Concern for the ITSM Industry

Recent trends have brought refreshing news that the dark and bleak winter of our economy is beginning to wane. And I hope that the future continues to grow brighter and warmer every day. But I know that the long awaited news of a brighter tomorrow can turn attention from fundamental issues and undercurrents that can easily become established without intentional reflection and examination. And I also know that unexamined issues can result in unintended, yet significant long-term implications and challenges.

At the beginning of an apparent economic upturn, I propose an intentional reflection and examination of few fundamental issues in the IT Service Management (ITSM) industry that cause me great concern. I am not calling for any specific change to counter or resolve these issues. In fact some of them are just inherent in the nature of the industry. I am, however, calling for an intentional awareness of them and a purposeful consciousness about addressing them. And I am hoping that a conversation will ensue.

My concern revolves around four interrelated issues that I believe put the integrity of the ITSM industry (and its associated claims) at risk. I feel that each of them deserve noting on their own. However, it is the combination of them that causes me to put pen to paper (or finger tips to keys).

To be clear, I am not trying to sound like a harbinger of gloom and doom. I am not pointing the finger at anyone. And I am not setting myself up as the industry watchdog and whistle-blower. I know that my reflection is based on my own experience (though I have run these thoughts by others), and that I can not claim to know all that is going on. I am simply articulating a concern for our industry that I believe warrants consideration.

My concern involves the following issues:

1. At present, there seems to be an unhealthy influence on our industry by the organizations within it that are driven by profit-oriented objectives and product-based solutions.
2. We have done an inadequate job establishing the appropriate perception of the framework within the market in terms of its strategic versus operational nature and purpose.
3. We are trying to establish thought leadership within a market that has a specific and overt interest in commoditizing technology solutions and services, while at the same time recognizing that technology and business integration is accelerating.
4. By its very nature, the target ‘buyer’ of ITSM (broadly the IT function and specifically the CIO heading it up) is inclined to and looking for implementable technology solutions as opposed to adoptable and adaptable frameworks of best-practices.

I explore each of these in more detail below.

The Profit-Oriented Interests of Product Providers

I will begin with a very strong statement. One I think deserves to be said directly. I believe that the powerful position of the product providers (as profit-seeking enterprises) is in many ways confusing our market, hurting customers and chipping away at the very framework they are using to boost their revenues. I speak here to the technology product providers specifically.

Now before anyone takes up arms, I again note that I am not pointing the finger at any specific organization or even the provider segment of the market as a whole. In fact, I appreciate their attentiveness to the industry, and the funding they have provided in lean times. But I am concerned with the subtle message being sold and the longer-term results on the market that is buying it.

When organizations undertake the effort to implement an enterprise-wide operating model like ITSM that is based on a framework of industry recognized best practices, they commit to a very serious and very complex initiative. It incorporates a technical platform to be sure. But that technical platform is not the primary aspect of the framework.

The most important aspects of the framework – and therefore the ones that really define its value and enable the realization of its value – are much more strategic in nature. These relate to intentionally defining a cogent vision and purpose, strategically aligning the vision to the operational practices and initiatives for achieving it, defining the business value of services, facilitating culture shift, driving organizational change, establishing and adhering to effective enterprise-wide processes, adopting new paradigms, imbedding and attending to language and the meaning it intends, maniacally measuring success in terms of business performance, using tangible outcome-based performance information to identify and drive improvement, and constantly and diligently protecting a focus on value. None of these is offered by the product provider. In fact, in many cases I have found that the implementation of a specific technical product actually works against success in these critical aspects and require often expensive and painful gyrations to overcome the resulting discrepancies and challenges.

And yet the product providers are systematically shifting the market toward perceiving the framework itself as the tool. Fundamentally (albeit not-much-more subtly) they are saying “You want the best-practices of ITSM? Buy [insert product name here], load it … and wham bam … you got yourself a framework. Seriously, it’s all in there. Out of the box.” I have heard it. My clients have heard it. In fact some product providers are actually naming their tool as the framework (or parts of it)! It is misleading the market and the customers in it. And it is doing damage to our market.

Now to be fair, product providers just build and sell tools. And they build those tools to support the execution of a business process. It’s the client’s job to properly use them in the context of their own business purposes. I get that. And you might say “Michael, you are getting all worked up over a little thing.” But it’s really not a little thing. It has very significant ramifications.

At this point, let me interject two confessions. First, I have been around many implementation efforts associated with many different products offered by many different providers. So honestly my frustration is not specifically with any one client’s experience or any one product provider. It is with the market and mindset that we have accepted from product providers in general.

Second, this is a bit of a ‘soap box’ issue for me. But I strongly believe that it is important because I have seen this too many times. I am not saying that I see it ‘every once in a while.’ I am saying that I see it consistently. I have known too many companies go through far more pain and cost than they should have. Most have had implementation projects over run their plan. Many find money being dumped down a black hole (I have known of some in terms of millions). Some have even found themselves in worse condition than before. A few have actually yanked the product and reverted to a prior platform. In one organization, the entire perception of the ITSM framework itself was seriously hurt because the technology implementation effort was unrealized. And in all cases, the organization was trying to improve their operation by implementing a framework of best practices.

Two fundamental shifts have occurred in the past decade that are important to recognize at this point. The first shift involved a decision to follow the money. The product providers – feeling the pain of decreased spending in IT due to the market downturn following the frenzy of the 90’s – took up the mantle of the framework and reshaped their product strategies and market messages to fit it. That was because at the same time spending was decreasing in big IT technologies, the adoption of the framework (and investment in it) was skyrocketing. The product providers made a business decision to jump on the bandwagon. They are businesses after all. They branded their products with framework language. They reengineered their products to seemingly address framework concerns.

The second shift involved the absorption of credible thought leadership. Prior to this shift, many of the most noted experts in this industry-recognized framework of best-practices had worked in consulting organizations. Many of them were in small consulting organizations. They were not tied to any big special interest. They were independent. They were free to speak to the framework itself. The shift, however, occurred when many of these smaller organizations (or the consultants themselves) were acquired or consumed by large product providers. Now the very thought leadership of the framework itself comes with a product logo.

So building on the results of these two shifts, the product providers have now begun to set their sights even higher. Product providers have always offered implementation help through consulting services. In fact, that offering alone provides a substantial revenue source. Sometimes even eclipsing the price of the product itself. They have now, however, begun to offer consulting services in the framework itself. In addition, many of the product providers are building and offering training in the framework. Both of these endeavors are realizing mixed results to be sure. But the ball is rolling.

A side note that I find somewhat revealing: One product provider actually tried to acquire ownership of the framework. And another (recognizing that they were behind the pack) started roaming the halls of the industry muttering “it was really all our ideas to begin with it.” What I think is revealed is the perceived value of the framework itself to the marketing and sale of the provider’s product. If it wasn’t valuable, they wouldn’t waste any energy on it.

Ok. I am not naïve. I know that all of this is just business. The product providers have made business decisions to make money. That’s what businesses do. I understand that. My concern is where that leaves our industry and what it does to the companies trying to adopt the framework that I honestly believe will help them.

Misplacement with Adopting Organizations

The second concern has to do with the improper instantiation of ITSM within the market and the organizations that adopt it.

Let’s be honest, the ITSM framework is pretty complex. It represents a pervasive model for managing the business of IT top-to-bottom, end-to-end. And at all layers of management intent – strategic, tactical and operational. From front-office, business-facing strategies to back-office, platform operations and tools. Not just high-level fuzzy clouds on a mostly blank page either. It articulates an integrated framework of processes, functions, roles, tools and other operational practices within it. I find it difficult to point to any other framework of best-practices in the market which is that comprehensive.

It’s true intent and value, however, is often misunderstood by organizations lost in the weeds and just trying to get through the next week, month or quarter. And frankly, that is in large part our fault because we have done a less than adequate job of expressing its strategic nature and value proposition. In fact, we (as an industry of experts and suppliers) are not answering some of the fundamental questions that are being asked in our market.

We have reams of content, shelves of books, big hard drives full of the ‘how’ and ‘what,’ but when you start looking for the stuff that speaks to the ‘why’ … people start raising an eyebrow, twisting their lips and muttering something along the lines of “well, I guess I can put together something.”

The ‘why’ questions are going unanswered. In fact, in many cases they are avoided altogether (whether intentionally or not is not the issue here). I personally know of many organizations that are asking questions to identify the value behind and the reason for IT Service Management. Obvious questions. Real questions. Honest questions. And yet we often have to go ‘off script’ to answer their question.

We have loads of materials that are prepared as standard content to bring in to a conversation or engagement with a client. Standard stuff. Off-the-shelf stuff. The kind of stuff that is specifically created because we think it addresses the market needs. But, frankly, that standard content (and it is consistent with the content offered by most of the experts in our market) doesn’t really answer the pesky ‘why’ questions very well. That is why we have to go ‘off script.’

Our industry – the industry of the IT Service Management consultants, trainers and product providers – is not quite so ready to answer that question. We are poised to answer questions about the mechanics of IT Service Management (the stuff of ‘what’ and ‘how’). We have standard process maps, posters that show its structure and components, implementation plan templates, courseware, and product brochures. But we have to start getting creative when we are faced with ‘why’ questions.

Maybe we are too close to it. We know what benefit it offers. We know its value. We see it without really seeing it. We understand it without even thinking about it, much less saying it. It’s almost like someone saying … “well … clearly, you need to (fill in the blank).” For the person saying that, it may be clear. They know what it is, what they are saying and why they are saying it. But for the person that does not understand the language, or the background behind the statement, or the potential outcome of doing it (or not doing it), or the implications behind making that choice, or the cost-benefit analysis behind the options … or a host of other considerations … the answer is not so clear.

I am one of many people in our market that believe in and have some level of credibility in IT Service Management. We know it. We define it. And we can discuss the ‘how’ and ‘what’ of IT Service Management all day. But, honestly, that may be our very problem. We are so used to talking about the ‘how’ and ‘what’ that we can skip to it quickly and comfortably. Unfortunately, what we skip is the ‘why.’

I believe that IT Service Management offers the right answers. It articulates the framework for success. But why to choose it is not necessarily answered by a detailed discussion of what it is.

We are prepared to speak to - and sell to - those organizations that ‘get it’. And so our great materials about the ‘what’ and the ‘how’ work just fine. But we don’t do a good job of articulating value to those that don’t just ‘get it’ or even worse misunderstand it. And – sadly – that is the organization that can really benefit from it. Those are the organizations that we should really be talking to. Those are the organizations that should really understand what it has to offer.

The result is that many organizations adopt the framework for lower-level operational reasons that, though not inappropriate themselves, leave the true strategic and tactical value of it unrealized. They adopt it because they think it gets them a better way of getting this and that done (which it of course does). But that in turn influences how it is perceived within the organization. For these organizations, the framework is largely ignored by upper level management and the management of the business (sometime even with drastic results). It is relegated to the domain of the worker bees and the procedures and tools that control how they do their work.

It is like an organization adopting a proven methodology for managing projects and really only using it to upgrade their project plan template and get a job description for a project manager. In that organization, the project management methodology is not seen to have higher level strategic value and a place within the overall management of the business. It is seen by the staff as simply an operational tool supporting an operational activity that can be just as easily be done another way (if at all). Thus the real strategic value of managing projects is not realized, and the overall perception of the value provided by the framework is diminished. As a result, the framework for managing projects is not maintained and the results are poor. And the poor results lead to further degradation of the framework, its use and its place within the design for managing the operation to achieve strategic business objectives.

In the end, the failure of the framework is not due to the framework itself. It is due to the improper perception, definition and adoption of it. Its failure is self-fulfilling. The tragedy is that the framework itself is blamed. And even beyond the framework itself, there is unavoidable damage to the credibility and capability of the organization in adopting and instantiating defined practices (where or not they are based on industry-recognized frameworks). In these organizations, it is not uncommon to hear people say things like:

“Yeah, we tried that. It didn’t work.”
“This is just the flavor-of-the-month. I will wait for the next one to come out.”
“I will believe it when I see it.”
“It always starts with a big push. It will go back to normal later.”

To do justice to our clients and to the industry that we believe in, we must do a better job of answering the ‘why’ question. We must do a better job of articulating the value and reason behind ITSM. And we must do a better job of placing ITSM within its appropriate strategic context.

The Intent to Commoditize IT

The first two issues I explored were in large measure within our direct control – in terms of both creating and addressing them. The third is not so easily handled. The ITSM industry, like the rest of the IT industry is subject to a clear intent within the market to commoditize IT and the services that IT offers.

This is not whining. This is a reality. But this results in an apparent contradiction in the market that impacts ITSM dramatically.

On the one hand, the integration – and blending – of IT and the business is accelerating. That means integration into the very nature, objectives and strategies of the business. Examples from my own life (and I would guess that they are familiar to others as well) remind me that entire industries and supporting segments of these industries are so integrated with technology that it is hard to distinguish where the business ends and IT begins. Consider the following examples:

- Most of my shopping in the last couple of years has been at Amazon.com
- I have had thousands of financial transactions in and out of my several bank accounts in the past few months though I have only written two checks and I have been to the bank twice
- My traavel-based work life has resulted in several hundred instances of travel arrangements being made and changed in the past few months alone (air, lodging, auto, dinner reservations, etc.) without a single call to anyone

On the other hand, the clear industry intent is to commoditize IT. The market is looking for IT services that are plug-and-play and packaged. The market - as the buyer of IT services - believes that the commoditization of IT and IT services brings them many different advantages, such as an increased ability to control investment in IT, the ability to more quickly bring solutions on-line to support business needs, the realization of efficiencies in product integration due to standardization, and an overall cost reduction due to competition.

To be sure, this is not just driven by the buyer-based market alone. The IT industry has shown the market that commoditization is possible. Consider the following as examples:

- Plug-and-play scalability of platform components (such as storage modules, blade computing, server racks, etc.)
- Integration of interchangeable and personal end-user devices (PCs, printers, hand-helds, etc.)
- Grid computing
- Virtualization and shared infrastructure
- The development of multi-sourcing options

Neither of these realities rings a death knell for ITSM. In fact, in many ways ITSM was made for both. On the one hand, ITSM is uniquely and perfectly suited for managing IT services that directly and tangibly support the very nature of the business. And on the other hand, ITSM is exactly what an IT service provider needs to most effectively manage an IT service to achieve the business objectives of the clients. The issue lies not within either the integration with the business or the commoditization of IT services. The challenge to the integrity of ITSM lies in the combination of this with the other issues mentioned above – the interests of profit-making and product sales, and the failure to instantiate ITSM into its proper strategic context.

The Nature of the Buyer

The nature of the specific organization adopting the framework brings additional challenges. You see, (partially due to the failure to properly place it within the strategy of the business) the adopting organization is IT. And that makes it worse because IT is prone to see a technical solution as the solution to anything. IT designs, builds, implements and operates technology. IT finds needs for technology. IT is a hammer looking for nails. As so if IT is going to improve something, their inclination and their presupposition is to do it with technology. Words like ‘framework,’ ‘processes’ and ‘services’ are often merely used as new labels for doing what they have always done - design, build, implement and operate technology.

Familiar examples of this propensity abound within IT itself. Project management for IT is seen as and packaged as the implementation of an enterprise project management tool. Resource management for IT is really the implementation of an enterprise resource management tool. The realization of knowledge management in IT is promised through the selection of a knowledge management tool. Software development is seen as a package of integrated tools to manage the design, build, test and deployment of applications. And, yes, even the promise of ITSM is seen to be the implementation of an enterprise ITSM tool.

As I have said before, I know it is not the work of the product providers themselves, or even all of them. I am not trying to find fault or place blame at all. I am just very much concerned for the current direction of our industry and the underlying issues that are setting that direction. First, I note that the market that champions the framework is significantly flavored by product providers. Second, I believe that the framework is not being effectively articulated in terms of strategic instantiation within the adopting organization. And third, I recognize that the overall market mentality is to commoditize IT and remove it from the strategic conversation altogether. My concern here builds on these previously stated concerns.

Specifically, it is that the adopting organization (IT) is prone to look for technical solutions – first and only.

The pervasive product orientation of the market and the message of the product providers is giving these IT organizations exactly what they think they are asking for – a technical solution. Framework out of the box. And yet this is not really providing the help that an adopting organization really needs to succeed. It is not addressing the incorporation of ITSM within the strategy of the IT endeavor. It is not addressing the process issues. Nor is it addressing the culture issues. Or the organizational paradigm shift.

The message of ITSM is only one of many messages ringing in the market. And it is getting set into the context of – and becoming part of - the overall noise of an IT market clamoring for attention and customer dollars. It is the mix of messages in the market and the incorporation of the ITSM message within that mix, that has potentially dramatic implications for ITSM.

First, ITSM is being more and more articulated in terms of a product that can be implemented. By nature of the product market, multiple products exist within a common category. By nature of their being a product, they can be selected and purchased based on different feature sets and pricing considerations. Some are suites. Some are one-off point solutions. But either way, they are products that can be purchased and implemented.

Second, even the experts in the ITSM industry itself have not been effective at articulating the strategic nature of the framework and its place within the strategic management of the business. Instead, it has been understood as – and is being adopted as - a framework of processes to manage the day-to-day activities that exist at the lower layer of operational execution and control.

Third, the market is specifically and explicitly interested in relegating IT to the domain of ‘commodities.’ The business wants IT to be a set of managed capability that can be easily and quickly turned on and off, brought in-house and shipped out, scaled up and down based on the whim of the business.

Fourth, the target buyer of ITSM (in terms of most common) is IT itself. And IT, by its very nature, looks for discrete articulations of processes and tools to automate them.

Each of these on its own serves to mischaracterize ITSM. But the combination of them is much more significant. I am concerned that the nature, purpose, integrity and value of ITSM will is compromised. And that the best interests of our market will not be served.

Thoughts on a solution

I believe in ITSM. I have dedicated the last nine years of my professional life to it. I believe it offers value that is not offered by anything else. Beyond just project management, or software development, or compliance. Broad and pervasive. Adaptable, yet providing a consistent structure for effective use across the industry and among multiple enterprises.

Based on the breadth of the industry – and the applicability of ITSM across it - there is enough work for all of us. And all of us have a part to play. Trainers, consultants, strategists, product providers, assessors, etc. The interests of our clients and the market are served best by our coalition, not our collision. It is through our coming together that we accomplish more for our market, our specific clients and even ourselves.

I am saying that I believe our ITSM industry has a problem. I am not arrogant or ignorant enough to propose that I have the solution. So I am not proposing one. I am proposing that a consideration of the issues is in order. And I am proposing that a conversation is in order.

I am also suggesting themes or components that will have to be part of the solution, and maybe aspects of the process to arrive at it.

- There must be an intentional and overt dedication to the integrity of the framework itself, and not to attempts to use the framework as a label or as specifications for a product or solution.
- We must create a more consistent and clear articulation of the purpose and value of ITSM within the context of business strategy beyond its mechanical aspects
- There must be an increased emphasis on the alignment of the framework with higher-level industry needs and purposes, beyond the creation of specific solutions
- We must support the development of thought leadership outside of organizations driven by profit-making objectives
- There must be a more effective purpose-based cooperation among the ITSM stakeholder communities
- We must support a strong itSMF delivering recognized value as an industry association dedicated to the framework itself and emphasizing balanced accountability for its support

I am confident that some will disagree with my thoughts. In fact, I am hoping for it because I hope that a conversation will be engaged.

We Have to Answer the ‘Why’ Questions

Let me start by saying that I have a great affection and respect for the industry that I happen to be part of. I like my clients. I like my colleagues. I have a sincere fondness for them.

Let me also be clear that I believe strongly in the framework that I speak about, teach and consult in every day. I honestly believe that it offers value to my clients and to the market in general. I am thrilled to support it and extend it. And I am hoping not only to excel in extending its value to the market, but also to be a part of improving it and finding new opportunities for its application.

However … that being said … I believe we (as an industry of experts and suppliers) are not answering some of the fundamental questions that are being asked in our market.

We have reams of content, shelves of books, big hard drives full of the ‘how’ and ‘what,’ but when you start looking for the stuff that speaks to the ‘why’ … people start raising an eyebrow, twisting their lips and muttering something along the lines of “well, I guess I can put together something.”

A case in point … I spent some time this week with one of my clients that I am honored to support. I mean that seriously. They are an organization that I believe in. I take pride in supporting them. I personally believe that they make a difference in my life and in yours.

They are asking ‘why’ questions. They are asking questions to identify the value behind and the reason for IT Service Management. Obvious questions. Real questions. Honest questions. And I had to go ‘off script’ to answer their question.

I had loads of materials that were prepared for them by the vendor that brought me in to the engagement. Standard stuff. Off-the-shelf stuff. The kind of stuff that is specifically created because we think it addresses the market needs. But, frankly, that standard content (and it is consistent with the content offered by most of the experts in my market) doesn’t really answer those ‘why’ questions very well. That is why I had to go ‘off script.’

My industry – the industry of the IT Service Management consultants, trainers and product providers – is not quite so ready to answer that question. We are poised to answer questions about the mechanics of IT Service Management (the stuff of ‘what’ and ‘how’). But we have to start getting creative when we are faced with ‘why’ questions.

I think we may be too close to it. We know what benefit it offers. We know its value. We see it without really seeing it. We understand it without even thinking about it, much less saying it.

It’s almost like someone saying … “well … clearly, you need to (fill in the blank).” For the person saying that, it may be clear. They know what it is, what they are saying and why they are saying it. But for the person that does not understand the language, or the background behind the statement, or the potential outcome of doing it (or not doing it), or the implications behind making that choice, or the cost-benefit analysis behind the options … or a host of other considerations … the answer is not so clear.

I am one of many people in the market that believe in IT Service Management. I have been doing this for years. I have credibility in this space. I am friends with and colleagues of many of the best recognized people in the IT Service Management market. We know it. We define it. And we can discuss the ‘how’ and ‘what’ of IT Service Management all day. But, honestly, that may be our very problem. We are so used to talking about the ‘how’ and ‘what’ that we can skip to it quickly and comfortably. Unfortunately, what we skip is the ‘why.’

I believe that IT Service Management offers the right answers. It articulates the framework for success. But why to choose it is not necessarily answered by a detailed discussion of what it is.

We speak to - and sell to - those that ‘get it’. And so our great materials about the ‘what’ and the ‘how’ work just fine. But we don’t do a good job of articulating value to those that don’t just ‘get it.’ And – sadly – that is the people that can really benefit from it. Those are the people that we should really be talking to. Those are the people that should really understand what it has to offer.

To do justice to our clients and to the industry that we believe in, we must do a better job of answering the ‘why’ question. We must do a better job of articulating the value and reason behind IT Service Management.

[NOTE – yes, I do recognize that I am implicating myself …. ]

When it comes to information, start with the end.

On this tiny crowded plane to the next city in this crazy week of mine, I had to carve out a few minutes. Something came up today that I have seen too many times.

I met with a client today that is struggling with a misconception that I believe is running rampant through many organizations today. It has to do with a fundamental error in approaching the management of information and knowledge.

We have bazillions and bazillions of bits of data. (I know that is not a real number, but it makes my point.) We have more information than we can possibly deal with. It is everywhere. It comes from all directions. It catches up to us through our personal devices that we depend on for productivity and connectivity. Consider all those text messages, news feeds, facebook notifications, task reminders, meeting reminders, emails, voice mails, etc. They make your phone buzz at an almost constant rate. Information screams at us from signs on the road and through the radio. It streams constantly through our televisions – in a thousand channels and in HD. It comes from silly pop-ups on the PC I am using now. It comes from the major business systems we use to manage our day-to-day businesses and those of our clients – through notifications, reports, items in our task list, etc.

Seriously … how many in-boxes or points of personal interface do you have? I think I have approximately 15 in terms of voice mail, emails, personal sites, etc. (As a related side note … I spend more each month on connectivity for myself and my family than my family did on our mortgage when I was in high school.)

It never ends. And it is ever increasing. I remember reading something several years ago (I can’t remember where right now) which claimed that one daily New York Times contained more information today than a person would be exposed to in a lifetime just a few hundred years ago.

When I was a kid, I remember being incredibly frustrated that our family set of encyclopedias didn’t even mention the space program. They were outdated. And I thought, ‘How can I really be expected to learn anything from and use these stupid things!’ I honestly believed that I didn’t have the tools I needed. Today, my kids don’t even know what an encyclopedia is. The internet provides them an unlimited amount of information. It grows every day. And they even get to contribute to it. (The strangeness of the blog, for example, still amazes me.)

The issue for my kids – and the rest of us now - is not having access to enough information. That is a given for most of us today. The information is there. Everywhere. The real issue is knowing what information to actually use. And what information not to use. And how to use it.

Frankly … to get on top of it all … to really make sense of it … to find clarity in the dense dust of the data … we must recognize the real starting point - knowing what are we doing. It all starts with understanding what we are trying to accomplish, and therefore what data, information and knowledge that we need.

Therein lies the fundamental error of many organizations. They start with concerns for the information they have and then try to figure out what to do with it.

The fundamental error is focusing on a fascination with facts and not the need for knowing. Organizations falling into this common error find themselves struggling with massive amounts of information and data that they don’t know what to do with. They don’t know how to use it. They don’t know what to make of it. They don’t know if it is current and valid. They know it’s everywhere. They know it’s important. They know it can help them. But they don’t know how to get their arms around all of it and control it.

There is just too much of it. There are too many sources. There are too many repositories. There is too much fluidity. There is too much resistance from those that currently store it in discreet data sources and use it in their own unique ways.

And they are paralyzed.

So .. what do they do? They have to do something, after all.

The answer may sound counter-intuitive. It may sound overly simplistic. But it is the answer. In fact, it is fundamental to success.

The answer is to start with the end. And work your way backwards.

Start with first understanding what you are trying to accomplish. Start with identifying the need for information based on the purpose of the information. The need for the information – the purpose for having it – is imbedded in the achievement of a task … or a project … or a strategy … or an initiative … or a decision.

Then work your way back to the next logical question: what information do you need to do that?

Then, other appropriate questions logically follow as you broaden the scope of the inquiry to identify a broader solution:

• Where can I find it?
• How can I capture it?
• What do I need to do to it make it most usable for people that need it?

This approach ensures that organizations don’t waste time dealing with the collection, storage and management of information that is not needed in the first place. It ensures that organizations don’t focus their energy on self-defeating efforts and miss the important information that they really need. This approach ensures that gaps in information are identified and dealt with. This approach ensures that the value of information is realized in the day-to-day work of managing and optimizing organizational effort.

It seems simple, but it’s true. Start with the end.

For organizations that have them, a defined management framework or methodology can provide a context for answering the right questions and starting with the end.

• A project management methodology will help define the activities that require information for success in delivering the intended outcomes of projects, along the deliverables that will contain that information and the roles that require it.
• A software development lifecycle (SDLC) will provide a set of parameters for success in developing software successfully, including the requisite activities, processes, deliverables, etc. that require information.
• A service management framework (for example provided by the IT Infrastructure Library – ITIL) will provide a comprehensive framework for identifying, capturing, storing, transforming and exploiting data, information and knowledge to meet organizational objectives.

My suggestion is to start with the end. Now I just need to get to the end.

The point? Use the organizational strategies, methods, frameworks and processes that already exist and which define the work that needs to be accomplished. Once those are identified, work backwards.

[[ NOTE: This is the approach that is used for successful organizational learning and knowledge management as well. I would like to explore that in a future article about successful approaches to Knowledge Management.]]

Do we really want change?

The news just broke for me in this lonely hotel room in Colorado Springs. Every station has the same headline: "[insert network] Projection: Barack Obama elected President."

For some, a victory of hope. For others, a loss of faith. But whatever side you are on, we must all admit it is a new time for us. We have arrived at a point in our history where we have never before been. The times ahead of us truly bring us to new ground.

And wasn't that what we were all supposed to be wanting to hear? Weren't we all supposed to be wanting change? Isn't that what we all asked for? We all wanted things to be different, didn't we? Isn't that what brought cheers from both the red and the blue crowds? Both sides promised change. Both sides said things weren't going to be like they were before. So ... I guess we are going to get it. Aren't we?

And that got me thinking .... Did you get as tired of hearing about change as I did? I have to be honest. Maybe I am the only cynic here, but I am not confident that we really want change. And, as a result, I am not so sure we are going to get it.

Change is hard. Change is inconvenient. Change interrupts. Change demands. For change to be effective, it must resonate throughout its entire scope. It must be allowed to have its effect.

We know that. Down deep, we know that. I can't really change my life if I don't change my habits or my attitudes. We can't change our performance if we don't change our practices or our methods. And we certainly can't change our cultural norms and patterns if we aren't willing to change our opinions of ourselves and our beliefs.

Frankly my concern is that we are not ready for any of that. We are happy to talk about it. We are quick to call for it. We are comfortable with promising it. But we are not ready to do what it really takes to make it happen. And I see evidence of that every day as I work in organizations.

Organizations claim to want change just like the red and blue crowds. The banners of these organizations call for greater market share. Higher employee morale. Enhanced quality. Increased customer satisfaction. In reality, however, none of those are really change. They may be the results of change. They may be the benefits of change. They may be purpose of change. But they are not change.

That is where the first indication of the fatal incongruence is revealed. Organizations are quick to create compelling mission or purpose statements for change. Many even contrive wonderful labels for the change initiative, like 'Project Excellence.' Certainly none of that is necessarily wrong. But the label should only be put on something substantive. And that is the nature of the incongruence for many organizations. The purpose statement behind the change is vague. The strategy for achieving it is non-existent. And the solution (often prematurely chosen) is completely misaligned with the fundamental objective stated by the purpose.

So these organizations buy new tools. They redesign their logo. They train alot of people in the methodology de jour. They choose new fonts and colors for their marketing materials. They reengineer their sales message to use new market buzzwords. They reorganize their staff. The result is a lot of fanfare. The result is alot of distraction. The result is alot of new stuff that kind-of, sort-of sounds like it might mean change. But there is no real fundamental change.

And when that becomes evident, we do it all over again.

Have we become afraid of change?
Are we too lazy?
Are we shortsighted?
Have we lost sight of anything that is cogent enough to compel us?

Maybe all of it is true.

That is why we need a bold leadership. One that can articulate a clear and cogent purpose. One that can design a tangible strategy to realize the purpose. One that can engineer solutions that support both the purpose and the strategy. And one that can facilitate the change necessary to see it through.

If we are going to realize our vision ... if we are going to achieve our goal ... if we are really going to get to where we want to be, we must embrace the fundamental reality of change. And we must be willing to address the barriers to change.

Otherwise, forget the initiative. Save the money and the goodwill. Don't get everyone all excited about a new reality, and then fail to provide the bold leadership to see it through.

That is as true for our organizations as it is for our nation.

a hope ...

I have never been a confident author. Frankly, I have always struggled with formulating words and putting anything into print. It feels too ... complete ... final ... done.

I know that sounds strange for someone who makes a living out of speaking, writing, teaching and consulting. But, it's true. For me, there is always something more to refine. Something more to explore. Something more to add. And ... well ... you get the point.

However, a couple of my dear friends have recently reminded me of something very important.

I have always had a passion for dialogue. I have always been an initiator of dialogue. And I have always had great faith in conversations that matter.

My purpose - and my hope - for this blog, therefore, is the dialogue itself. To help get it going. To help move it along in some way. And to enjoy it immensely.

I very much hope you will join me in it.