February 2007

Shadow IT has been defined by George Spafford in his article titled The Dangers that Lurk Behind Shadow IT as:

…groups providing information technology solutions outside of the formal IT organization. Their existence is due to groups thinking they can do things cheaper and/or better than the formal IT group.Also, it may be that the formal group can’t meet their service requirements or the formal group is forced to develop generic applications in an attempt to meet the needs of everyone and controlling costs versus customizing applications to meet the needs of business units.

Shadow IT is a serious problem in business, not just for IT groups, but for all segments of an organization. The causes of Shadow IT, in my experience, have been due in large part to senior leadership not understanding the value of their IT group.

Another cause of the Shadow IT problem has to do with those IT groups that don’t solicit input from the business users as to what the business needs are. This one of the major factors in the creation of Shadow IT within most organizations.

If asked, most people can describe more than a few ‘horror stories’ about their troubles with IT Personally, I’ve had quite a number of run-ins with IT groups that have left me wondering who they really worked for….our organization or our competitor. A few examples:

• The IT department of a very large wireless telecom company had very strict guidelines about the types of computers that were allowed on their network. A policy of this nature is understandable if the business needs of the company are considered prior to implementing this policy. Engineers, working with their managers, approached IT to ask that a new type of machine be supported so that they could run their engineering software. The request was denied by IT since they only reviewed new computers at the end of the Fiscal year. As it turns out, engineers within this company had to buy, install and support an entire ’shadow’ network of computers in order to run the software that they needed to run (the software required very high-performance computers).
• When users within an office of a very large contract manufacturing company needed IT support, they were not able to contact the local IT person who worked with them in the same building, but were required to call a toll-free number that was routed to an IT helpdesk. The helpdesk would then log a ticket and try to help the user, which invariably didn’t resolve the problem. The user would then be told that the local IT rep would be assigned the ticket. After what was usually at least an hour of dealing with the outsourced IT staff, the user would finally be allowed to talk to the local IT rep who would then fix their problem within a few minutes. Eventually, the staff began to ignore the IT helpdesk completely and would resolve their own problems and would even call in an outside IT support person from the local computer store to fix their problems.
• One of the best examples of Shadow IT occurred at one of my previous employers. Our IT department was outsourced to a large IT firm, who was very responsive to our needs…for the most part. The contract with the IT firm had been negotiated and agreed to without any input from the actual users or departments that would be supported. Since the group that I managed was a software support group, we had a need for quite a number of different computers with different configurations, but none of this information was ever captured in the contract. When it came time to get a few more computers to match the configuration of our new clients’ PC’s, were were told that the contract didn’t allow it and despite my efforts, we were never able to get new PC’s through the IT group…we had to purchase them ourselves and support them ourselves. Shadow IT at its finest.

How do we solve the Shadow IT problem? Mike Schaffner over at Beyond Blinking Lights and Acronyms has a few ideas. In a post titled Shadow IT Revisited, he writes:

The bottom line is we have to figure out a way to provide needed user services while meeting the legitimate IT concerns or the users will by-pass IT and do it on their own.

Mike is right. IT needs to be able to provide services to the business that force the business to never have to think about IT…don’t give IT users the opportunity or reason to look outside of the IT group for support. In other words, provide top-notch support to the business. This may require additional costs in adding headcount, but it might be something to consider if a good portion of the IT groups’ time is spent fighting Shadow IT issues.

Another way to solve the Shadow IT problem is for IT groups and senior leadership to understand the value that the IT group can provide to the organization. IT can do so much more than ’support computers’…they can provide a strategic advantage as well.

Mike’s post, which describes an article titled “Users Who Know Too Much (And the CIOs Who Fear Them)” on CIO.com provides a great overview of how to solve the Shadow IT problem and is definitely worth jumping over and reading the CIO.com article and Mike’s post.

PS - Mike has another good post titled “IT Needs to Become more like Shadow IT” in which Mike describes more ideas for resolving the Shadow IT problem.

[tags] IT, Information Technology, Shadow IT, Strategic use of IT [/tags]

Mindjet is hosting a webinar about Service-Oriented Project Management with Jerry Manas on March 7, 2007. More information is available at the Mindjet Blog here.

As I’ve posted before, Service-Oriented Project Management (SOPM) is an interesting approach to Project Management. From my previous post:

A key strength, according to Manas, is that SOPM measures success in more ways than traditional project management methods do. In addition to the normal “time, budget and scope” measures of progress, SOPM measures customer satisfaction and value, although it isn’t described how this is done.

[tags] Jerry Manas, Service Oriented Project Management, SOPM, Mindjet [/tags]

This definition is from Rob Millard at the Adventure of Strategy Blog in a recent post.

Successful strategy is not about a grand plan. Rather, it is an integrated process that prepares the organization for a range of futures by creating what I have previously called a state of “dynamic resilience.” This involves making smaller bets on a range of initiatives, rather than betting the firm on just one outcome and, as part of the strategic process, growing the firm’s resources and skills to be able to capitalize on opportunities that emerge and ward off threats. In other words, to adapt and evolve.

This is one of the best descriptions I’ve seen of what strategy is all about.

Strategic Planning is a necessity for any organization but most treat a plan as something that is static when in reality it is dynamic. Strategy must evolve and adapt to the current environment.

A good strategic plan should consist of not only a plan for the future, but also a strategy to deal with any changes that come along.

[tags] Strategy, Dynamic Strategic Planning [/tags]

Many other bloggers (Hal Macomber for one) have already discussed this report, but I wanted to say a quick word about it as well.

The report, from the Concours Group, says:

The ability of senior leaders to execute on business strategy depends largely on whether employees are encouraged to speak up about project failures. A simple dynamic — called “organizational silence” — causes 85% of failed business programs and projects, according to a research study by The Concours Group and VitalSmarts. The study points to five key conversations that, if held quickly and effectively, can decrease project management failure rates by 50 to 70 percent.

The Concours Group’s report says that five key conversations need to happen to decrease project management failure rates. I’m sure these key conversations will help, but what happens to these conversations when the project manager and/or project sponsor doesn’t listen?

As Hal Macomber points out:

It doesn’t take much not listening before even those who do speak learn to shut up.

[tags] Listening, Project Management [/tags]

A great story over on David Maister’s Passion, People and Principles blog titled A Case Study In professional Ethics. Its a great story about integrity, ethics, character, values (or whatever else you want to call it) that’s worth the read.

[tags] Ethics, Character, David Maister [/tags]

The Slow Leadership blog has an interesting post about “Practicing Conscious Incompetence“. What is Conscious Incompetence? In a nutshell, it is the act of learning from failure, but Slow Leadership defines it as:

“Conscious Incompetence” is doing something that you know you can’t yet do, let alone do well, for the purpose of learning how to do it better. It’s allowing yourself to make a mess and get things wrong, because you’ll never know how to do better until you get past that point. And it’s the basis of all learning. If you can’t allow yourself to make mistakes and probably look silly doing it; if you can’t allow yourself to attempt what you know you won’t be able to do at first; if you can’t allow yourself to take the risk of screwing up; then you also can’t allow yourself to learn or develop.

Its refreshing to see others talk about something that I’ve always believed in. All the theory in the world is worth very little if someone doesn’t apply it in the real world…and applying theory usually results in failure somewhere. Every person and organization should have the strength to step up, try something and move on if it fails.

Leaders should understand that their organization should embrace failure when it happens. The failure should be accepted, dissected to understand the reasons behind it, and then the organization should recover from the failure and move forward. Lora Banks sums it up nicely when she writes in her blog post titled ‘Leadership Skill: Recover, Don’t Persevere“:

The big difference between persevering and recovering through failure is that recovery requires a pause and a conscious choice about where you go from here based on what you have learned from failing. Webster defines persevering as, “to go on resolutely or stubbornly in spite of opposition, importunity, or warning”.  Recovery is about fully stepping in, once again, to your leadership and moving forward with the new information rather than in spite of the learning.

According to a story recounted in a newsletter from the New & Improved website, Warren Buffett, the semi-celebrity CEO of Berkshire Hathaway, the act of making a mistake (and failing) is essential to the decision making process. Mr Buffett once told David Sokol, the CEO of a Berkshire Hathaway controlled company, that:

David, we all make mistakes. If you don’t make mistakes, you can’t make decisions.

This comment was after Mr. Sokol told Buffett that they would have to write off $360 million for the year due to a project that didn’t work out as expected.

Not many companies can afford $360 million mistakes, Would you or your organization respond to a mistake of such magnitude in this same manner? What would happen if you were a CEO of a $10 million company and you were told by one of your VP’s that the $3 million R&D project was a failure? Would you try to assign blame and fire the VP or would you take a step back and dissect the failure and move forward with the ‘lessons learned’ from the project?

A person/organization who truly understands the art of learning from and recovering from failure should be stronger after living through the failure…as long the failure isn’t a ‘deadly’ one that pushes the organization/person into bankruptcy. A person/organization who learns from their failures should never have a ‘deadly’ failure because they’ve already learned what not to do from smaller failures and should be able to avoid the large ones.

[tags] Change, Innovation, creativity, learning from failure, learning by failling [/tags]

Mike Schaffner over at the “Beyond Blinking Lights” blog has an interesting post titled “Let’s Get Strategic!” that discusses the need for IT groups to become more strategic. Mike writes:

If IT wants to be strategic it has to go beyond just being a order takers and implementers. We need to take the steps necessary to add value beyond just delivery of services.

and

The bottom-line is that is if the IT department wants to be thought of as strategic they have to be willing to offer a strategic service.

Its worth the read for anyone working in IT. Looks like Mike is planning a series of posts around Strategic IT and the use of Business Analysts within IT groups.

[tags] IT infrastructure, IT management, IT operations, IT strategy [/tags]

You’ve no doubt heard the term “sheep” applied to people who follow others blindly. You know the the people who buy the new ‘hot’ music album. The people who buy the shirt/hat of the new ‘champion team’ (basketball, football, baseball, etc). The people who go to {insert school name here} because that’s the school to attend.

Seth Godin describes the act of cruising through life as a sheep as “Sheepwalking” were he blames the education system and business world for these problems…and I agree with him.

.In one of the longest blog posts that I’ve seen from Seth, he does an amazing job describing what he calls “sheepwalking” and defines this concept as:

the outcome of hiring people who have been raised to be obedient and giving them a braindead job and enough fear to keep them in line.

I’ve always complained about the fact that the educational system in the US tries to create students that think alike and who have no real interest in being an individual. This is especially true in the business world and business schools. The modern day business school, and in particular MBA programs, spend a considerable amount of time teaching theory to students and not enough time teaching skills that need to be used in the real world. These skills, such as critical and creative thinking, leadership and management skills and the application of theory in the real world, are essential to a an individuals ability to break out of the herd.

The business world has also helped to perpetuate this type of behavior by creating a hiring process that rewards the ability to be just like everyone else. There is very little room for individuality as most organizations hire a based on their ‘cultural fit’ instead of on their individual abilities. I do believe that an organization should hire people that share a similar set of values, but that doesn’t mean that the only people that should be hired are those that have the same educational or work experience background. The ‘big name’ consulting companies usually only hire those people who have a degree from a top tier university and I’ve always wondered whether they do this because those universities create ‘better people’ or is it because they know that graduates from those programs know how to ‘fit in’. My gut tells me its because of those top tier universities graduate people who think alike and fit well within the big consulting companies.

I’ve always believed that most people want to fit in and be like everyone else…there’s really nothing wrong with that to a degree, but a little bit of individuality is good. Sure there are people who graduate from Harvard, Stanford, etc who are individuals…but I think these people the exception to the rule and not the norm.

In order to fix the problem of the ’sheepening’ of people, the business and education worlds must embrace individuality as much as possible. Seth writes :

The biggest step, though, comes from anyone who teaches or hires. And that’s to embrace non-sheep behavior, to reward it and cherish it. As we’ve seen just about everywhere there’s been growth lately, that’s where the good stuff happens.

I wonder how many people within the business/education world agree with the above and whether those people can make any positive changes. Until those changes occur, I have a feeling that most businesses and educators will continue doing what they are doing…because thats what they were taught to do.

[tags] Seth Godin, Sheepwalking, Individuality [/tags]

Do you consider yourself a good leader? How about a good listener?

According to Larry Spears, CEO of the Greenleaf Center, one of the top 10 skills that a leader needs to master is the skill (or art?) of Listening. He writes:

Traditionally, leaders have been valued for their communication and decision making skills. Servant-leaders must reinforce these important skills by making a deep commitment to listening intently to others. Servant-leaders seek to identify and clarify the will of a group. They seek to listen receptively to what is being and said (and not said). Listening also encompasses getting in touch with one’s inner voice, and seeking to understand what one’s body, spirit, and mind are communicating. - From 10 Principles of Servant Leadership.

I tend to agree with this statement and believe that a leader should listen more than they talk. I have worked in organizations that were led by people who have listened and others who didn’t listen and can state that the most successful organizations were the ones that promoted communication throughout the organization because the leadership actively listened. I think most people have known those types of people (leaders or not) that just won’t listen or don’t know how to listen.

I truly believe that to lead successfully, you must be “in tune” with your organizations’ needs, wants, complaints and preferences. Take a few minutes to listen to your team (and your own heart) and take your career to the next level.

In case you are interested in reading further on the subject, I’ve provided links to a few articles and/or blog posts on the subject of listening as a leader. There are many more on the web but some good ones are:

• Kent Blumberg has a good story about a great leader who saved this company he led by listening in his post titled “How listening saved a mill“.
• Fast Company has a great article (from 1999) titled “The Leader of the Future” where listening is described as a key skill for leaders ‘in the future’.
• Larry Spears, CEO of the Greenleaf Center, has interpreted Robert Greenleaf’s writings on Servant Leadership and created a Top 10 List. This list is hosted at Butler University in their “10 Principles of Servant Leadership“
• The Greenleaf Center for Servant-Leaders provides a great deal of information about servant leadership and listening as a leader.

[tags] Leadership, Servant Leader, Listening Skills [/tags]