Three Strategies of CIO

A nice quality of any really good generic model is that it can be relatively easily translated from its original area of focus to any other domain. In this way a model from organizational management after minor adjustments can prove helpful for finances, knowledge sharing or innovation management domain.

MS Word in its SmartArt function (even though I don't like it) has many recognized patterns for the commonly used model shapes.

Models in the form of pyramids, value-chains, lists or matrices are used everywhere. But appropriate shape is only one side of the coin. More important one is the side on which we can read the value of the coin, i.e. the content part of a model.

Lately I tried to play with a strategic model of Treacy and Wiersema and translate it to the IT domain.

Treacy and Wiersema's analysis of successful companies led them to believe that there are three powerful ways of dominating markets, which they call Value Disciplines: Product Leadership, Operational Excellence and Customer Intimacy. Each discipline requires different skills, organisation and coporate focus although Treacy and Wiersema believed that no discipline could be neglected and companies need to be at least competent in all three.

• Operational Excellence: superb operations and execution often by providing a reasonable quality at a very low price. The focus is on efficiency, streamlining operations, Supply Chain Management, no-frills, volume counts. Most large international corporations are working out of this discipline.


• Product Leadership: very strong in innovation and brand marketing, operating in dynamic markets. The focus is on development, innovation, design, time-to-market, high margins in a short timeframe.


• Customer Intimacy: excel in customer attention and customer service. Tailor their products and services to individual or almost individual customers. Focus is on CRM, deliver products and services on time and above customer expectations, lifetime value concepts, reliability, being close to the customer.

The CIO role is usually explained by binary inherent contradictions: business acumen versus technology skills, operational fixation versus strategic ambitions, innovation versus cost containment, enterprise responsibility versus siloed demands, etc.

The triple of Treacy and Wiersema can give us a new perspective on those contradictions. Looking through the IT glasses we can see the model as possible strategies of an internal IT organization or as attention points on CIO agenda.

The three directions in this case will be:

First of all, similar to Treacy and Wiersema model, here your IT organization cannot succeed if any of three is lower than some minimum threshold. Second, depending on available budget, importance of IT how it is perceived by business, organizational maturity and other factors, one of three can really be a dominant strategy. But let's take a look at them one by one.

• Stable Infrastructure: (similar to Operational Excellence) The focus is on efficiency, low price and excellent stable operations. A company should not even notice its IT. And IT should provide reliable, stable and smooth support of all necessary functions at reasonably low cost. A better name for a CIO here is IT director.
  
  The necessary and sufficient innovation limit here is timely updates of hardware and software with as little disruption as possible. The partnership with business is limited to the reports with numbers and explanations in cases of accidents.


• Partnership With Business: (similar to Client Intimacy) Products and services are tailored here to the business needs. CIO and IT managers should understand the specifics of the business they support, main processes and information flows. Active communication between business and IT is essential. And the focus of conversations is on the business needs and problems and how they can be solved by IT.
  
  Infrastructure is important as a background here not to interfere in conversations with business managers. If the corporate e-mail server is down, it is not the best time for a CIO to discuss business needs. Innovation can be a part of conversations and make a part of portfolio. But usually this strategy is present when the core business does not require insights from IT visionaries. Besides, the number areas for possible internal improvements makes it not reasonable for a CIO to venture with radical externally-oriented innovation and risk getting spoiled relations in case of failure.


• Innovative Disruptions: (similar to Product Leadership) The role of CIO and IT managers here is to bring innovation and new opportunities. Every change in IT world - be it a new operating system, new gadget or new communication medium - can open new possibilities or bring new threats for the company. The CIO here is like a watchman skanning the technology horizon, picking the most promicing innovations, and taking measures against the most potentially dangerous ones.
  
  Infrastructure has to be stable enough here, same as in the previous point. Partnership with business is important to some degree. But instead of (or in addition to) adjusting to business needs and cementing the existing business model, IT serves now as a catalyst to organizational change.

What do you think about this "translation"? Can you find examples of those strategies or attention points in your experience?

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.