All Posts in Leadership

|In: Career Management|Last Updated:

Make it stop!

Several decades ago, some wise pundit wrote that CIOs should be business people, not technology people. The resulting article has been republished, with slight changes in paragraph order and phrasing details, over and over again ever since.

None of these repetitions has fixed the fundamental flaw in the original. As I pointed out a year and a half ago on CIO.com, replace the “I” with any other capitalized executive middle letter and see where the logic takes you: CFOs should, according to this logic, be business people, not financial people; COOs should be business people, not operations people; CMOs should be business people whose knowledge of marketing is optional.

And yet, as if the endless repetitions never happened, here comes McKinsey to make it official: For years, we’re now told, executives have stressed the need for CIOs to move beyond simply managing IT to leveraging technology to create value for the business. This priority is now a requirement. (“The CIO challenge: Modern business needs a new kind of tech leader,” Anusha Dhasarathy, Isha Gill, and Naufal Khan, McKinsey Digital, January, 2020).

I suppose I should be gratified. This iteration endorses positions we (“we” being my co-author, Dave Kaiser, and I) took in There’s No Such Thing as an IT Project, (Berrett-Koehler Publishers, September, 2019), not that McKinsey’s authors acknowledged our precedence.

Oh, well.

In addition to the unneeded repetition, The CIO Challenge also makes the Monolithicity Mistake, namely, providing just a single “new” job description all CIOs must abide by. Just as no one strategy fits all businesses, neither will just a single approach to IT leadership.

That being the case, here are a few of the alternatives available to you as an IT leader. Choose one, or create your own hybrid:

Chief IT Officer: While KJR doesn’t generally endorse the old IT-as-a-business-with-internal-customers IT organizational model (see, for example, “Customers vs Consumers,” InfoWorld, October 25, 1999), sometimes it’s the best you can do.

This model does have an advantage: If you’re running IT as a business you can hardly be accused of not being a businessperson. So long as, that is, you really do run IT as a business, complete with its own, independently derived strategy, operating model, and other accoutrements of a standalone corporation.

Chief Integration Officer: Buy when you can. Build when you have to.

As the IT applications marketplace has matured, more and more of the functionality a business manager needs to operate effectively already exists and is ready to license.

That’s in contrast to developing an application in-house, where you haven’t even articulated the user stories that define what it’s supposed to do.

But … license applications from multiple vendors and you’ll find their data models don’t easily mesh.

That’s what makes integration an intrinsically hard problem to solve.

Beyond this, from the perspective of each application’s business owner, integration is someone else’s problem.

Therein lies an opportunity. Embrace so-called “shadow IT.” Let business owners choose their own applications. Limit IT’s role to their integration so that, metaphorically, even though the business owns several watches it still knows the time.

Chief Transformation Officer: All so-called IT projects are really business change projects or what’s the point?

Add to this another level of difficulty when it comes to making business change happen: Most business managers know how to keep things the same — to make sure their areas of responsibility run the same way tomorrow as they did yesterday, with incremental improvements, perhaps, but not dramatically different.

Making transformational change happen just isn’t what they know how to do.

It can be what IT knows how to do, out of self-defense if nothing else. After all, when so-called IT projects don’t deliver business benefit, it’s IT that’s left holding the bag.

Chief IT Infrastructure Officer: IT runs the data center and all of the IT infrastructure needed for business-unit-based application teams to do their work.

This was a thankless model even before cloud computing became popular. Now? If the CEO asks you to assume the role of CITIO, just say yes … to make you’re gainfully employed while launching the job search you start tomorrow.

Chief Strategy Officer: Welcome to the world of Digital-as-a-noun, where businesses shift their emphasis from cost-reduction to revenue enhancement and information technology is assumed, not cost-justified on a case-by-case basis.

Take it a step further: information technology isn’t merely assumed. Each new, emerging technology translates to a potential new business capability. New capabilities potentially translate to new and better products and customer experiences.

In the Digital world, then, IT drives business strategy — it doesn’t merely support it.

One drawback: driving business strategy isn’t something you’d do instead of your current job.

It’s in addition.

Comments

|In: Career Management|Last Updated:

Where’s the outrage?

Last week’s column, discussing the Not Invented Here By Me Syndrome, included a shot at Apple (“Apple’s aficionados were and are more passionately loyal than Microsoft’s customers. But in IT, Microsoft matters. Apple’s products? They connect to the IT portfolio but aren’t important to it.”

Once upon a time, a statement like that would have yielded a flood of hate mail, or at least, the KJR community being a civil lot, no shortage of kindhearted souls who would take the time to help me see the error of my ways.

Does Apple really have so few defenders? Or, if you’re among them, were you just too busy to express your outrage at my disrespect?

Speaking of outrage, here’s something that causes mine: How few IT managers and professionals (yes, some people are both) read.

The world, or at least the Internet, is chock full of potentially useful information, not that I know how many bytes constitute a chock. Last week, speculating as to why IT organizations don’t take more advantage of it, I enumerated four possible root causes: Incuriosity, fear, internal disqualification, and channel erosion. Due to self-imposed lack of space I didn’t explore possible solutions.

But identifying problems and root causes without suggesting solutions is just pointless griping.

We can’t have that. And so, as a possible solution, how about making reading, or, more broadly, idea discovery part of the job?

But it has to be about more than just discovering interesting concepts, developments, and possibilities. It has to be about more than novelty. It also has to be about utility.

With that in mind, here’s a possible program: Make everyone in IT responsible for reading broadly and deeply about some subject that is, in some way, shape, or form, related to IT’s responsibilities. Their choice. Once a year they’ll be responsible for turning what they’ve discovered into a proposal for how to improve the IT organization.

Some guidelines:

Vision: Recommendations should be visionary enough to be interesting. They should also be practical — concrete enough that you can envision what success would look and feel like. And they should explain how to move from current practice to whatever is being proposed.

Benefits: They should be clear. Don’t limit them to the financial realm, but what IT and the company would get out of the proposed investment shouldn’t be vague and mysterious, either.

Teamwork: Allow teams, but limit their size to three. More than that and when their results turn up you’ll have no way of knowing how many team members actively and usefully contributed.

Source exclusion: You should probably disallow the analyst firms as sources — not because their analyses are illegitimate, but because what they do is what you want your employees to do. Letting a contributor rely on, say, a Gartner study would be akin to a professor accepting a term paper with only Wikipedia in its bibliography.

Divide and conquer: As a practical matter you probably don’t want to wade through everyone’s proposals at once. Stagger delivery so you get a new batch the end of every month. Also, divvy up the contributions so your whole leadership team shares responsibility for evaluating them.

Outcome: Whatever you do, don’t promise to implement, just as you shouldn’t make any other promise you can’t keep.

But on the other hand, do take the contributions seriously. Some will be worthwhile. Incorporate the best into your strategic and tactical planning.

Coach: Many of the suggestions you receive will be interesting enough to get your attention, but not well-thought-out enough to work as is. That suggests the contributor has potential and should be encouraged.

Recursion: Subject this suggestion to the same process it recommends for evaluating other ideas.

Understand I’m making this up. I’m pretty sure it or something like it would work, confident it would lead to significant direct and indirect benefits, and don’t personally know of any IT organizations that has tried it or something like it, let alone demonstrated its merits.

Also understand I’m anything but a disinterested party to all this. As a writer, I of course want more people to build reading habits into their personal development. And so, if the above strikes you as overly ambitious, at a minimum take the time to distribute links to on-line content you find intriguing to the teams you lead

Perhaps append the question, “Should we explore something like this here?”

Comments