Sometimes, I’m paid to provide strategic options and then my client decides to implement those options themselves. Other times, I provide the options and help execute those options.

I prefer those clients that hire me to develop and implement over those that just want a report on what their options are.

Why?

Because – for the most part – those clients that want me to implement the recommended strategic options are the clients that do the things that they need to do when they need to do them.

We’ve all seen organizations who hire consultants, pay a good bit of money for  ’strategy’ and then do nothing after the strategic plan is created.  What’s worse, we’ve all seen organizations pay for that strategic plan and then wait until they ‘have’ to implement their strategic plan.

When you (or an organization) wait till you have to do something rather than doing something when you can or should, you’ve put yourself in a bad spot.

Waiting till you have to do something forces you to work from a position of weakness rather than one of strength. Doing something when you have to do it causes corners to be cut and shortcuts to be created.

Doing something when you should…or at least when you can…is a much better proposition.  Doing something when you should gives you the ability to think things through, build a good plan and execute without pressure. Doing things when you should also allows you to  get a couple of false starts under your belt and even fail once or twice…but you should have time to recover.

When i get a call from a client asking if I’m interested in working on a project that has a 3 month deadline and is ‘uber-urgent’, I always ask for background. I want to know why its ‘so urgent’.  Is it because they’ve waited to long to initiate the project and are doing it because they ‘have’ to or is it because they want to get a jump on their strategy and do things when they should?

The answer to that always guides my thinking in whether to take the work or not.  I’d rather work with the clients that do things when they should.

What about you? Are you doing the important things when you should or only when you have to?

Image Credit: should what? By 416style on flickr

Cloud computing is here to stay.

Oh wait…I hate statements like that.  Sorry about that.

Statements like the above are made by people trying to defend the ‘cloud’ or whatever new or important product/service they are trying to sell today (or one they want to sell tomorrow).

That said…the cloud is an important aspect of technology that every organization should have already adopted into their technology strategy and roadmap. Ignore the option of the cloud and you may find yourself without a job soon.

Many IT professionals look at the cloud through fear-filled eyes. They see the cloud as their competition. They see the cloud as their job.  This fear is natural and understandable…cloud services are a form of ‘outsourcing’.  But…IT Pro’s shouldn’t be fearful and/or ignore the cloud…we should embrace it and plan for widespread adoption.

If the IT professional doesn’t plan for the adoption of cloud-based services, others will.   Much like the world of Shadow IT within organizations…the cloud can enable an even greater Shadow…or it can help the CIO and IT shine some light within these shadows and start to transform Shadow IT into a properly managed technology infrastructure.

Terence Ngai, an HP Blogger and employee, writes about this very topic in an article titled Cloud computing puts an end to shadow IT on the Enterprise CIO Forum.  In the article, Terence suggests that the Cloud will end Shadow IT for good. I disagree with that premise but I do think the cloud is a good start to getting a handle on Shadow IT.

Terence writes:

Cloud computing gives business execs and IT leaders a unique opportunity to work together to develop an IT strategy that really meets the needs of the business. Why? Because more than any other technology, cloud computing offers undeniable benefits that can close the gap between business and IT.  Line of business owners can quantify the business value of needed resources. And IT leaders could use that info to create a winning business case for cloud computing and demonstrate the value of IT.

I don’t disagree with that at all.

Terence implores business leaders to learn about Cloud technology and services and then help guide their IT groups towards those services.  Not a bad approach for selling more services into the enterprise

One thing that bothers me about Terence’s suggested approach is this: If there’s a CIO or IT group out there that hasn’t already developed a technology strategy that includes the cloud, the leadership of that IT group should be replaced immediately.  That doesn’t mean that their strategy should be to use the cloud…just that they’ve thought about how the cloud can be used when it is needed.

Personally, I don’t think the cloud will end Shadow IT.  The cloud is an enabler of shadow IT…and if a CIO or IT group cannot find a way to insert themselves into the discussions around Shadow IT and moving services to the cloud, they’ll find themselves without jobs in the near future.

The cloud is here to stay (ack!)…and those of us in IT need to find ways to ensure cloud based services are used in a secure and professional manner. We know people within the organization are going to the cloud for services that they can’t get from IT (or at least think IT is too slow to deliver those services in a timely manner) so let’s help them understand the benefits and the challenges of the cloud.

By developing a technology strategy that includes the cloud and cloud based services, maybe…just maybe…shadow IT can be managed. It won’t be completely banished but at least IT professionals can get a better grasp on situation.

The cloud has helped to expand Shadow IT…its time for IT groups to incorporate both into technology strategy and roadmaps.  Without embracing the ‘clouds and shadows’, the organization will continue to move faster than the IT group and continue to make IT and the CIO less relevant and less valuable.

Image Credit: Cloud & Shadows

This post sponsored by the Enterprise CIO Forum and HP.

I’ve written a few words on the topic of Strategy, Tactics and Hope in the past and have even talked about minding the gap between strategy and tactics.

Most people and organizations understand – at least in theory – that they need a strategic plan to be successful. And…by strategic plan, I mean something that drives the direction of the organization….it could be a 500 page document or it could be a short half-page plan.

Many people / organizations take this strategic planning process very seriously. Teams are formed. Meetings are held. Numbers are crunched…and document written.

The outcome of a strategic planning process is the final plan (hopefully). Everyone signs off on the plan. Everyone looks at that plan as the saving grace of the organization.

Project teams are built. Implementation plans are developed. Everyone’s excited.

Then…nothing happens.

And…nothing continues to happen.

Why?

Various reasons of course. Granted…there are many organizations that build a strategic plan and do what needs to be done to make that plan a reality…but there are also many that don’t.

One common cause of failure that I’ve noticed in organizations is a simple one…nobody stops to really consider the tactical approach to the strategic plan.

Those same organizations that have eschewed hope as a strategy embrace it as a tactic. They ‘hope’ they have the right people in place. They ‘hope’ everyone knows their role and their responsibility in make the strategic plan a reality.

Now…no organization actually uses the word “hope” in their planning, but it becomes clear when the strategic plan is reviewed and compared to the implementation plan.

Granted…in my posted titled Strategy, Tactics and Hope, I used the word ‘hope’…but I meant it in a different way (really..I did!)

In that article, ‘hope’ is from the employees side…they have to believe that they can achieve the goals in the strategic plan.

The hope that I’m talking about here is the replacement of the planning and thinking process with a “hoping” process.

These organizations build elaborate strategic plans but fail to build on elaborate tactical plans to reach their objectives and just hope that things are in place to meet their goals.

Don’t fall into the trap of hoping…hope isn’t a strategy….and its not a tactic either.

Image Credit: …Hope…By ĐāżŦ {bad contact, no biscuit} on flickr

Over the years, more and more of my purchases have moved to Amazon. I’ve bought books, coffee, electronics, camera equipment and just about everything else you can think of.  They have everything…and they are cheap too.  Plus…..the whole free shipping (with prime membership) and no taxes makes it that much better.

So…how can a brick and mortar store compete with Amazon?

The first way – the store is ‘there’ for those folks that need something NOW.     Another way – Price matching.  Yet another – service.

Competing with Amazon – Fry’s

Take Fry’s for example. They have a store that I can visit when I need something ‘now’.   I make a visit to their store once or twice a month when I need something ‘today’.  Even better, they’ve started price matching other competitors.  Now…I can pick up something from Fry’s and pay the same price as Amazon – which is nice for those things I can’t wait for.  Sure…I pay taxes but that’s not too bad usually.  Additionally, Fry’s staff are usually pretty friendly and helpful.

So..While Fry’s isn’t my first thought for electronics and computer equipment, it is #2 on my list (Amazon is #1 of course).

I don’t know how well Fry’s is doing financially, but I suspect they are doing OK…the local store is always packed so I suspect their revenue is decent.

Fry’s has found a way to compete.  They have brick and mortar stores, they have an amazing selection, have decent prices and provide pretty good service.

Will I always buy from Frys’?  No…I’ll look online first.  But…I’ve come to the point of checking Fry’s to see what they have.  They’ve done a decent job of getting ‘mindshare’ from me.

Now…let’s compare and contrast Fry’s with the disaster that is Best Buy.

NOT competing with Amazon – Best Buy

I’ve found myself really loathing Best Buy (BB) lately.

When i go into a BB, I walk around in a daze.  I can’t find anything as there’s not really any organization (at least at my local store).

I can’t find anyone to help if I have questions…what happened to all the Blue Shirts that could answer my questions?

The prices aren’t bad but they aren’t good enough to lure me back time after time.

An example – I visited BB this week to pick up a laptop hard drive.  I needed it that evening since my wife’s laptop hard drive had become corrupted.  The closest store was a Best Buy (and it was also next to another store my wife wanted to visit).  So…off we went to BB.

I dropped Tracie off at the other store and went to Best Buy.

I walked back to the computer area and began looking for hard drives.

And I looked.

And I looked.

I walked around every aisle with no luck.

I searched for a Blue Shirt but couldn’t find one…finally, I stepped into the break area in the back of the store to see if I could find some help. There were 10 employees back there doing what looked like nothing (I could be wrong…they may have been in a meeting but it didn’t look like it). I asked for help.

One of the blue shirts reluctantly agreed to help me.  I told him what i was looking for and he led me out to the hard drives. They were on the opposite side of the store from the rest of the computer ‘stuff’…poor location for sure.

Once I found the hard drives, I was surprised at the lack of selection. They had a grand total of three hard drives for laptops.  Not three different types…three drives that were all the same.  And…of course, they weren’t the size or speed that I wanted.

I asked the blue shirt if that was his entire selection and he said ‘Yes’.   My response to him was ‘how do you stay in business’.

Disappointed, I pulled out my phone, pulled up the Amazon.com App, found the drive i needed and ordered while standing in Best Buy (with the Blue Shirt watching me). I got a better drive (more space / faster drive) for about $50 cheaper than the BB small/slow drive.

After this latest experience at Best Buy (there were many many more disappointing experiences before this one), I have to ask myself…what is Best Buy’s focus?  Are they a computer store? An entertainment store (movies, electronics, etc)?  What are they?

Their focus is hard to discern.  But…Fry’s isn’t really focused either…and they seem to be doing OK.  So…what’s the problem?

I can’t answer that question…but I can say there’s a problem with Best Buy. If they are going to have a broad focus (computers, hardware, cameras, entertainment, appliances, etc etc) then they need to have the appropriate inventory and selections to be compete.

Not only does Best Buy not compete with Amazon, they aren’t competing with Fry’s.

There’s a broad lesson here…

If you’re going to compete, then compete. Don’t try to compete.

Don’t try to be all things to all people if you don’t have the capabilities.

In today’s world of electronics, books, computers (and darn near everything else) – you’re competing with Amazon.  To succeed, you’ve got to provide something of value to your potential clients. You’ve got to provide service and you’ve got to have what people want.

The same can be said for every other industry.

If you’re a social media consultant, what are you bringing to your clients that they can’t get elsewhere?

If you’re a professional wedding photographer who charges $2000 for a wedding, what are you doing to show that you deliver value over the $200 wedding photographer?

As a technology consultant, I pride myself on being much more than a technology consultant. I know technology, but i also know a ton about marketing, business, finance, HR and other areas of the business plus I understand the processes within those functions.  I deliver more value for my clients than other technology consultants do.

The main lesson here – if you’re going to compete with the big dog(s), you’ve got to be focused, you’ve got to deliver and provide top-notch service your clients.  Amazon is the big dog…they know how to do that. Fry’s has figured out how to compete.  Best Buy has lost the competive edge.

Are you going to be the Amazon, Fry’s or Best Buy in your industry?

Image Credit: Best Buy, You Disappoint Me By Rob Boudon on flickr

They’re chasing their competitors. Chasing their industries. Chasing their perceptions of their future as well as chasing their past.

Many people within companies are chasing too. Their chasing the approval of their leadership team. Chasing the approval of their managers and of their peers. Some are even chasing recognition from their industry.

But..chasing is dangerous.   Chasing destroys focus,  burns resources and forces a never-ending chase for ‘next ‘.

Chasing and Trading

I’ve mentioned in previous posts that I’ve been working on improving my investing  / trading skills (see Are you ready to accept failure?,  How project management made me a better trader/investor and Revisiting Process – what is the ‘right’ process? for a few examples).

Over the months that I’ve been trading, I’ve learned a lot and  made some money…lost some money too.  Last night I spent some time reviewing my trading journal for the last year. During this review, I noticed  my most profitable trades have been those that have come via my trading system research and from one of my trading mentors.  More importantly, the least profitable trades and/or those that lost money outright were those that I took while chasing something or someone.

My best / most profitable trades have come from a mixture of various trend following trading systems and  methods that I’ve been learning (Check out Michael Covel’s Trend Following books and the Darvas Trading method for examples). With my trend following approaches, I’m able to spend a few minutes a day reviewing trading setups and managing them if needed. These methods have clear entry and exit rules…so it makes it very easy to determine what to trade, when to enter the trade and when to exit the trade.

Additionally, I’ve had great success following the advice of Ron Roll (aka Goat - @gtotoy on twitter) who runs DayTraderBootCamp.com. The one thing Ron always talks about is not ‘chasing’ a trade….don’t throw your money into a stock just because everyone else does. Ron takes his time and teaches everyone else to do the same…focus on those stocks that are setup for your trading style / approach and when its right, pull the trigger on the trade.   There are others out on the web and twitter that I’ve learned from over the last year but Ron has been the biggest help to me in understanding how to “Plan your trade, trade your plan”.  So..a special “thank you” to Ron for the lessons I’ve learned.

As I mentioned, my worst trades have come while chasing. I’ll see someone post something on twitter about a stock ‘moving’ or being ‘on fire’ and think ‘yes…I need to catch that!’.  The majority of the time, this approach ends up with me losing money – because i chased someone else into a trade.   In addition, the time that I spend reading tweets and trying to ‘chase’ these recommendations is time away from focusing on what my next step should be in my trading plan.

For me and my trading style and abilities, chasing kills my profitability and my focus.  Looking through my trading journal, I couldn’t find a single ‘chasing’ trade that made me money.

Chasing is Dangerous

Looking over my trading journal it was very apparent that my best trades were those that were planned out. They were  thought through with entry and exit criteria and I know exactly what i’m getting into. I managed my risk and set everything up to ensure that I gave the trade the best chance for success.

This happens in business too…we plan out projects, manage the risk within those projects and we try to give that project the best chance for success.

Or do we?   We should…but a lot of times, we don’t.

We spend our days chasing status reports.  Chasing resources and money.  We spend our days chasing projects and people. We chase strategies and tactics that are supposed to help us improve.

Stop chasing.

Stop chasing your competitors and your industry. Stop chasing your friends and colleagues. Stop chasing the latest / greatest technology, methods and best practices.

Find out what you and/or your business needs to succeed and make it happen.  Focus on your strategy, your people and your approach. Focus on what it will take to make yourself and/or your business better.

Stop chasing. Start focusing.

Image Credit: chase By rahuldeebee on flickr

A new CIO joins the company. He’s not completely new to the organization but he is new to the role and a new employee. Previously, he’d been running a couple of projects for an outsourced ‘partner’ within the organization and had ingratiated himself with the leadership team. They liked what he did and offered him the role of CIO.

The new CIO started reaching out to the organization to see how he could help. One of the first groups he spoke to was the marketing group.

A meeting was set between the CIO and the main people within marketing.  The CIO told the marketing group that he’d loved to work with them and do whatever was needed.  They mentioned the various changes and development efforts they’d been trying to get done within their content management system and were told he’d absolutely support them with as many resources as needed.

In addition to promising support and offering resources,  he cautioned against doing things outside the process.  He cautioned the marketing group on following the proper processes to get new websites and new technology implemented.  He cautioned against trying to lead the way with their own technology.

He used the line that we’ve all heard (and some of us have said)…he said “IT is hear to help, but remember – IT owns the technology, Marketing owns the content“.

The meeting ended well. The marketing group felt like they’d be able to work with this CIO and the CIO felt like he’d made real progress.

Fast forward a few weeks.

The marketing group needed to get a new website live.  They reached out to the IT group to get a resource assigned to build out the necessary containers for the new website in the content management system.

They were told that no resources were available now but that they should be able to get to the project in the next month.   A month delay in the project wasn’t necessarily that bad so they waited.

And waited.

The next month arrived and the marketing team was told that there were still no resources. And there wouldn’t be any for a few months.

So…what did the marketing team do?

The marketing group leadership went to the CIO to ask for help.  He wasn’t available to meet but promised resources asap.

But no resources were assigned.

So…the marketing group did what they had to do.  They had a deadline that they had to meet. They setup a website on their own using an externally hosted web server using open source software. They designed the site, filled it with content and turned it live within 2 weeks.

From all accounts, the new website was a hit…it did what the marketing group (and their target clients) needed it to do. And it was done without the promised help of the CIO & IT.

Fast forward a few weeks.

The CIO called another meeting with the marketing group.

This time the CIO wasn’t cordial. This time he was confrontational.  He was angry that the marketing group ‘went around’ IT. He was angry that they didn’t use the organization’s content management system for the new website.  He was angry that marketing rolled out a new project technology and his IT group wasn’t leading the charge.

The CIO talked about the need to standardize technologies. He talked about the need to follow process. He talked about the need to let IT lead technology initiatives.

The marketing team responded to the angry CIO in a like manner.  They talked about the lack of support and lack of resources. They shared the timelines and requests for IT support and the lack of that support.  They shared their frustration and feelings of no support from IT.

The CIO agreed that things could have been done better and he promised to improve things in the future. He talked about improving the processes in place to ensure marketing is supported.  He mentioned hiring additional resources too.

And the CIO reiterated the need for Marketing to let the IT group run and manage technology.  He reiterated the mantra of “IT owns the technology, Marketing owns the content.”

Fast forward a few more weeks.

The marketing group needed to make some changes to one of their major websites.  They needed some major functional changes and needed IT support.   This new project needed to be a quick turn too as the new functionality needed to be released within a month to coincide with a new marketing campaign.

They went to the IT group and followed the process outlined by the CIO but were told it would be 2 months before IT resources could be freed up for their new project.

The marketing team was furious.  They had to have this new functionality live in a month.  What did they do?

They did what they had to do….they hired an outside consultant to come in and make the necessary changes to the website.  They had to sneak these changes around the IT group’s production code change process – but that wasn’t hard to do.

They got their needed changes made and were happy.

Fast forward to the present

The CIO is still promising to help marketing…but he’s unable to deliver.  He’s unable to deliver the project resources needed by the marketing group.

The marketing group has completely stopped talking to the IT group about any new technology projects. They’ve hired their own agency to act as their development arm.

The CIO and IT group are furious at the marketing group and are trying to get the CEO to ‘force’ marketing to come back in-house and use IT for all technology initiatives.

Both teams are at an impasse. They can’t understand the other’s needs.  They can’t understand how to work together.  They are now fighting against each other for resources and ‘control’.

I’m not sure how the story will play out in the end, but I suspect the marketing team will come out ahead since the future of this organization is squarely on the shoulders of their marketing efforts.

Great story, right?

I thought it was.

Stories like this play out every day between IT and Marketing. There are many reasons for these types of events, but the main reasons can be summed up with the following points.

1. Committing before understanding.  The CIO completely over-committed to the marketing group without really taking the time to understand their needs.
2. Failing to plan.  Neither the CIO nor the marketing team did much real planning. The marketing group didn’t provide =enough time for the IT group to bring the marketing projects into the IT project portfolio to ensure proper planning.  The CIO failed to ensure that his promises to the IT group were considered and included in IT project plans.
3. Failure to communicate. The CIO and Marketing leadership stopped talking.  Communication is key.
4. I vs You / IT vs Marketing.   The CIO led the relationship off with the “I own the technology, you own the content” mentality.  This immediately puts people into the mode of picking a ‘side’…maybe its subconscious, but it happens.  No longer is there and “I” and a “you”…there’s only room for ‘we’ within today’s organizations.
5. Confronting rather than Understanding.  Once the CIO heard about the marketing group going ‘rogue’, he confronted them.  He then promised to solve the problem (and failed).   Rather than confronting, try understanding.

Next time you find yourself working with another group, think about this story and the issues I outlined above.  Can you find ways to work better with your coworkers and colleagues?  Can you communicate better? Perhaps understand the needs of the IT group better?

What can IT and Marketing do to work better together?  What changes can IT make to better support marketing? What changes can marketing make to work better with IT?

These are questions that face every company today…what are we doing to answer them?

Image Credit: Versus 2004 By magnacasta on flickr

There are a lot of people writing and talking about strategy. There are tons of books. Lots of consultants and lots of material on the subject. There are many many millions of dollars spent each year on ‘strategy’.

There are courses you can take and even doctoral programs in strategy.  You can make an entire career out of doing nothing but creating and implementing strategy.

Not a bad career to have, right?  Strategy can be fun and exciting.  Strategy can drive new business and growth.  The right strategy can make an average company a global leader.

With all the focus that strategy has, you’d think that many organizations/people would get it right when creating new strategies….but there’s a huge disconnect that exists today (and I believe always has).

Millions can be spent on the ‘perfect’ strategy, but if that strategy isn’t understood and accepted by the people within the organization (and its customers), that strategy is worthless.   If that strategy isn’t grounded in reality, it is worthless.

That’s what i call the strategy disconnect.  A creation and implementation of a strategy that’s completely disconnected from the reality of the situation.  Whether that reality is your people, your technology, your finances or any other area – if you can’t build a strategy that considers your organizational and cultural capabilities, you’re wasted your efforts.

If you’re new strategy involves being agile, perhaps you need to make sure the people within your organization can be agile.  Forcing an agile strategy onto a slow-moving bureaucratic organization usually results in failure without properly considering how to change that bureaucratic mindset to an agile one.

If you’re new strategy requires formal processes to be implemented and followed to ensure proper execution, make sure you have an organization (and culture) that can embrace process.  Its pretty simple really….but this common sense approach isn’t common.

At the end of the day…the strategy disconnect is simple to pinpoint – its a disconnect between the reality that exists and the reality that must exist for a strategy to work.

You may think that I’m oversimplifying things…but I don’t think I am.  I know many organizations that have spent lots of money and time to create the ‘perfect’ strategy to take the organization ‘to the next level’ only to fail badly.  Most of these failures can be traced back to the failure to understand the organization, the culture and the people that will have to live that strategy in order to succeed.

I talk a bit about this disconnect in my post titled “Minding the gap between Strategy and Tactics” where I pose the following three questions:

• Will the team understand this strategy?
• Can the team implement this strategy?
• Will the politics of the organization allow this strategy to work?

I’d like to add a fourth question to that list…it is:

• Do I have the right people in place to make this strategy a reality?

While that question is contained in the first three to some degree, I think its important enough to merit being added as a question itself.

I’ve got a good case study to follow up on this strategy disconnect theme that I’ll be posting in the near future.  With my doctorate research in full swing, it may take a few extra days to write up, but I’ll get it up as soon as I can.

I’d love to hear your thoughts on the strategy disconnect. Share them here in the comments or on twitter (@ericdbrown).

Image Credit: DISCONNECT FIAT 500C DIESEL By 246-You on Flickr

In addition, you’re organization has a ton of ‘sexy’ projects that need to get done. Projects like integration of social platforms.  Collaboration tools.  New marketing technology platforms. Etc. Etc.

But…you’ve got a limited budget,  limited workforce and, at times, limited visibility by senior leadership into what projects need to get done.

In addition, you’ve got a lot of buzzwords out there driving a lot of the thinking within the leadership of the organization.  Social.  Enterprise 2.0.  Web 3.0. Cloud.  Digital this…and digital that.

So…which project comes first?  Legacy or Sexy?

The Legacy Projects

Legacy systems can almost make a case for themselves.  I mean…their called ‘legacy’ for a reason, right?

Legacy systems are those that have been around for a while….maybe a year or maybe 20 years.  Perhaps you’ve got a mainframe system running your Financial system that needs an update.  Or…maybe you’ve got a server farm running a poorly architected data system.

Whatever your definition of ‘legacy system’ is,  you’ve got them and many of them need to be updated and/or replaced.

The Sexy Projects

Sexy systems are those that are new and in the forefront of your top management teams’ minds.  Their the Enterprise 2.0 platforms.  The centralized content management system.  Social Network systems.

These systems are those that are driven, at first, by the buzzwords of the day.  Of course, a good CIO and/or IT team will push the buzzwords away and make these sexy systems fit into, and drive value for, the organization.

Whatever your definition of ‘sexy’ is you’ve got many of these types projects on your plate and many more coming down the road.

How do you decide?

Well…unfortunately, you probably don’t decide…at least not alone. Most organizations have a lot of people involved in project selections for IT.  Marketing has a ton of technology projects as does HR, Finance and Sales.

Most organizations have a different approach to selecting those projects that will be funded. In many organizations, a selection process is followed to make sure that the right projects get funded. That selection process varies by company but at its core, the process selects (or should select) those projects that fit with the organization’s strategic goals for the coming year(s).

It doesn’t matter how your organization selects project to fund; just understand what that process is.

Once you understand that process, you can help the people involved in that process to understand what the important projects are.  You can help them understand the legacy vs sexy debate.

But first…you’ve got to understand that debate yourself. Many times…its the legacy project that brings the most long term value to the organization, but its the sexy projects that get the funding.

If the legacy projects are the most important to your business, make sure everyone knows why.  And vice versa for the sexy projects.

What’s more important to your company for the next year?  The sexy project…or the legacy project? Or both?

I had a conversation two weeks ago with a colleague who was taking over the social media, marketing and PR responsibilities for a small but growing organization in the consumer products industry.

In this new role, my friend will be moving into a role of responsibility of all social media and engagement aspects for the business.  While he’s excellent at marketing and pretty darn good at PR, he’s not had much experience in the social media space.  Sure…he has a Facebook and LinkedIn account but hasn’t really made much use of them for much more than just keeping in touch with old friends, family and colleagues.

He called me last week to catch up and fill me in on the new role.  After congratulating him (three or four times actually), I asked a question that I always ask in these situations…..what’s your goals for the new role?  Sure…it may be too early to really have a set of goals formed for the new role, but he had time to come up with basic thoughts as should anyone in that same position.  No need set formal goals before understanding the real issues at hand, but its definitely worth having some high level goals in mind, right?

As I knew he would, he told me of some of his plans.  While most were good, a few jumped out at me as being more tactical than strategic, which surprised me a bit…in times like this, its better to think a bit more strategic until you fully understand the new role, people and responsibilities.

What was interesting to me was this: the areas that were more tactically focused where the social media areas of his new role.  On the marketing and PR side, his thoughts were very high level and spot on…on the social side, his thoughts were more focused on the ‘how’ rather than the ‘why’ or ‘what’ of social.

I brought this to his attention.

He took a few seconds to think about my comments and then responded with something that floored me….he said something along the lines of this:

Social Media is just a bunch of tools to get my message in front of my customers…..there’s nothing strategic about it.

I’ll let you ruminate on that one for a bit.

Really?

That was my response to his comment too….perhaps it was more like “REALLY????”…but you get the idea.

Social is more than a tool

Thankfully, I know this person quite well and can speak bluntly with/to him.

I told him he was an idiot (I used that word too).

Social is not just another channel to shout your message to the masses. Social is much more than that.

I told him that social is more than just some tools like twitter and Facebook…social is a cultural mind-shift.  Social is something that requires three-way communication between you and your customer (and vice versa) as well as communication between your customers.

Find any case study of a company successfully using social media and you find a social culture. You find people engaged in talking to, listening to and learning from their customers.

I told him to spend a few hours reading Danny Brown, Jason Falls, Brian Solis, Mitch Joel and Valeria Maltoni. I told him to go pick up some of the great social books like Six Pixels of Separation (amazon affiliate link) by Mitch Joel, Trust Agents (amazon affiliate link) by Chris Brogan and Julien Smith, The New Rules of Marketing and PR (amazon affiliate link) by David Meerman Scott.

I found myself talking for a few more minutes about social not being a tool and realized I hadn’t really given him a chance to respond. His repsonse was a good one….he wanted to take some time to think about the topic and read a few of the above blogs, etc.

I received a call from him yesterday and was pleasantly surprised to hear him say:

You were right…I’ve got a lot to learn about social media.  I realized social is a culture, not a tool.

I couldn’t have said it better myself.

I’ve mentioned the topic before in posts about Shadow IT and the diminishing role of the CIO. I have also argued for a broader role for non-IT groups in managing their own technology initiatives – as long as IT has a role in those initiatives.

I’m a big fan of the concepts behind Scott Brinker’s Chief Marketing Technologist concept and would love to see that approach taken within a few companies that I’ve worked with/for…I think it makes a lot of sense.

I’ve heard many IT professionals  lament that these non-IT groups are ‘going around IT’ and aren’t ‘following the processes’ setup by the IT group and the CIO. I’ve also heard many non-IT people talk about ‘going around IT’  because IT is ‘just too slow’ and “they can’t get anything done”.

While there are a lot of issues here that must be addressed by the organization (and the CIO). There’s a leadership issue at play here…one that squarely lands on the IT and CIO’s shoulders.  If the IT group can’t get something done, then you can’t really blame someone trying to find someone / something that will get the job done, can you?

But….I’m also concerned that there’s a larger organizational issue at play here.  Allowing IT to be circumvented, regardless of the reason, shows a disrespect that would drive anyone crazy.  Would the finance team be happy if someone went around them to run their own books?

OK…so I am rambling a bit here…but the basic question I have is this: By ‘going around IT’, are we building a bunch of silos around the organization that will come back to bite us in the ass in the future?

I’ve heard proponents of ‘going around IT’ say that the cloud makes them more agile.  The cloud allows them to rollout new products, offerings, initiatives much faster then when waiting for IT.  All true.

By ‘going around IT’ and using the cloud to build applications and/or roll-out services, are organizations building silos that will never be integrated? Are we building these silos without a thought to what happens to the data?

What happens to the customer data ‘in the cloud’? What happens when you change platforms?  Will the data ever be pulled back into the enterprise for use by other parts of the organization?  Does it need to be?

All valid questions that many people ignore and.or dismiss as irrelevant.  I’ve even heard a few people say ‘to hell with the data…it doesn’t matter’(!!!!!).  Of course it matters…data is the lifeblood of the organization.  If it doesn’t matter to you, you’re missing the point of whatever project you’re working on.

Now…don’t get me wrong here…there are times when going to the cloud is the right way to go.  There are even times when going around IT is the only way to get something done…heck…I’ve done that myself.

But…before you (or I)  ‘go around IT’ to get something done….take a few minutes to think about the long term implications.

Are we solving our problem today while at the same time creating more problems for tomorrow?