The CIO Assistant's Blog

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 the third post in the recent series on Business-IT Alignment where the issue is examined from both sides of the coin so to speak. The objective is to demonstrate that Business-IT Alignment is possible if there is a level playing field where both Business and IT are accountable for their action, not just one (IT) performing for the other (Business) to judge. This post will show how the CIO can use a simple approach to keep tab of the progress of the Alignment effort. But before getting there, let’s review quickly the first 2 posts.

In Part 1, entitled “What Business Would IT Align To?”, the readers were shown that “Business” is an elusive term, used by different groups in different contexts and possibly for different agendas. Rarely that Business is meant the overarching entity which encompasses an organization, its people, products, processes, facilities, customer base, etc. In practice, Business sometimes means the executives or heads of business units who deal with IT on a variety of subjects, ranging from specific initiatives to ongoing support operations. In other times, Business also means the more abstract notions of Culture, Strategy, or Money. To say IT should align to Business means that IT organization should spend wisely (no upgrades this year), that IT processes should be in sync with corporate culture, that IT plans should be supportive of corporate strategies, that IT leaders should be true partners with other corporate executives, that IT people should speak the same language as other business functions … a tall order for any human being or group. A misstep happens, Bang … IT is not aligned. Is it fair?

In Part 2, entitled “Which IT Needs Business Alignment”, it was further explained that IT is also evolving itself as a group, similar to the way that species evolve in a darwinian fashion. It means that there are parts of acknowledged and entrenched IT functions that are no longer valuable because they bring no significant perceived values, either because Business can get them elsewhere at competitive costs or because they are taken for granted similar to the air that we breathe. It also means that some parts of IT have managed to acquire new skills and capabilities that could serve Business well. By focusing the spotlight on the low-value areas and ignoring the potentially high-value contribution of others, Business (or whoever says to represent it – including the IT trade press) tends to look at IT in a partial and somewhat unfair way.

How do we redress the situation and view Business-IT Alignment in a more balanced way? How can we weight in the positive versus negative contributions of IT? Should we measure the Alignment over an extended time frame or take a snap shot at a certain time? This post will attempt to answer these questions.

Alignment is in the eyes of the beholders

Despite all the focus, trade press coverage and surveys about Business-IT Alignment, there is so far no evidence of scientific measurements of such alignment. Not even a semi-scientific one. This subject of Alignment is not unlike any other complex and abstract notions such as Success or Happiness. We will know Alignment when we meet one, but we cannot define it in terms that are unequivocal and measurable. For example: Does a successful implementation of a (fill-in-the-blank)-backed initiative counts as an instance of Alignment? How many such instances need to happen during a year to gain the accolade of “truly aligned” IT? Three? Ten? It’s all relative.

So the first step in making Alignment happen is to engage the Business side and jointly define the Terms of Alignment. Since there are multiple representatives of Business, the CIO needs to seek all of them out, not just the obvious or visible ones. Find the opportunity to engage them and start the dialogue. Ask your business partners what do they feel about the business of IT Alignment. You need to show the Business side that you are serious about getting aligned. You need to overcome the fear of confirmation (Fred, you’re damn right. Where was IT when I need them last month?) or the risk of denial (What alignment? Sorry Fred, I have nothing to discuss and no time for philosophizing now!) That’s would be a big first step.

But what can you do next?

Alignment in Action

Here are a few pointers that you may consider, going forward:

1. No Dashboard - By all means, have all kinds of appropriate dashboards ready: the CEO Dashboard, the CIO Dashboard, the Enterprise Dashboard …, but please, NO Alignment Dashboard. Alignment is NOT a Performance. You just cannot effectively measure Alignment as you do with Quality, Productivity, Resource Utilization, etc. Attempting to build a formal one opens the door for critique on dashboard in general, and by extension, all the other legitimate ones. It doesn’t mean that you, as the CIO, cannot have one (or many). Just make it (them) informal, a one-to-one covenant with each representative of the business side (e.g. one with the CEO, one with the CFO, one with each Division Head, so on and so forth).

2. The “WOW” factor - Many years ago, I put up outside of my office a “WOW” board. On it, I had my people posting all kinds of thing, from ISO-9001 Certificate to News Release about the latest Win. The only condition for posting was that the piece must elicit a “Wow” by others. Any piece which received a “So What?” reaction was unceremoniously removed. It was a very competitive, dog-eats-dog type of action by groups vying for a piece of estate on that board. One funny thing happened after a while: all self-served pieces disappeared, to be replaced by Thank You notes from satisfied clients, cover pages of awarded contracts signed by both Sales and IT teams, … Well, you get the idea. IT people, at least those who worked for me in the past, are proud of their work but they are even prouder if that work is recognized, either explicitly by a Thank You note or implicitly by sharing the spotlight with another team. Find your “WOW” examples. Carefully select those that scream Alignment. Make they hugely visible.

3. Make Alignment your Guiding Principle - Or at least consider it your Critical Success Factor (CSF). Find the way to weave Alignment into your IT shop. Sprinkle your talks, your plans, your reports, your blogs and tweets (if you are the social media-savvy type) with Alignment terminology. Meeting of the mind. Have all ducks in a row. Stay in sync. March in lockstep. Sooner rather than later, you will see your staff picking them up (provided that what you say is authentic) in their behavior, then their partners on the business side, then … the IT press, I hope.

One last thing. Business keeps changing. So does IT. In order to stay aligned, you need to adapt and adjust constantly, from both sides. The glorious outcomes recorded last month or last week are now things of the past. Are you still aligned today? This is the only thing that counts.

          alignment, business, CIO, IT, leadership

“Three levels of executives – CEO, CIO/CTO, and CEA [Chief Enterprise Architect].
Three bridges – inside/outside the organization, business/technology sides of the organization, and business process/information flows/technologies within.
Three delivery mechanisms to stakeholders – one vision and organizational strategy, one technical strategy and execution, one architecture plan to deliver through technology.”

I got to love this passage extracted from the post Executives, One Foot In and One Foot Out by Andrew Blumenthal. Andy is the Chief Technology Officer at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). Previously, he served as the Chief, Office of Enterprise Architecture and IT Governance at the U.S. Coast Guard and prior to that as Chief Enterprise Architect at the U.S. Secret Service. Despite the obviously tough jobs at those tough agencies, Andy seems to possess the wisdom of an eastern sage.

I encourage you to go over his blog The Total CIO to read the full article and find for yourself his pearls of wisdom. I just like to share with you here a few (actually 3):

1. Just like Yin/Yang are 2 aspects of the same thing (like 2 sides of the same coin), we need to look at both sides (Inside/Outside) of the business to have a complete picture. 
2. The job of linking both sides could be performed by 1 person (CEO) or 2 (CIO/CTO) depends on the situation. I could argue that we may need only 1 techno-savvy CIO or info-savvy CTO to do the job of linking business with technologies, but that’s another story for another day. 
3. To fully execute the strategy, you need People (3 levels of executives) – Process (3 delivery mechanisms to stakeholders) – Technology (3 bridges).

 For a lover of the Rule-of-3, there is nothing more poetic that this quote from the Total CIO himself.

          CIO, rule-of-3, wisdom