While not being an exhaustive list of the areas where the
focus can go wrong in a technology organization, this is
intended to point out some common and potential problem
areas within technology organizations. So, who manages the
CIO?
Early in the computer age, the "head of electronic
data processing" (that's what it was called back then)
would frequently report to the controller. The reason was
quite logical—EDP was used primarily as a tool to
assist the accountants in doing their jobs. With the need
for technology to become a major part of the competitive
strategy and the introduction of the CIO concept where the
function should report became a major topic of conversation
and was more than a little emotional and territorial. Today,
the trend is to have the position report to the CEO or the
COO. The rationale is that the information systems of a
company must span the entire organization and the person
responsible needs to take a company wide viewpoint, not
one that can be unduly influenced by any one function such
as finance or marketing.
Most simply stated, if the CIO is expected to bring together
disparate systems throughout the company and is to be viewed
as a resource to the executives who head the different functions
of the corporation, then the only logical position from
which to do so is from a spot on the organizational chart
which reports directly to the CEO or the COO. Skin in the
game is key here, for lack of a better way to put it.
Information Architecture and Strategy
Now that we know who manages the CIO, how is the
CIO's success measured and quantified. The CEO and COO share
the organizations' Business Plan, the VP of Marketing owns
the Marketing Plan, and the CFO is responsible for the Fiscal
Plan. Each of these individual's performance is measured
by their success in attaining the goals and objectives defined
in their specific plan(s). The CIO is responsible for the
deployment of technology to support and enable the direction
of the company as defined by the executive management team.
Information Architecture and Strategy? More simply stated
a living Information Technology business plan and road map.
A clear and concise document that articulates current and
future business strategy, along with the technology architecture
and strategy necessary to facilitate the defined business
direction.
This document becomes a critical component in communication
both to the executive level management along with the technical
resources of the organization. It is a three to five year
plan, with defined phases and goals and objectives for each
phase. One of the major objectives for this document is
to fully define how the business operations environment
will be supported by the Information Technology team. The
following diagram proposes a conceptual view of this operating
environment. It also helps define boundaries for specific
technical and functional support and potentially defines
who may be responsible. The lack of definition in these
areas and overlap of technical and functional support (or
lack thereof) tends to be where most organizations fail
in providing user support.
By specializing in providing common technical support and
by empowering the user community to be able to support the
functional aspects of the organization and specific application
software, the IT team is much more able to define what it
will support and how it will do so. Once what and how are
defined, user expectations can be set and managed and customer
service measured.
The Information Architecture and Strategy need not become
a major publication, more so an evolving knowledge base
and communication strategy combining business direction,
with strategic plans, technical architectures, staffing
plans, support methodology and measurement. Measurement
of the degree of success as to the attainment of goals and
objectives can best be titled the Technology Report Card.
The report card is a compilation of status reports on the
progress on goals and objects as defined in the Architecture
and Strategy document, along with information and statistics
gathered about the service aspects of the organization.
Technology Report Card
Once an organizations comes to terms with its' expectations
of services, both the specific services to be provided and
the levels of service provided, it becomes very relevant
to be able to measure the delivery of the services. Many
organizations currently make requirements of their hardware
and software vendors to provide certain levels of services.
Most often, the service levels are defined by Service Level
Agreements (SLAs) which define not only what specific services
will be provided, but also the level of service to be expected.
Sanctions may also be discussed in these documents for failure
to meet service expectations.
Why not use the same concepts internally? Measurement costs
money, but without it there is no accurate manner in evaluating
the success of internal support. By capturing data about
services provided along with the quality of the services
provided some very important organizational information
can be derived. Situations where services aren't being met
can be identified and addressed. Situations where users
are unrealistic in expectations and/or are taking unfair
advantage of support organizations can also be identified
and behavior patterns altered.
By defining the specific areas of support (as illustrated
above) into technology layers and functional silos or verticals,
the technology organization can define who's responsible
for support and then to define the specific levels of the
support. The potential exists for a blended support model,
utilizing internal (departmental) functional users as the
first line of user support, an internal (or external) support
desk for the first line of technical support, internal technologists
and external functional experts for the second level of
support, external technologists for the third level, etc.
By not being able to quantify quality and level of service
provided, many companies spend tremendous amounts of money
on internal support and never address the actual support
needs of the organization. Cost savings are attainable by
defining the true support needs, developing a specialized
support model that may be less than traditional, defining
support levels and measuring and quantifying the results
of these efforts.
Summary
It goes without saying, the CIO is now one of the
most critical components to the executive management team.
A solid organization under the CIO is critical for both
his/her success, along with strong skills as a CIO. A good
CIO with a mal-aligned organization is a major disservice
to the organization. Couple a strong service organization,
with a knowledgeable, strong and service oriented CIO, provide
a framework for measurement of their accomplishments and
technology can be a major enabler and competitive advantage
for your organization.
Jerry Witherspoon is the Owner and Principal Consultant
of The Application Group, LLC. In addition, Mr. Witherspoon
works in tandem with TMG Consulting augmenting their service
offerings by providing technical and project management
expertise. Mr. Witherspoon has over 18 years of technology
experience across multiple industry verticals including
Manufacturing, Post-Secondary Education, Managed Care (HMO),
Public Utility (Power, Gas and Water) and Oil and Gas. He
has held positions and served in capacities at the "C"
level from a strategic perspective, in addition to serving
in a tactical capacity, very "hands-on" capacity
as a Project Manager or System Architect. Jerry may be contacted
at jlwither@the-application-group.com
