I received a tweet from one of my favorite Twitterites @PeterKretzman . Peter retweeted @abbielundberg and @twailgum (I already follow the former and now follow the latter) who cited a recent CIO Online Magazine blog post titled: "Why the New Normal Could Kill IT" http://bit.ly/aGcP1a . I found it to be an inspiring post and hope everyone will read it before this post. It would help to test my opinions, the first being that the gist of the article is how most CIOs and their IT organizations must change if they have any chance of serving the "new Norm" (the current state created by the monumental shift triggered by the Global Economic Downturn).
I absolutely agree far too many IT organizations are overly complex, too expensive, and incapable of either leading or responding quickly to fast-paced business change. I absolutely disagree with the implication it is the CIO and IT that need to change in the unilateral fashion I interpret from the post. Once again, the Dog expects the Tail to do the wagging - which is exactly why CIOs and their IT organizations are in trouble in the first place.
Consider this excerpt from the post:
"...a harsh light finally glared on unfavorable licensing agreements and much-too-much shelfware; ill-conceived purchasing and integration strategies; and questionable software married to entrenched business processes. And non-IT executives seated at the boardroom table were more than likely horrified by what they found during closer inspection of IT's operations."
I suggest it takes some nerve for a non-IT executive to be "horrified" at what they find in IT if they are only now closely inspecting IT's operations. Anything they find in IT is there because they let it happen. A likely defense is they didn't know what IT was doing - which is precisely the problem. They didn't know!
This was even more troubling:
"In many corners of the corporate HQ, in fact, there are plenty of execs who, from time to time, would probably take pleasure in watching IT fail, a la Lehman Brothers. This most recent inspection of IT's ledgers and strategy probably amplified that feeling."
Could this actually be true? How often do you see a better example of cutting off your nose to spite your face? The post goes on to say why Execs can't let IT fail and how IT has to fix itself. IT has to fix itself. This implies IT is expected to do this on its own, even while the post rightly points out the downside of IT acting alone. Check this out:
"This is your wakeup call, big-league IT execs. After nearly five decades of gate-keeping prominence, corporate IT is in trouble and at a crossroads like never before in its mercurial and storied history as a corporate function. "The era of CIO dictatorship ends with 2009," writes Altimeter Group partner for enterprise strategy Ray Wang. "
If any CIO has been a dictatorial it is only because the business abdicated authority. This abdication is supported by the following statements from the post:
"Given the aforementioned warning signs, it's easy to speculate that the CIO's role and the department's sovereign power might be slip-sliding away."
"CIO's have lost a lot of control in guiding how technology is used in the enterprise," blogs Altimeter Group's Wang, "because the world of consumer tech has out-innovated enterprise-class technologies."
The only possible way CIOs could act autonomously or control how any technology is used (enterprise-class or consumer) is if Business Leaders forgo their responsibility to "govern" IT. IT Governance (or more appropriately, the Business Governance of IT) provides the approach, framework, discipline and processes for the Business to ensure:
- IT is aligned with the Enterprise it supports
- IT delivers appropriate value for technology investment
- IT appropriately manages risk
- IT appropriately manages resources
- IT appropriately manages performance
Unfortunately, the post does not cite IT Governance as the answer. Instead, as we've seen before, it provides recommendations for how the CIO must change. Each of the recommendations is reasoned and rational, but I found it hard to accept there are many CIOs who don't already practice them.
The post concludes by noting how many CIOs are already falling into the tail-wagging-the-dog trap I lament:
"Some CIOs have already responded: Capgemini's 2009 Global CIO Study found that 55 percent of the 490 respondents say they are giving priority to projects that contribute more to the business, and 34 percent are prioritizing projects that take advantage of new market conditions."
It appeared to me the blog presented this as good news. I contend it is bad news, because yet again, these CIOs are acting autonomously with the tacit approval of the business. It is not IT's responsibility to prioritize projects, it is Business Leadership who should decide. (And I do love it when CIO's are actually included at the Business Leadership Table. The downturn has driven the number down to low 40s so the current percentage saddens me.)
I agree with each of the problems cited in the post and with many of the changes sagely presented to overcome the latest round of Enterprise technology challenges. What I emphatically disagree with is the focus on CIO changes alone. I wince every time I hear Business Leaders have new/more /different expectations of IT, and how they won't tolerate entrenched IT practices and behaviors. How can they say this when they are partner to everything IT is today and everything IT has ever been? Since IT's inception, Boards of Directors and Business Unit Leaders have overlooked or misunderstood their role in leveraging technology and have subsequently neglected their responsibility to govern IT. They left IT to IT, and predictably, the results have been far less then optimal for the business.
Business needs to ensure IT is aligned, delivering value, managing risk, performance and resources. They do this in partnership with the CIO and with IT. All of the problems in IT, the licensing agreements, the huge ERP systems, the inability to react precisely and quickly, are due to the business letting them happen. Now they want the CIO to do something about their lack of oversight and their non-existent governance. Until the business takes full accountability for ensuring the realization of maximum value for their investment in technology, IT will continue to be misaligned, disconnected and ultimately out of touch.
Yes, I agree there should be a new norm - and that is: Business Governance of IT. It's time for the IT-tail to stop wagging the Enterprise-dog.
Steve Romero, IT Governance Evangelist