Published: February 25 2009, 03:08 PM | no comments
by Steve Romero

The blogosphere is a fascinating place, and one blog I enjoy following and interacting with is ZDNet's "IT Project Failures" by Michael Krigsman.  In fact, I recently listened to his podcast entitled "Forrester CRM Analyst discusses IT failure" and felt compelled to respond.

Readers, listen to the podcast, read the corresponding report and then take a look at my feedback. It will be take an investment of your time, but will be well worth it if saves you from even 1 IT failure.

If you are not going to do the homework assigned above, you may still get something out of my reply to Krigsman:

The "people part" is hard

I just listened to your podcast with Dr. Petouhoff of Forrester. Let me start by saying I fundamentally agree with every point made in the podcast. Though I agree, I think the characterization of the "people part" is oversimplifying the problem and the potential solution. Dr Petouhoff mentions strong leadership and organizational transformation, but there is more to it than that.

The "people part" is actually 3 dimensions--Governance, Process Management, and Organizational Change Managemen-- addressed in concert with one another, not as disparate disciplines addressed individually (as many companies do).

Take for example her evidence that organizations continue to move projects forward without adequate executive leadership and an adequate understanding of the impact on corporate culture. So why is this taking place? I think it is due to the absence of good governance, process management and organizational change management. I think these 3 disciplines are essential to ensure strong executive leadership and organizational transformation.

Good governance would ensure the critical decisions are addressed by systematically asking and answering the right questions. Good governance would ensure the correct people in the organization are assigned accountability for those decisions and the asking and answering of those questions. Good governance would ensure the processes for making sure the decision are in place and functioning. Good governance would ensure appropriate Executive involvement and oversight.

Good process management would provide the means to make the work possible and practical. This includes the decision-making process and associated and subsequent execution mechanisms.

Good organizational change management would provide the required vision, strategy, communication, training, support and management to ensure the human behaviors required in these processes become second nature in the enterprise. This includes the organizational change management to institutionalize the governance processes, as well as the change management required to modify business processes and human behavior to exploit technology solutions.

Can we do anything successfully without adequately addressing the people part? Absolutely not. Then, as you ask, why are enterprises continuing to make the same mistakes again and again? Simply stated: because the alternative is hard. If it was easy, we would already be doing it.

The disciplines of governance, process management and organizational change management are not intuitive. They are incredibly difficult requiring as much art as science.

I posted a blog at the end of 2008 noting the silver lining in this economic downturn --that organizations would finally address these needs because they no longer have the threshold for failure. Dr. Petouhoff made the same observation in your podcast.

Though I agree the incentive is there to finally address the "people part", I won't be surprised to see a Forrester study showing the same problems 10 years from now. I hope my pessimism is proved wrong.

Steve Romero, IT Governance Evangelist

Share this post:  Email

Share

Published: February 19 2009, 12:40 PM | no comments
by Steve Romero

I've spoken about the importance of the role of good decision-making in Governance for many years. Yet a question that come in from my last post (Steve Romero's Rules for Rational Decision Making) has given me reason to take a step a back and define some of the terms I use when discussing decisions.

The question (which nobody has ever asked before) was "What is the difference between a decision being realized and a decision's desired outcome?"

Before I answer that question, I need to remind you of my two steps for decision-making:

1. Be crystal clear on the objective - What is the desired outcome of the decision?
2. Be sure you can measure the result of your decisions - What metrics will be used to determine if the decision is realized, and what metrics will be used to determine if the decision had the desired outcome?

Here is the decision-making sequence:

1. We make a decision
2. We determine if the decision was realized
3. We determine if the decision had the result we wanted

Here is an example:

1. We want to lower expenses by reducing our carbon footprint
2. Various departments in the organization take steps to save energy
3. The result of the various departments taking steps to save energy is that we saved money

Here are the elements of a decision being "realized:"

1. People hear the decision
2. People understand the decision
3. People carry out the decision

It is amazing how many organizations don't have the systematic processes/controls in place to even determine this!!!!

Here are the elements of the "desired outcome:"

1. The decision has a result
2. The result is what we wanted

The question I was asked serves as a reminder that communication in Governance is key. Remember that stakeholders approach governance from their own frame of reference. Don't assume their understanding of your plans and objectives matches your intent.

 Steve Romero, IT Governance Evangelist

Share this post:  Email

Share

Published: February 13 2009, 08:47 AM | 1 Comment(s)
by Steve Romero

Those of you who have attended one of my presentations or have read my blog know that I believe that decision-making is the heart-and-soul of IT Governance. What decisions are made, who makes them, and how, are the essence of Governance.

Decisions are especially critical during tough economic times. Our decisions better be good because our threshold for failure is greatly reduced. We can't afford to make mistakes. Now is a good time to put a spotlight on how we make decisions.

Decisions will be coming down the pipe fast and furious in response to this economic downturn. My hope is that these decisions are born of good governance. No matter how good you believe your governance to be, I recommend applying two very simple rules to these crucial decisions.

Steve Romero's Rules for Rational Decision-Making

1) Be crystal clear on the objective - What is the desired outcome of the decision?

Too often we make decisions because they "feel" right. Though it may seem obvious, state and communicate the precise reason you are making this decision at this time. Be just as specific in describing and communicating the desired result or expected outcome. If your decision is to have any chance of success, you better make sure everyone involved is on the same page.

2) Be sure you can measure the result of your decisions - What metrics will be used to determine if the decision is realized, and what metrics will be used to determine if the decision had the desired outcome?

Metrics and measures are too often overlooked when it comes to decision-making. If you don't measure it, you can't manage it. If you don't measure it, you can't improve it. If you don't measure it, you probably don't care.

Characteristics of a good decision metric include being:

• Important - Reflects the ultimate goals and purpose of the organization
• Controllable - Is something that employees can directly influence
• Accurate - Reliably expresses what is being measured
• Objective - Not subject to dispute
• Easy - Not burdensome or expensive to obtain
• Timely - Is available in time to make a difference
• Comprehensible - Easily communicated and readily understood
• Harmless - Does not induce dysfunctional behavior

Don't overlook the need to measure the effectiveness of the decision-making process itself.  In addition to measuring the outcome of the decision, root cause analysis should be used to determine if the decision-making process is flawed.

Apply these two rules to all of your decisions and you will be assured that they are reasoned and rational--and stand a much better chance of being successful.

What far-reaching decisions have recently been made in your organizations? Do you know why the decision was made and what the expected outcome is? Is the decision being measured?

Share this post:  Email

Share

Published: February 03 2009, 08:59 AM | no comments
by Steve Romero

So I am asking for some help here and issuing a challenge. Readers, can you come up with an IT-related problem or challenge that I can’t solve on paper by applying the discipline of IT Governance?

Share this post:  Email

Share