All Posts in Technology

|In: Leadership|Last Updated:

Have you ever wondered, while enjoying your Thanksgiving turkey, why the Pilgrims were the voyagers and Squanto the local expert, instead it being the other way around?

If so, read Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond. It’s a remarkable book that attempts to develop a biogeographic theory of history. It’s well worth your time and mental energy, and not only because Diamond’s theory of why the last 13,000 years happened as they did holds valuable lessons for organizational design and business strategy.

But the lessons are there to be found. For example: Throughout history, many societies have voluntarily relinquished valuable technologies to their eventual detriment.

Take Japan. It once had more and better guns than any other country in the world, but by the time Commodore Perry arrived in 1853 they were gone. Guns had destabilized Japanese society, so they were banned. Their benefit — a more powerful military force– meant little to Japan’s Samurai rulers because of Japan’s isolation.

China once had a great fleet of oceangoing ships. But in 1433 A.D. a new faction took power and eliminated the fleet, probably to prevent potentially destabilizing contacts with other cultures. China’s political unity and isolation from the rest of the world meant the benefit of internal stability outweighed the cost.

European nations, in contrast, never unified, and engaged in a centuries-long competition that included development of military technology and expansion of trade. That both could destabilize their governments was outweighed by their importance for defense and expansion: Nations that invested in trade and military technology conquered those that didn’t.

The point of most technological innovations available to businesses is similar: to make them more competitive. Most also have the potential to destabilize the existing power structure. Is it any wonder monopolies often ignore technologies and practices that could make them more efficient?

Which brings us to you. As you ponder which new technologies to promote within your company, don’t become frustrated by organizational resistance. Remember, just because the technology might make the company more competitive, that doesn’t mean it’s attractive to middle managers and executives. For some, internal destabilization creates more risk than external competitiveness creates opportunity.

You need to know how to handle this contingent, but as CTO or CIO your natural allies are the other ones: Those who personally benefit when the whole company becomes more competitive.

Comments

|In: Leadership|Last Updated:

ATHENS, GREECE — The Parthenon stands on the fields of the Acropolis overlooking this ancient, modern city. Built some 2,500 years ago during the height of Athens’ power and influence, its age and commanding architectural grace and sophistication inspire a sense of awe that requires presence, not mere description. It stood more or less intact until 1687 when a Venetian artillery shell exploded the Turkish ammunition dump stored in its heart, which should give you a healthy dose of respect for its builders.

We can only wonder whether our best structures will last even a fraction of that time to inspire awe among our own successors. The ancient Athenians, lacking our finely tuned understanding of economics, built the Parthenon as well as they could, not merely as well as they could cost-justify.

We in IT work in more ephemeral materials than marble, but even our own modest efforts persist far longer than we expect, or even prefer. Our own legacies … systems … outlast at least the employment of their builders, stubbornly resisting attempts to replace them.

Why are they so hard to replace? They are, after all, just software, aren’t they? Well, no, they aren’t. They, along with such items as factories, warehouses, and the knowledge and experience of non-transient employees, form an organization’s infrastructure — the basic foundational framework on which an organization is built. It’s an overused term these days, but one whose meaning is worth preserving.

Infrastructure, we’re told, is strategic, but it’s deeper than strategy. A company’s infrastructure is its soul if you think in such metaphysical terms. If you’re more hard-nosed, it defines both enablers and constraints — a company can change strategies more easily than infrastructure, but the each company’s infrastructure predisposes it to some strategies while creating severe constraints that inhibit others.

Yeah, yeah, buddy, but how does this affect me today? Deeply and subtly, that’s how. Take stock of your existing infrastructure, what it enables and what it inhibits. It’s part of what a CIO or CTO brings to discussions of company strategy. More, when you’re planning new major systems or system replacements, drive the discussion beyond specific process requirements to explore which future strategies it will enable and inhibit.

It’s fashionable to talk about the compression of business cycles these days, but companies that are in business for the long haul understand that underneath all the nimbleness of rapid change must be an underlying stability.

Let the Parthenon be your inspiration.

Comments