The CIO Assistant's Blog

I was recently attracted to a discussion on LinkedIn’s CIO Network Forum started by Mark Chillingworth, Editor at IDG Communications. He referred to a CIO-UK article entitled “IT-business alignment is still on the CIO agenda“, with the sub-title “Align with the IT, not the other way around” and the following teaser:

The debate is switching, the business should be aligning with the IT systems available to reduce costs.
Increasingly CIOs are telling CIO UK that they can get their organisation to modify its practices to fit the applications in order to keep costs down. Is this your experience?
Read what Rorie Devine and Ian Dobb, 2 leading CIOs say here: http://www.cio.co.uk/debate/118575/it-business-alignment-is-still-on-the-cio-agenda

Eager to find an example of unconventional thought on Business-IT Alignment, I read through the article and was fairly disappointed with the way the story was reported. Why? Because none of the 2 CIOs in question were saying that “business should be aligning with the IT systems”. In fact, here is what they have said [word for word, with all the typo intact] in reply to the analyst’s question:

CIO-UK: “If you were approached by a fresh-faced, newly-appointed CIO and she asked you for your advice in how to pursue IT-business alignment, what would you say?” 

Dobb: “First, you need to understand the board’s expectations. Are you expected to be a commidity order-taker, a service provider, a business partner or more of an entrprenuerial innovator? Second, make sure you have the right team around you – you need to be able to delegate on detail issues with confidence, so that you don’t have to constantly check that the email is working OK. Third, you need to be proactive and learn how to influence. If you have some good ideas, make sure you are tabling them with business leaders. Be aware of the business and board and their learning styles; some people like numbers, some like pictures. Don’t talk techie, talk business.”

Devine: “First, you have to understand your opportunity and the environment. You have to really take time to understand the context and challenges that the business is facing – what you’re there for. Second, make sure you realise the potential of your team. Communicate well; your people want to see a clear vision and a plan. Third, don’t let one issue (for example your SAP system’s performance) become synonymous with what you do – don’t become a single-issue team. At the same time though it’s important to avoid focusing purely on the big picture – you have to deliver too! Lastly, measure your performance as a team and try to keep getting better and better. If you don’t measure, how do you know you are getting better? It’s vital to choose the right things to measure – things that matter to the business and the strategies and priorities that are in place. We’ve found that it’s really productive to form specific teams to take those key metrics and take responsibility for improving performance in those areas.”

So how did CIO-UK come to the conclusion (that Business should now align to IT)? I have no idea. Throughout the entire article, there is only one place, one single statement made by Devine that remotely related to this idea:

“… The chance of success is far better if you don’t customise. If you take an off-the-shelf package you are buying standards. Focusing on the customer expectation is where you will find competitive advantage – not in the customisation of a packaged application.”

But he was talking about commodity process:

Dobb and Devine were in clear agreement on this: when it comes to application software that encodes business processes, you purchase a package if you want a commodity process; if you want to differentiate the business based on a process, you shouldn’t buy a package.

As discussed in my previous post What Business Would IT Align To?, I deplored the attitude of some IT press to take pleasure in doing IT-bashing by portraying IT Leadership as out of touch with “business”. This time, it reversed the position and I don’t know which one is worse. By blatantly twisting the statements of two good, honest CIOs into some kind of empty victory for IT, they just stoke the fire of indignant protests from both sides. Once again, the CIO’s were made into shortsighted leaders who forced Business into making changes to save a few bucks while potentially curtail or damage its ability to compete in the future.

What do you think? Am I reading it correctly or does my anti-sensajournalism get the better of me? But before answering the questions, please read the entire article. Aside from the title/subtitle/teaser aberration, the advices from Dobb and Devine are solid. And the absence of their “clarification” once again proves my point that IT is a Quiet Bunch.

Postscripts.- Not all press articles are that bad. I found one much to my liking here: The Changing Roles of the CFOs and CIOs. In this Enterprise Management Quarterly article by Andrew Jesse, VP of Professional Services at Basware Corp., he pointed out a number of opportunities “for CFOs and CIOs to become more closely aligned to provide greater business value for their organizations enterprise-wide.” Happy reading again.

          alignment, business, CIO, IT, quiet force

A few days ago, I was looking for some books to read this mid-summer week-end. I ended up picking Travels, a book from Michael Crichton. Crichton, of Jurassic Park fame, was a highly readable author with many techno-thrillers on the best-seller list. I particularly like Timeline, a science-fiction novel about parallel worlds, so I thought Travels would be similar. It turns out that the book is a cross between an autobiography and a travelogue of exotic locations that he has visited as well as more common places that enticed him to make his “inner travels”. For Crichton, there was little distinction between inner and outer travels and they complement each other. He often felt that “I go to some distant region of the world to be reminded of who I really am.”

Anyway, I read through his accounts of trips to Shangri-La, Virunga, Kilimanjaro … and at the very end of the book, I found an interesting piece that is relevant to the subject of this post: Knowledge, or to be more specific, the peril of Scientific Knowledge. In the Postcripts, Crichton reproduced the text that he has prepared for the speech to the Pasadena chapter of CSICOP (Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims Of the Paranormal) at Cal Tech. He talked about the narrow view of Science and the fanatical attitude of many scientists against anything non-rational.

“This, in essence, is the problem with the scientific view of reality. Science is a kind of glorified tailoring enterprise, a method for taking measurements that describe something – reality – that may not be understood at all.”

“This” is the scientific way to interpret and understand life, not unlike the measuring approach of the tailor to a fictitious person named George. But I am getting ahead of myself.

The story was about the challenge of describing George as a person. Through Crichton, we found that it was not easy to describe George accurately in a statement. For example, consider a simple statement borne out of some casual observation:
“George is an even-tempered man.”
In closer look, we found that he sometimes lost his temper. So we modified the statement to read:
“George is often an even-tempered man.”
But the word “often” is vague, because it didn’t tell when and why he lost his temper. To be more explicit, we would then say something like:
“George is usually an even-tempered man, except on Mondays when his favorite football team lost the day before, or when his wife had a fight with him, or when … or when …”

We could go on and on for pages and still not being able to completely describe George in an accurate manner. But his tailor could, in a way. He could describe George in exact terms:
“George is a forty-four long”
because he has measured George and the suits that he cut for George fit him perfectly. So armed with this confidence, the tailor claimed that he could describe exactly who George is.

If we replace Science by Information Technology (IT), Business Intelligence (BI) or any data-driven disciplines (in the same way that Crichton substituted Science for the tailor), we would find ourselves on similar ground. Automated data that are systematically captured, processed, measured and “mined” give way to Information (connected Data) and Knowledge (a collection of useful Information). When presented as Knowledge, it represents the truth of the Past. Knowledge is thus looked upon as the penultimate goal, just a short step away from Wisdom which is described as the truth of the Future (1). And just like the scientists at CSICOP, some IT or BI practitioners believe in the absolute truth of their Knowledge and in the power of using the past to predict the future.

But what sort of Knowledge is acquired in such a way? The least useful, according to Crichton when he wrote about the measuring exercise of the tailor:

“… statements [about George] that are most securely held are also the least interesting.”

Similarly, there are too many performance measurements that inundate the executive dashboards today without providing any insight about how these pieces of Data/Information/Knowledge may help the business moving forward. They are known as the lag indicators by the initiated (2), the least interesting pieces of Knowledge. So the next time that you hear someone expounds the virtue of Knowledge, ask yourself whether or not that kind of Knowledge is relevant to the business at hand or just a bunch of gobbledygooks to impress people.

Postcripts.- Crichton was never invited to speak at CSICOP. Maybe the scientists there have known all along about his heretic view of Science. If you are interested, go pick up the book and spend a lazy afternoon. It will be worth your time.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

(1) Known by its acronym DIKW, the Data-Information-Knowledge-Wisdom relationship (also known as the Information or Knowledge Hierarchy) was ubiquitous in IT literature. Although not universally endorsed, it is widely used to purportedly demonstrate the added value of the next layer in the hierarchy. Thus, Information is more valuable than Data, Knowledge is better than Information, etc. The model also implies that beyond Knowledge, there is nothing else but Wisdom, the ultimate prize to acquire in both business and life.

(2) There are many write-ups on the subject but one of my favorites is a 2006 article Lead vs. lag indicators in an Australian HR publication.

          CIO, knowledge, Michael Crichton, performance indicators, wisdom

This is a guest post from Faith Fuqua-Purvis, President and Chief Solutions Architect of Synergetic Solutions LLC.

Wikipedia defines revolution as follows:

A revolution (from the Latin revolutio, “a turn around”) is a fundamental change in power or organizational structures that takes place in a relatively short period of time.

Amidst the corporate chaos and on-going organizational changes there lies a source of power, power for change. There are the People.

People come in all shapes, sizes, colors, and viewpoints. There are many, many viewpoints. Sometimes it seems like too many. Have you heard the joke that if you ask 4 recruiters their opinion on a resume you will get 5 answers? If you’ve been looking for a job lately you know that this is not just a joke, often a reality.

Often the different viewpoints seem opposed and are a source of chaos, but if you seek to understand not just respond, they can be a great source of information and power. How often do you stop to try and truly understand another’s viewpoint and how they reached their own personal conclusions? What attitude do you bring to the interaction? Are you focused on listening to a different viewpoint or are you focused on winning an argument?

Each and every day we make a series of decisions regarding how we interact with each other. How actively do we listen? How thoughtful are our responses? Are we working together? Is it a “we” or a “me” moment? Are we focused on our part of the organization or the effectiveness of the organization as a whole? Are we trying to understand how the decisions we make today impact other areas of the business or organization? Are we focused on the past or on the future? Are we playing the “blame game” or are we expending our energy working to resolve a situation the best way possible?

Attitude truly does make a difference. The Beatles sang of One being the loneliest number yet in the Matrix we saw how significant the impact of “The One” could truly be. We can all be Agents of Change. The revolution starts with yourself and your attitude, not with others and theirs. We can influence others but we can only truly change ourselves.

Binary language focuses on Zero and One, Off and On. There are studies showing that when collaboration is involved, the sum can be greater than the individual parts. Where One + One + One = Four not Three. Where there is the addition of understanding and alignment of objectives vs. the subtraction of position and personal power plays.

When you interact with others today and make decisions related to your job, your department, your organization and programs, are you going to be a 0 (Off) or a 1 (On)?

Faith Fuqua-Purvis is the founder of Synergetic Solutions LLC, a consulting firm specializing in Strategic Change. She is a strategic thinker, a proactive leader and an experienced coach, helping business implement transformational changes by aligning people, organizational structures, and operational activities with business strategies. You can find her complete profile at LinkedIn.

Photo credit: clix

          Change, revolution