The Conundrum of IT Management

I found a very good paper entitled "The Conundrum of IT Management" by Professor Joe Peppard, the Chair in Information Systems at Cranfield School of Management and one of the expert reviewers of the Val IT Framework. His paper succinctly explains why CIOs find it difficult to generate business value from IT investments and why organizations must not seek to merely manage IT but manage the delivery of business value through IT - "a subtle but profoundly different objective."

The paper compares the portrayal of the IT function as an island, separated from the rest of the organisation, to an island off the coast of North America: California. In 1705, Father Eusebio Kino sparked a raging fire of criticism by publishing a map showing it as part of the North American mainland. King Ferdinand of Spain, in 1747 eventually stepped in and declared, "California is not an island." Even the King couldn't change some minds though; DeVaugandy's maps of 1770 show California sitting off the coast of North America.

Prof. Peppard asks, "Is the orthodoxy that hindered the recognition that California as an island a reflection of the same myopia that is affecting how organizations currently choose to manage IT?" Research clearly indicates that IT cannot be managed as an island but must be fully integrated with the mainland. "Are managers navigating from a map that clearly is erroneous, but for whatever reason they still chose to follow despite all the evidence that it is inaccurate?"

"IT specialists can build the technical infrastructure and systems, but can never deliver the changes in organization processes, work practices and business models that will ultimately see the creation of business value."

"The key challenge they face is marshalling resources and people that are not under their direct control yet are fundamental to the delivery of business value. One CIO summed up this quest as "fighting against the tide" – attempting to come ashore but being pushed back by more powerful forces."

"In posing the question, 'how can the management of IT be improved', the solution inevitably leads down a route that is inappropriate. The task is not to 'manage IT', but to understand the role that IT can play in the production of business value and to therefore manage the delivery of this value through IT. "

"Focusing improvement efforts within the IT function and is premised on a belief that "the problem" lies there. However, in posing the question as to how the value the organization derives through IT can be improved leads to an altogether different response."

Prof. Peppard points out that the genesis of this problem can be traced back to how organisations have been structured and managed into functional silos, though a process-oriented approach would better capture how the work is actually performed.

Research by Cranfield University's Information Systems Research Centre identified six information competencies that all organizations must possess if they are to have any chance of IT investments delivering value:

1. Business Strategy: Creating and communicating strategy for the organization and defining the role of IT;
2. Defining the Information Systems Contribution (IS Strategy): Translating business strategy into processes, information and system investments and change plans that match the business priorities;
3. Defining the IT Capability (IT Strategy): Translating business strategy into long term information architectures, technology infrastructure and resourcing plans that enable the implementation of the strategy;
4. Supplying IT: Creating and maintaining an appropriate and adaptable information, technology and application supply chain and resource capacity;
5. Delivering Solutions: Deploying resources to develop, implement and operate IS/IT business solutions, which exploit the capabilities of the technology;
6. Exploiting IS/IT Investments: Maximizing the realization of benefits through the effective use of information, applications and IT services.

"Seeking to improve the performance of the IT function is likely to achieve little. A central question must be, how do you begin to develop these six competencies?

"For far too long 'IT' has not only been portrayed as an island, but also managed as one; at many organizations it has been designed and positioned as such."

The paper's key points are:

• Traditional organizational structures, authority patterns, processes and mindsets make IT difficult to manage and actually contribute to the IT-business divide
• The knowledge resources needed to successfully deliver value are distributed throughout the organization, presenting a challenge for the CIO for its integration and coordination.
• With the CIO having little or no jurisdiction over all required knowledge, its deployment will therefore be fragmented
• The conundrum of IT management is how to generate value through IT without having access and authority over necessary resources.
• To deliver value from their organization’s IT investment, more engagement is needed from executives and users from right across the organization. [I suggest, it would be helpful not to wait 42 years for an edict from the King to reinforce this.]
• CIOs are attempting to influence people and decisions as well as encourage involvement and actions that do not fall into their realm of authority and are wrestling with aspects of the organization that can encourage behaviours contrary to creating value.

"IT is not an island, but a part of the mainland. Until this fact is acknowledged and recognized on the organizational map, organizations will continue to struggle to generate value through IT. Equally, the challenge is not to manage IT, but to generate value through IT." - Professor Peppard.

District Health Board software push

I read with interest an article in New Zealand's Computerworld about the NZ Health IT Cluster’s questioning of a Request For Information (RFI) issued by seven District Health Boards (DHBs) for a single patient management system and citing the challenged NHS NPfIT project as a reason to be cautious of this approach.

A point overlooked in this debate is the role of effective governance in the health sector. The article points out that there has been a failure to achieve interoperability through architectural standards, that the RFI is pre-empting the update of the national health IT strategy, and that a single IT system is already deemed to be the only solution– these are significant governance issues. What is going to be done differently to ensure that health sector, or even the DHB collective’s, IT-enabled initiatives will be successful in creating (and not eroding) ongoing value?

Reading the background on the RFI, it is very clear that the health boards place an emphasis on an IT solution, rather than how IT will be used, to deliver benefits. In the absence of sound governance, will anyone even be held accountable for realizing the claimed benefits? Experience and research has proved time and time again that technology is only part of the equation and that desired outcomes can only be achieved with full consideration of the required changes to the business model, business processes, organisational structures and culture, the way people work, and the involvement and commitment of all stakeholders. These are the areas where DHB collaboration must occur and it must be addressed as part of a whole programme of change within a structured and integrated governance framework.

Typically IT drives these initiatives when the clinicians won’t and that should be seen as a red flag — just as it was for the ill-conceived NHS NPfIT project. IT has the potential to improve health care but IT alone will not solve the problem of adoption. A survey found that only 62% of doctors think NPfIT will improve patient care and only 20% of consultants had a card to use electronic records. A US survey of physicians' adoption of outpatient electronic health records found only 13% adoption rates. How can the claimed benefits be achieved given these adoption rates?

Research by the IT Governance Institute is very clear on how organisations successfully create value from investments in IT-enabled change – there is:

• Strategic, leadership-sponsored commitment to IT governance—to align IT decisions with business objectives and to monitor performance with clear accountability for achieving benefits
• Recognition that IT is not just about implementing technology—it is about unlocking IT-enabled business change
• A structured approach to the governance of IT-enabled investments, based on proven practices for doing the right things, the right way, getting them done well and getting the benefits.

The Information Paradox

John Thorp's book, "The Information Paradox", is about the conflict between widely held belief that investment in IT is a good thing and the reality that this, all to often, cannot be demonstrated. My own experience as a CIO affirms the challenges and experiences described in the book. It gives valuable insight into what needs to change to realize value from IT investments and how to go about it. The book describes the Benefits Realization Approach in terms of three fundamentals and three necessary conditions aimed at changing the way people think and manage. It extends this approach with the concept of Enterprise Value Management to stress that the major effort and challenge that organisations must face is implementing not technology but change.

The three fundamentals of the Benefits Realization Approach are:

• a shift from project management to program management to produce clearly identified business results;
• a shift from free-for-all competition for resources to disciplined, strategic portfolio management; and
• a shift from traditional methods of tracking project delivery to full cycle governance to turn concepts into realized benefits.

The three necessary conditions are:

• activist accountability that includes the concept of ownership;
• relevant measurements linked to contribution to outcomes and to lines of accountability;and
• proactive management of change that is visibly led by senior management.

This book was a key source for many of the concepts used in the IT Governance Institute's Val IT framework.

I suggest these works support another paradox: the conflict between the widely held belief that IT alone is responsible for achieving value from IT investments and the reality that 80% or more of the change needed to achieve this value rests with those who hold this view.

Some hard hitting quotes below from the book demonstrate the challenges faced by CIOs:

"Management thinking has failed to understand the implications of the evolving role of IT in business and how critical IT decisions will affect elements of the overall business system beyond technology."

"The persistence of the industrial-age mind-set leads to what we call 'silver bullet thinking' about the capabilities of IT - and, more specifically, about the power of IT alone to deliver business results. Organisations rush to purchase IT 'silver bullets' in the form of customised business solutions, enterprise application packages and other ready-to-wear IT solutions in the naive belief that they come neatly packaged and stamped benefits inside.' ... the magic bullet theory does not tell us who should aim and fire the gun."

"An industrial-age management practice that encourages silver bullet thinking is the use of one-off business cases to support IT investment decisions."

"Another facet of silver bullet thinking is that most, if not all, of the delivery and implementation focus is on the IT project, with blind faith that any other required changes will fall into place."

"Decisions are generally made in the environment of a competitive free-for-all among stand-alone IT projects, each championed by an executive sponsor interested in pushing his or her pet project....the result is that too many IT decisions are made with no greater chance of success than the average gambler in a casino."

"Tough questioning is critical to get rid of silver bullet thinking and lose the industrial-age mind-set that is proving extremely costly to organisations."

"Senior business sponsors must take ownership of the program and accept clear accountability for delivering benefits."

"... in the case of enterprise application packages, our experience suggests that of the work involved in delivering benefits, 80 to 95 percent lies in the areas of organisation, processes and people - on the business side."

"CIOs will have to leave behind some familiar roles - like chief magician of information technology, and honourable head scapegoat!"

"Business sponsors must join CIOs in leaving behind some outdated roles...that of senior cheerleader, who waves magic pompoms internally as the IT team performs more miracles."