All Posts in Office Politics

|In: Architecture|Last Updated:

Old, old, theological IT joke:

Question: If God could create the entire universe in just six days, why does IT take so long to implement a new system?

Answer: God didn’t have an installed base.

What’s this have to do with keeping the joint running? At the risk of pointing out the obvious, in modern business, speed matters. If your company doesn’t continually improve its products, services, and practices as fast or faster than your competitors, pretty soon your customers won’t be your customers anymore because why would they?

The more sophisticated version starts with Colonel John Boyd’s OODA loop (observe, orient, decide, act). Very short explanation: If your OODA cycles are shorter than your opponents’, every time you Act you re-set them to Observe, effectively paralyzing them.

In business, speed matters. And in the 21st century, no matter what a business decides to do, it will need new or changed information technology to do it.

And yet, for the past few decades not only have a lot of business and IT executives actively slowed down IT, but many of their slow-down practices have been enshrined as “best practice,” while much of what’s required to speed things up is deemed too troublesome and expensive.

Three examples among many:

  • IT Governance: Governance is about is making decisions. But when the term “governance” enters the conversation, the subject is really preventing bad decisions and the preferred mechanism is a committee.

But preventing bad decisions means requiring everyone to ask permission before, for example, sneezing. And even the most efficient committee mostly makes decisions when it meets, not when someone asks for a decision. Committees can’t avoid causing delays.

Instead …

A faster and more-effective form of governance is educating everyone about the organization’s goals and priorities and making sure they’ve bought into them; keeping managers and supervisors in the loop; establishing a “culture of discipline”; and then entrusting most decisions to those closest to the action.

More effective? Yes. Most committees consist of people who represent constituencies, legitimizing constituency interests as a factor in making decisions (read “the silos win”). Decisions are political compromises — not a bad thing, but decisions and actions rooted in shared purpose and goals are usually better.

  • System integration: So many IT shops interconnect applications and databases with a spiderweb of custom-programmed batch point-to-point interfaces.

In one extreme case I worked with, IT Operations had more than a thousand interface jobs that had to run in strict sequence each night. Another client estimated that 80% of the total effort in most of its applications projects was invested in not breaking the interfaces.

No argument, uttering the words “federated architecture” makes it sound easy when it’s anything but easy. But in the long run the alternative to implementing some form of planned and engineered integration isn’t saving money. It’s wading through molasses.

Federate your architecture, or else achieve equivalent integration through some other means (two alternatives: use an ERP system as the architectural hub and primary access point; or build and rely on an operational data store for the same purpose).

  • Shadow IT: Who can get more done — 10 teams, or 100 teams?

This isn’t, for a change of pace, a trick question. The answer is inescapable, and yet most IT organizations, instead of being grateful for the help, do their best to stamp out shadow IT.

In case you’re unfamiliar with the term and the phrase isn’t self-explanatory, shadow IT is information technology implemented without the IT organization’s involvement or permission. You’ll find the case for encouraging it in “Stop stomping out shadow IT” (KJR, 9/4/2012); no point making the exact same points again here.

Let’s connect the dots.

Dot #1: In addition to adding to IT’s bandwidth, shadow IT adds speed for another reason: It’s beyond the reach of IT governance.

Keep it that way.

Dot #2: One disadvantage of shadow IT is that it produces “islands of automation” — un-integrated systems that usually make someone somewhere re-key data from the shadow IT system into existing systems and vice versa. Re-keying is error-prone and expensive.

Dot #3: As part of IT’s efforts to support shadow IT, it should change its role, and name. Maybe “Integration Systems” (IS)? IS can and should take its now-well-engineered system integration to the next level: Its new job is to provide APIs to shadow IT groups throughout the enterprise.

Far from adding risk, the impact is the exact opposite: By pushing all access through well-defined APIs, integration won’t just be easier.

You can make it as safe as you want.

Comments

|In: Business Ethics|Last Updated:

From the KJR mailbag regarding last week’s column on performance improvement plans (PIPs):

Hi Bob …

The only time I received a PIP, it was clearly to start building a documentation trail (your point about the recipient building his own trail cannot be over-emphasized) that would lead to my termination, ostensibly for cause.

My prior performance reviews had also been excellent. I continued to perform to the best of my abilities while conducting what little job search I could due to the enormous demands that the job placed on my time.

In due course, I was pulled into the resign-or-be-fired meeting and given 15 minutes to collect my personal effects and leave. The company subsequently fought my unemployment claim all the way to a judicial hearing (I won). Of course, the CEO said it was not personal. Of course, I did not (and do not to this day) believe her.

The story ends well. It prompted my move from Long Beach, CA to [current location], converting a long-distance relationship to one that ended in a fulfilling marriage. My journey led me to [employer name], where I have found meaningful work that has brought fulfillment.

Bob says: First, thanks for sharing your story. Second … of course it’s personal. Criticism might not be personal for the critic, but it’s always personal for the criticized, by definition. Beyond that, many managers don’t differentiate between “your performance is substandard” and “I don’t like you.”

Often, they’re yellers.

Third, you give me too much credit. You’re right that “my point about the recipient building an independent document trail cannot be overemphasized,” except for one thing: I neglected to say it. On behalf of everyone reading this, thanks for filling the gap.

* * *

Bob …

My experience is that PIPs are rigged against the employee. Their manager has already decided to fire them, but has to jump through legal hoops and have some “justification” so the company can’t be sued.

The best thing is for the guy to do the minimum, devoting his time to the job search.

Maybe also see a lawyer and send a registered letter to the company noting how the PIP is impossible and rigged for failure, to negotiate a better severance.

Bob says:

Depends on the company, and the manager. Some PIPs are sincere and legitimate. You’re right often enough to taint the whole process, but not so often that it’s a safe generality. Also, as most companies are “at will employers,” the lawsuit threat is overblown. They can and often do terminate employees with no stated cause at all.

Still, most of your advice is sound, except that employees on PIPs do need to be open minded about the possibility that they really do need to make some changes.

* * *

Bob …

Having been on all sides of this:

  • Good managers will tell you they’re unhappy long before you get a PIP. Bad ones may not.
  • If you’re reporting to a new manager, read your past appraisals to see if there is anything to suggest your previous managers had the same concerns but didn’t want to go to the trouble of going through the process. Your new manager might just be the first one willing to do so.
  • One way to know if the PIP is real and not window dressing or the result of a hidden agenda: What you need to do will be totally within your control and you will have what you need when you need it.
  • If you have a bad manager, hitting the PIP’s goals would save your job, but you may not get the support you need when you need it to hit them.
  • If you have a manager with an agenda, it won’t matter how hard you work, and factors beyond your control — factors that aren’t obvious to anyone in HR — may conspire to keep you from reaching the PIP’s goals. Example: needing the support of other people for whom you and your goals are a low priority at best.
  • Might you have annoyed a higher-level manager, whether directly or indirectly? You might be dealing with “delegated discipline,” at which point you have a manager with an agenda.
  • Ask HR what rights you have. Then ask someone who’s been around a while the same question. If HR seems to be leaving things out, you probably have a boss with an agenda and HR is backing them.

Bob says …

This is excellent advice. Thanks!

Someone once said we’re all smarter than any of us are. Thanks to all who, by writing, helped demonstrate the point.

Comments