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