I excitedly clicked on the link to a review of my IT Value Stack book on the 'Did Somebody say Strategy?' blog.
Ron Dimon was the reviewer and he has clearly devoted considerable time to reviewing the book for which I am very grateful.
Ron warms me up for some bad news by expressing his disappointment from the outset and kindly attributes this to his expectations being too high.
Nobody likes to be told that their 'baby is ugly', but I take the view that if that is the case the sooner I know about it the sooner I can get back to reality. With this mindset I am responding to the review:
Ron mentions that the book opens up with sweeping generalisations. This is true as are the generalisations in the main. I am not alone in thinking, for example, that there is tension between IT and business people; the fact that the IT industry is unable to demonstrate business value; the industry has a poor delivery record. Of course there are exceptions, but my generalisations cover the majority of situations. They are intended as the rationale for the book.
Admittedly I have taken perhaps too unequivocal a line in my comments. I put that down to having been 25 years in the IT industry working from bits to boardroom. I hope that it raises the energy of the book for the reader. I am nonetheless open to counterviews in order to refine my own thinking. So I welcome Ron's comments.
Ron points out that his experience in engaging with CIOs is different to mine in that he has found them to be quite business-savvy and sometimes COO like in their approach. I have met similar CIOs. They are smart enough to seek out companies that 'get IT'. But I still hold the view that the majority of CIOs are technology rather than business focused. The last significant surveys I could get my hands on were from Gartner and Burson-Marsteller (a contributor to my book). They put CIO representation at board level within the Fortune 500 companies at circa 5%. So my view is there is work to be done. I can understand Ron's perspective, his working sphere and the blog itself is likely to attract the attention of the enlightened few CIOs. But they are not representative of the overall population.
Ron picks up on my saying that CFOs are unlikely to provide any operational or even strategic input into the IT department and then cites that most of the CFOs he has worked with are very involved. I will need to reread my book but the message I was hoping to convey is that CFOs can be too hands on, taking an alpha male (usually) approach to managing the CIO. But I admit there are some renaissance CFOs who look at IT from a strategic perspective. Their challenge is how do they measure this in financial terms, which is a key (but perhaps unclear) message in my book.
My use of entwinement is questioned as Ron points out that all I am getting at is bi-directional alignment. Possibly I am, but I think entwinement reads better. This is semantics and Ron is as right as I am depending on how we define these terms. My key message here is that we need to move the relationship from supplier (alignment) to partner (entwinement). My concern with bi-directional alignment as an alternative term is that it could be construed as IT and the users are both suppliers to each other. That is not the point I am trying to make.
My coverage of Process entwinement was seen as a little light for Ron. He was hoping for some new thinking on management processes. My thrust was to provide new thinking in terms of IT's role in business processes and how the role of IT needs to extend from beyond the IT function and into the business (processes). I would agree that I have brought nothing new to the table in terms of business process engineering. Though such emphasis would in my opinion have skewed my model and is thus best left to process experts.
Ron congratulates me on getting external perspectives but suggests that by bundling them together at the end of each chapter undermines my message. This is a fair point.
Paragraph duplication - Hats off to Ron. I didn't spot that! This is a mistake. It also highlights that fine tooth nature of Ron's reviews.
There is mention of me implying that board members take a tactical approach to IT. My view is the opposite. They don't take enough interest in IT, even from a strategic IT or even business perspective. Again I must reread to check that I have articulated this point clearly.
An interesting point was made regarding the interconnectivity between the layers of my model. I need to give this more thought as there may be something in that point. My initial thought is that the model was designed so that the layers are uncoupled. But again Ron's comment has triggered a potential improvement opportunity.
Ron recommends Enterprise Architecture as Strategy by Ross Weill and Robertson as a better read on IT value and leadership. I will take a look myself as my initial scan on Amazon reveals what could be a good read. However the recommendation suggests that Ron is still somewhat technology-management centric in his thinking on IT leadership and possibly misses my points on the IT leadership implications beyond the technology/ information architecture piece. Most notably strategic, people, service and value implications. My key point is that the IT industry needs to 'grow up' if it is to deliver real business value. A radical change in thinking is required in terms of responsibilities in respect of reaping value from the IT investment and how this is addressed. Any book that challenges the status quo in these respects gets my vote.
In any case I have found Ron's comments stimulating. And look forward to continuing the discussion. I also look forward to following up on Ron's reading recommendation!
