Do we first develop a need and look for an IT solution or do we find a new technology and then develop the need? And Does it matter? Does everyone need an iPad? Or (much to Apple's pleasure) do we find a need for it?
My opinion is you need to back up one more step. Its not about the product or the need when it comes to IT. It should first be about the business problem. I think this subtle difference costs companies a lot of money.
There are a lot of situations when I hear a request to provision a new application or customize an existing one. To me, this is like going to the doctor and saying you need bypass surgery and getting mad when he won't operate immediately. Wouldn't it be better to tell the doctor your symptoms before surgery?
The better approach for IT is to present the business problem or question that you are trying to solve. This will allow the IT team help determine the best solution. I have had at least one experience where technology had nothing to do with fixing the problem. It was a process issue. In other situations, we have been able to solve the problem without spending money on new software or hardware.
One final perspective on Justin's topic that goes beyond IT. I find it interesting when I see a sales person come visit someone on my team and a day or two later I hear about this brand new such and such we absolutely need. Interesting that we didn't know we needed it before the sales person got there.
Are we buying because they are selling or are they selling because we are buying?
Couldn't agree more Ken. I was with our IT people a few weeks ago and they were complaining about the executives that were requesting that they provide access to the companies network on their new Ipads. IT people are busy with several major initiatives and were explaining the complexity of providing a secure network connection on this type of device. Clearly the executives that approached them on this don't understand IT and how their meddling could negatively impact our business. The IT people were complying with these requests because of the position of the executives.
Companies must prevent actions like this from being allowed to happen. I'm guessing that the latest technologies are always ridiculously overpriced and the bugs are never totally apparent. Based on my conversation with the IT people, the company has several major initiatives that will consume significant amounts of IT resource time, money and effort. The new technology can wait, and while waiting the price will drop significantly.
I understand the points based on comments from Justin, Ken, and Phil but I would back it up a step further to apply it to our readings. There is IT in terms of day to day management of technology and then another component---a larger picture of IT strategy. Everyone needs an IPad if it fits into your overall strategy (IT Grid) but if it is simply a toy for people....
I believe the same concept applies when you are seeking IT solutions or simply responding to the competition. Is your business dependent on IT as a strategy or are you solving a process problem through IT solutions? A question to pose if it is the latter is "can I solve my problem with existing IT".
On a personal note: my company is still using Windows Explorer 6...we have no IT :-)
Ken, I think you are slowly learning that sales people rule the world. Isn't one of the things Jason taught us is that marketing/sales is about showing the benefits of a product. It's up to us as business leaders/managers to decide if the benefits fit into the strategy. You do raise a good point.
Phil - I would be interested to hear your perspective on who is at fault? Is the exec at fault for asking for access - setting the wheels in motion? Or is IT at fault for not putting a stop to it in a professional manner? Maybe it is the structure of the company, meaning who pulls rank. But I would hate to think your execs intentionally put your company's IT security at risk so they could play with their new toy.
While I agree that I.T. investment like any other investment should solve a problem, or provide value, the old “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” adage could lead to missed opportunities. How about constant improvement? Does there have to be a defined problem before we look for ways to improve a process or infrastructure? If a potential ROI or cost saving can be measured do we not have a duty to the stakeholders to add that value? I think that sometimes there is a need, and sometimes there is an opportunity, and sometimes executives just want new toys, it’s about making informed, (data driven) decisions.
To Justin’s point – did we NEED Mr. Fords fancy automatic cars did we just buy them because he was a crafty marketer which would have made Jason proud?
Remember that the “V” in MOT stands for Vision! The leaders who are strategizing the business plan for the organization must be ‘open to’ and ‘hungry for’ constructive IT opportunities for the future, albeit without derailing the business objectives.
You all know I am a proponent for workflow analysis however; it is not always prudent to maintain the current state of the process and modify the IT solution to fit it. – Paving the cow path comes to mind.
To Sueanne's point I met with the CIO of a major healthcare institution in Texas recently and he shared with my his categorization of the two types of failed technologies:
1) The electric fork: This is where you take a perfectly efficient tool that does exactly what you need it to do and add complexity for the sake of adding it and really add no functionality or efficiencies whatsoever.
2) The unpowered - Powered Screwdriver: This is where you buy an electric screwdriver. You never read the instructions and so you actually use it just like a manual one, tightening or loosening the screws, without ever turning on the power screw driver.
A good IT department paired with good management will separate the real opportunities from those that really only enhance the salesman's ability to pay for his kids' tuition.
I like Sam's point about not sitting back and taking on the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" mentality. Our company espouses this philosophy (thus why our accounting and inventory are still done with MS-DOS). Sam points out that yes, IT might work just fine day-to-day, but are you missing opportunities to improve? A lot of our resistance to upgrade is driven by fear of change, not by the simple idea that we should leave well enough alone. For this, I would say that in our organization, innovation and continuous improvement are definitely stifled!
My opinion is you need to back up one more step. Its not about the product or the need when it comes to IT. It should first be about the business problem. I think this subtle difference costs companies a lot of money.
ReplyDeleteThere are a lot of situations when I hear a request to provision a new application or customize an existing one. To me, this is like going to the doctor and saying you need bypass surgery and getting mad when he won't operate immediately. Wouldn't it be better to tell the doctor your symptoms before surgery?
The better approach for IT is to present the business problem or question that you are trying to solve. This will allow the IT team help determine the best solution. I have had at least one experience where technology had nothing to do with fixing the problem. It was a process issue. In other situations, we have been able to solve the problem without spending money on new software or hardware.
One final perspective on Justin's topic that goes beyond IT. I find it interesting when I see a sales person come visit someone on my team and a day or two later I hear about this brand new such and such we absolutely need. Interesting that we didn't know we needed it before the sales person got there.
Are we buying because they are selling or are they selling because we are buying?
Couldn't agree more Ken. I was with our IT people a few weeks ago and they were complaining about the executives that were requesting that they provide access to the companies network on their new Ipads. IT people are busy with several major initiatives and were explaining the complexity of providing a secure network connection on this type of device. Clearly the executives that approached them on this don't understand IT and how their meddling could negatively impact our business. The IT people were complying with these requests because of the position of the executives.
ReplyDeleteCompanies must prevent actions like this from being allowed to happen. I'm guessing that the latest technologies are always ridiculously overpriced and the bugs are never totally apparent. Based on my conversation with the IT people, the company has several major initiatives that will consume significant amounts of IT resource time, money and effort. The new technology can wait, and while waiting the price will drop significantly.
I understand the points based on comments from Justin, Ken, and Phil but I would back it up a step further to apply it to our readings. There is IT in terms of day to day management of technology and then another component---a larger picture of IT strategy. Everyone needs an IPad if it fits into your overall strategy (IT Grid) but if it is simply a toy for people....
ReplyDeleteI believe the same concept applies when you are seeking IT solutions or simply responding to the competition. Is your business dependent on IT as a strategy or are you solving a process problem through IT solutions? A question to pose if it is the latter is "can I solve my problem with existing IT".
On a personal note: my company is still using Windows Explorer 6...we have no IT :-)
Ken, I think you are slowly learning that sales people rule the world. Isn't one of the things Jason taught us is that marketing/sales is about showing the benefits of a product. It's up to us as business leaders/managers to decide if the benefits fit into the strategy. You do raise a good point.
ReplyDeletePhil - I would be interested to hear your perspective on who is at fault? Is the exec at fault for asking for access - setting the wheels in motion? Or is IT at fault for not putting a stop to it in a professional manner? Maybe it is the structure of the company, meaning who pulls rank. But I would hate to think your execs intentionally put your company's IT security at risk so they could play with their new toy.
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree that I.T. investment like any other investment should solve a problem, or provide value, the old “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” adage could lead to missed opportunities. How about constant improvement? Does there have to be a defined problem before we look for ways to improve a process or infrastructure? If a potential ROI or cost saving can be measured do we not have a duty to the stakeholders to add that value? I think that sometimes there is a need, and sometimes there is an opportunity, and sometimes executives just want new toys, it’s about making informed, (data driven) decisions.
ReplyDeleteTo Justin’s point – did we NEED Mr. Fords fancy automatic cars did we just buy them because he was a crafty marketer which would have made Jason proud?
ReplyDeleteRemember that the “V” in MOT stands for Vision!
The leaders who are strategizing the business plan for the organization must be ‘open to’ and ‘hungry for’ constructive IT opportunities for the future, albeit without derailing the business objectives.
You all know I am a proponent for workflow analysis however; it is not always prudent to maintain the current state of the process and modify the IT solution to fit it. – Paving the cow path comes to mind.
To Sueanne's point I met with the CIO of a major healthcare institution in Texas recently and he shared with my his categorization of the two types of failed technologies:
ReplyDelete1) The electric fork: This is where you take a perfectly efficient tool that does exactly what you need it to do and add complexity for the sake of adding it and really add no functionality or efficiencies whatsoever.
2) The unpowered - Powered Screwdriver: This is where you buy an electric screwdriver. You never read the instructions and so you actually use it just like a manual one, tightening or loosening the screws, without ever turning on the power screw driver.
A good IT department paired with good management will separate the real opportunities from those that really only enhance the salesman's ability to pay for his kids' tuition.
I like Sam's point about not sitting back and taking on the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" mentality. Our company espouses this philosophy (thus why our accounting and inventory are still done with MS-DOS). Sam points out that yes, IT might work just fine day-to-day, but are you missing opportunities to improve? A lot of our resistance to upgrade is driven by fear of change, not by the simple idea that we should leave well enough alone. For this, I would say that in our organization, innovation and continuous improvement are definitely stifled!
ReplyDelete