, I’ll hold the rant, but in organisations who ‘get it’, this has been the case for many years.

The survey goes on to present “eight clear conclusions” which I believe, ranting aside, organisations and their leaders would do well to heed. I will not go through each of these, but rather provide an overall summary (where I have included statements directly from the conclusions these are in bold):

  • IT is no longer about cost cutting – it is about creating value – IT value dominates the CIO agenda. Absolutely! Study after study show, and my experience would certainly support that organizations that are laser-focused on value outperform those that fail to do so. However, there is a danger here of falling into “the tyranny of ‘or’ vs. the beauty of ‘and’ trap, i.e. forget cost and think about value. The survey recognizes this saying that “Cost optimization remains important“. Of course it does and must continue to do so. We should always be looking for opportunities to reduce costs – but must do so in the context of value. The fundamental question that we should be asking is: Are we maximizing the value of our investments in IT-enable change (see my next bullet for more on this) such that we are getting optimal benefits, at an affordable cost, with a known and acceptable level of risk? The underlined words are carefully chosen. If we attempt to maximize all benefits, many of which are in conflict with each other, the result is sub-optimal. If we seek lowest cost, risk goes up. If we avoid risk, we fail to make the changes required for our organizations evolve and grow. Leading into the next bullet, as a Chief of Staff of the US Army once said: “If you don’t like change, you are going to like irrelevance even less.
  • IT value is not only about technology – people are the success factor behind IT value. Right on! IT, in and of itself has no value beyond what you can get for it on ebay – as we discussed in The Information Paradox, it is the change that IT shapes and enables that creates value. It is how we manage and use technology – more specifically how people use the information that technology provides – that enables that change and creates and sustain business value. How well this is done determines the success or even the very survival of organizations. This is far too important to be abdicated to the IT function but, unfortunately, all too often – in organizations that don’t ‘get it’ – this is the case. As the survey says: “Successful IT value creation needs to integrate and align the organization’s Technology, Processes and People agendas…CEOs and CIOs need to ensure that sufficient importance is attached to these aspects during project initiation.
  • Do not expect IT value from a CIO with an operational profile. A CEO once asked me “Why is it that whenever my CIO talks to me he only wants to talk about technology?” My response was “Because you let him!” As the survey points out: “The daily focus of a CIO depends to a large extent on the sector in which he or she operates. In addition, the results show that a CIO’s agenda is also determined by his position in a organization.”  There is, however, also the question of the CIO’s ‘comfort zone’. While somewhat unbelievable, given how long we have been talking about this, it is  regrettably true that there are still many CIOs who either don’t want to engage appropriately with the business, or are simply not capable of doing so. On this topic, KPMG provides a view on CIO competencies: “A CIO should have four important competencies. First, the ability to think like the organization’s customers and to understand clearly what they want. Second, the ability to obtain a good understanding of relevant technology trends and identify their specific business benefits. Third, the ability to manage IT investment for value creation. Finally, the ability to connect well with the organization’s business leaders, to help them unravel he mysteries of technology.” Although not a highlighted conclusion, there is an interesting discussion in the document on the merits of rotating people between IT and the other parts of the business. I have long been a proponent of this and echo the comments of Maarten Buikhuisen, IT Director Western Europe for Heineken Breweries when he says: “The general manager of the future has worked in IT.” (Tesco’s new CEO would certainly be a recent case in point.)

The survey covers a number of other topics, including process improvement, risk and compliance, and new ways of working including collaborative tooling and cloud computing, but I will restrict my commentary in this post to the above. Overall, ranting apart, I found the survey to be a very useful and well written document – one that is relevant to all executives, not just CIOs. They would do well to read and study it carefully.

The Traveler Returns

To quote Mark Twain, “The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated!” Understandable, however, as it has indeed been quite some time since my last post. This is largely because I have been traveling extensively – a mix of business and  personal time – including Toronto, Asia, Alaska, Vancouver, the UK and Greece. Part of the personal time included a 23 day cruise from Beijing to Vancouver. A quick scan of emails on my return – once I eliminated the 90% related to the (aptly named) Cloud –  had me yet again shaking my head and wondering whether I had not been on a cruise ship at all – rather traveling in Dr Who’s police box time machine – backwards! Here are just a couple of examples:

  • In his May 21st blog, Project Managers Need to Engage IT At the Right Time, commenting on a project predictability seminar, Jim Vaughan says “It was noted that problems with requirements management are rarely with the IT organization and process. This caught me by surprise at first because I usually thought of IT, myself included, as the source of the problem.To get to the right requirements you need the right people to define those requirements. These are not the IT people. If we let the IT people define the requirements we will likely get into trouble. That is why people will blame IT for failed projects. The correct people to define the requirements are the business people and end users.” As this is what I have done for more than 45 years – and what I assumed was well understood, if not common practice – I was amazed that Jim should be surprised by this.
  • In a May 24th Computerworld article by Julia King, These CIOs go way beyond IT-business alignment, she discusses “an admittedly unscientific short list of pioneers in IT-business convergence including  The Progressive Corp., Southwest Airlines Co. and The Procter & Gamble Co.” as well as Vanguard Group and Zappos.com where “business and IT are virtually indistinguishable” and “IT doesn’t just support the business; it enables and continually transforms the business, often creating new revenue and profit streams.” I think that this is great – but why, when we have been talking about this for decades, are there still only a small group of pioneers doing this?

On a more positive note, I attended the CICA conference in Toronto at the end of March, where I gave a Val IT™ workshop, and was pleased to have some people talk to me about Val IT before they even knew who I was, and also to discover that an increasing number of organizations, including the Office of the Auditor General of Canada, are using it, or planning to do so.

In May, I presented at the first annual CMC BC Consulting Conference in Vancouver – how could I resist speaking at a conference with the theme “Charting a course to value”. Among the other topics, there was much discussion about social media and networking and I was pleased to see a tweet sent from Chris Burdge of bWEST who was attending my presentation saying that he was finding it “surprisingly fascinating”. He has subsequently invited me to participate on a panel at a  SocialMediaCamp he’s organizing for October. My son, Jer (blprnt), is quite active in the social media scene, and has a digital art practice in which (I quote) he “explores the many-folded boundaries between science and art”. He and I have been spending quite a bit of time lately discussing the intersection of governance and social media/networking – not just the current preoccupation with how to control social media/networking but, beyond that, how it could be used to improve governance, specifically the quality of decision-making, by tapping into a much broader experience/knowledge base. I may need to spend more time with him before October.

After Vancouver, I headed off to Greece to speak at the Thessaloniki Business Conference. There was an impressive line up of speakers, all of whom had a strong focus on value.  Many of the messages resonated with me, including:

  • Professor Leslie de Chernatony, Professor of Brand Marketing Universita della Svizzera italiana and Aston Business School, who spoke about “Growing out of a recession through more effective brand strategies” stressed that that companies needed to focus on value – not price, to move beyond product quality to outcome quality, and to “watch how you invest”.
  • Howard Stevens, CEO of The HR Chally Group, talked about “Unlocking the Science of Sales Development” and reinforced the value and outcome quality messages saying that there is only a 2-3% difference in product quality between the serious players, all products can be replicated, and what really differentiates the players is the “customer experience”. He also discussed the importance of business analytics and contended that we have information management (IM) backwards – we start with the company executives when we should be starting with the customer.
  • Harold Stolovitch of HSA Learning and Performance Solutions spoke on “Maximizing Workplace Performance in Tough Economic Times” and reiterated the importance of really “walking the talk” when it comes to treating people as “your most important asset” and said that study after study shows that the most important performance blocks are failing to set expectations and failing to provide feedback.
  • Jeremy Hope, Director of the Beyond Budgeting Round Table talked about “How to save 20%-30% on costs, by managing operational bureaucracy and the introduction of modern tools for the running of the Finance Department”, claiming that replacing the annual budget with rolling plans and forecasts could save 90% of time currently spent on the budget process. This is certainly in line with my thinking as expressed in The Budgeting Circus.
  • Dr David Hillson, Director at Risk Doctor & Partners, covered the topic of “Managing risk in innovation projects”. In defining risk as “uncertainty that matters”, he suggested that risks present opportunities as well as threats, with both needing to be managed proactively, and made the case that Risk Management addresses both threats & opportunities in a single integrated process.

I spoke on the role of IT in the economic crisis, and the challenge of maximising the value from IT. I made the case that, while Nicholas Carr might say that “IT [as a commodity] doesn’t matter”, how we manage the change that IT both shapes and enables determines the success or even survival of our enterprises, and business leaders must own and be accountable for this –  it is far too important to be abdicated to the IT function.

En route to and from the Greek conference, I read Joel Kurtzman’s book, Common Purpose. The need for leadership came across in most of the above presentations, and Joel provides a very insightful critique of today’s leaders, and the need for them to move beyond the traditional “command and control” model to establishing a  “common purpose” and creating a “feeling of ‘we’ among the members of their group, team or organization”. I will review this book in greater detail in a later post.

On the subject of books, I am also reading Susan Cramm’s latest book, 8 Things We Hate about IT – as always, Susan is “right on the money” and, again, I will shortly post a review. Also, I  have received a copy of Stephen Jenner’s latest book, Transforming Government and Public Services: Realising Benefits through Project Portfolio Management, which I hope to be able to get to soon and – yes – will again be posting a review.

Hopefully, it will not be 3 months before my next post, but, as I will be slowing down somewhat through the summer – if it ever comes, it may be a while before I get back to being as prolific as I have been in the past.

Reflections on SIMposium09

I had the opportunity to attend and speak at SIMposium09 in Seattle last week. As Seattle is a great town and close to Victoria,  I took the opportunity to take Diane and we both enjoyed Seattle and spent a few very relaxing “Internet-free” days at the wonderful Lake Quinalt Lodge on the Olympic Peninsula after the conference. Having now had time to reflect on the conference, I offer a summary of my thoughts (and in doing so, draw on a number of my earlier posts).

Introducing the sessions on Tuesday, the Moderator, Julia King, Executive Editor of Computerworld, said that what she had taken away from the conference up to that point were three things – people, process and productivity. While productivity – specifically doing more with less – was a common theme, and there was considerable emphasis on people and some on process, I would expand on this somewhat. From what I heard, both through formal presentations, and in informal discussions, the things that I left thinking about, and which I will expand on below were – value (including but not limited to productivity), leadership, innovation (where I would include process), people, and change (specifically management of strategic change). I will talk a bit more about each of these below.

Value

It should come as no surprise that this is my first point. I was pleased that a number of sessions did focus on value, and it was mentioned to varying degrees in others. I was however disappointed when Jerry Luftman presented the results of the 2009 SIM IT trend survey that the word was not mentioned in any of the top ten CIO issues. In fairness, I do understand that in order to plot trends, there has to be some consistency in questions year over year. While it could be argued that the “alignment” question may be a proxy for value (although many people told me they never wanted to hear this question again), and that it is implied in others – I believe we have to make value explicit and  put it front and centre. Certainly, productivity is one aspect of value, but only one aspect – one that tends to focus on doing more with less, and by inference cost. In The Information Paradox, we talked about 3 aspects of value: alignment (NOT the infamous “Aligning IT with the business” topic which, in my mind, makes about as much sense as talking about “aligning our heart with our body”, but rather ensuring that investments are aligned with the enterprise’s strategic objectives); financial worth (which I now refer to as business worth including both financial and non-financial aspects); and risk (both delivery risk and benefits risk).  The Val IT ™ framework further defines value as “total life cycle benefits net of total life cycle costs adjusted for risk and (in the case of financial value) the time value of money”. We need to shift the discussion from the cost of technology to the value of the business change that it enables. We need to create a culture of value in our enterprises.

Leadership

A quick scan of the agenda shows that this was by far the most prevalent topic – not surprising given SIM’s target constituency. There is absolutely no denying that we need more and better leadership – but what do we mean by that? Are we talking about grooming those few who will rise to the corner offices in the top floor of corporate HQ, or are we/should we be talking about something beyond that?  A former colleague of mine, Don Tapscott, used to say (may still say) that “leadership can come from anywhere”. I have been thinking for a while about the “cult of leadership” – in his book, The Wisdom of CrowdsJames Surowiecki identifies one of the challenges is that we put too much faith in individual leaders or experts, either because of their position or track record and that these individuals also become over-confident in their abilities. I don’t want to question the ability and competence of all leaders or experts – while I certainly have seen my share of bad ones, most are good people doing the best they can. However, in today’s increasingly complex and fast-paced knowledge economy, much of which is both enabled by and driven by technology, it is unrealistic to expect individuals, however good they are, to have all the answers, all the time. The reality is that neither position nor past success is any guarantee of future success.

If organisations are to succeed in today’s knowledge economy, they cannot constrain themselves to the knowledge of a few individuals – to put it a more brutal way, they cannot be constrained by the habits or ego(s) of their leader(s)! Organisations must tap into the collective knowledge of all their people – retaining appropriate accountability, based on the law of subsidiarity – an organizing principle that matters ought to be handled by the smallest, lowest or least centralized competent authority. This means locating accountability and decision-making at the most appropriate level, while supporting decisions with broader and more knowledgeable input.

Innovation

We hear a lot about innovation and the potential for CIOs to become Chief Innovation Officers. Interestingly, a number of recent surveys show that executive leadership is disappointed with the lack of innovative ideas from CIOs. But what is innovation? The Oxford Dictionary defines innovation as [t0] bring in new methods, ideas etc. often followed by making change. All too often, we believe that innovation requires new technologies. In a recent Entrepreneur article, Tim O’Reilly, who launched the first commercial website, coined the term “Web 2.0” and was instrumental in the popularization of open-source software, isn’t buying the hype: He calls the era of the I-word “dead on arrival.” “If it is innovative, everybody will know,” O’Reilly says. “Adding words to it does not help.” The current “innovation” overload is the result of folks who don’t know what true invention is trying to pass themselves off as trailblazers. He’s seen companies throw away great ideas because it wasn’t immediately obvious how to make money from them. Then smaller companies and entrepreneurs would come along and play with the idea, just because they’re passionate about it. And they would be the ones to unlock the idea’s potential and grow into the money. While new technologies do indeed enable new methods and ideas, they are not necessary for innovation. Innovation is equally powerful, and often easier, by simply coming up with new and creative ways of using existing technologies.

People

Ultimately, it is people who lead, people who innovate, and, as a result, people who create value. Over the last few decades, much has been said and written about empowering the people within an enterprise – unfortunately little of that talk and writing has translated into reality. As James Surowiecki says, “Although many companies play a good game when it comes to pushing authority away from the top, the truth is that genuine employee involvement remains an unusual phenomenon.” As a result of this, information flows – up, down and across organisations – are poor, non-existent or “filtered” in all directions, decisions are made by a very few with inadequate knowledge and information, and there is limited buy-in to whatever decisions are made. As Peter Senge says in The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook , “…under our old system of governance, one can lead by mandate. If you had the ability to climb the ladder, gain power and then control that power, then you could enforce…changes…Most of our leaders don’t think in terms of getting voluntary followers, they think in terms of control.” I should add here, based on Monday’s closing keynote “It’s about the People”, given by Bill Baumann, Vice President of Information Technology for REI, that REI does appear to be one enterprise that does understand empowerment.

In this context, although there was not a specific session on the topic, social networking (including Web 2.0 and crowd-sourcing etc.) was discussed in many of the sessions, and in informal discussions. As I have said before, I am becoming increasingly interested in how social networking, rather than being viewed as a potential problem to be managed within the “traditional” view of governance and management – today still largely based on beliefs and structures that are a hundred years old – has enormous potential to revolutionize governance and management. In doing so, we could truly tap in to the experience of all employees (and other stakeholders) – not be limited to the knowledge/experience of those few anointed leaders or experts. This could actually make the much-abused term empowerment mean something by giving people the opportunity to contribute to/participate in decision-making, actually be listened to and, as a result, re-engage and really make a difference.

Change

The challenge facing enterprises today is not implementing technology, although this is certainly not becoming any easier, but implementing IT-enabled organisational change such that value is created and sustained, and risk is known, mitigated or contained. The creation and sustainment of value from innovation requires understanding and effective management of change in how people think, manage and act, i.e. change in human behaviour. Unfortunately, as we were reminded in one session by Jeffrey Barnes and Cheryl White, studies have shown consistently over the last 25 years that the failure rate of strategic change initiatives is between 85-90%. Let’s look at a number of scenarios where such initiatives can come to a premature halt.

The first of these is implementation by fiat, without an adequately thought out plan and commensurate resources. There is all too often a tendency for executives to believe that once they say something should be done it is – this is rarely the case. I sometimes describe this as the “Star Trek school of management”. Executives, just like Captain Picard, say “Make it so!” – they often don’t fully understand what “it” is or how they will know when they get there, and  the people they say it to all run off with very different ideas of what “it” is creating a lot of activity – often in conflicting directions. As Larry Bossidy and Ram Charam suggest in Execution, The Discipline of Getting things Done, the role of the executive when saying “make it so” is to ensure that no-one leaves the room until the executive is confident that they all understand what “it” is and, when they come back with a plan, that they don’t leave the room until he/she is confident that the plan has a good chance of delivering “it”.

In other cases, organisations take on too much in the first bite – this either results in “sticker shock” with no action being taken or, particularly when, as is often the case – especially in the current environment of short-termism – the time-frame is unrealistic, failure. The opposite can also be true, doing too little and/or taking too long to do it such that patience runs out and/or interest diminishes to the point of backing off.

Also, where progress is being made, success is not always promoted and built on – without demonstrated and recognized success it can be very difficult to maintain the interest and attention of executives to sustain the change initiative, especially one that may take many years, as many, if not most such initiatives can do. This can become particularly evident if a new executive comes on the scene and asks “Why are we doing this?” Without a sound response, this is often followed by “We did just fine without this where I came from!”

Many of these scenarios are exacerbated when insufficient thought has been given to metrics – measurements that must include both “lag” metrics – are we there yet? – and “leading” metrics – are we on track to get there?, as well as tangibles and intangibles. As Faisal Hoque, Chairman and CEO of the Business Technology Management Institute says, “…technology [itself] warrants evaluation with a tangible set of measures. But the majority of what technology actually does falls more into the sphere of the intangibles”. Understanding how those intangibles (often lead indicators) can contribute to tangibles (often lag indicators) is a key part of value management.

John Zackman offered another explanation for the challenge of change when positioning enterprise architecture – in the context of the overall enterprise – as being about managing complexity and change (which I very much agree with). John said “If you can’t describe it you can’t build it or change it.” John’s comments raise a number of  interesting questions which I won’t attempt to answer here.  Is it actually possible to “reverse architect” today’s complex global enterprises that have, somewhat like London’s Heathrow airport, grown ad hoc over time without any underlying architectural framework or design? If not, are they doomed to eventually fail? Will new and emerging enterprises take a more disciplined approach or will they follow the same pattern such that the cycle continues?

For more on the topic of change, go to Managing Change – The Key to Realizing Value and The Knowing-Doing Gap.

I will explore some or all of these topics more in subsequent posts.