Not really sure what I’ve been looking for, but I feel like something is missing. I feel like I’ve been reading and writing about the same thing over and over (and over).

So I’ve been surfing around reading a bunch and really good stuff in the interwebz – most has been around topics not related to my core areas of IT and  technology.

I worked my way through tons of blogs and read some great posts…but there was something in my subconscious gnawing at me.

I wasn’t really sure what that something was until later when I jumped over to my Hootsuite tab to take a glance at what was going on in twitter-land. The stream looked kind of slow and repetitive so I jumped over to one of my saved CIO & IT streams that I like to look at for ideas for new posts and it seemed repetitive to me too.

And then it hit me. I realized what I’d been searching for. I was searching for something new.

That’s what my blog surfing was all about. Something new. New insights. New stories. New directions.

And my CIO / IT twitter stream helped highlight it for me.

Why?

With no disrespect meant to anyone on the stream, what I was seeing felt like the same thing I’ve been seeing on the stream for many months. Lots of people talking about the same things. Cloud computing. Virtualization. IT Leadership. IT Innovation. Alignment. Etc Etc.

Don’t get me wrong…all excellent topics and all worthy of discussion…but I don’t see anything new out there. Nor do I see any real change happening. I see a lot of people talking about the need for new thinking, re-thinking and innovation in IT. I see people talking about aligning business with IT.

But…all things that have been talked about for months and years. Has there been any real progress on any of these topics?

Oh sure…I’d like to think there are plenty of people out there making these things happen in the real world…but I haven’t run across anyone really talking about the “new IT”. I haven’t seen anyone talking about the real-world implementation of the Re-imagined IT group. I’ve yet to see any new case studies or new stories about real-world IT groups taking the reigns and leading innovation within the business or recreating themselves to make the ‘new’ IT a reality.

Am I just missing these stories? Or…are those stories just not there? Perhaps all of us blogging and tweeting about it are just talking amongst ourselves while the real IT pros out there are keeping their head down and doing their jobs to the best of their ability.

So…what’s my point with this post?

Its not really a critique of the IT & CIO bloggers and twtitterers….er…tweeterers….er…twits…er whatever the name is. Not at all….I love reading these guys. Heck…I love writing about IT, the New CIO and other topics. I grew up in IT and technology and will continue to write about these topics.

But I have to ask….is it doing any good?

Is the stuff I’ve been writing about, thinking about and reading about for the last few years doing any good? Are we making any difference in the ‘real world’? I’d like to think we are but for some reason I keep seeing the same topics repeated year after year.

That repetition tells me that most in the IT world are working too hard to ‘keep the lights on’ and a lot of what is being written about is ignored. Does this mean all of us bloggers and writers are just talking amongst ourselves? Or are we just not hitting the topics that real-world technologists and IT pro’s are looking for so they can do their jobs better? Or…am I just missing out on the real deep case studies from those companies that are doing the things we are all talking about?

I realized what my subconscious was telling me. I’ve been subconsciously searching for something new. New topics for IT. New Topics for CIO’s. New topics in marketing / technology. New topics for you and for me

I’d love your thoughts on the subject…what are some new topics that you’d like to see covered in IT, Marketing, Project Management and Technology?

Image credit – Search Help By misterbisson on flickr

In the post, Mark argues that everything in the world of IT is up for grabs and things are changing.

In it, he argues these key points:

The enterprise is up for grabs

IT’s traditional role is up for grabs

The application space is up for grabs

The Infrastructure and Operations are up for grabs

The IT organization is up for grabs

Jump over and read Mark’s article…he’s spot on.

Everything in IT IS up for grabs…as I’ve been saying for quite a long time.  See my posts titled What’s wrong with today’s IT?,  Building Tomorrow’s Organization – without today’s IT? and The diminishing role of IT and the CIO (?) for a few examples.

The business world is changing and the old approach to IT will no longer work.  You can’t centralize everything. You can’t control everything.

And the faster IT leaders and professionals understand that, the faster IT groups can restructure and refocus.  I like how Mark says it here:

The possibility of refocusing people formally engaged in operating the IT infrastructure to evolving and innovating the enterprise creates an opportunity to define IT as a new center of excellence around enterprise productivity and performance.

Love it.  Absolutely love it.

Now…let’s hope more CIO’s and IT groups start realize that everything IS up for grabs and start innovating and evolving to become tomorrow’s IT group.

After it was announced that he was leaving, he published a memo on his blog. The memo, titled Dawn of  a New Day,  is an excellent read. In fact, I’m in awe of people who can write like Mr. Ozzie can.

While reading through the memo (yes…I read the whole thing)…i hit upon this nugget:

Complexity kills. Complexity sucks the life out of users, developers and IT.  Complexity makes products difficult to plan, build, test and use.  Complexity introduces security challenges.  Complexity causes administrator frustration.

Powerful stuff.

I think those five sentences fully explain the state of IT today. And…they thoroughly explain the basis for the hatred (or at least dislike) that most people within organizations have toward IT.

We’ve built a world within IT that enjoys complexity.  We’ve built a group that thrives on complexity.    But…that complexity is killing organizations.

That complexity is why Shadow IT exists. That complexity is why many groups within modern day organizations are driving hard toward a time when they own / manage their own technology platforms.  Scott Brinker is making a very good argument for Why Marketing Should Run its own Technology.  Mitch Joel is pointing at Technology is being a major part of the Agency of the Future…but I don’t see a CIO in that agency (and that’s not a bad thing).

Complexity does kill….and is killing the IT group.

What can we do to move towards a more simplistic approach to IT?

The answer to that question will determine The Future of IT.

Hutch recently wrote a post titled “Apple iPad and Google Buzz: Harsh Reality of Innovation” where he argues (successfully I think) that you’ve got to be OK with failure to really be innovative.

In the article Hutch points at Apple and Google as examples of companies that have amazing successes as well as amazing failures.

Hutch does a great job tying innovation with failure and showing that you’ve got to embrace failure to truly innovate.  It’s a great read.

The best part of the article wasn’t written by Hutch though….it’s a quote from Teddy Roosevelt. This quote really resonates with me and is a perfect addition to this argument. The quote is:

It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.

Emphasis mine.

Failure and the CIO

Is it OK for your IT staff to fail?

Have you built the proper culture that allows your teams to step out of bounds and innovate without fear of retribution if the attempt fails?

If you’ve said yes…good for you.  But…what would happen if I asked your team?  Would they say the same?

Think about the last three projects you’ve undertaken.  Have they all been a success?  Have they all been innovative? Can you point to projects that you’ve undertaken that have changed the ‘game’ for your organization?

If you can’t think of any innovative projects that you’ve undertaken recently…perhaps you’ve stepped into the realm of playing it safe.

Culture of Failure?

Nobody likes failure.  I hate it…but I’ve had my fair share of it.  I’ve watched my projects fail and I’ve watched my teams fail.  But…I’ve also seen some amazing things happen by those same teams.

So…am I saying that you should create a culture of failure? Absolutely not.

But I am saying that you need to create a culture that makes it OK to fail.

Ask yourself this question:

Do you want your IT staff to be known as folks that put themselves out there and bring  innovation to the organization….or do you want to be known as the IT group that plays it safe?

It might be easier to play it safe for some, but don’t expect to find and keep the best people if you’re playing it safe.  The best and brightest out there want to work on the ‘cool’ stuff. The ‘new’ stuff.  They don’t want to be relegated to a life of maintaining your COBOL application…they want to build a new app that will make the organization (and world) stand up and take notice.

Build a culture that says failure is OK and you’ll build the potential for a high performance team that can get some great stuff done.  Don’t do this and you’ll be relegated to being the also-ran.

These seven habits are:

1. Acquire technology simply because it’s new
2. Exhibit a knee-jerk reaction against open source
3. Create solutions in search of a problem
4. Eagerly reach beyond competency level
5. Act as CMOs—Chief Marketing Officers
6. Fail to understand relationship between technology and business
7. Don’t communicate well with nontechs

I think most would agree these are valid habits that would make any CIO or CTO unsuccessful.

But…aren’t these the same things we’re talking about today?

Take a few minutes to look around the web and literature relating to the role of the CIO. You’ll find a lot of discussion about how CIO’s need to be more business focused and communicate better with the business.  You’ll also find many conversations about these bad habits.

Seven years after the article by Karen Ann Kidd, We still see many CIO’s with some of these habits (and some with all of them).

So…if we all know that these habits should be addressed (and changed), then why are they still an issue?  Why do CIO’s, CTO’s and IT organizations still have problems with communicating IT’s value to the organization and aligning IT with the business?

I don’t have the answer.  Do you?

When I heard those words spill out of my lunch companion’s mouth as soon as we sat down, I knew it would be a long lunch meeting.

Some background

When I was an independent consultant I spent a lot of time in business development mode.  Lots of time going to networking events and meeting new people.  I enjoyed that (and should be doing it now even too)…but some of the people you meet while out and about can be very surprising.

Take “John” (name changed) as an example.

I met John through a friend as a request by me for an introduction.  Upon an introduction during a luncheon, John was pleasant, cordial and professional.  We seemed to have a lot in common and we knew a lot of the same people in town.  After the luncheon, John and I exchanged emails and agreed to meet for lunch the following week.

John was the CIO of a medium sized manufacturing business in Dallas.  The company had been struggling for years to break even each year with some years seeing a profit while other years found the company loosing money.  During our initial introduction and subsequent emails, I made it clear to John that I was a consultant focused on technology strategy and IT and had helped many organizations like his use technology to meet their strategic goals.   So…he knew I was a consultant but I was also very clear that I wasn’t having lunch with him to try and sell him my services.

I met John at a local restaurant for lunch.   We met at the front door, shook hands and traded banter and waited for our table. While waiting, John told me more about his company, the troubles they’ve had for years and how difficult it was to keep the company afloat.

We were shown to our table and ordered and picked the conversation back up.  I asked John if he’d brought in any consultants to help him understand what changes might be needed to help the business become more profitable.

His answer?

“I hate consultants”.

He continued to describe consultants as a plague (his word!) and cheaters/liars and thief’s.   Strong words.

I asked John why he felt this way and was informed that he had been burnt by consultants in the past and after hearing the backstory, I can understand why he had strong feelings against consultants.

The Spark

The story I heard from John was a familiar one.

A consultant was hired to come in and help with technology selection, implementation and development of custom functionality.  The consultants role was to provide guidance during the selection process and manage the development and implementation after selection.

John tells me that the entire engagement was a debacle.  He hired a consultant that had a great deal of experience implementing this particular type of software but little experience with technology selection.  First mistake.

The consultant comes in and helps work up a technology requirements document and helps the company select and purchase the software platform.  John tells me it just happened to be the software platform that this consultant was most experienced with.   John also tells me that the platform they chose didn’t really fit that well but, because the consultant told them it could be easily customized, it would eventually fit the organizations needs.  Second mistake.

After selection, the implementation phase began with the consultant acting as the implementation manager with a focus on implementation as well as software development for customization.  The development was done by the software vendor and managed solely by the consultant.  Third mistake.

John tells me that the software project took twice as long as originally expected/planned and cost three times more than originally budgeted.  And it didn’t do what he needed it to do. About half-way through the project, John fired the consultant and the developers and brought all development and implementation in-house.

This project was the spark and kindling for John’s hatred of consultants.

Revisiting the Project

After John finished his story, I nodded and told him I’d heard it many times before.  I politely asked if I could revisit the issues and point out some errors that might have contributed to the project failure.

Thankfully, he gladly accepted the offer and listened intently (or at least pretended to!) while I pointed out the three main errors I saw in this technology selection and implementation project.

First, I pointed out the issue of hiring a consultant with zero technology selection experience and tons of implementation experience on one platform.  This is bound to lead to a bias towards a particular platform, especially if the consultant(s) don’t have a wide range of experience on platforms and a strong background in technology selection projects.  

Secondly, I pointed him to the selection of a platform that didn’t really fit the organization’s needs but ‘could be customized to fit’. Everyone knows this is BS and that the approach fails 90% of the time.  If you’re selecting a platform, select the one that fits the best…you may need to customize the software (or change your process) but do your due diligence to pick the platform that is the best fit for you.

Lastly, I pointed out the biggest mistake of letting the consultant choose the out-sourced development partner and manage the development without any involvement by John or his IT staff. This is a huge mistake as it takes the IT organization out of the driver’s seat completely.  Where’s the oversight? Where’s the project governance?   Oversight isn’t something you do for 30 minutes every Tuesday morning during the status meeting.  Have a project manager managing the consultant and/or developers.

When I finished my quick review, John said something that surprised me.

He wanted to bring me on (as a consultant) to help him reorganize and rebuild his IT group.   I accepted of course…but I told him I’d be just as honest and forthcoming while working with him as I’d been during lunch.

A bit of an ego stroke (for me)

Over the next six months, I helped John fix his biggest issues and helped him plan for rebuilding his IT group.  These  plans included building proper project management skills and procedures as well as increasing his team’s ability to efficiently manage IT Operations.

My proudest accomplishment while engaged with John’s organization is actually the easiest work I did with him.  I  introduced John to a young lady who would eventually replace him (after his retirement) as the next CIO of that company.

I’m happy to report that the company is doing well (reportedly because they are leveraging operations and technology for competitive advantage) and are happily using consultants and contractors to fills knowledge & skill gaps.  I like to think this success is in part due to my involvement…at least I’ll keep thinking so

The Moral of this story?

Think about the mistakes highlighted above….have you made any of them on projects?  Are you making them today?

Don’t blame the consultants for project failure.  Look at your involvement and try to understand what you could have done better to set those consultants up for success.

CIO’s in the past have loved using consultants and contractors because they could have someone to blame if the project went badly.  The New CIO can’t shirk that responsibility any longer….if an IT project fails, it’s on your shoulders.

At the end of the day you have to ask yourself this question – Who hired the consultants?  They didn’t come in and work for free…they had some direction from the CIO and IT group….so both parties are equally responsible for project success or failure.

Next time you start to think (or say) something negatively about a consultant or a contractor because they couldn’t get the job done…think again.  Perhaps it’s as much (or more) your fault that they weren’t able to succeed.

Don’t hate the consultant….figure out what mistakes were made and move on.

Now…this is an article I wrote in January 2007…way back when I was a novice blogger. I still like it and still think that linear thinking is a huge trap of organizations to fall into.  It’s also a huge trap for CIO’s to fall into.

So…I ran a quick search for “Linear Thinking” and  “Linear Thinking CIO” and what did I find?  Me.   The couple of posts I’ve done on the topic are at the top of the list.  When I did the Search for “Linear Thinking CIO” my “Beware the Linear Thinking Trap” post is ranked #1.

Now…while I’m excited to be ranked #1 on Google for something, the question has to be asked – how many people are searching for those terms?  Not many based on the traffic I get from them…but enough to make a difference.

So..why another post on Linear Thinking?

Because I still see the topic as one that’s causing  a lot of problems withing organizations. I also see a lot of CIO’s and IT groups stuck in the linear thinking trap and unaware of their predicament.

Quick example:

The CIO commissions the IT group to create and implement a governance model & document to manage all IT projects.   This governance document is developed as a closed system with little input from the rest of the organization.  The model is put into practice and is now ‘law’ within the organization.

Based on the governance model, all new projects over $25,000 must go through the governance process.   Why $25K?   Very few projects can be completed for less than that…and those that fall under $25K aren’t really that important right?

So…the HR team is ready to implement a new system.  They come to IT and ask for some assistance and are told that the project will undoubtedly be over $25K and must go into the governance process and be subject to ‘proper’ project and portfolio management practices.

The HR team are good corporate citizens and begin the governance process.  They fill out the paperwork.  Determine an estimated cost for the project (and it is over $25K) and wait for the governance process to kick in.  And they wait.

A month after submitting the paperwork, a meeting is held to prioritize the projects within the organization. The HR team doesn’t get to attend this meeting…they have to rely on the IT team and submitted paperwork to make their case.

The project is deemed a lower priority than others and not authorized.  The HR team is furious.  The implementation of this system is a part of all of their performance goals for the year and it has to get done.

So….what happens?

You know what happens! The HR Team moves forward anyway.  They reach out to vendors and solicit bids for a ‘phased approach’ to the project. Perhaps they look for a SaaS model for the system to save implementation and initial upfront investment.

Jump forward six months.

The HR Team has fully implement a SaaS platform to do what they need to do.  The system does not integrate with any other platform within the organization (perhaps it can, it just hasn’t been integrated).  The HR Team is happy as they’ve met the need of their team and reached their goals.

The IT team is not happy.  They’ve now got another system in the mix and have to decide whether they support it or not.  The CIO isn’t happy because the governance model has proven ineffective.  The CIO takes the issue to the CEO and is told to support the platform…the HR team is ‘getting things done’ and the IT team better get on the ball or ‘heads will roll’.

More than a governance issue

There are a ton of problems with the above scenario.  There are governance issues, portfolio management issues, client management issues and potential security and IT integration issues.

But…they all stem from the fact that the governance model implemented within the example organization has been built with with ‘old’ thinking.  IT projects  no longer have to be expensive projects.  Organizations can go the SaaS route to get any number of platforms implemented much cheaper than in the past.  Sure, there are still the ‘big’ projects, but not every IT platform is a ‘big’ project these days.

Organizations can no longer work with an inflexible governance model that provides no relief for those projects that aren’t considered a ‘priority’.  Governance and portfolio management must be performed but we’ve got to find ways to be agile at the same time.

There’s a ton of work for CIO’s to do to create more flexible governance models, better project and portfolio management processes and generally provide better service to the organization.  But in order to create these new models, CIO’s and IT groups need to move out of the lienar thinking rut that we’ve been operating in for so long.  We’ve got to find ways to be more agile and responsive to the organization.

The ability to be agile and think differently is key to the success (and survival?) of the CIO and IT group in the future.

Linear Thinking and the CIO

In my “Beware the Linear Thinking Trap” post, I ask:

Are you doing the same thing the same way you were last year?

Many organizations still answer ‘yes’ because that’s all they can do. That’s all they know how to do.  They’ve fallen into the linear thinking trap and don’t realize it.

The New CIO must find a way to stay out of the trap that linear thinking can create.  In the example above the CIO used a governance model to manage the project portfolio.  This, in itself, isn’t a bad thing.  Governance is needed.  Portfolios are needed.

What’s bad about this situation is that the approach to governance must change in the Enterprise 2.0 world.  No longer can you control all applications within the organization. Shadow IT is rampant.   Rather than fight Shadow IT, use it to your advantage.  Work with those departments that have created their own shadow infrastructure to ensure they are governed and managed correctly.

Linear thinking is taking many CIO’s and IT organizations further and further into irrelevancy.  It’s no longer enough to use the same governance models you used five years ago or even last year.  The New CIO has to step in with innovative approaches to IT governance and project/portfolio management (and in all other aspects of IT) to provide the organization with the best opportunity to be successful.

Stop doing what you did last year. Stop doing what you did yesterday.  It won’t work tomorrow…heck…it didn’t work yesterday.

Climb out of that depression caused by the linear thinking trap and do something better.   Thinking creatively. If you want to be the CIO, you’ve got to think differently.

I’m not talking about ‘not following through’ on things.  That’s a performance issue and one that can be addressed with some coaching and basic management skills.

What I’m talking about are those folks (or organizations) that like to tell everyone how something should be done, why it should be done or why it’s important for the organization to do ‘project X’.

I’m fine with being told how or why something is important…everyone has their opinions.  But don’t tell me the same thing for 6 months without ever taking a step forward and doing something about the project. If you think Project X is so damned important, then DO IT.  Or Don’t.  Just stop talking about it.

There are a lot of reasons for people to talk about doing something but not executing. Analysis Paralysis can kill any project before it starts.  Lack of courage is a killer too (you know…those folks who are scared of making decisions?).   Ego plays a role as well (people like to show how smart they are right?)

I’ve run into many leaders within organizations that talk about undertaking the big ‘strategic’ projects.  And they talk.  And talk.  Talking doesn’t “move the needle” (sorry…I promised someone I’d insert “move the needle” into this week’s blog post….they’re playing buzzword bingo and I want them to win!).  Talk without action does little more than frustrate people.

The New CIO has to “do it or don’t”

We all know  the foreseeable future of an IT group will be one of being understaffed and overworked.  There are a lot of projects that need to get done and a lot of projects that won’t get done.

The role of the future CIO is one of project executive. The New CIO has to step up as a decision maker and decide (along with the leadership team of the organization) which projects get funded and which don’t. After the decision is made, communicating that decision down the chain of command has to be done quickly and efficiently so the the entire organization knows what projects are a ‘go’ and which aren’t.

You notice that in the last few paragraphs I never say that the CIO and his/her IT staff should stand around talking about the projects and why they are important. There isn’t a lot of discussion about why Project X should be done.  A decision is made whether it should be done or not and the team moves on. The New CIO has to take the lead in not talking things to death and just get it done.

Now….I’m not saying you should stop discussing the value of a project or a strategy.  Quite the opposite actually.  You should discuss. You should debate.   That’s something that must happen.  But…there is a time when the debate has to end and something has to be done.

The New CIO needs to foster open debate on a subject but quickly make a decision.  With resources as constrained as they are in this economy, talking means wasted time and money.

Discuss, Debate, Decide.  Either DO or DON’T…just stop talking about it.

The New CIO is a weekly article about the challenges facing today’s CIO as well as what can be done to prepare for future challenges. Join me next week for another article in the series.

I got a lot of great feedback on a post I wrote titled “Consultants – Do we need them?“.  In that post I argue that consultants are necessary…not a necessary evil mind-you…but a necessity for modern day IT organizations.

One of the lines of that struck a chord with most folks was:

That’s exactly what any good consultant should do….help the organization understand how to change to adapt to new realities.

What do I mean by that?

Modern day IT is not the same as IT from 20 years ago…or even IT from 5 years ago.  Every CIO has to adjust to the new reality of IT of today and the future.

I believe that 99.9% of CIO’s in this world cannot adapt to the new IT reality without some assistance from experts who understand the new IT realities. I don’t say the above to be hateful.  I think the majority of the CIO’s today are extremely bright and they ‘get’ their current reality but these same smart CIO’s are much too close to their current reality to fully understand what needs to occur to be prepared for the future.

Bringing in the right consultant is key for moving from today’s reality to tomorrow’s.  Find a consultant focused on delivering value to you (rather than selling a technology platform) and you’ll be golden.

The New CIO is a weekly article about the challenges facing today’s CIO as well as what can be done to prepare for future challenges. Join me next week for another article in the series.

After writing last week’s post, I ran across an article by Kathleen Eisenhardt from titled “Making Fast Strategic Decisions in High-Velocity Environments“.  In this article, the author reports on a study that was conducted to compare the speed of the decision making process and the performance of those decisions at eight microcomputer organizations.

At the time of the article’s publication (1989), popular belief (and much research) stated the following:

• Leaders & organizations should be autocratic
• Decision making should be centralized for speed and control
• When planning, an organization should look at future projections, not operational data
• Careful analysis of the ‘best’ option should be performed
• Fast analysis means less data

Sound familiar to anyone?  I still see a lot of organizations and leaders following this approach today, especially in the IT space.

Eisenhardt’s research showed something interesting.  She was able to show that those organizations that made quick decisions were more apt to use more information and look at more options than those that made slow decisions.  The data also showed that centralized decision making isn’t the fastest route to a decision; organizations that shared data with a larger audience and welcomed feedback were more apt to perform better in the long run.

I won’t go into the full outcome of the research, but I wanted to highlight a few of the key propositions from the paper:

• The decision making process speeds up when you make use of real-time data
• The decision making process speeds up when you increased the # of alternatives considered simultaneously
• The more integrated your decision making process is, the faster it can go
• In “high-velocity environments”, the faster the decision making process goes, the greater the performance.
• Politics slows decision making and degrades performance.

So…what does this have to do with IT?

Everything.  To compete in the turbulent world today, we’ve got to be agile in our thinking and execution.  This research helps highlight that fact.

Organization’s, and especially organizations that use technology, are high-velocity environments.   We are doing more with less and have to do it faster than before.

The faster we can make decisions with more accurate data (real-time) and the more options we review, the better that decision outcome will be in the long run.  Will every decision be correct? No…but it will be a decision that moves you a little further.

If you take the OODA approach discussed last week, you’ll be making decisions, acting on those decisions and immediately looping back to review the post-decision environment and determining what needs to be tweaked in your strategy for the to reflect the ‘new’ environment and to prepare future.

Integrated Decision Making

One of the outcomes of the research showed that decision making processes worked better when they were integrated with each other.   Eisenhardt reports that in those organizations that had strategic planning integrated integrated with tactics (see my thoughts on this topic in Minding the gap between Strategy and Tactics), performance improved.  In addition, those leaders who brought together people from different parts of the organization during the decision making process performed better.

Surprised?  This is why it’s such a huge issue for The New CIO to be engaged and involved with the organizational strategic planning process and be tied in with other groups and teams’ decision making.    Eisenhardt reports that making decisions with as many options as possible using as much real-time operational information as possible is the key to performance…CIO’s should take this and run with it.

The New CIO needs to take research like this to heart.  Use all the data you can, include your team and others from the organization in your decision making process.  In addition, as CIO you need to push for inclusion in other teams’ decision making process.Ensuring integrated decision making with the proper people & data, you’ll be able to mind the strategy/tactic gap and act in an agile manner.

References

• Eisenhardt, K. (1989). Making Fast Strategic Decisions in High-Velocity Environments. The Academy of Management Journal, 32(3), 543-576.

The New CIO is a weekly article about the challenges facing today’s CIO as well as what can be done to prepare for future challenges. Join me next week for another article in the series.