When buying software, buy shallow, buy deep, but buy anyway !

Case 1: He got a call from head of manufacturing to quickly meet to evaluate their solution; surprised, the sales head rushed to the meeting taking the next flight available. The caller represented a large enterprise that had invested in much IT and this was a new opportunity; the solution was used by other industries, but not this one. The solution was niche with limited competition, the sales head knew that competition had not yet got a whiff of this; he landed in front of the team that included staff from IT and operations.

The discussion unfolded with the articulation of the need and the business case around it. They acknowledged that the solution had traction in other industries, but they believed that as a pioneer much value could be captured if the project succeeded. Appreciating the forward thinking, technical resources were allotted to the customer to sketch out the detailed use case. Within identified constraints, the solution fit well though partially fulfilling the business case, the team pushed the vendor to provide a solution architecture.

Back and forth they went refining the solution, steps that exposed the superficial thought that conjured up the project; as the urgency died down and the timeline continued to shift, the sales head lost patience, getting the short end of the stick on sales conversion of a purported hot prospect that had consumed significant time, effort and sales budget. The functional teams much wiser through the discussions had begun to like the specific solution; they however were unable to push the timeline for decision making.

Months passed by, the aspirational go-live date came and went, the evaluation data exposed the shallow approach taken in their ignorance and lack of understanding of the complexity. They realized that they needed to revisit their assumptions, recast the timelines and budget to get it right first time. The smattering of smaller vendors who had engaged earlier had blinkered view of the elephant and solutions offered to address limited parts; unwilling to let go, the ally vendor demonstrated patience as the months stretched into a year.

Case 2: In a high growth industry, the company was beginning to feel the pinch with lower than benchmark profitability. They were growing faster than the industry and at times had to refuse business as they could not hire fast enough or deliver service to customer satisfaction. They knew that technology could help their business and thus started evaluating local and global solutions. The business head after meeting a few vendors was confused by the choices, so a cross-functional team was put together.

The team diligently evaluated options and as a starting point put in a part that appeared to be a low hanging fruit. The solution worked as designed but people ignored it citing operational hurdles. It was quickly parked in the technology orphanage and a consultant was approached to help in determining the best way to solve the problem. She recommended reassembling the cross-functional team to document processes, optimize and define the to-be process against which the solutions can be benchmarked.

Supported by the COO, the team worked to create the document which was reviewed along with IT to formulate the RFP. The Group CIO put his hat in the ring offering to run the process with his trusted lieutenant who at best was better than average.  The team would meet every fortnight to review progress made, tweak expectations and proclaim complexity larger than anticipated. The detailing of processes continued for the time period in which the consultant had proposed to complete the implementation !

As they approached the anniversary of project initiation, the team had evaluated multiple local and global solutions; the IT Head hired early in the evaluation had defocused from this critical project, now spend his hours in creating incremental technology solutions akin to Band-Aid. The business head wanting the best shot at the project continued to support the team which continued to refine the spreadsheet ad infinitum. The consultant occasionally followed up and realized that a decision was a moving target now.

In both cases different factors contributed to inaction or no decision in the timeline that mattered to the company and the business. The first did not know what and how, the second procrastinated on the decision refining their requirements, solution design, and future, in an ever changing world. Both had different drivers and contexts, both ended up disadvantaged, the first losing the pioneering opportunity, the latter experiencing slowing growth and profitability. After a while it really did not matter if they finally got it right.

It was a collective leadership failure !

Blaming technology is an easy target when business fails

The company was a pioneer in adoption of technology for a long time; this was facilitated by a visionary business leader who believed that IT will make the difference when every other aspect of business had been copied by competitors. Thus he pushed the enterprise to invest in technology which none in the industry had deployed; they did not succeed all the time, but he continued to push on, challenging not just the business team, he also nudged the IT team to take risks and come up with new opportunities to grow the business.

As the company grew, so did competition expanding the market as well as taking advantage of newer technologies. That did not take away the advantage of process and technology maturity from the early adopter; with new leaders taking on the primary mantle of business, they however did not pick up pace that was necessary in the face of new paradigms of business. Leadership change made decision making shift to lower risk model for new projects and doing more of what made them successful in the past.

A shift occurred when a new CIO was hired to replace the exiting IT leader who had lost interest due to change in organization dynamics and the fact that he had lost connect with the business. With the new came wave of expectations; he got off the ground running and had the IT team charged up with his collaborative approach. Business also loved his connect, can-do attitude and the ability to get things moving; he established credibility with projects that were deemed difficult and path breaking in the industry.

The project was neither innovative nor first for the industry, but its scope impacted the entire business and company reputation. The CIO worked with the business head to present the case to the management and then the Board. They were given an in-principle approval but with a low-risk caveat attached to keep investment to the barest minimum. Even if it does not work, we will not be too much out of pocket. So the investment schedule was changed along with the solution to adapt to set expectations.

Since the project required cross-functional collaboration, they had difficulty in aligning everyone to the goal which stretched timelines and budget a bit. Coaxing and cajoling the non-believers, they managed to get off the ground and launched the new business. Ramp up was slow and steady as business slowly found traction with customers; the peak during the following festive season broke the process as they faced the ire of customers and internal teams who were stressed by the additional workload.

Learning from the incident, root cause indicated the nonchalant behavior of the unaligned as the primary reason. The CEO unwilling to acknowledge the failure by the business team blamed the technology and implementation partner seeking a change to an alternative solution. With no recourse, the team reluctantly moved on to evaluate a better system which would help them scale up and also meet expectations; the caveat remained this time around also, do more with less, we cannot invest too much.

Usual project travails and a year later, the new system found light of day; newer technology comes with new features which were expected to provide better capability to the business teams. Some of the non-believers converted and joined the wave which made good addition to their resumes. Since the root cause was not fully addressed, the next big surge created problems of larger proportions, also impacting the brand apart from loss of business; the ostrich CEO fired the team and decided to go to market again for a better solution !

The new team wiser to history took cautious steps towards selection of the new solution going with global leaders, unwilling to try any other approach. They patiently waited for budget approvals and the cross-functional team to be formed that would drive the project along with the technology team. They chose the best of implementation partners, collectively turning it into the mother of all projects for the company. With the large budget the CEO was under pressure to deliver the project right third time, the Board demanding results.

From the first attempt to the one now, the gap was close to a decade; competition had risen with the waves, many had fallen too. Customers had evolved expecting better experience, service and bargains. Changeover took some effort, the new platform was deployed with new capability and expectation of higher business. The large investment rankled somewhere, the Board expecting commensurate returns in a fast growing market. The business teams continued their other lives while the platform struggled.

Internal process alignment, market dynamics and customers finally decide success; the CEO was heard blaming the tool again !

Selling Projects

It’s been 2 years in the role and I have been reasonably successful in changing the IT landscape modernizing the applications and infrastructure; many new applications have done well and have been acknowledged by the Management. The IT team some of which had spent decades in the company too has undergone change with skill upgrades and their alignment to the new way of working. However I have been finding it difficult to make big moves which I know will create business transformation.

I met an old teammate after a long time who had blossomed into a first time CIO. He had done well for himself and the company by taking them from what he described IT 1.0 to IT 2.0. He took the journey step by step reviewing the existing architecture and creating a roadmap that he systemically executed with ease. I remember him having an eye for detail and scrupulous in his approach. Proudly he explained his and his team’s handiwork which was achieved despite the lack of overtly enthusiastic support from the business.

As he narrated his story, I could not help drawing parallels from a decade back when he worked in my team. He and imbibed the principles well and upgraded the team to deliver; he was now struggling to move to the next level where he was unable to find support from his peers or his Management who did not share his enthusiasm for the new initiatives. The company with a strong legacy and loyal customers had grown with the founder driving the business skilfully not just locally but globally as well.

My CIO friend had many ideas based on his understanding of the business; networking with peer CIOs and taking help from vendors, he had come up with a few projects which he had been attempting to sell to the leadership team. They did not share his excitement on the change and resultant outcomes; everything is working well, business growth is better than it was in the past. Why upset the applecart ? He found it incredulous that despite a clear ROI no one was willing to take up the cause.

I dug deeper to figure out the key business drivers (inorganic growth), the makeup of the people (loyalists), the culture (conservative), the connect and receptiveness (cautious), and finally the sense of shared urgency (none). The business perceived the new initiatives as unnecessary and a distraction; they saw no need to change; why fix something that isn’t broken ? It was evident that he was unable to make it their priority or convince them of the merits. So I pushed back and asked him to stop selling.

The current approach appears to be desperation from your side with an automatic pushback response. It is your project, your idea and not theirs; they don’t see any value in your projects, so stop selling and start asking questions. Take a different approach and start engaging them in a conversation on new possibilities that open up to them and make their lives simpler or make them winners. You have to stimulate and connect with different stakeholders across the chain to kindle interest.

In the current scenario even if the project were to get started, the possibility of successful deployment and effective use is relatively low; because it is an IT project and not a business project. I have observed many projects floundering when key process or business owners were not aligned to project deliverables. A challenged HR project where the CFO and CIO pushed the decision on better ROI; an ecommerce portal with reluctant or indifferent business stakeholders, a CRM disconnected from field operations !

Why do CIOs sell projects ? There’s the hypothesis about being proactive and partner to the business, something to do with alignment. I believe that situation belongs to the past as it ends up in a situation where the wooing is all left to IT, business playing the role of a reluctant partner. Unless there is connect on both sides and endorsement from senior management, the CIO begins to appear desperate while others wonder why. So stop selling and start collaborating; proceed only if you find reciprocal acknowledgement of need.

Discussions at CIO Appraisals

A few weeks back, I met a CIO who was feeling elated post his annual appraisal with the local and global bosses. He had reason enough to be proud for the ratings received, expansion of role and monetary benefit (of course). I also had to deal with a CIO who took a long time raving about the injustice meted to him by the organization which does not seem to get IT. Two extremes, and I’m sure that there are many experiences that fall in between.

Every year with certainty like the taxes, every individual dreads, anticipates, is indifferent, or resigns to the annual appraisal. The emotion varies depending on multiple factors, including but not limited, by past experience, organization culture, boss relationship, team, industry, and in many cases individual performance. Appraisals have always been debated on fairness, appraiser bias (positive or negative), as well as the bell curves to which they are expected to fit.

How does the CIO get appraised? What can he do to ensure that the dialogue is fair, the feedback constructive, and reward/recognition aligned to defined metrics and the overall performance of the IT team? Should these aspects be engineered (read as politically managed) to ensure a favorable outcome? Is it that we always expect more than what is due to us?

Any process or relationship between a subordinate and his reporting manager that leaves the discussion to its anniversary is fraught with danger. The discussion will rarely be able to consider contributions through the period, since last few interactions or outcomes will assume top of mind recall. Thus the benefit of the good work done through the year may be tainted by a recent minor incident. We all fall into this trap as appraisers too, and to that extent it is unrealistic to expect a completely unbiased interaction.

Appraisal is a continuous process with reviews, discussions (formal or informal), communication by the appraisee (MS Word does not like this word) and feedback by the appraiser. The formal culmination of this is the period based appraisal—typically bi-annual or annual, occasionally quarterly. One of the key tenets here is communication by the appraisee. Periodic updates and visibility of wins is critical towards building a reputation and mindshare. The CEO has to balance between all the functions similar to the way the CIO manages across differing expertise and IT domains.

Across functions, levels and CXOs, the best stories are always around measurable impact to the business, which can be communicated in unambiguous terms. This is non-debatable, and thereby provides a fact based discussion with the boss, even when he may be IT unfriendly or agnostic. The bell curve will take care of itself—you have that one meeting (similar to your job interview) to convince the appraiser, why you should continue to be where you are, or move up the ladder.

Maybe there is some merit in what Pythagoras said 2500 years back. “Rest satisfied with doing well, and leave others to talk of you as they please”

CIO speeches at Award ceremonies

"...and the award goes to ..." All of us have seen award ceremonies like Oscars or Grammies (on television or live). Some would have also received awards usually followed by the award winner being asked to say a few words. Almost all of them sound like clichés, since they follow a predictable pattern.

Recent times have seen a number of awards (for the CIO and the next level) competing for the participants’ attention. Some of them have become prestigious and much vied for by the CIOs, while a few have lost their credibility, largely for want of effective communication and process management. Thus, CIOs have now started to choose between the awards that matter to them, and those that don’t. The natural selection process has thus differentiated the ‘Oscars’ from ‘me too’ awards.

Initial years saw the awkward CIOs on stage, as they tried to be graceful in their acceptance speeches. With time, they grew adept at being on stage. This also meant that the speeches became a lot more predictable. “I would like to thank my team, my boss, my users …” it could have been any award, CIO, or company, but the same spiel. After the ceremony, it was back to business as usual, with the accompanying cribs.

In 2009, I found changes. In one of the award ceremonies, the CIO was accompanied by his CEO to collect the award. The CEO stood alongside the CIO accepting the award — sharing the joy — telling the world at large about how the awarded IT initiatives transformed his organization. It was indeed inspirational to the recipient, as well as the audience.

Last week, I attended two award ceremonies, where the number of other CXOs made it a very different story. The CEO and CIO jostled on stage for airtime, and collaborated to tell their success story. Gone were the usual “thank you” messages, which were now replaced by what has changed for the enterprise, employees and customers. It was about revenue generation and profitability.

Reflecting on this change, it is evident that the CIO has evolved into an equal business leader who is not enamored by technology. He is self assured, confident of himself, and is able to hold his head high, while acknowledging the success of initiatives taken or supported by the IT team. I get this warm and fuzzy feeling as I hope that the future will bring better tidings for CIOs — not just in IT awards, but other CXO award categories.

P.S.: One of the CXOs in my organization pronounced that we now need a separate wall for all the IT awards we are rightfully getting. I turned the air conditioning to chill.