Ban the 'CIO'

Ban the 'CIO'

Technology has to run the business. It may also generate information. The 'I'

has to be dropped. While designations have changed and at least at some places

the CIO has become the CXO or the CTO, the absorption of the concept is

cosmetic. There is an urgent need to ban the designation — CIO.

From the time that the first computers appeared it is now almost fifty years.

Have organizations absorbed information technology to the hilt -- and in an

optimum manner?

The above the surface view is obvious. Tremendous absorption has taken place

and a lot of it is good technology. There is some bad technology — the part

that does not deliver and Gartner has in some studies estimated it to be 20 % of

the total spend or about $ 500 billion wasted so far. Twenty percent does not

sound all the big, $ 500 billion does!

Stepping away from the numbers for a bit and taking the below the surface

view there are a few places where the scope for enhancement is high.

For starters, the term information technology is completely inadequate. It is

the use of technology with computers, other electronic devices and

communications that is essential. Information technology started as a handmaiden

of other organizational processes. That thinking has to be reversed. In more and

more places, it is the other functions that have to become handmaidens of

technology.






Technology has to run the business. It may also generate information. The 'I'
has to be dropped. While designations have changed and at least at some places

the CIO has become the CXO or the CTO the absorption of the concept is cosmetic.

There is an urgent need to ban the designation - CIO. And speed up the

fundamental change that this implies.

Question : How can the focus be shifted to technology from information

technology ?

The problem has therefore progressed to one level up the value chain — and

in the process opened many new opportunities. Business strategies and processes

are just about starting to get built around technologies — instead of

technology supporting business processes. Earlier it used to be — 'how can I

sell my products and get more information about the process to do it better.'

Now it is —'how can I sell using technology and the process adapts to this.'

This is easier said than done. One reason is that compared to other

functional areas in an organization -- finance, human resources, manufacturing

and marketing -- technology is still a kid.

From the advent of computers to their absorption in organizations has been a

maximum of fifty years. In most organizations the period may be a decade or so.

And in many it is still to start! So technology is still not a mature business

function. It is exciting and has potential. It is also evolving and therefore

does not always deliver on the potential. It continues to manifest itself in

different ways — none being more stable than a few years. Standards change,

terms are modified, applications are added and the legacy gets stronger.

The principles of accounting and marketing have remained unchanged in the

time period in which technology has been created and deployed. Consequently they

are more understood, have standard global terminologies, are applied more

homogeneously and have a higher level of comfort associated with them.

Technology understanding, absorption and deployment by contrast is patchy,

uses many terms, has many manifestations and therefore becomes fuzzy and

uncomfortable. To name a few terms in vogue — ERP, CRM, e-commerce, mobile

computing, datawarehousing, on demand applications and many more.

Since technology is also getting decentralized these have to be understood by

the functional managers. Islands of technology expertise are not enough. They

have to spread out. And here the options themselves become the limitations. The

average functional manager who has to make his business plan as per technology

available simply does not know enough to do so. That results in window shopping

rather than shopping. A lot of glitter, a lot of discussion, a lot of debate but

much less of the action. Enjoyable, yes; effective, no.

Question : How can the deployment of technology be made more homogeneous and

comfortable?

And lastly, the measurement of technology effectiveness is a tedious and

often inaccurate process. In many cases technology absorption has a long-term

benefit. And the problem is similar to measuring investments on training and

advertising? Training can impart knowledge and skills but people have to make it

effective. Advertising can build brands and generate leads but people have to

sell.

Technology can provide the tools but people have to use them. In such contexts
organizations have to work on the belief principle and not the returns principle

— a luxury that the returns driven environment does not support and the stock

exchanges do not smile about.

There are shorter-term returns that are measurable but their value is

limited. Imagine a great meal at a specialty restaurant. The pleasure cannot be

quantified. It also cannot be ignored. You can, of course, measure the time they

took to serve the food and the temperature at which it was served. Doing that

takes away the pleasure itself.

Question: How can we see the benefits without measuring them?

Shyam Malhotra