Posts Tagged ‘Web 2.0’
Internal IT must extend reach beyond ITSM
When I think about the various IT Service Management, or ITSM, frameworks (a collection of best practices) I am concerned that they are very heavy on a contractual mindset and very light on a relationship mindset. I am not saying that we don’t need service level agreements or any form of commitment from IT to their customers. I am saying that if a contract is all you have for a relationship with a customer that relationship is destined to become adversarial very quickly. I am saying that IT must have an informed consultant relationship with all of their customers. To do that a number of things must happen.
What are the roles?
The diagram above summarizes the major components of a successful collaborative relationship between IT and its customer base. First, we must be clear on our definitions. Customers are simply those people who consume IT services delivered over some IT infrastructure. IT simply refers to that group responsible for providing for the IT needs of their customers. The business domain skills pool is a little less simple. It is a group of domain experts, either dedicated to such a pool or contributors to that pool virtually. These people are also IT customers themselves. Of course, the IT group is also their own customer. The diagram shows each group overlapping with the others. That is intended to reflect the close working relationships which require sharing some common vocabulary and concepts.
Cross training
I believe this to be core to success. In order for communication and collaboration to happen, everyone involved must share at least some core vocabulary. There is always a challenge to get hard core IT folks to learn business topics, whether it’s manufacturing, service, or consulting skills. It’s also always a challenge to get hard core business folks to understand enough IT vocabulary to have informed conversations about new topics like cloud computing, virtualization or security. Neither of these groups needs to be experts in the other’s field. They just need to be able to have intelligent, informed conversations and collaborate.
Those customers not involved in the domain expert pool also need some education but at a much higher, more general level. They primary obligation is to be able to clearly articulate their needs to IT support staff. The domain experts also need a high level understanding of Web 2.0. They will also need to have a general understanding of Web 3.0 as it occurs.
BPI consulting
This brings us to the discussion about the basic behavior of IT staff as they collaborate with their customers. Those “front line” IT folks must earn the trust and respect of their customers. They must be good partners and team members as the business works to improve their business processes (BPI), using IT tools to their best advantage in a way that makes business sense. I have always liked the analogy of an artist. It is the responsibility of IT to understand a broad range of IT tools (the palette) but also how they can be applied to solve business problems (painting on a canvas). Not all IT people need to be able to do this but a few must have that level of understanding.
Conclusion
The preceding discussion is above and beyond the formal notions of IT operations required by the ITSM frameworks. My point is about relationships, not just contracts. We need IT to make and keep their performance commitments to their customers and to employ best practices where ever it makes sense. However, we should extend our vision of IT’s responsibilities beyond formal contractual and procedural constraints. At the end of the day, success ultimately comes through relationships between people.
Thanks to being here. Stay tuned…
Alignment to the Core
Let’s start by being very clear. For any business everything must ultimately align to the success of that business, period. That being said we can now focus on how all of the various pieces that make up that business must align with each other. At a high level, it is obvious that all business activities must support each other for the business to be successful. However, what I have observed over the years is that alignment is easy to get lost in the multitude of daily pressing details that we must deal with. This thought was best captured in Stephen Covey’s book The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People. In this book there is one diagram that has stuck with me over the years because it is direct and simple. It is shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1 Covey’s time management matrix
For more information on Covey’s teachings look here. In this diagram we see Quadrant I as the place where most of us spend much of our time. Quadrant II is where we need to spend most of our time. We need to manage our time such that we can spend more of it thinking about planning, relationships and collaboration. Spending our time here is where alignment happens. We won’t spend any time on Quadrants III and IV. We are wasting our time there.
So what else do we need to consider when aligning our business operations? I argue that we must first understand that all things technology can best be represented as a circle bisected into two parts. One part includes the tools; the hardware and software that enable our business to function. The other part includes how those tools are used to deliver real benefits to our business. Each of those parts is dominated by very different states of mind. Historically, IT has focused on tools and the business users focus on their application. There is overlap for each group as shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2 All things technology and interest groups
The overlap between the interests of those two groups is important. The end user group must understand the tools well enough to know what can actually be accomplished in a reasonable period of time and the IT group must understand the needs of the user group well enough to deliver useful tools. Orchestrating the communication between these two interest groups is an ongoing activity between end customers of the tools and those people who must deliver those tools to the marketplace. It is a painful and inefficient process constrained by the financial interests and negotiating positions of each group. It’s beneficial to each group to make this process more effective.
We must also consider the methodologies that are needed for the alignment of business improvement work. For this we will focus on two of the most representative methodologies for their respective interest groups. For the tool provider group we will use RUP, or Rational Unified Process, as the most used (in its multiple variations) and for the end user community the BPM-based methodologies. The overlap diagram is shown in Figure 3.
Figure 3 All things technology and improvement methodology overlap
The key difference here is that BPM is about addressing what business processes are needed and the functionality of the tools each business needs. On the other hand, RUP is focused on the effectiveness of software development. Delivering business process improvements will consist of new capabilities delivered by some combination of revising the current tools used by the business, buying new software and writing new software. Neither BPM nor RUP alone is suitable for doing that, so managing the overlap between those two families of methodologies is crucial.
Finally, there is the overlap between those groups responsible for the day-to-day operation of the tools and those responsible for their daily application. That overlap is shown in Figure 4. 
Figure 4 All things technology and daily operations
The group responsible for the delivery of those technology tools to the business, either internal IT or external, hosted providers is represented by the ITIL, or IT Infrastructure Library, framework. The group responsible for the daily use of those tools is represented by the various continuous improvement frameworks, such as Six Sigma. Each of these groups needs some framework around which to manage daily operation and incremental improvements. Again, managing the overlap of these two interest groups and their frameworks is extremely important.
In each of the cases above, managing the overlap of the various interest groups is a matter of ongoing communication. That communication must happen within an oversight group composed of representatives of each of the interest groups with shared vocabulary and skills inventory. None of the groups need to be experts in the other’s fields but they must commit to understanding the basic needs and issues. This can be a challenge in most organizations but it is vital if the business wants to improve.
Alignment is important and complex. It requires a commitment from a business’s leadership to insure ongoing communications between the core groups within the company. It requires a commitment to include vendors, external service providers and other external stake holders in that collaboration in a meaningful way. So how do you do that? The options are growing every day. There are portal frameworks, like SharePoint and WebSphere. There are peer-to-peer tools, like Groove and Notes. There are Web 2.0 tools, like Huddle and Zoho. The list goes on. Regardless of what tools you use, the ongoing collaboration between the consumers of technology tools and the providers of those tools, both in improvement activities and ongoing daily operations is vital.
Thanks for your attention. Stay tuned…