The setting does not
matter, but whenever I meet someone unrelated to IT (with IT folks the
discussion is anyway about IT), the conversation always ends up talking about
how they use technology. Maybe something to do with me, so when I met with a
CFO of a large company, we predictably ended up discussing the health of their
IT systems.
The company had grown
organically to become a leader in its industry and now had global aspirations.
Family run, it had over the years it had invested in IT to keep pace with the
change in technology. The owners indulged the new generation allowing them to
embrace cutting edge while retaining the legacy for the comfort of the
stalwarts who built the company. The diversity that thus coexisted was amazing
to just admire the profoundness and marvel at how it all worked together.
Hundreds, no thousands
of almost disjointed small systems supported mission critical tasks across
functions held together by the experienced hands that orchestrated the
business. The management had discussed and debated renewal for a decade to
replace the increasing inventory of applications with a contemporary ERP. The
decision was always deferred with the fact that it has worked for us so far, so
it should work in the future too. We have survived downturns, competition, and
grown.
They did not have an
IT Head and had never thought of getting a CIO. What about cost of sustaining
diverse and antiquated technology ? The response was, my IT vendors take care
of that. Were employees happy with the situation ? It works, so happiness is
not the consideration. Was productivity optimal ? Grudgingly he accepted that
it could be improved upon.
In the second decade
of the twenty first century a successful large enterprise working with no
formal IT strategy nor a CIO; as I dug deeper it was evident that the
unfettered IT had its advantages that there was agility in creation of
solutions where required; business teams worked with multiple partners and
sometimes even individuals to get processes or content enabled. Across various
offices and functions this was the norm.
Integration and
reporting was on another planet. Rarely anyone agreed to figures; sharing of
best practices or synergies in process, unheard of. The local optima did not
favor global optima. The CFO was at the receiving end of most of the chaos, but
did not see ROI in large scale change. He lamented the fact that competitors
were beginning to catch up and technology may have a role in that. The
promoters wanted to step back and handover reigns to the next generation and
professionals.
Can total or strategic
outsourcing solve the problem ? We discussed and debated the merits and
challenges of this approach, the change management across the diverse
enterprise and employees across locations. Giving away the problem will not
necessarily solve it. Someone internally will have to own the change, coax it
step by step and create lasting change. S/he will have to take everyone along
the journey.
My humble suggestion to him was to get a CIO.
The CIO also needs to be empowered by top management with strong backing of owner mgmt- else change mgmt in such orgn is tough
ReplyDeletePerhaps a "empowered" CIO is required with strong backing from top management.
ReplyDelete