Comments on: “The other 10% of the time, you lose the company” http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2008/02/25/the-other-10-of-the-time-you-lose-the-company/ a blog about information Fri, 19 Mar 2010 09:20:53 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: ceopundit http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2008/02/25/the-other-10-of-the-time-you-lose-the-company/comment-page-1/#comment-306102 ceopundit Fri, 14 Mar 2008 22:37:19 +0000 http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2008/02/25/the-other-10-of-the-time-you-lose-the-company/#comment-306102 The problem with a CIO on the board is that the board members get into 'how long would it take to do this?' and 'Is that a SQL database' kinds of discussions directed at the executive techie. It takes some professional facilitation and board discipline to focus on governance and high-level strategy and including the CIO rarely makes that easier. Not the CIO's fault, but true nonetheless, and many CIOs don't have the comm skills to lead the board through that landmine. The problem with a CIO on the board is that the board members get into ‘how long would it take to do this?’ and ‘Is that a SQL database’ kinds of discussions directed at the executive techie. It takes some professional facilitation and board discipline to focus on governance and high-level strategy and including the CIO rarely makes that easier.

Not the CIO’s fault, but true nonetheless, and many CIOs don’t have the comm skills to lead the board through that landmine.

]]> By: JP http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2008/02/25/the-other-10-of-the-time-you-lose-the-company/comment-page-1/#comment-297158 JP Mon, 03 Mar 2008 10:17:22 +0000 http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2008/02/25/the-other-10-of-the-time-you-lose-the-company/#comment-297158 Ade, I agree with you. Been following the "business value" argument ever since Paul Strassman wrote The Business Value of Computing. Sadly, too many of the people writing on this subject do so for "shock value" and sensationalism, and the downtroddenness and mulishness of our industry plays into their hands. Value articulation is not easy for a variety of reasons, but that does not mean we should abdicate from it. I've appended some of my earlier posts on the subject in case you're interested. In the meantime, thanks for the book, I'm enjoying going through it slowly. http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2007/05/05/musing-about-the-roi-of-it/ http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2006/08/08/it-project-rois/ http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2006/08/16/more-on-project-rois/ http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2006/11/25/musing-about-making-shared-service-models-work/ Ade, I agree with you. Been following the “business value” argument ever since Paul Strassman wrote The Business Value of Computing. Sadly, too many of the people writing on this subject do so for “shock value” and sensationalism, and the downtroddenness and mulishness of our industry plays into their hands.

Value articulation is not easy for a variety of reasons, but that does not mean we should abdicate from it.

I’ve appended some of my earlier posts on the subject in case you’re interested. In the meantime, thanks for the book, I’m enjoying going through it slowly.

http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2007/05/05/musing-about-the-roi-of-it/

http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2006/08/08/it-project-rois/

http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2006/08/16/more-on-project-rois/

http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2006/11/25/musing-about-making-shared-service-models-work/

]]> By: Ade McCormack http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2008/02/25/the-other-10-of-the-time-you-lose-the-company/comment-page-1/#comment-296613 Ade McCormack Sun, 02 Mar 2008 21:20:34 +0000 http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2008/02/25/the-other-10-of-the-time-you-lose-the-company/#comment-296613 I note Sean's points. I do believe there should be a CIO on the board becuase practically every aspect of executive business has an IT element. The problem is that most CIOs today aren't ready for the role. I agree that outcomes are important and one can get too obsessed with the metrics. However the complete absence of value articulation is a serious problem. One that makes IT effectively unmanageable. Keep up the good work! Ade I note Sean’s points. I do believe there should be a CIO on the board becuase practically every aspect of executive business has an IT element. The problem is that most CIOs today aren’t ready for the role.
I agree that outcomes are important and one can get too obsessed with the metrics. However the complete absence of value articulation is a serious problem. One that makes IT effectively unmanageable.
Keep up the good work!
Ade

]]> By: Andrea Harris http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2008/02/25/the-other-10-of-the-time-you-lose-the-company/comment-page-1/#comment-292712 Andrea Harris Wed, 27 Feb 2008 21:08:21 +0000 http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2008/02/25/the-other-10-of-the-time-you-lose-the-company/#comment-292712 JP, I work with Ade McCormack, mentioned in this post. He has a brand-new book published called The IT Value Stack, and I'd be happy to send you a copy if you are interested in reviewing it for your blog. I think you would find it thought-provoking. His blog is http://www.itvaluestack.com. -Andrea- JP,

I work with Ade McCormack, mentioned in this post. He has a brand-new book published called The IT Value Stack, and I’d be happy to send you a copy if you are interested in reviewing it for your blog. I think you would find it thought-provoking.

His blog is http://www.itvaluestack.com.

-Andrea-

]]> By: Frymaster http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2008/02/25/the-other-10-of-the-time-you-lose-the-company/comment-page-1/#comment-291361 Frymaster Tue, 26 Feb 2008 14:37:51 +0000 http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2008/02/25/the-other-10-of-the-time-you-lose-the-company/#comment-291361 I can only testify that - even as custom, proprietary software was driving his profits higher and higher - the chairman insisted that "this is not a software company" when asked to fund a new development. And IT did a poor job of communicating the value of the project. IT on the board is good, but effectively communicating the value of IT is the winner. I can only testify that – even as custom, proprietary software was driving his profits higher and higher – the chairman insisted that “this is not a software company” when asked to fund a new development. And IT did a poor job of communicating the value of the project.

IT on the board is good, but effectively communicating the value of IT is the winner.

]]> By: david cushman http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2008/02/25/the-other-10-of-the-time-you-lose-the-company/comment-page-1/#comment-290835 david cushman Mon, 25 Feb 2008 17:00:16 +0000 http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2008/02/25/the-other-10-of-the-time-you-lose-the-company/#comment-290835 Hi JP. The problem for most of us is that company hierarchies and silos stand between our business plans and the community/market. The fitness of a plan is more often than not judged by the guys saying no 90% of the time (as in your example), rather than the community of people/market for whom it is intended. The challenge is to find a way to allow the community/market to make its own selections more of the time. In short, we must find ways to act more like complex adaptive systems ourselves - to enable evolutionary practices and processes. I've rambled on about this some more here: http://preview.tinyurl.com/36h8mf Best dc Hi JP.
The problem for most of us is that company hierarchies and silos stand between our business plans and the community/market. The fitness of a plan is more often than not judged by the guys saying no 90% of the time (as in your example), rather than the community of people/market for whom it is intended.

The challenge is to find a way to allow the community/market to make its own selections more of the time. In short, we must find ways to act more like complex adaptive systems ourselves – to enable evolutionary practices and processes.

I’ve rambled on about this some more here:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/36h8mf

Best dc

]]> By: Kim Nash http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2008/02/25/the-other-10-of-the-time-you-lose-the-company/comment-page-1/#comment-290717 Kim Nash Mon, 25 Feb 2008 13:22:43 +0000 http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2008/02/25/the-other-10-of-the-time-you-lose-the-company/#comment-290717 One thing I have always wondered about the whole issue of CIOs-on-boards is whether, when there is an "outside" CIO on the board, the company's actual CIO feels competitive or cooperative with that person. What I've observed is that the internal CIO is rarely on his/her own company's board. The board brings in a former CIO from another company for that IT expertise. What dynamic does this set up? --Kim One thing I have always wondered about the whole issue of CIOs-on-boards is whether, when there is an “outside” CIO on the board, the company’s actual CIO feels competitive or cooperative with that person.

What I’ve observed is that the internal CIO is rarely on his/her own company’s board. The board brings in a former CIO from another company for that IT expertise. What dynamic does this set up?

–Kim

]]> By: John http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2008/02/25/the-other-10-of-the-time-you-lose-the-company/comment-page-1/#comment-290640 John Mon, 25 Feb 2008 10:57:17 +0000 http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2008/02/25/the-other-10-of-the-time-you-lose-the-company/#comment-290640 Paul, I guess if you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Paul, I guess if you’re a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

]]> By: Paul Wallis http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2008/02/25/the-other-10-of-the-time-you-lose-the-company/comment-page-1/#comment-290401 Paul Wallis Mon, 25 Feb 2008 05:15:31 +0000 http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2008/02/25/the-other-10-of-the-time-you-lose-the-company/#comment-290401 Hi JP, Anand Sanwal blogged on this topic recently in a post titled, <a href="http://corporateportfoliomgmt.typepad.com/my_weblog/2008/02/technology-mana.html" rel="nofollow"> Technology Management is a Board Issue. Not Really </a> I responded to agree with him, although Sean Park saw things a bit differently. In my view IT exists for one reason: to manage the flow of data between business assets. If you take this approach, then techniques used in the Oil & Gas industries for many years can be applied in any sector. In Oil and Gas, the introduction of digital monitoring equipment means flows of product are analogous to flows of data. These flows are displayed, monitored and trended in dollars per second. This means business processes can be optimised around value, and the contribution each asset makes to the cost/value of the flow can be evaluated in business (monetary) terms. Today, business resources (which includes people) and IT assets are either providers of data, consumers of data or provide the conduit through which the data can flow. The role of IT is to support, process and optimise the flow of data to maximise business performance. One of the main differences between professions like engineering or architecture and IT is that for many years they have been fully documented. Like IT, the very complex projects they manage involve many related assets, processes and people. Yet unlike IT, the business and the professionals can easily understand each other and these days disasters are fairly rare. Why? Because they have simple means of communicating with each other. After all, how could complex things like skyscrapers or bridges be built without blueprints or engineering diagrams? It is this easy to understand big picture of the business and IT relationship that has been missing. To create this picture, and enable business and IT to speak a common language, understanding dataflows is critical. It is the understanding, documenting, and engineering of them which is key to managing complexity. If we have a simple picture of how each dataflow moves across and through the assets of the business the responsibilities, roles, risks and costs of every IT resource (or group of IT resources) employed in support of each business activity (and/or set of business activities) can be clearly visualised and, thus, understood. By attaching value meta data to data flows and cost information to IT assets, we can start to assess the ratio between IT support costs and the value of the contribution of IT to the business. Which means IT can speak to the board in the language it understands, that of money. It also means that IT will be fully documented, providing a standard for governance and a foundation for professionalism. If you would like to read more about the above see <a href="http://www.keystonesandrivets.com/kar/2007/09/it-exists-for-o.html" rel="nofollow"> IT exists for one reason</a> and others at my blog. regards, PJW Hi JP,

Anand Sanwal blogged on this topic recently in a post titled, Technology Management is a Board Issue. Not Really

I responded to agree with him, although Sean Park saw things a bit differently.

In my view IT exists for one reason: to manage the flow of data between business assets.

If you take this approach, then techniques used in the Oil & Gas industries for many years can be applied in any sector.

In Oil and Gas, the introduction of digital monitoring equipment means flows of product are analogous to flows of data. These flows are displayed, monitored and trended in dollars per second.

This means business processes can be optimised around value, and the contribution each asset makes to the cost/value of the flow can be evaluated in business (monetary) terms.

Today, business resources (which includes people) and IT assets are either providers of data, consumers of data or provide the conduit through which the data can flow.

The role of IT is to support, process and optimise the flow of data to maximise business performance.

One of the main differences between professions like engineering or architecture and IT is that for many years they have been fully documented.

Like IT, the very complex projects they manage involve many related assets, processes and people. Yet unlike IT, the business and the professionals can easily understand each other and these days disasters are fairly rare.

Why? Because they have simple means of communicating with each other. After all, how could complex things like skyscrapers or bridges be built without blueprints or engineering diagrams?

It is this easy to understand big picture of the business and IT relationship that has been missing.

To create this picture, and enable business and IT to speak a common language, understanding dataflows is critical. It is the understanding, documenting, and engineering of them which is key to managing complexity.

If we have a simple picture of how each dataflow moves across and through the assets of the business the responsibilities, roles, risks and costs of every IT resource (or group of IT resources) employed in support of each business activity (and/or set of business activities) can be clearly visualised and, thus, understood.

By attaching value meta data to data flows and cost information to IT assets, we can start to assess the ratio between IT support costs and the value of the contribution of IT to the business.

Which means IT can speak to the board in the language it understands, that of money. It also means that IT will be fully documented, providing a standard for governance and a foundation for professionalism.

If you would like to read more about the above see IT exists for one reason and others at my blog.

regards,

PJW

]]>