Harvard Business Review

Congratulations, Susan, this is great.

The McKinsey quote is particularly resonant for me. I learned a long time ago that when you have fewer processes, rules and policies there is room—and demand—for real leadership to show up.

Well done.

This pretty much sums up my frustrations in being a programmer. There is always either too much bureaucracy or too little supervision. Either a project is endangered by taking about 4 times as long as it should, or it's jeopardized by being run by idiots who don't think things through carefully enough to ensure that little things like corporate data aren't lost. Then there are end users that fail to understand that if an application has N features, then the complexity of said application grows by about on the order of 2N for the next feature. This isn't always true, but it's a good rule of thumb. What seems like a few simple changes aren't nearly so simple. My peers can be frustratingly childish in their approaches to problem solving. I see simple solutions with no chance of fulfilling requirements or hideously complex designs with far too much generality built in.

These problems, combined with the lack of any sort of cohesive career path for programmers, are why I'm looking to get out of IT and I'm willing to take a substantial pay cut to do so.

Well, not surprising. I am Computer Scientist by training, and an IT professional by, well, profession. I work for an IT Outsourcing company to boot, that too in India and supposedly in the 'senior management', 'innovating', etc. So, I feel like you are telling me in my face. All I can do is say, "I appreciate the frankness and candor and there is lot of merit in what you say".

But to be fair, everything you say is right and I have not heard this here the first time. I have many of my professional aquaintences, especially from business side lament about this fact. I patiently listen to them and answer them only when the outpouring of frustration is over and they actually ask this as a question wanting to know my answer. By now my answer has reached a level of consistency. It goes like this:

"You did not think about this about 10years back. You had IT as a support function not worth understanding. Now you are getting competition from upstarts riding of IT driven technology. You feel helpless because, the IT department has a 'Social Operating System" befitting a support group and that is not exactly what you want or need now. What is that you had done to be in charge of something which is so critical for you? There are many things you are frustrated about and you choose to complain about this, because it is important and you feel clueless and helpless. Don't you think it is a bigger risk that something so important to you is opaque to you, both at knowledge level and management level? Don't you think you need to take concrete steps to reduce the opacity? You don't have to answer me."

As an epilogue, most of the time we dont get into the same conversation again. Either they think it makes sense and started addressing it or they thought the answer was too prickly and direct and choose not to deal with that anymore. Either way, the answer stays.

first of all this is a good article. no because I agree with it but because it display the lack of information technology understanding. I believe that to make IT work for you, you have to understand IT first, or have a pretty good idea of that it is that you need IT for. most upper managers at best have a vague idea of what they want and somehow want IT to work for them. they all complain about how IT drains their budget but are not willing to live without email or a black berry. pretty laughable when you think of it. while I can understand peoples' frustration, I believe that some sophistication could help them. don't ask why a sky diver needs two parachutes if you never jumped yourself or don't understand the outcome of not having two parachutes. my observation running projects is that some so called manager have never learned IT and somehow want it to work for them. hello?

Both Vaidya and Luis have correctly highlighted that many business leaders lack an understanding of IT and, as a result, feel helpless and frustrated when challenge to leverage the asset.

I was told a story this morning of a business leader who is responsibile for managing SAP for her company and hasn't a clue what she is doing. She, like all bsiness leaders, should be held accountable for understanding how to manage the IT asset.

Like a parent raising reponsible citizens, IT has to help raise responsible IT citizens. Unfortunately, I don't see many IT organizations focused on this as one of their main goals.

How about you?

Susan,
I think you touched the hot topics:
. COMMUNICATION: IT has to put off the white overall, get out the datacenter and start communicating in a way 'others' can understand (and they can understand others)
. COMPETENCE: if technical skill is (often) present in IT departments, seldom is the route cause of problems. How to 'manage' these information systems is the key: requirements, communication, planning, people, team, vision ...
I don't agree when you say that IT people doesn't want outsourcing ... UNFORTUNATELY they often want it because they don't know HOW TO MANAGE their own staff. And so it's easier to blame a supplier that to take responsibility.

Finally, let me say that I still don't agree to much on the general spirit of your suggestions: they seem to be too much under the radar. I don't want to be perceived as someone who has to be tricked to be be worked with.

PierG
http://pierg.wordpress.com

I'm a business guy that works a lot with IT and have spent a large part of my career acting as the bridge between IT and "The Business". There's always room for marginal improvement, but - here's a scary thought - what if this is as good as it gets? My sense is that until some of Ray Kurzweil's singularity stuff starts to happen in the next 10 - 15 years complexity is going to keep growing faster than our ability to manage it.

The IT dept has been viewed as a necessary evil rather then as an enabler and it gets little attention from senior management. The senior management teams today are still Luddites from the 1970's and 1980's. Technology and business process optimization are competitive differentiators, but few management teams can rationalize or envision the value of refined business processing and the power of technology within their market place.
Your article highlights the "symptoms" of IT's position in many companies today due to senior management ignorance.
Toyota, the #1 auto and global corporate model of a well run business has achieved their status with business process optimization and enabling technology solutions. They get it.

I am the network admin for the company I work at and I'd like to share with you an I.T. point of view on each point you brought up.

1) If every manager had the ability to authorize projects involving I.T. assets, it'd never work. Every department in the company depends on I.T. to have working systems and always wants more functionality. That's great but we also have all the other systems to integrate with and also make sure that we have enough resources to run your new underwater basket weaving system. In short I.T. needs to be involved to make sure that what your doing is feasible from a systems admin point of view.

2) If you company is anything like our's, our I.T. department is 1.2% of the total workforce. Unlike everyone else we have support every single department which means every single user. If you want more face time, hire more staff, every company I've worked for is understaffed and overworked. Our department puts in more overtime then any other to keep the place running smoothly.

3) See point number one. You want new functionality but don't want to pay for it. I hate to tell you this, but software and hardware cost money, if its a specialized software, labor costs for consultants also come into play. The regulations for public companies keep changing, hence we have to keep changing to meet them.

4) Again refer to point number one. Different departments need new software all the time or want upgrades to existing packages. Hence the projects never end until the users stop requiring new items, being understaffed means longer until project completion.

5) The helpdesk is exactly that, help. When you contact them they are level one, our mantra is if it takes longer then 8-10 minutes to solve, pass it along up the chain and help the next person. You could refer to them as the secretary of the I.T. world. It's usually an underpaid entry level job. Just like you wouldn't make a new mechanic overhaul a car, the helpdesk staff is unlikely to fix major problems. Please be realistic.

6) I hate outsourcing and we try to handle all of our problems internally unless needed. I concede this point to you.

7)Running email for hundreds if not thousands of users is much more ecomplicated then running your own inbox at home. Not to mention spam filtering, dealing with other company admins, different server techonolgies, and a host of other interoperability issues arise.

Also why in the world would your I.T. staff be teaching you about myspace and other social networks (or blogging or any of that other non work related material). That kind of material has no place in the business and it's not I.T's place to help with personal internet usage unless it's business related.

8)Our I.T. department regularly completes upgrades (on time and on a shoestring budget) only to find the user has new needs or demands. Users generally will find some obscure problems and instantly the project is deemed a failure. I.T. has good news, you just need to listen and ask rather then criticize and tell.

In closing I'd like to ask you to consider this. When's the last time you thanked your I.T. staff for taking care of a problem. We regularly complete major system overhauls/upgrades with little or no thanks from the end users. The majority of I.T. professionals agree it's a thankless job with little recognition from non-technical users. Most systems professionals do this out of sheer enjoyment of working with technical objects and processes.

I can't remember the last time I heard the sytem was running too fast or "job well done on the company wide rollout of system xyz" or even a simply thanks for that matter.

We have had computers for 50 years in servicing research and education. 10 years ago the 'helpdesk' was called advisory service. Only the best skilled staff in various areas of computing went to the advisory service on a rota system. Almost every one came to the advisory service got their IT problems solved by the best people in the field on the spot. The 'helpdesk' did help people then.

The difference is that then there was no manager for the advisory service - every advisor was own manager who did understand IT needs of their users. Now we have three managers running the helpdesk with very complex procedures supported by a very expensive software system and staffed by under-paid workers.

It's not difficult to see how to make helpdesk helpful.

Susan,
loved your post.

Especially your honest look at IT all.

Comment: "IT is Stocked with Out-of-Date Geeks" got my best laughs, because it is so true. It feels unreal that me - a 24-year-old business graduate (Master's if it matters) - should explain anything to IT professionals.

It's unreal.

The second best was "Their Projects Never End". Well, that's IT. Even I have learned that. But I actually appreciate this attitude - we are never good enough, never done. I'm loving it. ;)

Good article; the follow up to this (8 Reasons You Should Love IT)is also "brutally honest" and much needed. I have to say, from a manager's viewpoint, that I take offense to the comments (presumably by IT folks) implying that management should not only focus on the client's needs, the employees' well being, and maintaining the influx of revenue needed to support the company, but that we should also learn how to do the job of an IT analyst/programmer so that we can "better understand" the complexities that cause the problems. Isn't that the purpose of having a dedicated staff of IT?
My opinion is that IT has become the over-indulged grandchild of too many choices and not enough supervision. We ALL have deadlines and ALL have the challenge of working in an on demand workplace. The project (people/time/money) management skills just seem to be missing from this particular demographic of people, and since we can't make the need for IT go away, we (as the ungrateful user community) have to realign our expectations to that of mediocrity.

Susan.

I've tried to find something +ive about your podcast in case I was missing something but I still came to the same conclusion that you are completely talking out of your hat.

Your complete incomprehension the the complexity that IT deals with is profound and speaks volumes of your lack of hands-on experience.

The ONLY thing I have ever learned working in IT for 20 years is that IT fails when there is a lack of accountability.

Susan - I really hate to be the grammar Nazi but you need to capitalize Byzantine as it refers to an actual civilization in the Middle Ages.

Now, regarding the content of your article…I started in IT and have since moved to Strategy and Marketing roles so I have experienced IT from both perspectives. When I was in IT roles it was exceptionally clear to me that only two grades were possible. If everything went according to plan (and it never does) you received a “C” as this is what is expected. If anything went wrong you received an “F” and the business folks lamented that you just don't understand what they need.

Now that I am in more core business roles it is easy to point the finger at IT when they, “just don’t get it” but it is clear to me that most companies do very little to ensure that their IT employees actually understand things like markets, products and competitors. The blame for this falls on the very leaders that often are IT’s biggest critics. As we are all aware, it is much easier to point out problems than actually solve them.

My biggest frustration with IT is that they tend to consider themselves IT (in a reactive mode) rather than embrace the business proactively, and they stifle the creative entrepreneurialism that is critical to advancing the state of the business. ErikZ's post is a perfect example of that. For example, he asks "why in the world would your I.T. staff be teaching you about myspace and other social networks". Perhaps because it can be part of a talent and retention strategy for an enlightened HR department, or a new way to market products, or.....

Technology strategy (not the strategy for an organization's internal technology but how technology can enhance the business strategy) should be a critical part of every business decision. There is little business done today that is not impacted by it. IT should not just carry out specific needs, it should creatively partner to explore what SHOULD be done.

I think you are on the right track here. I think most people in IT organizations would agree with you that the bureaucracy is an issue. Due to the immense fear of duplicating effort across divisions, bloated processes emerge that ensure that overall delivery times for projects.

I help organizations completely break down the imaginary wall between IT and the rest of the business. With a very small corporate level group providing architectural guidance, and the use of "cloud services" to support infrastructure, most IT resources should be deployed into the business to function as embedded technologists. By actually focusing on the objectives of the business, instead of being a cost center, the problem disappears. When business units can collaborate to save money, they do it. They aren't dependent upon a central authority to make those decisions for them.

Unfortunately, there have been a lot of superfluous people in IT blowing a lot of money- and a lot of entrenchment. But that's just more places for me to fix.

I read something like Erik Z's comment "7)Running email for hundreds if not thousands of users is much more ecomplicated then running your own inbox at home. Not to mention spam filtering, dealing with other company admins, different server techonolgies, and a host of other interoperability issues arise."
and I immediately think- fine, I'll let Google handle that.

I believe that the root of these problems rests in some of the ideas posted here. The idea that the business should learn IT is typical of technical people and completely misguided. IT is a service organization that has no reason to exist outside of the business context. It is IT's job to understand the business and learn to deliver technology as a service with interfaces that the business can make sense of.

Ask most IT managers what they deliver and you will get an answer that roughly says "IT delivers IT stuff." Is it any wonder that the business looks down on IT? We can't even articulate what we deliver as a value proposition. Perhaps if we knew a little about marketing and accounting we could actually describe what we deliver in value terms to the business and possibly even be able to articulate a reasonably accurate cost to the value proposition.

We in IT seem to have an inflated view of our world and look down on people who do not understand technology. It always amuses me how a twenty something tech geek on the help desk can talk down to someone who may be twice his age, have a professional degree, and be in the top of his/her field.

Technology can be delivered as a service either insourced or outsourced. We can create accurate cost models for not only building technology but also operating it over its lifetime. Its long past time that IT grows up already, learns something about business, and becomes a professional contributing member of the business.

"The idea that the business should learn IT is typical of technical people and completely misguided"
Yes, but then please don't complain. Go away. You are talking about stuff you do not understand and I can't take you seriously.
There is a Dilbert cartoon where the Pointy Haired Boss doing a project estimation, claims that everything he doesn't understand is simple and goes on: "Creating a multi-tier architecture for multiple channels ... that will be three minutes".

Do you listen to your IT department when they tell you, that doing this project in this time frame will make maintenance difficult? No you won't, you say that "they stifle the creative entrepreneurialism that is critical to advancing the state of the business"
But would you skip maintenance on your car knowing that the risk of losing a tire will increase every month?

You do not listen ... and then you complain. You create christmas wishlists and then you complain about not getting everything and especially not getting the thing that wasn't on your list. But that was obviously needed by you.

So don't learn about IT but make it _your_ responsibility that they understand your needs. Would you have an architect build your house without checking the plans making sure that he understood your needs, without regularly checking the progress? And Would you then expect the architect to move supporting walls after the roof has been erected?

Very insightful blog Su ... I especially like it that you have walked both sides of the fence. I am in IT myself and take the matter close to heart. One of the first big issues with this from IT's perspective is the knee-jerk reaction to dismiss and explain away all of Business's complaints - in other words, refusal most of the time to take responsibility for their own part of the problem.

The root cause of all this to me is that both IT often fails to understand that it doesn't exist for its own sake but to serve the interests and needs of the business. To do that, IT needs to understand how business works, how it makes money, and other issues that are important to business. Secondly, not just senior IT leaders but IT middle and junior management must be involved in the strategy formation and execution business and be required to tie ALL their IT goals to measurable business objectives.

My quick take on the 8 points
1. IT Limits Managers' Authority : It should, especially if the manager wants to ride solo - because then, he is going to engage IT projects that IT will end up having to cleanup and possibly take the blame for should they fail. And also, bureaucracy in and of itself is not a bad thing ... the challenge is to make the bureaucracy and efficient one.

2. They're Missing Adult Supervision : If IT managers are required to show proficiency at the specific business needs they are supposed to serve, then perhaps this wouldn't be an issue. Question is how? Perhaps targeted in-company trainings to get the IT managers up to speed on the business essentials, AND another session with business so they can understand each other. That exchange between IT and business leaders should be on-going.

3. They're Financial Extortionists: Only if you don't require IT managers to make business cases for all their projects AND be able to account for IT spending just like other units. Just don't introduce so much inefficient bureaucracy that it stifles the ability to get things done.

4. Their Projects Never End: This again is the results of poor project management skills - not a typical skill IT people want to pursue. To be fair to IT, research suggests that most projects suffer from that dilemma.

5. The Help Desk is Helpless: If there is a proper structure that all parties understand, then responsibility for issues shouldn't be a matter of politics.

8. IT Never Has Good News - or more accurately, they don't know how to market themselves and 'spin' things.

Hi Susan,

It is great that you are touching this points and opening the discussion. I guess I got here a little late here but I will write anyway.

From my perspective, IT is not doing any worse than other departments. On the contrary, the difficulty here is that a lot of times IT fails to show its value and to point out where problems really are: business departments that are not committed. And how to show that if IT is under a CFO. Even worst, isn't it?

Points to consider:

1. Focus and investment - Does your company choose the right investments to make and kill those who prove not to be right timely? See that I don't refer to IT here.

2. Clear objectives - Does your company really have an environment for successful strategic projects to be implemented? Does it have a clear direction for expected level services for their departments, divisions? Does it make sure that their manager will have such a public plan attached to their performance evaluations regardless if IT, finance or HR?

3. Responsibility - Does IT have the right people to handle the portion of the changes in strategic projects that IT and everyone else is responsible to deliver? Where are senior managers when they are needed and why they come late to the party?

4. Accountability - Does your company keep track on how many times 'business' departments delay their portion of the work that eventually will burst in the very last phase: IT support systems implementation plans? Will just IT be held accountable eventhough the production manager failed to find a key person to join the 'IT' project?

5. Authority - Has the CEO and the CIO real authority to question business plans and to influence and block business projects that are obvious failures or become failures? Bad projects disturb the focus on real matters to be addressed wasting time, people and money.

6. Level of Service - It is very often that I see people complaining about poor IT services. What they forget is to question how tolerante the company is with other poor performances that eventually end up in generalized incompetence. Does your company really measure the level of service and objectives of all departments?

Finally, I think it is a managerial problem but definitely a general one. Not just an IT problem. Hard is to find a CIO that knows how to navigate in thise blur route with his management team.

certain industries (law, insurance, etc.) are notorious to blame IT for their own lack of desire to include IT as a strategic partner in the business mission. Reality is that the culture of some businesses are staunchly controlled by production (Widget/Service/IP) or agenda (innovation/change management/market action and reaction) and still feel that IT is a necessary evil to what drives the business. They are half right. The goods are whats good, but IT is the chief delivery model today no matter what your agenda internally or externally, and the sad truth is that IT becomes a scape goat due to managers that have no idea how to fully integrate IT into business delivery.

There seems to be a pervasive “cost center” mentality placed on IT from executives in certain organizations, and then a resulting passive animosity that seethes below the surface and emanates from the line managers and their teams or the user groups and communities within production sectors of the business.

The “8 things they hate about IT” are really the 8 things they hate about their culture. It is reflection of the approach to innovation within these businesses.

Typically there is a poor understanding of who and what it is and typically the complaints are coming from an entity that a a culture only notices IT when they “get in the way”.

However, there are companies that have not only embraced IT as a strategic partner to the business but have used IT as the chief enabler via components like BPO, Architecture, applications (CRM/Portals/ECM) etc.

Companies that have done this have created channels within IT and cross functional project managers to align IT tightly with business and the user communities and hence these are the companies that the HBR writes about frequently in it’s blog posts about innovation.