The IT Beacon

CIO – Collaboration and Information Officer

The market downturn appears to have set the IT industry back in its journey to being strategically relevant to users. Today the role of CIO seems limited to operational ‘run the business’ type support. In other words the CIO is the 21st century IT manager. 

Of course cost pressure is on and it would take ‘balls of steel’ for the CIO to challenge this redefinition of the role.

I propose that there may be a way to become strategically relevant without having to ask for a rework of the job specification. Businesses need better communication. We have email and it works well. We now have social networking platforms such as Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn. In some cases these are already in corporate use. However their usage may be in spite of the IT function. I suggest that the CIO takes charge of such collaborative tools with a remit to extend their usage rather than be the ‘collaboration killjoy’ who focuses on making the case for not having such connectivity. This was the case with palmtops until the Blackberry Tsunami caused a rethink.

Also the use of wikis is to be encouraged. Again this is happening in respect of managing IT projects. It needs to extend to the user community to enable them to collaborate. Possibly the most important step is to have wikis that allow users and technologists to communicate.

I touched on this in my IT Value Stack book.

I also touched on it in an article I wrote for the Financial Times a couple of years ago. Click here.

The IT industry’s first attempt at knowledge management failed, because the focus was on control rather than collaboration. The technologies and platforms are sufficiently advanced now for CIOs to lever them (with little investment required) for the benefit of their organisations.

Collaboration provides a means for the IT function to be strategically relevant.

Better to be known as the collaboration guy than the laptop repair guy.

IT growing up?

The launch of the Innovation Value Institute potentially heralds a major step forward for the IT industry. Major technology and end user players such as BP, Microsoft, Sap, Intel, BP, Chevron, Ernst and  Young and Boston Consulting Group have got together to develop a framework for enhancing the value that IT delivers to the business.

This is an impressive objective, as from my perspective this is what the IT industry needs to address as job number one. There is too much vagueness around the IT department's responsibilities and associated KPIs.

Interestingly an IVI CIO survey revealed that:

• 67 percent of the average IT department's budget is spent just keeping the business running; another 20 percent is spent on enhancing existing capabilities, and only 13 percent is spent on "innovation."
• 75 percent of CIOs said that they would like to be in a better position to understand how IT is actually delivering value to the company
• Two thirds of CIOs don't believe most of the ROI numbers that are put in front of them
• Half of these CIOs don't actually measure value at all, since they're focused on just keeping the business running.

At the very least IVI will make it difficult to ignore the IT elephant that stalks the C-suite.

In my view decoupling of the CIO role from operational responsibilities will be a big step in addressing these embarrassing stats.

Book Review of Smart (Enough) Systems

I have just read a book entitled Smart (Enough) Systems – How to Deliver Competitive Advantage by Automating Hidden Decisions. A couple of things struck me when one of the authors, James Taylor, kindly sent it to me (the coauthor is Neil Raden). Firstly at almost 400 pages it was no Who moved my Cheese? short-haul read. Secondly the Einstein-like graphic on the front cover suggested that a similar intellect would be required to grasp the concepts of the book.

These two factors contributed to my delayed review. Apologies James and Neil. However, having picked it up, I am pleased to say that it is written in such a way that the concepts are easy to grasp and the book’s logical structure suit both an end-to-end and reference-style reading approach.

These guys are ahead of the curve in terms of where IT meets business. The book uses the nascent (to most people) model of Enterprise Decision Management (EDM) as the paradigm for automating business decision-making.

Smart Enough Systems provides a model that enables the automation of business decision making without having to make the leap into the world of artificial intelligence. Consequently it is more likely that this model will gain traction in the business arena. Given the number of real-world case studies detailed in the book, the model is more than just a theoretical concept.

The book is divided in two. The first half makes the business case and is written with both business and technical readers in mind. The second half is written for technologists and addresses how to implement smart enough systems.

The first-half (actually a third of the book) makes a compelling case for enterprise decision-management. It is very in tune with the times, making reference to themes such as Web 2.0 and even Web 3.0, in a measured rather than ‘caught up in the hype’ style.  I would encourage business leaders to read this section.

The logic behind Smart Enough Systems is surprisingly simple; pull the business decision-making logic out of the applications so that it can be managed without major IT surgery each time the business or even the market forces a change in the decision-making rules. Treating the ‘decisions’ as corporate assets is an intriguing thought. In essence, in a fast moving market those that manage their decision-making assets most effectively win. Given the accelerating pace of change EDM will move mainstream sooner than most people think and thus the authors need to be heeded.

Whilst most management books with an IT theme allude to the elimination of people as organisations become more tech-centric, the authors suggest that EDM can be used to improve the productivity of your staff. Thus the EDM model offers an evolutionary rather than revolutionary approach to talent management.

The book is content-rich. My temptation would be to package the first third of the book as a business management read. Whilst technologists will benefit from this part of the book, business-only readers may feel that the book as a whole was not written for them, and given the strength of the business messages I would not want business leaders in particular to overlook this book.

The authors are skilled communicators who appear comfortable across the complete ‘bits to boardroom’ spectrum. Their book will give many organisations a competitive edge today. But it won’t be long before heeding their message becomes a market entry condition.

IBM's 2008 Global CEO Study

IBM's 2008 Global CEO Study has thrown up some interesting themes. Innovation ranks highly as does talented people and technologies that can disrupt business models. The market turbulence is causing many to segue into a cost-focussed mindset.

This study suggests that such a move would be unwise. In fact successful organisations going forward will be those that have a boardroom ready CIO who is focused on innovation and has the skills and charisma to attract and retain short-supply tech talent.

See Irving Wladawsky-Berger's post on the report for more analysis.

Healthcare IT: Saving Lives, Saving Money

On Cisco's High Tech Policy blog Paul Redifer writes:

"The US health care industry has been one of the last to benefit from the increased efficiencies brought by the adoption of information technology tools. Despite abundant evidence that technology could help lower costs and improve health care outcomes, providers have been slow to adopt. For most US providers the biggest obstacle has been poor return on investment. A small physician practice could face costs of over $30,000, yet that practice may see very little of the financial benefits. Instead, patients and insurers – either private or government-run Medicare and Medicaid - will benefit from fewer duplicative or unnecessary medical tests, reduced medical errors, and better care of chronic illnesses."

The automation of healthcare has to be a good thing so long as it is secure and user-focused. To arrive at a situation where the user, in this case a small physician practice, does not see a clear ROI clearly is wrong. In the UK we have similar healthcare initiatives that are conceptually sound but are poorly implemented. Whether the users are office workers, physicians and patients, IT solutions need to be developed with the user in mind. Thus avoiding the political conflict that tarnishes the initial vision.

Read Paul's complete post Healthcare IT: Saving Lives, Saving Money

Who Competes with IT?

In his CIO post Who are the IT Department's "competitors"? Chris Potts makes reference to a global survey that tried to pin down what differentiates successful IT organisations [within companies] from their competitors. Chris picks up on who the IT department's competitors might be. This I feel is a very interesting question. I go along with his points that the competitors include:

• external suppliers
• IT departments in other companies - used by the CFO to beat their IT function down on budget.

I would also add:

• The Finance function - often there is a political friction between the two departments
• The Marketing function - e-commerce and now social networking look set to move the axis of IT power out of the IT function.
• The IT industry - which is creating technologies that are likely over time to obviate the need for technologists in end-user organisations
• Anything else worthy of capital investment - The CEO needs to decide whether his dollar will yield more value lying in a savings account or would it be best to invest in the IT function. 

With a bit more thought I am sure the list could be extended.

Integration Matters

In his post IT Doesn’t Matter – Integration Does John Schmidt makes an interesting point in respect of Nick Carr's first book "Does IT Matter?", which caused shockwaves through the IT industry.  Mr Schmidt argues that even if IT becomes a commodity there will always be the issue of integration to attend to. It is not just a case of 'plug and go'. He focuses on business integration as opposed to systems integration, but his argument holds for both. Thus even if all hardware and software eventually become commoditised there will still be competitive advantage gained through one's ability to integrate disparate technologies together.

To some extent using Carr's book as a basis for argument is a little unfair as it was written for a previous biotechnological era (the post-dotcom nuclear winter). Though I admittedly am guilty of this as well in my new book. His book's value was not so much in the logic but in the fact that it gave the IT industry and user community a big slap in the face. As a result today's IT discussions are increasingly based around business value.

Schmidt may possibly be a technologist and this can see deeper into the issues highlighted. However as an ex technologist who is looking at trends in the marketplace, I see the whole area of system integration becoming a non-issue. Hence the death of the phrase system integrator in the description of what today are better known as IT service companies. Technologies and standards such as XML, Soap and middleware in general have taken the fun out of integration from a technologist's perspective.

The issue of business integration is less evolved and so Schmidt's perspective is very valid today and will be for a while. As we have seen, and will see, courtesy of the recent credit crunch, swathes of people will lose their livelihoods to be replaced by technology. As the ratio of people to technology changes the issue of business integration will go the same path as system integration.

Pleasing Google's Tech-Savvy Staff

The recent WSJ interview with Google's CIO Douglas Merrill is both likely to inspire and terrify most CIOs, particularly given that most Google employees are both users and technologists. Google would on the face of it have a very laissez-faire approach to IT. Rather than have a core IT strategy that determines what the staff can/cannot do, Mr Merrill is happy for individuals to pursue whatever technology takes their fancy. This sounds like a support nightmare, but Google gets around it by:
a - Trading the cost of the nightmare (support) against the creativity that might emerge
b - Investing in an IT infrastructure that in effect makes the working environment safe.

Thus employees feel less 'locked down' and more inclined to innovate.

This is a tricky balance to achieve and perhaps one needs Google's free cash to achieve it. However a message for less risk averse CIOs is that getting the core infrastructure right can provide an environment within the IT function that promotes innovation, rather than the usual boring 'IT as a tool for cost management'. And the message for the CEO is that the sooner your IT and user communities morph into one the sooner you are likely to play in the Google league.

(The WSJ article is also being discussed at Just Do I.T. and the WSJ technology blog)

Gaining a Seat at the Innovation Table

It was refreshing to read the Boston Consulting Group paper Gaining a Seat at the Innovation Table on the role IT has to play in business innovation.

The paper rightly highlights the role the business side has to play in this. The focus though is on what the IT function should be doing. I particularly like the nudge given to CIOs to get out there and support business process design.

Also the point that traditional IT leaders are unlikely to cut it on the innovation front is well made. I would like to see this elaborated on, as this for me is the critical issue in respect of the IT function delivering business value.