Tuesday, 20 December 2011 10:26

A Cornered CIO’s Strategy: Protracted Border Wars With The Business

Written by 
Rate this item
(0 votes)

It is an established fact that between Business and IT, relations are hardly ever harmonious. Moreover, each one endeavors to blame the other when things go wrong and both scramble to take credit when things go right.  When questioned about why Business and IT find it so difficult to get on, claims of being misunderstood is the rallying cry for both departments and often used as the first line of defense to conceal ulterior motives, incompetence and failure.

Interaction between the two departments can vary depending upon the political dynamics of the organization, and the individual personalities of the CIO and CBOs (Chief Business Officers). However, where the relationship is heavily tilted in the favor of the business, IT can find itself in a tough predicament. Continuously flooded with a tsunami of business requests and expected to deliver results in the face of never-ending cost rationalization drives; CIO’s often struggle to meet day-to-day deadlines. Increasingly, CIOs find themselves isolated at the executive level and are coerced to do ‘more with less’. Capitulated and brow-beaten by the business executives, the CIOs dare say no!—for the consequences maybe too grave to contemplate. Gone is the spare time to think about strategy, optimize processes, improve the delivery methodology and lift the morale of over-worked IT workforce. The only recourse left for CIOs is to dream better times and make do with what they have.

CIOs need not to accept this fate. In fact, if they exercise their options correctly, they can turn the tables on the business and move from being viewed as an obstacle to an enabler of business value. But first, the astute CIO must get his/her own house in order. This often implies, finding the time and space to think and act strategically, and to restructure the IT department. This is no mean feat, especially when the business enjoys the upper hand amongst the executive team, and expects IT to deliver to its beckoning call.

An effective course of action is to adroitly manipulate the volume of requests from the business.  This does not imply that the CIO has to look at implementing industry best practice demand management techniques, even though it is essential and part of a long term solution. The immediate requirement is for the CIO to create enough time and space to think strategically and implement important decisions that produce a sea change in the IT landscape and bolster its capability to deliver real value to the business. 

One way to do this is to make the entry point into IT a legitimate choke point for the business i.e. to use business language to increase the time it takes to sign off requirements. Typically, IT requirement teams do not have the mindset or the skills to engage in endless border wars, which are intended to sap the energy in this case of the business units. Yes, the IT requirements management team is staffed with competent business analysts who specialize in low-level business requirements, but more often than not, the business analysts are not considered domain experts by the business and are usually treated with contempt. Moreover, the business analysts are in no position to question business’s ‘holy grail’ i.e. the high-level business requirements.

To reverse this equation, it is important to augment the IT requirements management team with domain experts, who understand the business needs better than the business and have a proven track record of  delivering ‘best in class’ business solutions. In other words, these domain experts must be able to challenge, poke holes and make fun of the business requests (while keeping a straight face of course!). So if Sales, HR and Finance are the biggest requestors (IT’s biggest adversaries) of demand then the IT requirements management team should be staffed with domain experts from these three areas. These experts are charged with the responsibility of delaying the processing of the demand by demonstrating flaws in the business requests and quantifying the cost of these flaws. Subsequently, the business will be forced to listen and take note. In this way, the CIO should be able reduce the business demand to his liking, and at the board level is armed with enough information to shoot down any re-requests or threats.

Oddly enough, by inserting domain experts in the requirements management team, the CIO is able to enrich, and fast-track requests from other business units thereby effectively dividing the business into allies and enemies.  Hence, at executive meetings the CIO is no longer isolated but supported by other business units who value IT’s contribution.

Therefore by making the entry point into IT a legitimate choking point affords the CIO extra time to make radical changes to the IT landscape. The amount of time devoted to strategizing and re-organizing IT depends to a large degree on the quality of the domain experts and their ability to fight ‘border wars’ with different business units. Given the current recession, it is not too difficult to find C-Level executives on short-term contracts playing such intimidating roles.  This short-term strategy is only effective if the CIO can keep the business divided and demonstrate value in rejecting business requests from the most powerful business units.

Don't forget to leave your comments below.


Abid Mustafa is a seasoned professional with 18 years' experience in the IT and Telecommunications industry, specializing in enhancing corporate performance through the establishment and operation of executive PMOs and delivering tangible benefits through the management of complex transformation programs and projects. Currently, he is working as a director of corporate programs for a leading telecoms operator in the MENA region.

Read 1817 times Last modified on Monday, 02 April 2012 16:06

Comments  

 
0 # Ken Livingston 2011-12-20 17:28
Sorry Abid, I can't agree. Where I work, IT have wrapped all the business projects in (mostly excessive) governance and slowed everything down. One business unit simply bailed out and bought the software they wanted, and I've just recommended to another business unit that they do the same, so that they can get on with their jobs now, instead of waiting another 12 months or so for the IT recommended solution. Both business units were/are desperate for software to manage the avalanche of data that's coming at them, while IT are sitting on their hands. The business are our customers, and for the projects, they're paying the bills. Like Finance and Marketing, IT is a support service, not the business. I'll accept that CIO's may be under-resourced for the work that's expected of their unit, and this is where they have to either change the expectations of the business, or ensure that IT gets the resources that it truly requires to get the work done that the business expects.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Jules Boylan 2011-12-21 02:31
Good article! I do see Ken's point - too much slow down will inevitably lead to business frustration and ad hoc implementation of what they believe they need; this has happened at my company as well. But subsequently the business expects IT to support their product regardless of the fact IT staff weren't involved, don't understand the software or its use and didn't receive any training. So its a no-win situation for both sides; quick implementation of a technically challenged solution followed by years of operationally poor IT support. I don't think excessive inertia was Abid's point. I am a Business Analyst working in IT now but behind that are Masters degrees in Marketing and Export Marketing, plus a twelve year career starting as a Marketing Assistant developing all the way to Senior Marketing Manager for EMEA in charge of my own department. When working with the business on sales and marketing software applications, this experience is invaluable! Th e trouble with most business users is they don't understand the technology, or necessarily know 'best practices' in their own domain. It's easy to be blinded by the granular detail of day-to-day challenges and lose sight of the big picture. The trouble with most IT staff is they don't understand the business, business processes or day-to-day challenges. Put these two groups together to build a system and (to continue the analogy) you have the blind leading the blind. I completely agree with Abid that having domain experts involved as interpreters between the business and IT slows down the implementation of questionable requirements. The good news is it also speeds things up! Domain experts don't have a steep learning curve when it comes to what the business does and should be doing. Their independence from the daily grind ensures clearer sight of wider issues and implications. Ultimately it doesn't take as long to understand the needs and communicate them effectively.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Luis Rodríguez 2011-12-26 21:02
I think Abid is not preaching his proposal as the permanent solution but as a tactic to create the conditions to improve IT performance in a specific case, aiming ultimately to a better service to the business units. Last paragraph in Jules' comment complements this view and gives a reason to have expert business analysts to manage requests in IT even if IT is not in the situation described by Abid. It is also helpful to consider that these situations are due to the lack of an effective management level between the too-much-empowe red CxOs and the too-high-level- focused CEO who should be the one setting priorities, providing reasonable working conditions, helping to establish service terms between units and solving conflicts. The present bias towards flat organizations, committee-based decission making, lack of personal accountability, etc has created such a gap. In a different context: while what Abid describes can or cannot what any of us has 'suffered' in our companies with our internal IT department, it is what 99% of the companies who have resorted to a 'IT managed services contract' are suffering, as these contracts call in most cases exactly for that type of situation (re-read the article with this in mind...). So if you are involved in the settlement of such an agreement, you should be better taking preventive actions and, maybe, what Abid prescribes would be worth considering. And following this line of thought, IT managers who recognize themselves in the description stated in the article, should, by all means, refrain form resorting to a managed services contract as a solution.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 

Add comment