ITIL Analogies

Analogies is an important tool in the communications portfolio. They can help explain complex phenomena or can help manipulate the perception of your audience.

How good are you at reading analogies? And can you notice that subtle point when from being useful an analogy becomes misleading? Try yourself on this example. And don't hesitate to write your thoughts in the comments.

ITIL is like Windows OS. You install it to get some basics to be able to work with your PC or notebook (i.e. IT organization). It has some crappy features: mediaplayer which does not satisfy your demands to watching videos, paint or photoviewer which do not provide you functions you need to view your photos and add basic corrections, explorer showing you only one folder while you want to compare, copy or move the content between two or more different folders. Still, those functions can meet your basic needs "somehow".

It is incredibly complex and non-intuitive. In case you see Windows for the first time, you without any doubt need a qualified specialist (external consultant) to find your way around and make things start working. Even when you have learned about it a bit (or a lot), you still can manage only basic functions on your own. And the more complex tweaking remains a sacred domain of dedicated professionals.

At the same time the OS provides the inevitable basis to be able to work with your PC. And without that basic functionality it is difficult to go on. But once you get a basic grip on things, you can add different other applications (read methods and frameworks) that fulfill your needs much better, look more friendly and are understood more easily. You install Picasa or FastStone for viewing photos, add MS Office (from the same manufacturer - e.g. Prince2?), install Winamp and your favorite video player for music and videos, maybe some very specific applications are added as well... Together they create your portfolio which helps in your specific situation. And the operating system - if it is working and stable - goes to the background and becomes an invisible commodity. You notice its existence only when it is loading too long or when it crashes.

One major problem here is that not that many people can understand all pros and cons of different applications and make conscious choice for the better ones. Some find this too complex, others do not care. Take the basic example of the web-browser app (you can think of ITIL analogy yourself here). Look at the market shares distribution and you will understand how many people have never thought of trying any alternative to IE. Should you still be an IT professional to change your browser nowadays? Maybe.

But can you do without Windows (ITIL) at all? - yes, why not. Just install a linux-based system or buy the competely different equipment set from Apple.

Will it be better? - I doubt. No matter how many drawbacks the major standard might have, it is still the standard. And it means the support by all additional services (whether applications or experts, frameworks and good practices). And it is those additional services - not the basic standardized foundation - which in fact bring you some real added value.

Focus on CIO

Different focuses, different opinions, different skills and tools portfolio's... By reading different books, articles or blog-posts you might create a strikingly different image of the position and role of a CIO.

The information technology is evolving on and is becoming less of something complex, strange and specific which only techno-geeks could understand. It resembles more of inherent and inevitable part of any business where every manager or executive must know at least a little bit about.

In the same way the clear trend can be seen in articles and opinions (and of course in reality as well). The role of a CIO is becoming less and less of something like a back-office function and more about strategic thinking, vision, understanding the drivers of growth and value. Technological knowledge and related skills might still be considered as a plus, but only if they don't interfere with the really valuable competencies of C-level position. Competencies like leadership, ability to think strategically, to convey and defend your vision, to sift out really promising innovation trends come to the forefront.

A nice recent article by Harvard Business Review "Should Your Next Job Be CIO?" illustrates the situation by referring to other studies, examples and self-explaining numbers.

"Gartner Inc.'s 2008 worldwide survey of more than 1,500 CIOs showed that over 50% held responsibilities in their companies outside IT, including strategic planning, operations, and shared services."

"almost 26% of the CIOs responding were executives who had never served in IT before becoming CIO"

Another example from the same HBR article shows that the current job of a CIO is not that much different of the one of CEO. Even though the transition from the CIO position to the one of a CEO are still rare in large successful companies (see examples here and here), it might not be the case in 5 or 10 years. And the responsibilities and values for both positions have very much in common already today.

So, whether you just consider a CIO carreer or have been working at this position for somewhile, don't forget to revise your skills and competencies once in a while and make sure that "soft" ones make a large enough part of them.

Business-IT Alignment - is it a proper name?

Business-IT Alignment has always been a hot topic among CIOs, IT managers and consultants. Alignment was in the Top-10 IT management issues from 1980 through 1994, as reported by the Society for Information Management. Since 2006 it has been the topmost important issue on the agenda of CIOs around the world according to research by Luftman.

According to McKinsey after the recession shaking the world in 2008 IT has become even more important to improving business efficiency and reducing costs across the enterprise. One of the main conclusions from their survey of 444 executives representing the full range of industries, regions, and company sizes around the world was that despite the economic crisis, leaders need to continue improving the integration of their business and technology strategies.

Every now and then you can see articles and blog posts arguing that 'Alignment' is not a proper name, that it does not reflect the core of the issue.

This argument can be traced in the scientific publications of the past. Alignment was not the only name in the literature. You could find it by the names of fit (Chan 1992); (Henderson & Venkatraman 1993), linkage (Reich 1993), and integration (Henderson & Venkatraman 1993), as well as bridge (Ciborra 1997), harmony (Luftman & Brier 1999), and fusion (Smaczny 2001).

The same argument is going on these days in the blogs, practice communities, on forums and in whitepapers. Some experts eagerly argue that other name should be used instead of 'alignment'. Other even say that we cannot talk about business and IT anymore, because business is IT.

Well, sure IT is not a golden baby among other departments supporting business, such as Finance, HR or Marketing. But at the same time IT is relatively young constituent of business and technology is changing very rapidly and frequently. This brings up misunderstanding and misalignment problem again and again. So, no matter by what name, the problem has to be addressed.

Personally I can agree with any of the names mentioned. Some of them really highlight specific aspect of alignment. Other show desirable ideal state.

However the whole concept and domain of alignment is so large and at the same time vague and undefined that narrowing it down will not bring much good.

You will not find the exact definition of alignment that will provoke no objections. Some call it a final state, desirable destination while other describe alignment as a process, an ongoing journey. Some see the problem in different language used by business and IT, while other say it is all about organizational structure, roles and responsibilities.

Alignment to a large extent intersects with other urgent topics and areas of attention, such as IT Governance, Information Management, IT/IS Strategy, Change Management... And in different sources you will find different opinions on what is a part, what is the whole, or whether they are just two different domains.

Besides, it is not only alignment between Business and IT. Vertical alignment of strategy, management and operations is not less important and forms a part of the whole 'Alignment' concept as well.

I believe that for such vague concepts there is no sense in adding misunderstanding and disagreement by introducing new 'better' names or just buzzwords. 'Alignment' is a historically formed term and it is the most accepted by experts and scientists.

Maybe it is not the best one. But, same as many other 'large' historically formed names with a large body of knowledge and multiple ideas behind, alignment has a name and it has a spirit, an idea. Idea of coming to agreement, consensus and mutual effort towards the common goal.

There is no formal certification or attemts of setting rigid rules and definitions concerning what is alignment, what belongs to it and what not. Until it happens (which is very unlikely) there is not much reason in trying to fight against it and promote other alternative names. If only for marketing or other very specific goals.