Recently I had a
very interesting discussion with a CIO friend. She is by most benchmarks a
successful CIO who has a credible record of delivering many solutions that
business has used effectively across her many assignments. Over a year back she
joined a company that is well established though does not score well on IT
maturity. She took that as an opportunity to make a difference and help them bring
mature IT to drive business value. Her road appeared well charted with buy-in
from the Executive team.
The initial
period or the “honeymoon period” was a dream run getting to know the business,
the initial plans and fixing the basic stuff typically referred to as the “low
hanging fruits” or “quick wins”. She brought the IT team together and with
frequent meetings, coaching and guidance had them working towards the defined
common objective for the team. Initiatives got off the ground soon enough with
her team working with vigour to achieve success that had eluded them in the
past.
Some of her
direct reports who were new to the team; they quickly learned the business with
help from other team mates and discussions at the ground level across
operations. She started reaching out to her peers to gain their confidence and plan
for the long-term. The projects were handed out to project leads to go and
engage the business teams in a dialogue to discover current process as well as
identify the critical success factors. The team charged by initial success
garnered by the quick wins and the changing perception decided to approach the
next level of managers and operational heads.
The IT team
scheduled meetings with the operational managers to discuss the strategic intent
of the new initiatives. Their progress was far from satisfactory; they had too
many questions on why the need for change, what will happen to existing data,
how will it impact the people down the line, etc. They were obviously not
aligned to the direction agreed to by their bosses. This disconnect caused by
lack of information flow downward caused heartburns on either side. The CIO
attempted to moderate the discussion with limited success.
Some of the teams
had no inkling of the new initiatives; looping back to business leaders the discovery
was the fact that there was no consistency in communication. Some had
informally spoken to their direct reports while others expected the CIO to
drive the change initiatives. She was expected to broadcast and/or communicate
the decisions, rationale, plans, motivation, methodology which they had
endorsed. As the initiator of the proposed change the ball rested with the CIO.
Not a healthy situation as she recollected to me.
She took charge
and formulated the communication that was approved by the respective business
heads. Then she realized that if the communication did not originate from the
business owners there was a risk that the project will become an IT project
with reluctant participation. Back again she coerced the CXOs to disseminate
the same. The tone of the discussions now was different with the endorsement of
the respective department heads.
Strategic
discussions can only succeed when both sides have a complete agreement on the
process and the outcomes. For the CIO to make progress, it is imperative to get
the message across the layers of the functions which are impacted directly or
indirectly. Any gaps here will lead to unaligned objectives; I believe that
CIOs should manage the process such that they are able to create the ownership
and urgency towards the meeting of objectives. My friend did make progress
until one incident.
In a meeting with one such middle manager where she too was present, he got the meeting started on the wrong foot. He said "Are you folks really ready for a strategic discussion ? First fix the email system that keeps breaking down before we can get down to serious business !". Not that the email system had failed in the last six months, the experiences of the past continued to color the perceptions of progress negating any gains. And that is a story for another time.
A great Post. I am sure most of the readers would readily link this as a familiar scene in most of the organizations. It does not matter whether you initiate this top-down or bottom-up, sequentially or simultaneously. The fact lies in that if it is done in such a view(literally) that it is an "IT project" the "reluctant participation" cannot be overcome or I would go to the extent of saying it will be sidelined at one stage. IT should be the enabler and work behind the scenes to manage the process while SBUs and the bosses should be made to own it as their own. Initially the bosses might resist this but once they see the traction with the commitment from top management, rest should work. The compulsions of CIOs to own the project is fine but it does not work well in most places. Not a question of right or wrong but a question of what will work should be the perspective for transformations.
ReplyDeleteA True CIO Anxiety..!!!
ReplyDeleteAt the initial project discussion level itself, if the CIO could involve Business Head for winning the consents and can get project participant from business team members, I think that would be the WIN, a must boost for a CIO. Then it should only be a matter having coffee over a table discussing the project timelines
Bulls eye......... This happens most of the time, even vendors who provide enterprise solution also fail to align Solution to buisness, problem is that we never try to look at things from business front.
ReplyDelete