The company had decided to
undertake an IT led transformation journey; the Board and Management including
the CIO had agreed that this would help the company move to the next level of
performance. Digital upstarts were threatening their existence, creating a
business environment with reducing margins. This might sound like unfamiliar
situation to many businesses, reality being that all industries are facing such
situations from Angel and VC funded business models that surprisingly do not
appear to be financially viable.
The new competitors grew in
leaps and bounds leaving them struggling to stay relevant in the digital
euphoria the market embraced. The company was forced to look outside its old
school of thought which had worked well for decades in a customer engaged
relationship model. They did not need incremental change, a revolution was
imminently required and everyone knew it though it was rarely spoken of in
operational review meetings; after all the current foundation had built the
business to the level where they were now.
The foundation was set by the
founders when they seeded the business; they were technologically on par and business
competed on even keel. With pace of innovation increasing, the company started
lagging behind though the brand kept them moving ahead. Despite insufficient
expertise, the founders continued to interfere in every technology decision thus
widening gap. They did use technology, sketchy at best leaving many open
unaddressed and manual processes rendering technology led automation
ineffective.
What will boss say ! How can we tell him we need better systems ! The
world has gone mobile, we are yet to start ! He will not agree to change the
existing platform even though it has outlived its usefulness. Laden with perceptions
of embarrassing the promoters or rebuke from the boss, people refrained from
raising the matter of obsolescence of existing solutions and resultant
efficiency deficit. People accepted increasing inefficiency and worked harder
to keep going; it was a losing battle which came to notice soon enough.
Business results in the face
could not be ignored. Hurting from ignominy finally the management decided to
wake up from self-imposed slumber. IT got the blame squarely for neglecting the
business, the CIO replaced and a ray of hope for everyone with new talent
wanting to create quick wins. Multiple discussions with vendors facilitated
with external help, it was the beginning of renaissance. After the initial
progress things started slowing down rapidly. The new CIO was confused and
sought an ally to push forth the new agenda.
Every technology discussion
required presence of the head honcho; his opinions were cast in stone which no
one dare challenge. His legendary obstinacy had no cure, the CIO was advised to
toe the party line or face irrelevance or eventual expulsion. He accepted
reality and attempted to work towards making progress to the best of his
ability. Technology decisions were taken were reviewed and changed frequently
leaving the vendors and the CIO helpless; attempts to educate increased the
uncertainty of progress.
Some of the technology choices were
overturned unilaterally, the CIOs given the task of conveying the decisions to
the vendor community. Internally the old hands were immune to this churn of
verdicts having lived in uncertainty, accepting it as destiny. For the CIO, the
professional in him had difficulty in accepting suboptimal solutions, he seethed
with frustration. He faced a difficult dilemma; he knew that irrespective of
the decision he took, someone will be hurt. Unfortunately that someone happened
to be himself.
He turned to his mentors seeking
salvation; some advised him to take the predicament head-on and not accept a
compromise; after all how could he accept this dictating of technology to a
technologist ? The pragmatic and realistic suggested that he set aside his pride
and make the best of what he had and work towards delivery even if the
solutions were conciliatory. Rest sympathized with him and promulgated survival
over creating a better world; you are of no use dead to anyone, so stay alive
and do what you can within the constraints.
The CIO made his choices and survived
the ordeal, the organization continues to make snail like progress losing
market share, vendors have ceased following up, and the world continues to
evolve ! Business world has many case studies of companies unable to change that
have now been relegated to history. Charles Darwin quoted “It is not the
strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one
most responsive to change”, while Edward
Deming quipped “It is not necessary to change,
survival is not mandatory”.
Ahem !
Intriguing post on dilemmas of CIO.
ReplyDeleteTechnology is not only changing the way businesses are run,but also nudging CIOs towards more pro-active roles.
Technology can play two roles in any business - A definer: If technology forms the backbone and purpose of the business OR as an enabler:where it provides the rails and infrastructure for the company to manage its core business.The role that the CIO/CTO plays is largely defined by this differentiation.
My two cents of how such situations can be better handled.
- The CIO/CTO have to wake up to changing tech landscapes and have to put in dedicated effort to understand them and how it can impact the business positively/adversely. He has to take the lead and show to the business
- He needs to have the integrity and the guts to at least present his case irrespective of its acceptance by the CEO. It is his duty to place an objective view of such impacting factors from tech.
- Change management is paramount in an transformation activity. He has into invest in people, process and tech change management.
A CEO is akin to a ship captain, fending off various events and hazards, trying to stay afloat. It is natural that the CEO and CFO may shoot down some proposals based on financial juggling.
cheers
Krishna Iyer
http://about.me/Krishna.iyer
https://in.linkedin.com/in//krishnaiyer