Really?

I had the honor of reviewing a transformation program and providing a health check.  The program is ambitious; technology intensive, process demanding, and can truly redefine the rules of the industry.  But there is a catch, the transformation program had progressed to a point where it had raised serious business issues, but the program and its sponsor did not have the authority to answer.

Sitting at this crossroads, the teams did what they could, keeping busy until there was a decision from the executive level.  The health check became necessary as the program sat stalled for more than six months and instead of creating pressure for decisions, it created calls to cancel the transformation.

It was clearly time for the executive team that sponsored the effort to step in and make some hard choices.  In the report recommending that action, among other recommendations, the Executive Team came back with the following reply:

“Why are you not telling us more about IT and where it has failed?  Why are you talking about where they are going wrong?  Why are you saying that we need clearer business direction, your just covering for IT and their failings.”

When I pointed out that there were several highly critical points in the report related to IT, which had little effect.  All the executive team heard was that there needed to be more business direction.  Their reply:

“If you say we haaave to be involved then please know that we are tired of having to make every decision.”

I was not surprised.

I was stunned.

Here was a major multi-multi million-dollar transformation program that had done the work, found the tough issues, gone as far as it could and now needed active executive sponsorship in the form of some hard decisions to go forward.

The executive team commented that their job was to be ‘above all of this’, to think strategically, and to be visionary rather than making operational level decisions.  The only problem was that the open issues were not just operational; they were strategic in the sense that the answers would determine the performance profile of the company in the future.

As I reflected on the meeting a few things became clear.

• The executive team assumed that saying it is should be so is the same as making it so. “We said yes, so we consider it done.”

• The executive team did not see making hard decisions as an expression of their leadership.  They wanted to remain ‘above it all’ and not create winners and losers on an issue.  They believed that you demonstrated leadership by guiding without getting their hands dirty.

• The executive team was ready to criticize the decisions or direction others had taken but they did not have the time, energy or political will to lead in creating that future.  “I can tell you what your did wrong, but its not my job to help you make it right.”

• The executive team did not welcome evidence to the contrary nor recommendations on how to move forward that required their active participation.  I will listen if you confirm my suspicion, your motives are suspicous if you do not say what I expect to hear.

These reflections give the impression of an incapable executive team.  But that is not the case, this team runs one of the most successful, global, industry leading companies in their market.

So what gives?

These executives were giving the level and type of sponsorship that had worked in the past.  Their responses, comments and attitude was appropriate for the type of relatively incremental, back office, administrative changes that have dominated the executive agenda for the past 10 years or so.

The level of sponsorship that worked when we talked about IT.

While the quality of that sponsorship was fine for then, it is totally in appropriate for the types of changes we are doing now.

The level of sponsorship required when technology becomes greater than IT.

Executive sponsorship needs a significant upgrade as the demands for transformation have outstripped current sponsorship models.  Enterprises are going through real and deep change, like this one, requires direct executive action, decisions and direction.  Not delegation.

If figuring out how your business needs to operate to create value is not part of the executive team’s job, then I do not know what is.

What are the changes, if any, you are seeing in the type, nature or level of executive sponsorship?  Not just for technology, but for any transformation.

At the high end there is enterprise transformation where a firm tries to get itself off a burning platform and onto a path to a better future.  That change approach produces great results, but it is very costly and highly disruptive.  Transformation basically freezes the organization in place while it goes through the transformation process.  Few people have the luxury to take a year or two out to complete a transformation.  Transforming while performing is a target but rarely does an organization do a good job of ‘paining the train while its moving.”

At the other end there is incremental improvement, the day to day adjustments that just make things work better. But no one improves their way to greatness, at least according to the consultants.  So whiel I am continuously getting better, I always find myself a little behind the change curve — so I need a way to leap frog my current reality into the future.

Then there are two levels of change in between:  remaking IT or re-imagining IT.   These better reflect the realities CIOs face as not everything is wrong, but more than few things need to change in the face of business expectations and new technology models.

Change by creating a remake

When someone remakes a movie, like the 1998 remake of Psycho, they tell the same story with new actors and lately new movie technologies (i.e. 3D).  A remake and it’s close cousin the ‘sequel’ represent change and bring the story to a new audience but it does not make significant changes in the direction of the story.

Likewise a remake of IT changes the IT environment but not the IT’s culture, momentum or direction.  An IT remake is often caused by major shifts in the technology infrastructure, like the cloud.  We are seeing this know when people are asking to hire ‘cloud’ architects, developers, etc.  That is a remake strategy in action, replicating the old structure with a new qualifier. The result is same basic IT organization, practices and players all working on a modern infrastructure and tools.  Just look at your organization today, how different is it structurally than the organization you had to support client/server or perhaps even the mainframe.

CIOs can see today’s challenges as an opportunity for a remake.  After all the cloud is just the type of deep technology change that is the catalyst for change where everything could change but after it’s all said and done, little had actually changed.

That is not the level of change that will create the results CIO’s need to support growth, deliver faster, be more agile, or change your cost profile.

Change through Re-Imagination

Re-imagination seems like a version of a remake.  The basic story is the same.  You recognize the plot and the characters.  But it’s not exactly like the story you know.  There are changes some subtle and others obvious.  These changes do not refute the validly of the story but they make it much more interesting and engaging.

Think of the Coen Brothers movie “Oh Brother where art thou”. The story is Homer’s the oddest, but the story is different, it has been re-imagined producing a new and engaging view on a story as old as Western Literature.  Another example is last year’s re-imagining of Star Trek which with the exception of Mr. Spock is basically a brand new story and plot line. A coming re-imagination of the Spider Man movie “The Amazing Spiderman” due in 2012.

In terms of IT, re-imagination recognizes the change in context facing IT — its plot line — in terms of supporting business growth and the opportunities for infrastructure enhancements.  That context does not refute everything that IT has accomplished, rather it changes emphasis and more importantly it opens new opportunities.  That is why I believe CIOs need to re-imagine IT rather than call for IT transformation or even just a re-make.

The direction of that re-imagination needs to concentrate on a few areas like IT’s strategic relevance, the economics of new infrastructure models, benefits realization and IT skill building.

CIOs are the producers of IT and like producers they are responsible for assembling the team that will deliver the best value possible.  That includes hiring the Director(s), their management team, the talent, their people, and everyone else.  The crew of a movie is based on the context of that movie — action adventure movies feature different crews than romantic comedies.

The  basic functions are the same, the context is different and CIOs can create that unique type of change — re-imagination – that goes beyond incremental improvement, but does not require the disruption of transformation.

Every organization needs people who start things. Initiators are rare in any organization as they have the idea, pursue it and often push it through organizational processed he’ll bent on preventing individual initiative in the favor of consensus based action. Godin’s book gives the reader solid support for a simple but significant act:

Starting something

In 80 or so pages, Godin outlines the imperative and potential advantage of getting onto the front foot and initiating change. The reason is simple. In a world of relatively infinite supply, the future belongs not to people who seek to control things but rather to those who are willing to say ‘let’s get is started.’

More than a self help book, Poke the Box is part argument, part manifesto and part wake up call. Well worth the hour or so it takes to read. The book is not perfect and for some it will see it as boosterism, particularly those who say that you need to look well before you leap.

This book is part of a trend for micro-books organized around simple messages. You have to realize what this book is, a poke ala Facebook, not a scholarly work. The natuer of Poke the Box is seen in its length and its price, both of which are smaller than traditional books. More like well formed meme’s this book and others are what we can expect to see in the future as we can all commit an hour to read something interesting but few can commit to serious study of a 300+ page book.

Recommended for executives who look around and wonder why their organization seems asleep at the wheel, unwilling to change or seeming lost when presented with a new challenge. If you feel your group is short of new ideas, then give everyone in your group a copy of this book.

Particularly recommended for CIOs and IT organizations facing the need to raise their business relevance and value. These organizations must take the initiative in creating new lightweight solutions the business will not and cannot ask for.

A word of caution, you need to read the book before you recommend it! Pre-reading is essential as you need to be prepared for when your people start poking your organization to see what happens. You need to think throughout how you will channel that energy constructively.

That approach is based on the underlying premise that leaders know what’s best and all that is required for you to see our wisdom is a little marketing and soft coercion.  In the earlier posts, I discussed that change is a choice that each of us make and that is central to the success of the types of changes we face.

While the nature of change is changing, that is not to say that the fundamentals of change do not remain the same.  In my travels working with business executives, three things remain critical to a successful enterprise change.  These three things are: context, content and course of action.

• Context – The reason for the change.  It answers the question – Why do we need to change?
• Content – The substance of the change.  Answering the question – What do we change into?
• Course of Action – The pace of change describing the How and When of the change process

The three C’s are not new and effective leaders have always understood the connection between why, what, how and when.   Leaders keep the three of these together and in balance – illustrated by the triangle below.

The three are interrelated and leaders sense the need to accelerate or back off of one or the other depending on this relationship.  In general, slower progress against the course of action requires either increasing the focus on context to re-emphasize why it’s important, or to take another look at the solution, which may be too complex or difficult.  Likewise, a weak understanding of change may require the project to go slower or become simpler.  Increasing complexity in the solution requires either more time or a significant boost in the solutions rational.

I mention the triangle and the need to keep each of the three C’s in relative balance, because too often project teams and organizations adopt a linear approach that puts one of these in front of the other. The figure below illustrates the triangle turning into a straight-line relationship.

Making change a linear process reduces its effectiveness and robs leaders the ability to adjust their approach.  Change then breaks down into either a Project, Team or Business Centric view, shown in the figure below.

The fact that we are investing money in change causes most initiatives to adopt either a Project or Team view  — making the schedule or the work more important than the context.  In these views the Project or Team can be successful as they have either build the solution on time and budget or built the right solution.

Unfortunately, only the business view is the one that can be counted on to deliver results as results come from the business making a change.

IT organizations face the need to deliver a rapid series of changes as part of their enterprise.  When executing change initiatives, both large and small, keep the three C’s in mind and in relative perspective.  And please consider the fact that change no longer comes exclusively from the top down.

The three C’s are just one dimension in which the nature of change is changing.

Related posts:

The Nature of Change is Changing

Is it time for the CIO to lead from the front.

The Wall Street Journal Essential Guide to Management is part management overview, personal commentary and case study. The book written by Alan Murray offers an introductory review of key elements of management, leadership, strategy and execution. It is a Management 101 book written in a well paced and easy to read format.  Recommended for those who are new to management or you want to have your team come up to speed with management and executive ideas and terms, then this book is recommended.

This is a primer for people about the major ideas and themes in management. Murray does a good job of going through a combination of thinkers like Porter, Pfeiffer and executives like Bossidy and others to give a landscape overview of the practice.

Murray incorporates stories that help illustrate major ideas and concepts. Students of management will recognize just about all of the stories and some are presented in a rather simplistic but effective way for a first time reader. The book also has a logical order and do cover the essentials of management in the following chapters:

• Chapter 1 Management
• Chapter 2 Leadership
• Chapter 3 Motivation
• Chapter 4 People
• Chapter 5 Strategy
• Chapter 6 Execution
• Chapter 7 Team
• Chapter 8 Change
• Chapter 9 Financial Literacy
• Chapter 10 Going Global
• Chapter 11 Ethics
• Chapter 12 Managing Yourself

The book is challenged in a few areas. The book gives you the impression that technology has little to no role in management  – except as the source of a stock market crash. Given the role of technology in shaping strategy, competition and our future, this is a serious omission. The ideas and strategies in the book are comprehensive up to about the mid 1990’s. While Murray does mention Blue Ocean Strategy and some other more recent thinking, the book largely concentrates on the classical view of strategy rather than the new strategies that are shaping current leadership plans and thinking. A final weakness is Murray’s occasional editorial asides that sometimes muddle the messages.

I recommend as a general introduction (management 101) book to give to people who are interested in coming up to speed on management and strategy. Murray does a good job presenting these materials in an accessible, understandable and helpful way that explains ideas without trivializing them.

It can be a quick and easy way for your teams to come up to speed on ideas that the business bandies about all the time, but you are reluctant to ask what they mean. Reading this book will enable your people to ask follow-up questions and engage the business using a common information and vocabulary.

The reason I am bringing this up is that CIOs and IT executives ask for executive support all the time.  Recently I was in a meeting with the CIO and all of their peers, the CIO was presenting their vision and strategy for the next three years.  At the end of the presentation, the CFO – the main sponsor – asked, “Is there anything you need from us?”  The CIOs response was, “I need your sponsorship but beyond that, no, I think we have it in hand.”

I almost fell out of my chair.

Here it was the CFO, in front of the entire leadership team offered their support and asked what they needed to do to help the CIO be successful and the answer was to be a sponsor.

By not specifying what the leadership team could do, the CIO said that I need you to be generally supportive of the strategy.  The CFO who had been engaged in the conversation visibly sat back in his chair and disengaged from the rest of the meeting.  It became blindingly clear that:

General support means no support

Being generally supportive is the operational definition for executive sponsorship.

Huh?  Generally supportive, well I am generally supportive of many things.  I generally support things like: traffic laws, hotel checkout times, airline baggage limits and the like.

As I think about this I see a pattern.  Things I generally support are things I know about but require very little effort to support.  This is in marked contrast to either things I care less about which are generally ignored, or things that are a passion which shape my decisions, actions and where I invest my time.

Now before you get started, this is not a Tom Peter’s style rant about how executives should become passionate about being sponsors – while nice that is often unrealistic.

To go beyond general support, you need to actually have to do something.  That is where this CIO and many others miss a tremendous opportunity to engage the executive team in specific things that can help the entire enterprise.  Without those things, those sponsorship tasks, executives can lean back in their chairs and be generally supportive.  When this happens, executives have permission to view IT with the same level of interest as they have when driving their car in moderate city traffic.

Here are a few thoughts on what it takes to go beyond general support.

• Have the Executives attend the CIO leadership team meetings on a quarterly basis to share company performance and issues.

• Ask that the CIOs direct reports attend every other meeting between the CIO and their boss.  They attend to listen to the issues and better understand the context

• Engage the executive in interviewing and assessing the change readiness of their executives and departments throughout the stages of a change initiative.

• Involve the executive in governance and steering committees that do actual work, rather than just rubber stamping decisions made at a lower level

• Have an executive take on direct responsibility for a major part of a major initiative.  The best example I heard of was from a company that had their Chief Corporate Council be the leader of the ERP Risk Management Team.  Corporate council dedicated three half days per week to sit with the risk management team, they had assigned deliverables and had to report team status at program management meetings.

The investment of enterprise treasure in executing change initiatives and strategies is too great to be left to passive support.  However, too often we do not let people know what that support needs to look like.  General statements of support either in the company newsletter or all company meetings is exactly that – general.

It is a weakness to ask for general help.  It is strength to know what you need, why you need it and to ask.  Recognize that when you say that you need this person to do that, you are demonstrating your knowledge and mastery of the challenges ahead.  You are also recognizing the contribution, talent and value of the executive, their criticality to success.

When you don’t ask for specific support, you tell your peers that the project does not really matter.  You tell them that this work is no more important to the company than all the other things they can feel lukewarm about.

Related posts: The Nature of Change is Changing

Reflective reciprocity sounds like a complex process – perfect for a consultant – but its pretty straight forward.  The principle is this:

You cannot lead people to a new future, until you understand their shared history by honoring their past.

The reflective part concentrates on understanding peoples past.  Allowing them to reflect on their history, their accomplishments, the events and stories you allow them to tell you what makes them who they are.  By listening and paying attention, you show your interest and give that past value.

The reciprocity part is the implicit promise that if you listen to who I am, then I will be willing to listen to you about how we move forward together.  Building from that shared past you can now take the organization forward.

Applying reflective reciprocity

Apply reflective reciprocity in workshops, focus group or even 1:1 interview situations.  The technique is simple.

• Let people know that you are interested in understanding the company, their role, their successes and how they overcame challenges.

• Hold a session to discuss the current context and invite people who are the key influencers of company culture and experience.  If everyone listens to bob, then make sure bob is there.

• Start the meeting by asking the group to share their successes going back over a period that is at least equal to the duration of the change initiative.  A one year change initiative probably involves going back 3 – 5 years, a three year change go back 10 years.

• Sit back and listen, ask questions, seek stories and show people that you want to understand who they are and how they got to where they are today.

Two other things I have experienced using this tool.  First the farther back you go in terms of understanding the history the farther forward the group is willing to go in envisioning the future.  The other point is that the deeper the analysis you do of the past – the more radical the audience is willing to be about the future.  The combination of honoring the past and understanding it sets the stage for innovative and forward leading thinking.  The graphic below illustrates this concept:

Where to use reflective reciprocity

Reflective reciprocity works because you first seek to understand who they are and why they are that way.  This understanding matters in situations where there is a deep resistance to change based on one of the following situations:

• A historically successful company that is facing new challenges.  For example traditional market leader facing the need to change.

• A company with experienced and deeply tenured employees who have a vested interest in the current state.  For example a public sector agency or not-for profit.

• A company with culture based on consensus and group decision-making.  For example a company moving from decentralized business units to centralized operations or shared services.

• A company facing the need to make deep changes in its culture and business model.  For example a products company extending their model to include services.

I have found reflective reciprocity particularly effective in situations people are heavily invested in past success and any change represents an implied threat to themselves or more importantly their beliefs and assumptions.

Reflective reciprocity demonstrates that you are interested in who they are and you are willing to take the time to understand them before you look to change them.  It also can create recognition that things need to change without every having to talk about the ‘burning platform’.  Here is how.

As people discuss their past, their successes and their accomplishments they will invariably recognize things that did not work so well.  While these will elicit a chuckle or a ‘remember when …” they remind the audience that everything was not perfect and that there is a need for change.

Effective leadership requires more than a vision of the future it requires an appreciation of the past.

The answer is as cheap and as fast as you can.

Why ?

The return on a non-business project is measured best by minimizing the duration of business disruptions.

One of weakness of many IT organizations is that they have one approach to managing projects based on managing business projects.  However at least 1/3 to ½ of the project work in IT is not business related.  Technical upgrades, enhancements, swapping out infrastructure are all in important but they are not business projects.

Trying to manage a non-business project using a business project methodology has led organizations to blend project scope, bundling some business wants/needs with the core non-business work.  Take your last network upgrade project to see if you did not include some odds or ends from the business or justify the project based on a more general business case.

Recognize projects for what they are – non-business but necessary to the business and manage them to their inherent value.  That value includes:

• They cost as little as possible for a given level of potential failure
• They occur as quickly as possible
• They disrupt the business as little as possible

Using this guide you can tell people that, yes we have to do an upgrade, it will improve technical performance, reduce costs etc, and we will have it completed as quickly and cheaply as possible.  Show how you are managing these projects for cycle time compression (concurrent engineering, prefab development, etc).  Show how your approach is specifically attuned to reduce costs to their bar minimum.  Show what steps you will cut out of a non-business project, because they simply are not needed.

Following the same methodology for both business and non-business projects sends the wrong message to your people and your business peers.  After all the projects must be all the same type if you are following the same project approach.

Non-business projects are vital to IT success; they can easily take too long and cost too much.

Remember the business is a jealous partner. 

They see every minute you spend on a non-business project is a minute the business sees you as taking IT attention away from their needs.

Raising IT productive capacity is essential as CIOs face greater demand for IT resources at the same time as pressure to cut IT costs. 

There are many measures of productivity, but the number of ‘producers’ to ‘managers’ is a fairly simple one.  Across all of IT, it is not unheard of to have a ratio of ‘managers’ to ‘producers’ of 1:4. 

This ratio, also known as the span of control, is not uniform across the IT organization, but taken as a whole if you have an IT department of 125 people there are probably 25 who have management responsibility in some form or another (manager, team lead, project manager, etc).

Remember to count

• yourself,
• your direct reports,
• their direct reports (if they are not front line delivery personnel),
• the team lead for the enterprise architects, security, etc. 

Also add in

• your IT finance team,
• the PMO,
• the IT HR person,
• anyone who does not provide a direct service should be thought of as a manager. 

Don’t forget

•  your executive assistant
•  as well as other executive support in the IT organization.

It is a hard measure.  You may have player managers – people like team leads who also carry some development responsibility.   Add them to the manager mix in calculating the ratio. 

Leave out consultants who are on a project, or staff augmentation people who you may have already let go in the downturn. 

Everyone who is left in your organization is a producer

Now calculate the following:

Managers/Producers = span of control ratio, often expressed in terms of 1 manager for every # producer.

Total IT organization headcount – manager headcount (using the broad measure above) = the productive capacity in your IT organization.

Look at the ratio.

That is your total productive capacity. 

The total capacity you have to do work in your IT organization.

You may be surprised at how small the actual number of ‘producers’ you have relative to those who have some degree of management responsibility.  There are many reasons why that number is low as IT is complex and requires coordinated activities in both the development and infrastructure an operations area. 

But does it have to be that way?

The answer is no. 

In many cases we have built up management activities over time – we have accreted management work as we complete projects, implement processes, correct past problems.  Its no one’s fault, its just stuff that has built up over time.

Raising IT productivity requires breaking through the management overhead and look to restructure teams to raise their productive capacity.  Consider that IT often grows management layers out of promoting producers into management positions. 

Here is simple example that illustrates a way forward.  Consider five developers who were hired about the same time.  In a year or two one of those five will be appointed team lead and assume some level of management responsibility. 

When that happens the team suffers a 20% productive capacity hit as it goes from 5 developers down to 4 plus a team lead.

In a normal budget cycle this is not a problem as the budget is there to support the additional management support, particularly as the team of developers work on multiple projects, require oversight, etc.

However this is not a normal budget cycle, as CIOs need to deliver more by working smarter rather than working harder or doing more with less.

One way to do that is to reverse the management equation.  Look at your managers in general and particularly your front line (first level) managers.  Is it possible to convert these managers back into producers?

In many cases the answer is yes, particularly if we take a different view on what we need managers to do in the IT organization. 

Going back to your example, converting the team manager back into a producer would raise the productivity of the team by 25% as we now have 5 producers working 10,000 hours versus the previous 8,000 hour capacity of the 4 producers.

A 25% gain with NO IMPACT on the budget.  The team manager was already part of the budget. 

Yes you can move managers back into producer status, particularly if you take the following actions.

1. Do only one thing at a time.  Complete fewer projects faster to reduce the need for mangers to “expedite” or “coordinate” resources working across multiple projects.  You do one thing at a time when you have a clear demand signal regarding projects and project priorities.  Do first things faster, then when they are done you can move on to the next things. 
2. Avoid multi-tasking at all costs.  It seems like its productive, but its not.  People working on multiple projects require additional supervision, facilitation, expediting, etc.  All of that management activity makes it look like IT is terribly busy, but much of it can be eliminated by doing one thing at a time.
3. Get more people doing IT.  Do not create overlay management structures where you have people reporting to a project lead and an IT organizational team lead.  Overlay management requires additional management to coordinate the management, even when it’s a part time job. 
4. Get your deepest skills on your toughest problems.  These are often in the manager ranks – first two levels of management.  You can use their skills and experience in a producer role more than you need them telling people what to do, overseeing what they do, and having other managers to coordinate with.
5. Think differently about how you measure success, power and value in the organization.  Too often, executives use “span of control” or budget as a measure of power particularly when they cannot measure the value of the person’s job or contribution.  Think more about the results you are producing than the activities your resources are doing to consume the budget.

If you are reading this far, you may have some objections to these points.  What about HR and Career Development?  What about the fact that I have promised people systems?   What if my managers cannot or will not make the shift to a producer? 

These are all very relevant points and happy to discuss them either in the comments section of this blog post, or one-to-one via Gartner Executive Programs (subscription to Gartner Executive Programs required). 

While its clear that there are issues with this approach – the challenge persists. 

CIOs need to find a way to raise their productive capacity without raising their budget.  That requires making change on the cheap.

Taking a look at your team structure to raise productivity is one example of the kind of math CIOs can achieve if they work smarter rather than just working harder.