Notable

Isn´t it IT’s job to embrace the business goals and deliver technology as a service in support of core activities and overall efficiency?

Following a recent discussion with a colleague about the tenants and pitfalls of a new service agreement with the IT-department and the system owner, my mind kept turning over this question:  Is the IT-department more focused on making money than on making things work for the organization? Followed closely by: Is not our cost center budget model seriously flawed? And finally: Is there a better incentive or IT-management model?

Photo by: David Blackwell.

In search of an answer

First stop Harvard Business Review where I found the frank and engaging post by Susan Cramm: “8 Things We Hate About IT“. Reaction: apparently we are not alone, and our mediocre operating model and strategy execution is not the exception, but the norm.  I present a few slightly modified excerpts from the points that especially resonated:

8 4 Things We Hate About IT

IT’s bureaucratic governance process rivals the tax code in complexity and inhibits rather than promotes innovation. (From 8 things, #1 – IT Limits Managers’ Authority)

Molasses moves faster – IT projects and planning move slowly, often taking 3 to 4 times longer than necessary (see point above). In-process projects are always 90% done. “Completed” projects don’t have agreed to functionality, and the team that promises to deliver missing functionality in future phases are always mysteriously MIA. (From 8 things, #4 -Their Projects Never End)

Condescension not collaboration: When you try to brainstorm with IT about how to apply new technology, you get paternalistic responses. When glitches emerge, functional specialists defend the reliability of their piece of the byzantine infrastructure. (From 8 things #5/#7)

The perpetual struggle. No matter how much you spend and how hard you work, you never have anything to celebrate and little to look forward to as the promise of technology seems perpetually beyond your reach. (From 8 things #8 – IT Never Has Good News)

The blame game

It is tempting to rally behind the sentiment of Cramm´s introductory quote:

“In the quest of getting things organized, they are introducing a bunch of bureaucracy and, in the process, they’re abdicating their responsibility for making sure the right things get done.”

But I won´t. Like many of those readers who commented on the above article, I like and respect my colleagues in  the IT department. It is the system that is broken.  And it  is only fair to also include the valid points from the Cramms´s sequel presenting  IT’s point of view on corporate management.

I can definitely attest to the following:

5) The user community is unskilled and ungrateful – The IT department often provides on the job training to an ungrateful user community even though much of this tedious work could be eliminated if they mastered the basics of the systems that support their business.

7) IT is hardworking – IT works long hours supporting old technologies that the company can’t afford to upgrade.

And it also needs to be said:

The model we have is the model we built.  The IT-department is a cost center that fills orders and builds things to spec, because that is what the organization has asked it to be.

Are we anywhere yet?

So how much closer are we to finding some good advice?  Authority and governance is the  big issue and no one seems to have the silver bullet, but McKinsey´s Marina Levinson makes and illustrates some good organizational principles (below).

Governance  principles

Processes must use fast-cycle innovation and be tied to long-term interests
In particular, Levinson suggests “deliver tangible business value within 90-day increments” … and “build quickly while also looking at least two or three years ahead.”

Foster mutual understanding and complementary skills in both camps
Core business areas need people to be IT savy, and IT experts need a knowlege of the business. “[You need] IT leaders who challenge [the business]” .. and “each cross functional process has a sponsor at the senior or executive VP level…with operational leader whose responsibility includes that business process”, says Levinson.

The motivators and values need be top-line and customer focused
Prioritize systems that allow you to get closer to customers and partners

The problem is, embracing these principles involves a paradigm shift way above my pay grade.  And therein lies the rub, as I realistically don´t see this as anything we can achieve by grass-roots means. We are talking change management.  On a massive scale.  We need these changes, and my colleagues may even agree, but I know our organization´s leaders have not reached the same conclusion.

Always look on the bright side ….

In true Monty Python fashion, let´s end with a look at the bright side. We are taking small steps:

1. Some units in our IT-department are increasingly embracing SCRUM, and agile development methodology in general
2. Business processes reviews have been initiated on a small scale
3. Some discussion of our ICT organizational model, albeit in back rooms, has taken place.

Recommended reading:

No Scrum, No More – Why are we not scrumming? (Select* Geir Berset - Feb. 11, 2010 )

Yesterday was the company julebord*.  An enjoyable evening to be sure, it made for a good end to a day that opened with a spirit-defeating meeting. Well into the ribbe* and Shiraz I couldn´t shake the feeling of disenchantment with the state of affairs.  Nagging were questions like: Are the strategic interests of the organization served by how and where I use my time?  Am I helping by participating in all these meetings and forums?  How can we do better?

These are the some of my ahah conclusions as 2009 winds down:

1. 6 is no good
   Representative committees are no good. Of late, truly useful interaction and progress has occurred only when there are 5 or fewer participants in the room.
2. Buck the futility of meetings and the tyranny of the email onslaught
   More gets accomplished through MSN and before/after meetings, than in meetings or through emails. One can save a lot of time by cutting out 90% of emails, and all meetings with more than 6 participants. Show up once in a while, bail on the rest?  (Additional inspiration: HBR – Manage your Time Like Jim Collins)
3. Lay low – Full stop on the meta-discussion
   Leaders across the organization are supposed to care about the how/who/why, but given their every-day they could really not care less. The results should be the focus, and I am sure that good results will win any argument. I should stop trying to get consensus/understanding on the “why” and “how”. Consensus has rarely been achieved, and when it has, it hasn´t gotten us anywhere really. ROI on time invested = .01.
4. A good model seems like a good goal – but it really just looks good on a slide
   What I bring to the table (and the same can be said of my most effective colleagues) probably doesn´t fit nicely into any role, in ANY organizational model that might solve what ails us.  The university is decentralized, and lets not kid ourselves, future centralization efforts won´t be plucking people from among the existing rank and file.  So you are outside of the box, far removed from the politics, you might want to take a second look around.And if one is already outside the box, why try and hop inside it? Maybe misguided craziness?
5. Geeks and nerds will always be a bit rogue
   It is often the uniqueness, the oddities and special talents of those in some of the best teams, not sameness that yields great results. Increasingly  the “odd-man-out ” in every single org model discussed lately, my gut feeling is that maybe I should just stick to participating in the virtual teams and ad-hoc collaborations.  It is even possible to further self-organize without getting anyone´s blessing.  This might also be more fun, in addition to being more effective.

   All we need now  is a secret handshake or a code word, maybe even a lair.
   

6. Fun shouldn´t be tabled for later
   Maslow was right.  Money is not what drives everyone. After my basic needs are met, I work because I want to achieve something more, and I like much of what I do.  We are not all characters in The Office, and it is possible to be too focused sometimes. One´s job can NOT be 150% about the organizations goals. (This can burn people out and that helps no one). Plan for a bit more fun, and few other bits from the top of old Maslow´s hierarchy.
7. If you build it, they won´t necessarily come, but maybe.
   Compelling is: finished products that can be demonstrated; processes that have achieved some results, and systems that are up and running. These are way more compelling that any plan or description.  Example: Installed WordPress and  Joomla, then people started using them. Propose adoption of WordPress MU and we got a institutional skepticism, budget concerns and a report. Propose a video and you get a long discussion. Make a video and you get a video. Develop an interaction yourself an you please your users; request a developer to develop it, and you get a place on their massive todo list.  Choose what is fastest.

It´s not worth blaming anyone, it´s not ideal. It´s not how we want things to be. It´s just how it is. (Unless you are lucky enough to work at Ben & Jerry´s or Google. Lucky, talented, ducks.)

* Translations:

julebord = corporate Christmas party in Norway
ribbe = traditional Norwegian Christmas pork ribs

Cross browser incompatibility and security setting inconveniences are nothing new, so when a colleague told me she could not log into ItsLearning using Internet Explorer 7 and consequently resorted (her words not mine) to Firefox whenever she needed ItsLearning, I went looking for a post on the browser or cookies-setting that I could recommend she change. Not everyone at the university has this far-better-browser installed, so I was certain I would come across this question again soon.

What I found was a well written post from a student entitled: it’s:learning™ is crap! The post’s author, clearly an informed thoughtful user is both thorough and structured in their critique. But that is not all. This engaged user shares a bit about their attempt to help the developers, only to be rebuffed:

I was contacted 2005-12-15 by it:solutions support personnel, and mailed back and forth a number of times. I lobbied for a separate interface that’s designed for efficient use, but they did not appear to grasp concepts such as usability vs usefulness, and had no distinction between presentation and business logic.

Needless to say, the post’s author is now a passionate detractor.

That this should be the case would surprise me, if I hadn’t experienced it myself, and often. Constructive criticism is increasingly lumped with general whining, treated with halfhearted “thanks for your suggestion” platitudes, even condescending arrogance. The host of new media interactivity options (blogs, forums, social networking, etc.) has raised the noise level for developers, and it isn’t surprising that they should want to listen only to compliments and conciliatory suggestions, while dismissing instances of emphatic criticism.

Of course, there is better way to look at it. It’s far better to have critics that not, and way better for business. Kathy Sierra, co-creator of the Head First book series cleverly called it the Kool-Aid point.

The Kool-Aid Point: “You don’t really have passionate users until someone starts accusing them of ‘drinking the Kool-Aid.’ If you create passionate users, you have to expect passionate detractors. You should welcome their appearance in blogs, forums, and user groups. It means you’ve arrived. (Posted on headrush.typepad.com)

If you are a smart developer, a smart inventor, or a smart start-up, you will use this feedback and recognize it for what it is: a potential road map to success or an opportunity to create customer loyalty. (Did you just hear: blah, blah, blah? Well, maybe you just need a cup of coffee. ) Focus groups are useful. But I contend that they are not nearly as valuable as engaged user feedback. Questionnaires are limiting. Yes-men are useless.

If you haven’t already, check out Get Satisfaction and the products and services that participate there. The site provides an effective forum for customers to communicating directly with the companies behind the products and services they use, a mechanism for prioritizing feedback, and customers communicating and supporting each other.

… Oh yeah, and I dare say, ItsSolutions is not very smart. (And, if you are interested in my opinion, when it comes to ItsLearning I agree with the passionate detractor mentioned earlier.)