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!

After all is said and done, there is more said than done!

As I have travelled around the world over the last thirty years or more, speaking to and talking with thousands of people on the topic of realizing benefits, and creating and sustaining business value from our increasingly significant and complex investments in IT-enabled change, I invariably get these three responses:

  1. You’ve given me a lot to think about;
  2. My boss should have been here; and
  3. Why aren’t we doing this?

In response to the third point, although it also encompasses the second, I decided a number of years ago to write a paper titled “Moving beyond Words to Action”, and submit it for inclusion as a chapter in a book around Enterprise Governance of IT which was being put together by a couple of colleagues of mine. In many ways, the paper was somewhat of a rant – a constructive rant, based on more years than I care to count of trying to get organizations to “get it” when it comes to the challenge of realizing the full potential of creating and sustaining value from the use of IT. I circulated the paper among a number of peers, all of whom provided constructive feedback and positive support, then submitted it to my colleagues. The good news was that they liked the paper, and thought it was much needed. The bad news was that, being academics, they were looking for more academic research for the book, and, as this was an opinion piece, they didn’t see it as a fit (although I was actually asked to write the Foreword for the book!). I was very busy at that time, so basically parked the paper and carried on with my “real” work.

However, I found myself continually going back to the paper, and, over the years since, have reworked and included much of its content in various smaller articles, and posts, and the paper in its entirety has also been used by at least one business school.

I am now, with another colleague, considering embarking on writing another book. Although the book will encompass more than that in the paper, much of the thinking behind the paper will be included. Coming off a week in New York, where I yet again heard the “Why aren’t we doing this?” question many times, I feel that this is a good time to just throw the paper out there in the hope that some readers will find it of value, and also that I will get some more feedback as we start moving ahead with the book.

The paper, the subtitle of which is the title of this post, can be found here Working Chapterv2.0 – it ends with a “call to action”, which I have included below:

Finally, if we are indeed to move beyond words, we must place an emphasis on action—on engagement and involvement at every level of the enterprise. One of the key findings presented in The-Knowing Gap is that knowledge is much more likely to be acquired from ‘learning by doing’ than from ‘learning by reading’ or ‘learning by listening’. This strongly suggests that an iterative step journey toward value management will yield, for each individual, a discrete set of opportunities for learning that, taken together across an organisation of people, form the stepping stones toward cultural transformation and the achievement of real and sustainable change. As Sun Tzu says in The Art of War, “Every journey starts with the first step.” I urge you to move beyond words and take that first step – I can’t promise that the journey will be easy, but without it, value from IT investments will remain elusive.

In reading it, do remember that it was written around seven years ago, long before the terms “digital economy”, “cloud”, “big data”, “BYOD”, etc. were in general use. Also, at the end, I discuss ISACA’s Val IT™ Framework, the development of which I led. While the framework has now been absorbed into ISACA’s new COBIT 5™, it is still available, and relevant – probably even more so – to addressing the challenge of realizing benefits from investments in IT-enabled change.

I hope that you get some value from reading the paper, and look forward to receiving your thoughts.

Effective Governance – Aligning Culture, Strategy and IT to Create Value

Over the last two decades, I have worked with many organizations, led the development of a number of frameworks, methodologies and techniques, written a book and numerous articles, and give more presentations than I care to count on the topic of delivering on the promised value of IT. While I would like to think that I have made a difference, and know that in more than a few cases I have, there is still have a long way to go. Frameworks and methodologies are necessary, but not sufficient to address the challenge of realizing the full value potential of IT-enabled change. Last year, I authored a thought leadership report with the Benefits Management SIG of APM UK entitled Delivering benefits from investments in change: Winning hearts and mindsThe main message of this report is that we need to move beyond the current culture of delivery – build it and they will come, to one of value, and that this will require a new, and more effective approach to governance that promotes and supports such a culture.

A number of articles I have read over the last few days have caused me to further reflect on the relationship between value, culture, strategy and IT, and the role of governance in bringing this all together.

The first of these is a Fast Company article, Culture Eats Strategy For Lunch, in which Shawn Parr contends that culture is “often discounted as a touchy-feely component of business that belongs to HR”, whereas in fact “It’s not intangible or fluffy, it’s not a vibe or the office décor. It’s one of the most important drivers that has to be set or adjusted to push long-term, sustainable success.” Paraphrasing Shawn, it is culture that can install and nurture a feeling of “common purpose”, as described by Joel Kurtzman in his book of the same name, by providing focus, motivation, connection, cohesion and spirit. I came across a somewhat different , but reinforcing view of “common purpose” in a Cutter Consortium blog by Carl PritchardCommander’s Intent and Corporate Guidance. The concept of “commander’s intent” originated in the German military almost 200 years ago, in reaction to disastrous defeats. Defeats resulting from “malicious obedience” by the troops in the field to the tight control exercised from the top (sound familiar?). It’s premise is the, rather than apply such tight command and control, leaders should provide a clear sense of the outcomes they seek and the parameters they will accept – a “common purpose”, then give subordinate leaders freedom and flexibility in planning and execution. It’s a trusting relationship between manager and subordinate and, again, one that has clear application to the broader business environment.

The next article from strategy+business, Seven Value Creation Lessons from Private Equity, reinforces the importance of a culture of value, stating that “Companies are in business to create value for their stakeholders…” and that “A select number of them get it right…”. I would broaden these statements to include all enterprises, be they in the private or public sectors, for profit or not-for-profit (by choice, that is!). Unfortunately, most enterprises don’t do a good job of this. The article suggests that all enterprises could improve their performance by “following seven imperatives from private equity to build a value culture regimen”.  These are:

  1. Focus relentlessly on value.
  2. Remember that cash is king.
  3. Operate as though time is money.
  4. Apply a long-term lens.
  5. Assemble the right team.
  6. Link pay and performance.
  7. Select stretch goals.

While, as the article states, “Private equity firms enjoy a number of natural advantages when it comes to building efficient, high-growth businesses…, the article goes on to say “the best practices of top-tier PE firms still provide powerful and broadly applicable lessons” – my experience would certainly support that view.

Unfortunately, the problem for many enterprises starts with the first imperative above. A fundamental problem here is that in many enterprises there is limited understanding of what constitutes “value” for the enterprise, or how value is created. As Daryl Plummer said, in a recent Financial Times article Don’t go chasing ghosts in the cloud, discussing how to measure the value of the “cloud”, ROI all too often becomes the surrogate for value. Again, while his comments are specific to the “cloud”, they have broader application. ROI is usually totally focused on direct financial impact, while value in fact comes in many different forms. As the French actor and playwright, Molière, said ” Things only have the value that we give them”. We need to take a broader view of value – one where we recognize that value:

  • expresses the concept of worth;
  • is context specific, dynamic and complex;
  • can’t always be measured in financial terms;
  • to one person may not be valuable to another;
  • today may not be valuable tomorrow.

A clear and shared understanding of value is, or should be the foundation for a sense of “common purpose”  – providing the guiding light for why we do things, and how we do them.

My thinking about the next topic, strategy, was triggered by an Executive Street article by Joe Evans, Integrating Business Unit Strategies into a Synchronized Corporate Strategic Plan. Strategies, whose primary objective should be to to create and sustain value, are often poorly defined and even more poorly communicated. One study, described in a 2008 Harvard Business Review articleCan You Say What Your Strategy Is? by David J. Collis and Michael G. Rukstad, found that most executives cannot articulate the basic elements of strategy of their business – objective, scope and advantage – in a simple statement of 35 words or less – and that if they can’t, neither can anyone else. Joe contends that as businesses grow increasingly complex, with multiple, often globally dispersed, divisions and units supporting diverse lines of business, strategic planning models must adapt and change beyond a “command and control, one size fits all” approach if optimal results are to be realized. Linking back to “common purpose”, and “Commander’s intent”, the corporate strategy for a large and diversified business should serve as the umbrella strategy that provides overall structure, goals and measurement – the outcomes they seek and the parameters they will accept. Business units then have the freedom and flexibility to develop and execute their strategic plans under that umbrella, such that their results are consistent with, and contribute to overall corporate strategic goals. This approach leaves the accountability for leveraging intimate knowledge of customers, competitors, employees and culture to the business layer closest to the action – to the “troops in the field”,  allowing the flexibility to plan autonomously while remaining aligned with the overall corporate strategy and goals. One word of caution here – the more complex the business, and the more multidimensional the strategies, the more they may become interdependent –  to avoid falling victim to the “law of unintended consequences”, there must be effective communication and coordination between the business units to ensure that such interdependencies are recognized, and managed.

So, you might well be asking at this stage, where does IT fit in all of this? While I would argue that IT, in and of itself, delivers no value, how we use IT – the change that IT both shapes and enables can create create significant value. With the pervasiveness of IT today, embedded in more and more of what individuals, societies and enterprises do, it is a key element of most business strategies, and investments. Yet, the track record of actually realizing value from those investments is far from stellar, and the IT function, specifically the CIO, is often in the position of having to justify or defend IT’s contribution. While there is certainly still room for improvement in the IT function, they can only be held acceptable for the delivery of IT. The business, the users of the technology, must be ultimately accountable for defining the requirements for, meaningful use of, and value creation from the services that the IT function provides. If they are to deliver on this accountability, business leaders must adopt an effective, value-driven approach to governance that promotes and fosters a culture of value – one which incorporates:

  • A shared understanding what constitutes value for the enterprise, how value is created and sustained, and how different capabilities contribute, or can contribute to creating and sustaining value;
  • Clearly defined roles, responsibilities and accountabilities of the board, executive management, business unit and delivery function management in the realisation of benefits and business value from investments in IT-enabled change;
  • Effective governance processes and practices around value management, including business case development and use, investment evaluation and selection, programme and project execution, asset management, with active benefits and change management; and
  • Relevant metrics integrated into the business which monitor the effectiveness of the approach and encourage continual improvement of the relevant processes and practices.

There are many resources that can help business leadership in adopting such an approach. One such resource, the development of which I led, is the Val IT Framework from ISACA, which is available for free download.

 

Value from IT – There is a Better Way!

I have just returned from a hectic, but very successful couple of weeks in Australia. There I had the opportunity to meet with and talk to many people, including many CXOs, on the topic of “Delivering on the Promise of IT”. Overall, I was encouraged that there is more awareness of the need to do better when it comes to managing IT investments, but discouraged that there is still little awareness of how to do so, and even less appetite to take it on. As always, at the end of many sessions, a frequent reaction was “you have given us a lot to think about.” As I continue to say, we certainly need to think before we act, but thinking cannot be a substitute for action. A couple  of people echoed a comment that my friend Joe Peppard from the Cranfield  School of Management in the UK told me he had had from a senior executive of a European bank – “I didn’t know there was a better way.”

Well, there is a better way! As originally presented close to 15 years ago in The Information Paradox, proven Value Management practices exist, including, but certainly not limited to ISACA’s Val IT™ Framework, including:

  • Portfolio Management – enabling evaluation, prioritization, selection and on-going optimization of the value of IT-enabled investments and resulting assets;
  • Programme Management – enabling clear understanding and definition of the outcomes and scope of IT-enabled change programmes, and effective management of the programmes through to their desired outcomes;
  • Project Management – enabling reliable and cost-effective delivery of the capabilities necessary to achieve the outcomes, including business, process, people, technology, and organizational capabilities; and
  • Benefits Management – the active management of benefits throughout the full life-cycle of an investment decision.

This is illustrated in the figure below.

If enterprises are to successfully adopt and meaningfully use these practices, their leaders will have to change their behaviour. They will need to acknowledge that this is not an IT governance issue, it is an enterprise governance issue. Further, they will have to evolve from an enterprise governance 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 (for more on this, see a recent paper that I wrote with the Benefits Management SIG of the APM in the UK). In the IT context, this means recognizing that we are no longer dealing with “IT projects”, but with increasingly complex programmes of organizational change – change that is often both shaped and enabled by technology, but of which the technology is only a small part.

They should start by focusing on the business case. The business case sows the seeds of success or failure. Most today are woefully inadequate – based on “delusional optimism” and “strategic misrepresentation” (aka lying!), resulting in:

  • limited or no clarity around desired outcomes
  • limited or no understanding of the scope (“depth” and “breadth”) of change required to achieve the outcomes;
  • failure to balance “attractiveness” with “achievability” (including organizational change capacity, project and programme management capabilities); and
  • limited or no relevant metrics (both “lead” and “lag”).

In the context of IT, business cases must be owned by the business, and for any type of investment, used as a living, operational management tool to manage the full life cycle of an investment decision, and supported by the value management practices outlined above.

Again, in the context of IT, as Susan Cramm states in her book, 8 Things We Hate About IT, this will require  a significant  realignment of roles, responsibilities and accountabilities related to IT. There must be a partnership in which:

  • The IT function moves from providing infrastructure to being a broker of services (both internal and external – and increasingly external) while retaining responsibility and accountability related to fiduciary, economies of scale and enabling infrastructure;
  • Business units accept responsibility for defining the requirements for, meaningful use of, and value creation from these services; and
  • The IT function, as a trusted partner, helps the business:
    • Optimize value from existing services;
    • Understand the opportunities for creating and sustaining business value that are both shaped and  enabled by current, new or emerging technologies;
    • Understand the scope of business change required to realize value from those opportunities (including changes to the business model, business processes, people skills and competencies, reward systems, technology, organizational structure, physical facilities, etc.; and
    • Evaluate, prioritize, select and execute those opportunities with the highest potential value such that value is maximized.

The challenge here is not a lack of proven value management practices – it is 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 (should know) how to do it. Yet, so far, here has simply been little or no appetite for, or commitment to the behavioural change required to get it done, and stick with it.

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 – the status quo is not an option!

There is a better way!

The Siren Call of Certainty

In Greek mythology, the sirens were three bird-women who lured nearby sailors with their enchanting music and voices to shipwreck on the rocky coast of their island. The term siren call, from which this derives, is described in the Free Dictionary, as “the enticing appeal of something alluring but potentially dangerous”. In today’s increasingly complex and interconnected world, it is the siren call of certainty that is luring many organizations into failures akin to shipwrecks, particularly, although not limited to their increasingly significant investments in IT-enabled change. More accurately, it is their failing to recognize, accept and manage uncertainty, that leads to these wrecks.

Yet again here, what we have is a failure of governance, and of management – a failure that starts with how strategic decisions are made. In a recent McKinsey paper, How CFOs can keep strategic decisions on track, the authors make the point that “When executives contemplate strategic decisions, they often succumb to the same cognitive biases we all have as human beings, such as overconfidence, the confirmation bias, or excessive risk avoidance.” My discussion here covers the first two (excessive risk avoidance essentially being the opposite of these, and equally dangerous). Executives are often so certain about  (overconfident in) what they want to do that others are unwilling to question their certainty or, if they do, they are dismissed as “naysayers” (and quickly learn not to question again) or the executive only chooses to hear those parts of what they say that confirm their certainty (confirmation bias). I must admit that I have probably been guilty of this myself, in language if, hopefully, not intent, when I have told my teams, “I don’t want to hear why we can’t do this, I want to hear how we can do it.” What I really should have added explicitly was “…and then tell me under what conditions it might not work”.

To resist the lure of the siren call, we require an approach to strategic decision-making  that is open to challenge – one in which multiple lenses are brought to bear on the decision, where uncertainties, and points of view contradictory to those of the person making the final decision, be that the CEO or whoever, are discussed, and where individual biases weigh less in the final decision than facts.

I am not suggesting here that uncertainties should prevent investments being approved, if they did we would never do anything. I am saying that they should not be buried or ignored – they must be surfaced, recognized, mitigated where possible, and then monitored and managed throughout the life-cycle of the investment. This means acknowledging that both the expected outcomes of an investment, and the way those outcomes are realized will likely change during the investment life-cycle. It means managing a changing journey to a changing destination. Unfortunately, once again the siren call of certainty also gets in the way of this.

When investments are approved they are usually executed and managed as projects, all too often seen as technology projects (I use the term broadly here). In a 2010 California Management Review article, “Lost Roots: How Project Management Came to Emphasize Control Over Flexibility and Novelty”, authors Sylvain Lenfle and Christoph Loch, discuss the history of Project Management, and suggest that the current approach to Project Management promises, albeit rarely delivers, greater cost and schedule control, but assumes that uncertainty can be limited at the outset.”

The origins of “modern” project management (PM) can be traced to the Manhattan Project, and the techniques developed during the ballistic missile projects. The article states that “the Manhattan and the first ballistic missile projects…did not even remotely correspond to the ‘standard practice’ associated with PM today…they applied a combination of trial-and-error and parallel trials in order to [deal with uncertainty and unforeseen circumstances] and achieve outcomes considered impossible at the outset”. This approach started to change in the early ’60s when the focus gradually changed from ‘performance at all costs’ to one of optimizing the cost/performance ratio. Nothing inherently wrong with that, but along came Robert McNamara who reorganized the planning process in the Department of Defense (DoD) to consolidate two previously separate processes – planning and budgeting. This integration was supported by the Program Planning and Budgeting System (PBS), which emphasized up-front analysis, planning and control of projects. Again, nothing inherently wrong with that, but the system resulted in an emphasis on the complete definition of the system before its development in order to limit uncertainty, and a strict insistence on a phased “waterfall” approach. The assumptions underlying this approach are i) as decisions taken by top management are not up for discussion, the PM focus is on delivery, and ii) rigorous up-front analysis can eliminate and control uncertainty – these underlying assumptions are still very much part of Project Management “culture” today.

Again, I am not saying here that there is no need for sound analysis up-front – quite the contrary, I believe that we need to do much more comprehensive and rigorous up-front analysis. What I am saying is that, no matter how good the up-front analysis is, things will change as you move forward, and there will be unexpected, and sometime unpredictable surprises. We cannot move blindly ahead to the pre-defined solution, not being open to any questioning of the outcome (destination) or approach (journey), and focusing solely on controlling cost and schedule. The history of large projects is littered with wrecks because, yes, there was inadequate diligence up-front, but equally, or even more so, because we failed to understand and manage uncertainty – forging relentlessly on until at some stage, the project was cancelled, or, more often, success was re-defined and victory declared.

The article suggests that “Project Management has confined itself in an ‘order taker niche’ of carrying out tasks given from above…cutting itself off from strategy making…and innovation”. Many organizations, particularly those embracing agile development approaches, do apply a combination of trial-and-error and parallel trials in order to deal with uncertainty and unforeseen circumstances, and to achieve outcomes either considered impossible at the outset, or different from those initially expected. But, as the authors say, “these actions happen outside the discipline of project management…they apply [these approaches] despite their professional PM training.”

The tragedy here, with both strategic decision making, and execution is that we know how to do much better, and resources exist to help us do so. Strategic decision making can be significantly improved by employing Benefits Mapping techniques to ensure clarity of the desired outcomes, define the full scope of effort to achieve those outcomes, surface assumption, risks and uncertainties around their achievement, and provide a road-map for execution, supporting decision making with an effective business case process, and by applying the discipline of Portfolio Management to both proposed and approved investments. The successful execution of investments in the portfolio can be increased by moving beyond the traditional Project Management approach by taking a Program Management view, incorporating all the delivery projects that are both necessary and sufficient to achieve the desired outcomes in comprehensive programs of change. Many of the elements of such an approach were initially discussed in The Information Paradox, and subsequently codified in the Val IT™ 2.0 Framework.

We know the problem, we have the tools to deal with it – what is still missing is the appetite and commitment to do so.

The Future of IT

After another couple of month’s silence precipitated by some minor surgery, the holiday season and, quite frankly, too much “same old – same old” news, a couple of articles have caused me to, once again, put my fingers to the keyboard.

The first, a blog – unfortunately his last with CIO.com, by Thomas Wailgum, IT in 2020: Will it Even Exist?, and the second by Marilyn Weinstein, again in CIO.com, The Power of IT Drives Businesses Forward. While the two titles might appear contradictory, I felt they were both saying the same thing in somewhat different ways, and that what they were saying is important – although not new.

In describing a new report from Forrester Research, “IT’s Future in the Empowered Era: Sweeping Changes in the Business Landscape Will Topple the IT Status Quo”, Thomas suggests that the question that lingers throughout the report is whether corporate IT, as we know it today, will even exist in 2020.

In the report, analysts Alex Cullen and James Staten identify three forces bearing down on IT that will likely have long-lasting ramifications. The three forces include: Business-ready, self-service technology (including cloud and SaaS adoption); empowered, tech-savvy employees who don’t think they need corporate IT; and a “radically more complex business environment,” notes the report.

Cullen and Staten write “The IT status quo will collapse under these forces, and a new model–empowered BT [business technology]–will take its place. Today’s IT and business leaders should prepare by rethinking the role the IT department plays and how technology staff engage the business, shifting from controlling to teaching and guiding.”

Well, whether it be these three forces or others, I certainly agree that the status quo is unacceptable and this rethink needs to take place – it should have taken place a long time ago.

In her article, Marilyn echoes a comment I have been making for well over a decade in saying “One of the most overused terms I’ve heard in the past few years as CEO of an IT consulting and staffing firm has to be the word “alignment.” With IT embedded in just about everything that we do, it is ridiculous. and dangerous, to continue to talk about alignment. As Marilyn goes on to say, “IT drives efficiencies. IT enables business. IT powers business success. The goal is not merely to align, but to get in front of the business goals and spearhead growth… IT does drive and enable business. It’s time for IT leadership to drive that point home. ” Again, the long overdue need for IT and business leaders to rethink the role the IT department plays and how technology staff engage the business.

The role of the IT leader, the CIO is indeed changing, or certainly should be. The CIO is accountable for delivering required technology services at an affordable cost with an acceptable level of risk. The business leadership is accountable for investing in, and managing and using technology such that it creates and sustains value for their organization – this cannot be abdicated to the IT function. But nor can it be done without the IT function – they have a key role to play here. The CIO, as the IT leader, is responsible for ensuring that their team works in partnership with other business leadership to help them:

  • optimize value from existing services;
  • understand the opportunities for business change enabled by current, new or emerging technologies;
  • understand the business changes they will have to make to realize value from these opportunities; and
  • select opportunities with highest potential value and execute such that value is maximized.

This requires moving beyond the current culture of delivery – based on a philosophy of “build it and they will come”, to a culture of value. This will further require moving beyond the current approach to IT governance – one that is again focused on delivery and the “factory” to a broader more strategic approach to enterprise governance – one that ensures that organizations have:

1. A shared understanding what constitutes value for the organisation;

2. Clearly defined roles, responsibilities and accountabilities, with an aligned reward system;

3. Processes and practices around value management, including portfolio, programme and project management, supported by complete and comprehensive business cases, with active benefits and change management; and

4. Relevant metrics, both “lead” and “lag”.

The Val IT Framework 2.0™ provides, in Section 6 – Functional Accountabilities and Responsibilities, a summary of the roles of IT and business leadership required to support this approach.

In the Afterword of the revised edition of The Information Paradox, I introduced a Strategic Governance Framework. Since that time, as well as working with ISACA in leading the development of The Val IT Framework, I have continued to refine that framework into what I now refer to as the Strategic Enterprise Governance Framework. Over the next few months, I will be introducing this framework, and describing each of the ten major elements that it comprises.

Moving to such a governance approach is a business imperative, one which is itself a major change programme that will take time to plan and implement, and also for the benefits to be achieved. We will not however come anywhere near realizing the full potential value of IT-enabled change until we do so. It is time to move beyond words and place an emphasis on action. This will require strong leadership, and engagement and involvement at every level of the organisation.

Helping Businesses Help Themselves

This morning, I spent little over an hour listening to Susan Cramm on the above live HBR webcast. I always enjoy what Susan has to say. She is a former CIO and CFO who definitely “gets it” when it comes to enterprises realizing value from IT-enabled change.

My takeaways – not new but very much reinforcing – from Susan’s webcast, which was based on her book “8 Things We Hate About IT” and the study which it describes, are that:

  1. It’s time to align authority and accountability for IT – in that the same way that we don’t expect the HR function to manage all our people, or the finance function to manage all our finances, we shouldn’t abdicate (my word) accountability for the intelligent (my word again) use of IT to the IT function.
  2. This means we need to re-architect our IT capabilities – key points being business leaders going from being “IT-dumb” (as the study reports 75% are today) to IT-smart, moving beyond thinking of IT as an organizational function to IT as a business asset, and moving beyond oversight to accountability, i.e. acknowledging their decision “obligations” (again, my word).
  3. The IT function should retain responsibility and accountability related to fiduciary, economies of scale and enabling infrastructure, while the business units must accept responsibility and accountability for delivery.
  4. The IT function stops doing things for the business that the business should be doing for themselves – shifting from an “IT Provides – Business Helps” model to an “IT Helps – Business Provides” model.

Basically, business leaders need to stop thinking of IT as a technology they can leave to IT specialists  to a business asset/tool that they need to manage such that it creates and sustains value for their enterprise and their stakeholders.

While it seems improbable that this has not yet happened, we know, as reinforced by Susan’s study, that this has not happened. From my experience:

  • A CEO told me, not that long ago, that while he knew IT was important, he was much more comfortable focusing on the “core business”. Years – no decades – ago, this might have been OK but today, in most enterprises, IT is embedded in most if not all aspects of the “core business”.
  • When we were developing Val IT 2.0, we added a practice within the VG1 process, Establish Informed and Committed Leadership, that was  VG1.3 Establish a Leadership Forum. The objective of this practice was to “…help the leadership understand and regularly discuss the opportunities that could arise from business change enabled by new or emerging technologies, and to understand their responsibilities in optimising the value created from those opportunities.” I was amazed – and somewhat disheartened – during the review process how many people questioned the need for this practice.
  • There is a consultant living just over the water from me who facilitates CEO forums and has become very successful at it. I approached her to see if we could work together to introduce the topic of CEO responsibilities, and accountabilities related to realizing value from IT or, more specifically IT-enabled change. Her response was “CEOs don’t want to talk about IT – they leave that to their CIOs.”

I am giving a keynote speech in November at the ER 2010 Conference in Vancouver. As I was listening to Susan, I reflected on the work of Steven Alter – a recognized authority in the evolving ER (or, more accurately, conceptual modeling)  space, who says: “IT success isn’t just about IT, it is about the effectiveness of people and organizations – IT usage makes an important difference only when it is part of a work system, and IT success is really about work system success.”

In the same way as the IT function – even if it were willing and capable – cannot be held accountable for the ultimate success of IT-enabled change, they cannot be held accountable for the ultimate success of work systems. They are undoubtedly accountable for delivering the enabling infrastructure, and responsible for working in partnership with the business to help them better understand potential opportunities – and the business responsibilities  and accountabilities related to successfully exploiting those opportunities, but cannot be held accountable for their ultimate success.

For this to happen requires significant behavioural change – there is and will continue to be resistance from both business and IT leadership. For this change to happen, we need – as Susan said today to “engage senior leadership in exploring the appropriate role for IT” and, I would add, their role responsibility and accountability in the context of that role. We need that leaderhip forum – an ongoing forum – that we proposed in Val IT 2.0 so that we can get “the right people in the room having the right discussion”.

The response from a number of listeners to the webcast, which is the same as I always get when I present, was “you have given us a lot to think about here.” Yes, we always need to think, but thought must be balanced with action. We have been talking about the role of business leadership related to IT-enabled change for well over a decade now – it’s time to move beyond thinking to action!

If you missed Susan’s webcast, you can watch a recording at http://s.hbr.org/cR3qlT

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.

Addressing the Behavioural Challenges

In my previous post, Behavioural Change – The Crux of the Value Challenge, I suggested that we don’t need any more frameworks – there is no shortage of books, frameworks, methods, techniques, tools etc. to address the effective governance and management of IT and the use of IT to create and sustain value. It is the adoption of these that is painfully slow. It is human behaviour – or rather our inability to change it –  that is at the core of the challenge. I am currently working – both individually and with others – on a number of initiatives around the need to change how we think, manage, and act – to change behaviour – both individual and group behaviour – from the Boardroom to the front-line.

I also said that I would be looking for ways to broaden the dialogue and to engage with practitioners who are wrestling with these issues on a daily basis. My silence on the blog front has largely been the result of my being engaged with a number of individuals and groups in this space, including a quick trip to Europe and the UK last week, where I met and talked with a number of enterprises – some of whom have been on this value journey for 10 years or more. These discussions, and subsequent reflection, have crystallized a number of thoughts in my mind. These include:

  1. A critical factor in determining success or failure of value management is the presence or absence of a clear owner of the value management issue or process.
  2. The “tipping point” – when value management practices start to get traction and become embedded in enterprises – is when the executive and senior management move beyond awareness and understanding of the issue to commitment to action – beyond “talking the talk” to “walking the talk”. This is illustrated in the figure below (figure and text below is adapted from The Information Paradox). Slide1At the thinking, or cognitive level, we recognize and become aware of a need to change. This often translates itself fairly rapidly into talk: “We at Thorp Inc. have to make fundamental changes to our organization.” All too often, the nature of those changes is not understood, and the definition of them is delegated, or more accurately abdicated. The reaction to this is often “This too will pass,” and all too often, it does. It is only when we wake up at three in the morning, reaching for the antacid, as we feel our stomach churning with the realization of the implications of the change and the breadth and depth of what has to change, that we begin to reach understanding. This is the precursor to commitment. The bottom line here is that we can only “walk our talk” when we fully understand what we are saying. Treating the implementation or improvement of value management practices as an organizational change programme – which it is – the use of some form of benefits modeling, which is discussed later, can bring you to an earlier awakening. When we have the understanding necessary to build commitment, to understand the full extent of what we are committing to, then, and only then, are we ready to act. Even then, we can act only if we have the resource capability and capacity to do so.
  3. Those enterprises that have passed this “tipping point” have been able to effectively apply value management practices to guide informed and intelligent decision-making during the current economic crisis – those that haven’t generally fell back to “old ways” with often across the board cost cuts.
  4. Value management practices are most effective when they are closely integrated with, and part of the business planning process. Going beyond this, they are most effective when they are integrated with overall enterprise governance.
  5. Incremental approaches to implementing and improving value management practices are more successful than  “big bang” ones.
  6. The areas of value management that appear to provide the greatest improvement in value management practices and outcomes are:
    1. Improving the business case process; and
    2. Taking the portfolio view.
  7. The factors that continue to constrain effective adoption of value management practices include:
    1. Failing to define, accept or put rigour into accountability for performance; and
    2. Clearly related to the above, failure to align the reward system such that there are consequences – both positive and negative.
  8. The interventions that appear to have been the most successful in changing behaviours, and helping enterprises move beyond awareness and understanding to commitment and action include:
    1. Inclusive engagement of all the stakeholders through workshops (for more on engagement, see The Challenge of Business Engagement);
    2. Use of benefits modeling techniques in workshops to get everyone “on the same page” – building a broader base of understanding of, and support for value management, including the need for business cases with clear accountability, relevant metrics and an aligned reward system;
    3. One-on-one coaching, and
    4. Active and on-going executive and senior management involvement where they are seen to be “walking the talk”.

In preparation for a workshop with one of the groups I am working with, I put together a short survey with the objective of:

  • Understanding the current and target levels of maturity related to value management (based on  the Value Governance [VG] domain high-level maturity model in ISACA‘s Val IT™ Framework 2.0.);
  • Understanding how long it has taken to reach the current level of maturity, and how long it is anticipated to take to reach the target level;
  • Identifying the factors that have either supported or constrained adoption, and to what extent they have done so;
  • Identifying interventions and the extent to which they have enabled adoption; and
  • Understanding the organizational context of the responding enterprise (optional).

Again, in the interests of broadening the dialogue, I would like to extend this survey to a broader audience. The survey is targeted at individuals who are involved in improving value management practices, including, but not limited to some or all of: leadership behaviour; process implementation and adoption (including business cases, portfolio, programme management and project management); roles, responsibilities and accountabilities (for both supply and demand); organizational structure (including Investment Decision Boards, and Value / Portfolio / Programme / Project Management Offices); information requirements (including metrics and reporting); and supporting tools (data collection, analysis and reporting).

You can access the survey here. The survey should not take much more than 10 mins to complete. The survey has 3 pages, and contains 10 questions.  Questions regarding “Current and target maturity levels”, and “Constraints to adoption and interventions to address” must be answered, but answers to “Organizational Context” questions are optional. Assuming that I get enough responses to yield a meaningful result, I will post results on this site in a later post. All information will be aggregated, and specific information about your organization, if provided, will be treated as confidential and will not be published without your express permission.

One of the challenges that we all have in trying to implement or improve value management practices is the perceived – and indeed real – enormity of the task. As per one of my observations above, this is why an incremental – and often pragmatic and opportunistic – approach is required. The business case, as discussed in an earlier post Lies, Damn Lies, and Business Cases, is the foundation on which all else is built, and, as such, sows the seeds of success or failure. Portfolio management is a powerful tool but if it is populated with “toxic” business cases, it will only give the illusion of progress. This is leading me to focus my attention on the business case and think about how, through workshops and benefits modeling, supported by one-on- one coaching we can change the view of business cases as a bureaucratic hurdle to be got over and then forgotten to being one of the most powerful tools available – turning it from an enemy to a valuable friend! If we can do this, we will have a solid foundation on which to further improve value management practices.

Behavioral Change – The Crux of the Value Challenge

As we start a new year, it is a time for me to reflect on what has passed, look ahead to what may be, and decide where to focus in 2010.

Not surprisingly, my two most referenced blog tags in 2009 were value and governance. Value because I believe that this is ultimately what everything we do should be about, and should certainly be the desired outcome of any investment, including, but certainly not limited to investment in IT-enabled change. Governance, because effective governance establishes the framework than ensures that management decisions and actions are focused on creating and sustaining value from investments  – through their full life-cycle from ideation to the management and eventual retirement of resulting assets.

I have found myself in many debates about value, including whether value is as or more important than cost or risk, or whether value implies financial and ignores intangibles. The Val IT ™ framework cuts through this debate by defining  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”, and recognizing that benefits can be financial or non-financial. I prefer the term non-financial here to intangible as this can imply that the benefit cannot be measured. My definition of an intangible benefit is one whose contribution to value we have not yet learned to measure.

When it comes to governance, we must move beyond IT governance which perpetuates the separation between two solitudes of IT and the business. With IT embedded in just about everything we do, and becoming increasingly more so, we need to view governance of IT as an integral part of strategic enterprise governance – not a separate afterthought. We need to move away from simply talking about IT – which implies the technology alone – to IT-enabled change. IT in and of itself delivers no value – it is indeed a commodity and a cost. It  is how the business uses IT as a tool, to enable or, increasingly, to shape organizational change that actually creates or sustains value for the enterprise. The implication of this is that we will come nowhere near realizing the potential value of IT-enabled change until we have effective governance with appropriate engagement, ownership and accountability from business leadership – governance that encompasses the full life-cycle of an investment decision, including the original investment and the resulting assets.

My thoughts around what is going to take to get such effective governance include:

  1. We need to shift the focus of governance to value.
  2. Value does not come from technology itself (in this regard I would question the 2009 Capgemini Global CIO Report that assigns 20% of value to the technology) – it comes from how people use the information that technology “provides”. I have said in the past and continue to believe that information and people are the most important yet under-utilized/leveraged assets in any enterprise.
  3. While the awareness (I would not go as far as saying understanding) of executives and business management of the importance of IT is certainly (in words at least) increasing they still generally abdicate responsibility and accountability for realizing value from IT to the IT function.
  4. It may be useful here to explore the parallels (or not) with the HR function. Like IT, HR is pervasive and people are embedded in all of what an enterprise does yet, while the HR function sets HR policies and ensures compliance with laws and regulations, management of HR is recognized as the responsibility and accountability of line management – not abdicated to the HR function. This does not necessarily mean that it is done well but the responsibility and accountability are accepted.
  5. Most of today’s CIOs are not capable of fulfilling the role that has been abdicated to them or even of building the bridges that are necessary to develop the partnership with the business that is essential to move forward – many probably (again, despite what they might say) don’t want, or are not willing to do so. A recent BCS poll  identified the top 10 critical topics for CIOs, 8 of which could be addressed by adopting the principles, processes and practices contained in frameworks such as Val IT, but a leading CIO Group took the attitude that whilst they might be critical issues, they are intractable and will be with us for the next decade at least or until something traumatic happens to shake the Executive Suite into taking notice.
  6. We don’t need any more frameworks – there is no shortage of books, frameworks, methods, techniques, tools etc. to address the effective governance and management of IT and the use of IT to create and sustain value – it is the adoption of these that is painfully slow.
  7. In The Information Paradox, we talked about the need to change how we think, manage, and act – to change behaviour – both individual and group behaviour – from the Boardroom to the front-line. While recognizing this need, the years since the book was published have shown that we seriously underestimated the challenge this would present. This is where we now need to focus our efforts.

Behaviours do not happen in isolation – they are both influenced by and influence other factors. We need to look at a continuum of behaviour, the characteristics of behaviour – specifically expectations and constraints, how these change as complexity increases, and the role of technology in all of this. Human behaviour is at the core of the issue we are dealing with here.

  • Human behaviour is a continuum from individual behaviour through group behaviour (where groups can be families, committees, organizations, communities, industries, countries, regions, societies, etc.).
  • At any level, there are both expectations and constraints (habits, norms,…).
  • The larger (number of individuals), and more distributed (breadth of the network) the group, the more complex this issue becomes.
  • Technology, by increasingly operating across and breaking down physical constraints (geography, distance, time, etc.) has (exponentially) increased this complexity (of what is sometimes called the “ecosystem”).
  • Slide1Paradoxically, with the advances in technology it is becoming simpler to introduce more complexity more quickly. As illustrated in the figure below, technology creates greater expectations while at the same time requiring increasingly significant changes to behavioural habits, or norms if those expectations are to be met – all this within an increasingly complex and interdependent “ecosystem”.

In discussing the issue of complexity with a colleague, he reminded my of the words of Thomas Homer-Dixon in The Ingenuity Gap in which he says “Looking back from the year 2100, we’ll see a period when our creations – technological, social ecological – outstripped our understanding and we lost control of our destiny. And we will think: if only – if only we’d had the ingenuity and will to prevent some of that. I am convinced that there is still time to muster that ingenuity – but the hour is late.” While he was talking of loftier issues, the words ring true here also. We need to explore these behavioural challenges and, in doing so, to attempt to provide answers (or at least some insights) to the following questions:

  1. How far can we realistically move value management – including measurement and attribution of benefits – from an art to a science? (I have believed and stated for a long time that it is a total waste of time to try to get too specific/accurate about attribution where – as there usually are – there are many sources of contribution. I think that it is however very important to be explicit about assumptions that are being made and the nature of the expected contribution such that indicators can be identified which can then be tracked to validate (or otherwise) the thinking behind the assumptions and the contribution.) How long should we realistically expect this to take?
  2. What are the individual and group behaviours that both constrain and, possibly, determine how far we can go towards value management (et al) as a science? (Some/much of this revolves around understanding and acceptance of responsibility and accountability – and, possibly the prevailing “culture of blame” – as well as learning from both unsuccessful AND successful investments).
  3. What are the external factors that further influence these behaviours, e.g. boom times vs. bust times, national and industry cultures, leadership styles, etc. and how do they influence the behaviour? (This raises a further question: “To what extent is there a/one “right way” of doing this?”)
  4. What interventions can positively change these behaviours?

I am currently working on a number of initiatives around these questions, both individually and with others, I will be talking about these more over the course of the year. Beyond talking, I will also be looking for ways to broaden the dialogue and to engage with practitioners who are wrestling with these issues on a daily basis.