Getting that elusive “seat at the table”

There’s long been talk in IT management circles about getting a seat at the table when corporate strategy discussions are happening. The thinking goes that technology is such a central function to most modern companies, that IT should have input into strategic decisions, and help guide their implementation almost as a birthright. However, for many there is a cart before the horse problem at work here. CIOs want a seat at the strategic table, but they don’t demonstrate any strategic value. The CEO wants to talk about entering new markets, and the CIO wants to talk about upgrading Windows or the nuances between the HAL 9000 version 1.98845 versus 1.987234.

There are two prerequisites to getting that “seat at the table”. 1) The utility aspect of IT needs to be flawless, and you need to stop talking about it. When was the last time you called the power company and thanked them for safely splitting atoms so you could turn on your light switch and have it just work? Same goes for the utility element of IT. It’s complex and completely thankless, get over it.

2) The CIO needs to understand the business deeply, and be able to articulate and frame the challenges and opportunities facing the business. He or she then needs to explain in layman’s terms how technology might accelerate these strategic imperatives.

Do these two well, and the CIO will be sought out for his or her opinion. Spend every board meeting looking for accolades because you implemented some fancy disaster recovery plan, or installed a new security package, and you’ll soon be shown the door.

Patrick Gray on Tech Talk with Craig Peterson

I was recently on the radio in the Boston market on the Tech Talk with Craig Peterson radio show discussing my book, the invasion of consumer technology in the enterprise, and where technology is headed in the coming years. You can download the podcast version of the radio show here, and look for my comments around the 8:45 mark.

Google, Apple, and the Permanent Beta

One of the most interesting features of Apple’s new iPhone 4GS is Siri, a voice-recognition “assistant” that is able to take colloquial spoken English commands. For example you can tell Siri to “book and appointment with John tomorrow” and “she” will check your calendar for available times. There are plenty of reviews of this feature, and that’s not the crux of this article. What is however is that Apple has introduced Siri as “beta” software: a product that the manufacturer believes is complete, but hasn’t been fully vetted and tested on a large scale.

This is nothing new in the technology world, and the preponderance of Google’s free online offerings also fall into this category despite widespread usage. Many other companies in the technology world generate consumer angst when they release what’s perceived as poorly-tested “beta” software to meet a release deadline, co-opting users as involuntary testers in the process and fixing the problems later, however they are usually selling what is billed as “complete” software rather than clearly denoting its beta status.

There’s no harm in a corporate setting to launching some “beta” initiatives, as long as the beta status is clearly spelled out to the user community, and not used as an excuse to release half-baked work for business-critical functions. No one has the resources to pursue every initiative to the fullest, but beta initiatives can test new technologies, or get you 60% of the way there on a problem that needed to be solved yesterday, bridging the gap to a more prefect solution. In short, if you’re not experimenting with a handful of beta initiatives, preferring to do everything “perfectly”, you are probably missing opportunities.

The New Look

We’re changing the look of things around here a bit, so please bear with us. The new format should be a bit more readable, and maintains all the same content. My apologies in advance should site formatting randomly change, but all work should be done shortly.

The Utility Aspect of IT

There will always be a utility aspect of IT, and in the corporate world, it’s a utility from the consumer’s perspective. No matter what accounting or organizational gyrations you go through, basic services like email, network connectivity, phones, etc., are going to be treated like electricity, water, or sewage: No one cares how complicated it is (when was the last time you thanked the power company for splitting atoms), and everyone wants it as cheaply as possible.

The mistake I see is trying to treat the utility and strategic aspects of IT as one and the same. The other mistake is trying to advance IT as a strategic partner, when you’re not running the utility side of the house flawlessly and cost-effectively.

The “alignment” problem

There’s an interesting debate on Linked In about why we’re still talking about IT “alignment” after doing so for nearly 30 years, and like many of these conversations, there are questions about what exactly “alignment” means in this context.

Some definitions have been offered, but in my mind, it’s rather simple: alignment is using IT as a tool to solve a business problem, not an end in itself.
While that’s conceptually simple, many IT organizations don’t do it well. Look at all the people saying “Cloud is our technology strategy”. It’s like hiring an expensive builder to make you a custom home, who keeps saying “The Makita Sawzall 9000 is my strategy to give you a great home”. The focus is on the tool, not the outcome or value provided.

The IT departments that are seemingly naturally aligned are the ones where all the technology happens behind the scenes, and the CIO is called in to help solve a business problem. If your C-level peers run away when they see you approach, or start snoring in your meetings, you’re probably focusing on the tools rather than outcomes.

The iPhone 4S: Strategic move or chinks in the King’s armor?

Apple announced it’s latest iPhone, the iPhone 4S, largely to critical comments from a press corps expecting the iPhone 5, and entirely new device. The phone is a gussied-up version of the company’s iPhone 4, and hardware-wise offers better “feature porn”: more gigahertz, gigabytes, and megapixels while remaining outwardly the same. The company’s flagship operating system, iOS received several noteworthy updates, but again many were evolutionary rather than magical.

The usual superlative-laced commentary was on offer, with Apple introducing “pioneering” antenna diversity, which my 1991 Nissan Maxima also prominently featured. For gadget lovers, the announcement was largely a let down, but seems a repeat of the company’s prior strategy to carefully manage new releases, essentially selling the same customer two devices, a “major” and “minor” release of sorts, rather than a single major release.

The one problem with this strategy is that the mobile world has changed quite a bit since Apple “refreshed” the iPhone 3G with the iPhone 3GS. For one thing, there are now four major mobile operating systems: Android, iOS, Windows Mobile, and Blackberry OS (the latter being debatable). When Apple introduced the 3GS, Android was still a new kid on the block, Microsoft was irrelevant, and Blackberry was looking a bit long in the tooth for a “smart” OS. The iPhone 3GS was a Porsche in a world of Hondas, but in October of 2011 it might be a Porsche in a world of Ferraris and Lamborghinis. An iPhone that looks the same as last years model sitting next to the latest Android with a larger screen and newer hardware makes the average consumer pause before automatically checking the iPhone box.

While I have no insider information and am going off pure speculation here, I would guess some combination of three factors are at work here:

  1. Apple is either trying to milk customers with an interim upgrade, knowing that some of those customers will buy whatever the company puts out. Good for shareholders, bad for consumers.
  2. The iPhone 5 simply isn’t ready, and Apple is sweating bullets wondering if incremental upgrades can ward off the Android assault.
  3. Apple has become arrogant or too inwardly focused, and thinks it will retain the #1 position by playing it safe.

Amazon’s on Fire?

Amazon’s new tablet device, called the Amazon Fire is set to challenge Apple for Tablet dominance, and just might be the one to expose some chinks in Apple’s armor. I find the software running on these devices effectively irrelevant when done well; it should be easy to use, and effectively transparent to the user as they jump between lightweight applications and content. Apple got this right, but also had the advantage of a strong developer network and existing content relationships, providing a well-executed OS and stuff worth using on that platform. Contrast this with HP/Palm’s WebOS, also well-executed but severely lacking in the “stuff” department.

Now Amazon enters the foray, armed with the leading e-book library, a budding collection of video assets, a few years of tablet-like devices under its belt, and a well-loved brand on par with Apple. Amazon also has the distinct advantage of a compelling store for physical goods in addition to digital content, something Apple obviously lacks. If the Fire provides easy access to this wealth of “stuff” and delivers an OS that gets out of the way, we may finally have a viable iPad competitor.

I commented briefly on this with the Christian Science Monitor, and the full text of their article can be viewed free here. Look for my comments towards the end of the piece.

Corporate Narcissism

Netflix, a US company that started life as a DVD-by-mail rental service, then added digital movie streaming to its offering recently announced a poorly-received corporate restructuring. In addition to a price increase for the mail and streaming services, the company split the offering into not only two products, but two separate companies with their own billing, recommendation, and customer account systems. Whereas a customer could formerly login to the Netflix website and manage a queue of movies for mailing or streaming, the split would create two different, non-integrated places for customers to do the same tasks, and even charge two separate items to a customer’s credit card each month, a move akin to a restaurant forcing you to go into a different room, with a different waiter, and pay a separate bill for your appetizer and entrée.

Historically, the company has often been regarded as consumer-friendly, and technologically advanced, so the move legitimately offended a highly vocal group of customers. The CEO of the company offered a non-apology, and attempted to convince customers that splitting their service, creating more administrative hassle, and effectively increasing the price for less convenience were in their favor.

These types of maneuvers can best be described as a kind of corporate narcissism, where companies focus internally and treat customers as an inconvenience, rather than the reason they are in existence. The US-based airlines have been guilty of this for years, with flight attendants literally rolling their eyes while dealing with customers as if the flight was scheduled for the airline staff’s personal amusement, and then those pesky paying customers rained on the party.

This narcissism can also occur internally, with corporate divisions passing inane policies and procedures that scratch some parochial itch, while inflicting hours of extra administrative burden on the larger organization.

While the customer (external or internal) is not always right, they are almost always the ones that provide the financial lifeblood of your company. When you consider some elaborate strategic shift and there is nary a mention of how it will impact paying customers, make sure you’re not preening in front of the mirror while the building around you burns down.

Foresight Audio Newsletter Volume 9

Patrick talks about Tomorrow’s Product, Shades of Green, “Adequate Advancement”, and The Long Trail.

Foresight Podcast Icon201109 Foresight Audio Newsletter

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 282 other followers