Choose an author:

Time for the CIO as Chief Integration Officer?

Time Jumper by h.koppdelaneyIt seems that more people are starting to take a serious interest in the future role of the CIO. This is something that has been very close to my own heart for the past five years or more.

My POV is that nobody needs a Chief Information Officer, the role has never been properly resolved and is therefore most often poorly implemented and misunderstood.

A few years ago I set out the prospect of the CIO as Chief Integration Officer – and I think that the time is coming when this role will begin to get real traction, as more and more CIOs recognise the potential value of a job that has a genuine need in every organisation, regardless of scale or sector.

:mrgreen: In my definition of the Chief Integration Officer role, the CIO is responsbile for ensuring that the organisation is coherent and congruent, internally and externally. This is a powerful but easily understood definition.

You may also like to read:

re-inventing the wheel should be mandatory

Management by cliché is dangerous, if not fatal. But it happens. I am not in favour and I think that it’s high time we ditched a particularly dangerous but well-worn business cliché and accept that routinely and regularly re-inventing the wheel is a healthy practice, not a waste of time.
Don't re-invent the wheel by Michael_Reuter on Flickr

After all, where would the world be if our ancestors had decided to sit pat, once the early wheel had been invented?

Presumably, if resistance to progress and change had prevailed, our transport and technology would still be like the world of Fred Flintstone and Barney Rubble.

Thankfully, though, wiser counsel has driven the progress of technology so the wheel has been regularly refined and routinely re-invented, with widely recognised and appreciated benefits.

So why do we still use ‘re-inventing the wheel’ as a pejorative metaphor in our business dialogues?

Very often, in my experience, this has been a quick and dirty way of putting-down a potentially good idea before it has been properly expressed, let alone explored and properly evaluated.

Premature evaluation is a serious [but widespread] business risk, facilitated by the deliberate [but inappropriate] use of business clichés.

Instead of proscribing the re-invention of our business wheels, we should prescribe the regular and routine re-invention of every business process and system in our organisations.

Of course, to make sure this happens, we would not only have to build process reviews into our risk management regimes but also adopt quite a different mindset which genuinely values re-inventing the wheel.

What do you think?

:mrgreen: Re-inventing the wheel should be a badge of honour for every forward-looking organisation, not a forbidden thought.

No related posts.

Complexity Thinking by Jurgen Appelo

Outstanding slideset from Jurgen Appelo, my thanks to Tom Gilb for sharing the link.

No related posts.

Don’t fall for the IT hokey-cokey trap

A discussion on Linked-in, drew my attention to an article about Insourcing (bringing services back ‘in-’house’ from an external provider. The article is predicated on a market trend, apparently recognised by Industry Analysts in early 2011.

However, I think that insourcing has long been part of the service delivery cycle (aka the IT hokey-cokey: in, out, in, out, shake IT all about) whereby on a five to ten year cycle, service provision flip-flopped between internal and external provision.

For example, we did this (insourcing) at PowerGen back in 1999, bringing the East Midlands Electricity services into PowerGen IT from Perot Systems. I was the interim Head of IT for EME and had just over 600 FTE on my headcount, less than 10 of these were EME staff – the remaining hundreds were PSE.

I think the issue always remains right-sourcing, rather than a bald choice between internal and external providers. Effective service management requires a service broker model, which provides the business stakeholders with best value, regardless of cap badge.

:mrgreen:
Get more details
Over the years I have transitioned services for many clients and there is no cookie-cutter model for effective IT service delivery, every situation requires its own solution.

No related posts.

Apple’s iThings are a twist of good old business zest

I have long thought that Apple’s iDevices are the 21st Century Gillette razors: the value of the device is not in the initial purchase price (although paradoxically the devices do command a premium, rather than being heavily discounted/ given away) but in the life-time revenue streams they enable, i.e. paid apps and content.

So Apple has actually taken the Gillette model and given it a peculiarly successful twist – many people are blissfully happy to buy into a proprietary lifestyle.

No related posts.

Get the right names on IT Project Title Deeds

IT people can be difficult to understand at the best of times, especially when describing our beloved technology. But it’s even more confusing for everyone when we deliberately avoid using plain language for non-technical aspects of project management.

For example we still persist with the inconvenient conspiracy that allows IT projects to have highly visible ‘Sponsors’ but invisible or absent Owners. This can encourage poor performance and derogation of accountability.

Owners make decisions and take responsibility while sponsors usually have less direct influence, apart from funding the endeavour.

The concept of project ‘sponsorship’ is truly harmful, because there is no other field of human endeavour where the Sponsors are held accountable for poor performance.

:mrgreen: Every IT Business Case should have a clearly identified Owner and we should drop the term Sponsor from our business vocabulary.

You may also like to read:

Page 1 of 5212345102030...Last »