February 3, 2008 at 9:39 pm
Comments posted to this topic are about the item More Layers
February 3, 2008 at 9:46 pm
A quick comment about the importance of IT within the "business" - many articles I've read attempt to force IT into the position of "critical, strategic asset", but quite frankly in many businesses IT is nothing more than an enabler - perfect case in point is a client of mine that is in the business of delivering ice cream, nothing fancy and they have very little control over what their clients will order from day to day - their job is to deliver ice cream as quickly and efficiently as possible from point A to point B. Quite frankly IT has very little opportunity to deliver "critical" or "strategic" value in a circumstance like this - there is probably some opportunity for cost savings (e.g. reroute the truck that serves route A to a more efficient route than it currently uses) but there are few if any opportunities for IT to make a huge difference in this particular business model.
Joe
February 4, 2008 at 1:57 am
the problem i see throughout IT in any industry is that on a P&L sheet, IT always shows up as a loss, or a debt, if we were able to assign a monetary value (profit) to what it is we do, I think those from the CIO up would have far greater respect, and understanding for where we fit in on the food chain.
February 4, 2008 at 2:34 am
I have to say I'm not too sure I really care where in the org chart IT sits. More relevant to me is whether, in the cold light of day, the company's perception of its IT function is accurate (linking in with Joe's point). Let's face it, what most of us want is for the company we work for to be successful, and that means not over- OR under-estimating the importance of each and every resource it has at its disposal, and investing money and effort accordingly. Get the equation wrong either way and the company's bottom line will suffer. It makes no difference if the unrecognised or over-recognised resource is IT, logistics, finance or whatever.
Perhaps, though, this is where my views link back in with the point Steve makes in his article about leadership. Good leadership does include people skills, but also the ability to decide what gets first dibs at investment and what loses out. Of course, people with careers in IT want IT to be at the top of the list, but that, as Joe says, may not be appropriate. Instead, all I want is just the confidence that those at the company's helm are getting the mix right.
Semper in excretia, suus solum profundum variat
February 4, 2008 at 3:00 am
A corollary to Joe's statement is that a lack of IT is a "disabler". In all but the smallest mom & pop operations, IT is mandatory. Without technology there are no telephones, no email, no databases, no spreadsheets; basically no flow of information. One can argue that leveraging IT these days has little competitive advantage. However, without at least moderate IT capabilities (in-house or outsourced) your business is dead in the water.
James Stover, McDBA
February 4, 2008 at 6:20 am
Good editorial Steve. I couldn't agree more: Leadership is the issue.
I believe an organization has to be ready for IT leadership - just like it has to be ready for business or marketing leadership from its CEO. If the board is hostile or timid, the best CEO on the planet won't be able to get as much accomplished.
The same can be said for CIOs and IT leadership. If the corporate culture isn't ammenable to the ideas of IT leadership, not much will change.
I see IT as "a company within the company". It can certainly be treated as a utility, but this utility can drive the business like no other.
As far as who answers to who (or is it whom?): It's a self-correcting problem. The companies that get it right will survive; those that do not, will not.
:{> Andy
Andy Leonard, Chief Data Engineer, Enterprise Data & Analytics
February 4, 2008 at 6:24 am
Andy Leonard (2/4/2008)
As far as who answers to who (or is it whom?): It's a self-correcting problem. The companies that get it right will survive; those that do not, will not.
Put far more succintly than I managed :blush:
Semper in excretia, suus solum profundum variat
February 4, 2008 at 6:55 am
I think most businesses 'get' that IT isn't just a loss center even if it looks that way on the P&L. Those that don't implement stuff like chargebacks and start looking for billable work for IT, both which lead in the wrong direction in my opinion. I do think in most businesses the CIO should be a true C level exec and have a seat at the big table, but working for the CFO (as opposed to operations) isn't a bad thing either. Most CFO's have an incredibly good view of what is working and what is not in the business, and most have had some IT exposure beyond the average just dealing with accounting systems and spreadsheets. If they see a way for IT to drive more value, they'll do that because they do the math every day. The upside for the business is that CFO's DO watch expenditures like a hawk, and IT - whether on it's own or with help from the business - often spends money like a sailor on leave, with about as much to show for it.
The leadership thing should be obvious, but I think two things derail it. One is that many successful business owners aren't good leaders themselves, but how do you argue about that when the business is succeeding?? They work with what they have and try to make it work, and the better ones learn as they go. Most will not venture outside of their comfort zone of making widgets or selling widgets to figure out how to grow (or hire) a different type of person. The other thing that happens is we want to promote people from within. It's good for employees to see they have a chance to move up, make more money, take on more responsibility, use their experience. I agree with that philosphy, but in practice we either promote the alpha dog of whatever department we're talking about, or the dog that has been there the longest - in both cases without looking at their potential to manage, providing them with training beforehand, or any training after they get the job. When you become a manager you're changing career fields!
February 4, 2008 at 7:55 am
In response to Joe Clifford's comment "the business of delivering ice cream, nothing fancy and they have very little control over what their clients will order from day to day - their job is to deliver ice cream as quickly and efficiently as possible from point A to point B."
Reduce IT to its most basic definition - Information Technology - not necessarily meaning computers, and exotic software, how about a sheet of lined paper and an adding machine or a simple hand held calculator.
Set up to list how much ice cream, by flavor is ordered each day, and track by the season of the year.
A little bit of calculations with a hand held calculator to come up with an average and standard deviation, and base stocking of inventory on those figures. (Of course a small home computer could be used, by hey that is not my point) Now of what value could all this information be? The company by making sure it has enough of each flavor on hand to deliver what is ordered promptly will be building a reputation for good service, and using that reputation to expand the business. - IT at work!
February 4, 2008 at 9:02 am
I could not agree more with Steve. I am fairly young to the world of IT, under 10 years, and I have only worked for small companies, witnessed first hand the dreadful consequences of the IT manager(s) not having any leadership skills.
The impact is even greater for small companies where decisions have to be made quickly, or else like many of you already said, survival is at stake. Another critical area mentioned above is the ability to retain talented employees, which will be very difficult without a leader. I have seen as many as 70 employees quit over a 3 year period for an IT department of 25-30. Almost one entire rotation per year, which in turns makes it almost impossible to get some type of continuity in terms of business knowledge since it is pouring out of the door...
"Any fool can write code that a computer can understand. Good programmers write
code that humans can understand." -Martin Fowler et al, Refactoring: Improving the Design of Existing Code, 1999
February 4, 2008 at 9:26 am
Andy Warren (2/4/2008)
I think most businesses 'get' that IT isn't just a loss center even if it looks that way on the P&L. Those that don't implement stuff like chargebacks and start looking for billable work for IT, both which lead in the wrong direction in my opinion. I do think in most businesses the CIO should be a true C level exec and have a seat at the big table, but working for the CFO (as opposed to operations) isn't a bad thing either. Most CFO's have an incredibly good view of what is working and what is not in the business, and most have had some IT exposure beyond the average just dealing with accounting systems and spreadsheets. If they see a way for IT to drive more value, they'll do that because they do the math every day. The upside for the business is that CFO's DO watch expenditures like a hawk, and IT - whether on it's own or with help from the business - often spends money like a sailor on leave, with about as much to show for it.
And this is where the lack of leadership has landed us. It's an intellectual game versus a real understanding of what IT really COULD do for the organization.
There are multiple aspects to what It in general does, and while the direct costs are usually very obvious, the benefits aren't nearly so obvious or quantifiable. What also seems to be not so obvious is that IT (as opposed to many other departments) be be a profit or efficiency multiplier IF it's leveraged and implemented properly. That means not buckling the resources down so very tightly that IT can't get ahead of the problem it's trying to tackle. And it means that the person at the top can SELL the value to the rest of the organization: that of all seem to be the leadership failing I've seen most. Finally, when there ARE savings realized - there's a failure to realize that these aren't a fluke, or luck, but that they're a result of hard analysis, hard work and good old-fashioned process reengineering. In short - that these saving are usually reproducible using proven and reliable methods, and could be increased if only IT were to be given a chance to (again - the "right" IT).
At that point - it IS a matter of "Spend more to save more".
Being associated with "the phone guys" can be a curse worse than death, because that relegates us all to a mantenance point, which you can never seem to shake if that mindset's been in place for too long. At that point - no matter what your accomplishments, it doesn't seem to matter that you can consistently bring savings, better productivity, or more efficient ways to reach more customers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your lack of planning does not constitute an emergency on my part...unless you're my manager...or a director and above...or a really loud-spoken end-user..All right - what was my emergency again?
February 4, 2008 at 9:32 am
Thanks Steve, very good article.
Leadership is key, after years of being in the business I can say that having someone who is going somewhere is much better then trying to follow someone who knows not where they are going, and might not care. Those who are there for the paycheck are different then those who are there for the cause.
People will follow if there is leadership, but will wander and wonder if there is none.
And as always, I now need to apply this more to my experience. Have a great day...
Not all gray hairs are Dinosaurs!
February 4, 2008 at 6:21 pm
Good article Steve.
Look at most companies today. There is no leadership. The CEO of most companies care about themselves and how much money they can make. They don't care about the people working in the company. This is a ripple effect.
February 4, 2008 at 6:23 pm
I work for a large (12000 staff) organisation and our national IT manager is 3 organisation levels below the the CEO, and I can tell you now it makes life hell for us front line IT staff trying to get anything done, as we are lambasted for percieved failings, but our manager has no authority to effect any change since any of the departmental heads or directors can overrule him. The organisation embarks on costly IT projects often without consulting the IT department first and we struggle to implement even basic security measures because we cannot do anything that may "inconvinience" people.
This is the last time I work anywhere without a top level CIO in charge!
February 4, 2008 at 6:32 pm
Even a CIO cannot do anything. I used to work for a Fortunate 100 company (bank right now in BIG trouble). The CEO decided to outsource IT to India to save money, the CIO could not say 'No'.
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 14 (of 14 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply