Archive for the ‘Governance’ Category

Fusion

Image via Wikipedia

Time for an update. I would like to share some insights from my daily work experiences. Within my company we’ve changed the way we innovate.

Until a year ago, we had several departments throughout the company responsible for innovation. These departments were part of the business and in general they acted in a demandrole towards the (centralized) IT unit. While this caused suboptimal usage of scarce resources and money, our board decided to group all innovation activities in a limited number of strategic programs. I am responsible for one of them. These programs all are part of the business. To eliminate boundaries between business and IT, people from business and IT all take part in these programs. The day-to-day, functional governance is done by the programmanagers, for business as well as IT. So, although we still have an IT department, the innovation people are united in one of these programs, business and IT, and in many cases even with suppliers included.

We not only brought business and IT people together in one (virtual) organization, but also changed the overall responsibility of innovation. We used to talk about projects, due dates, milestones, etc. Now, we’re talking about capabilities and business benefits. Not the project is important, but what it is supposed to deliver and supposed to change within the organization is important.

In fact, we took measures to improve alignment, by introducing some mechanisms mentioned in the IT Engagement model of Fonstad [2005, 2006].  One could also recognize this as a step towards business/IT Fusion as introduced by Hinssen [2009].

It may sound like an easy task to change in such a way. But, it’s tough. Even in a situation where people from business and IT are brought together, thinking and acting in a way the business understands remains difficult. People are used to talk in sharply defined project-terms. But, to become a real partner in business-discussions requires a total different mindset. And, as I’ve experienced, this is something which takes a lot of time and intensive leadership.

I like to share some of the insights have experienced last year.

Shared (understanding of) goals
To realize alignment, shared goals are crucial. But, more important, is a shared understanding of those goals. This seems to be an open door, but it is not. Business and IT people must learn to speak in the same language. This requires explicit and intensive discussions. Do you really understand each other? Do we actually mean the same thing? It is as hard as learning a real language.

Senior sponsors
You can only succeed when senior executives of all partners are committed to the program. This means, executives from business and IT. In our case we installed a programboard with executives of all departments, which meets bi-weekly to decide on all major topics and projects. This commitment is needed to give a program enough mandate and power to act on behalf of business and IT.

Clear expectations
Create an organization in which business and IT are integrated, one should be aware that clarity should be given regarding roles and responsibilities of the members within the program. People are used to focus on the goals of their departments. Now they should focus on the shared goals of the program. In some cases these goals can be contradictive. Make sure these differences are made clear upfront, or at least, make very clear to the people within the program how they should act in these kind of situations. Otherwise this can become a disturbing, hard-to-get, issue undermining the program. Also, be aware that a combined program should take into account both interests of business as well as IT.

Stakeholdermanagement
Managing stakeholders’ expectations is also very important. Stakeholders tend to act and react the way they used to. They have to get used to the integrated approach, where business and IT act as one. They also have to get a clear picture of their own roles and responsibilities, as well of what they can expect from the program.

This are some lessons I have experienced in real life. When I project this on what I have read (and published earlier), I conclude that a lot of what I have seen has been captured in the “4C model” of Weiss and Anderson [2004]. Apparently, this model captures quite nice the most important elements to enhance alignment between business and IT.

 

References
Fonstad, Nils, and Robertson, David: Engaging for Change: An Overview of the IT Engagement Model, CISR Research Briefing, Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), March 2005.

Fonstad, Nils, and Robertson, David: Transforming a company, Project by Project: The IT Engagement Model, CISR Working Paper 363, Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), September 2006.

Fonstad, Nils Olaya: Engaging Matters: Enhancing Alignment with Governance Mechanisms, CISR Research Briefing, Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), December 2006.

Hinssen, Peter: Business/IT Fusion, How to move Beyond Alignment and Transform IT in your Organization, Mach Media, 2009

Joseph W. Weiss and Don Anderson: Aligning Technology and Business Strategy: Issues & Frameworks, A field study of 15 companies, Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2004

Advertisements

The third of the six dimensions of the Strategic Alignment Maturity Model of Luftman (2000) is Governance. Ensuring that the appropriate business and IT participants formally discuss and review the priorities and allocation of IT resources is among the most important enablers/inhibitors of alignment. The decision-making authority needs to be clearly defined. IT Governance is a topic in itself, and widely studied. Sometimes, alignment is presented as part of good governance. Luftman adresses this as one of the six dimensions in his model. In this post I limit myself to Luftman’s description of governance. In later posts I will expand the view on alignment.

This dimension consists of 7 attributes. Comparing the questionnaire I’ve used with Luftman (2000), one dimension has been changed. Or, in fact, one has been replaced by another one.

The first two attributes are about participation of business and IT in the strategic planning of business and strategic planning of IT. If these processes are isolated, you cannot expect alignment to be mature. The more integrated they are, the better the alignment maturity will be.

The third (original) attribute was about the reporting structure of the CIO. He should report to the CEO to enhance alignment. As said, this attribute didn’t appear in the survey. The new attribute is about the ability of the IT organization to react/resond quickly to changing business needs.

The fourth attribute relates to the way the IT organization is seen, how IT is budgetted. Is IT seen as a cost center, an investment center or even better, a profit center.

The following, fifth, attribute is about how IT investment decisions are made. The more IT investments are seen as value driver, the better it is. The last two attributes are related to this. Number six is about the usage of steering committees. Does your company use steeringcommittees or not, and are the formal and regular or not. The last attribute has to do with the way projects are prioritized. It should be clear by now, that mature alignment consists of a shared prioritization process by business and IT.

As I mentioned earlier, IT Governance, is a topic in itself. Methodologies are provided by several authors and institutions. I will come back to this topic later on.

Reference

Luftman, Jerry: Assessing Business-IT Alignment Maturity, Communications of AIS, Volume 4, Article 14, December 2000

Jerry N. Luftman, well known for his Strategic Alignment Maturity Model (SAMM), published a new book: Managing the Information Technology Resource. It’s worth the money!

In the past years I’ve executed some assessments on the business/IT alignment maturity of some organizations. I’ve used the assessment method of Luftman, the so-called Strategic Alignment Maturity Model (SAMM).

This model can be used in a survey to see where a company stands regarding maturity and once this maturity is understood, it can provide the organisation with a roadmap that identifies opportunities for enhancing the harmonious relationship of business and IT [Luftman, 2000]. The model consists of 6 alignment areas. Each area has multiple attributes. For each area there are clearly defined maturity levels. All areas should be given attention to mature the alignment between business and IT. With the help of a questionnaire, based on the SAMM elements, people from business and IT valued each question with a score between 1 and 5. These scores correspond with the maturity levels as defined by Luftman. One question per attribute of the model. The outcomes of the survey can be plotted in a graph.

It’s interesting to know where a company stands regarding the maturity level on business/IT alignment. But, that in itself doesn’t help very much. What does help, is using the outcomes to start an open dialogue with and between business and IT representatives. By looking at the outcomes, one can easily point at situations where business and IT disagree, or where the mean score is low. Luftman states that all elements of the model should be more or less on the same level to have good alignment. Such a survey facilitates an open discussion. And, in this dicussion you can find out why people valued certain elements the way they did. And this provides valuable insight into which areas improvements are possible and needed.

In some cases, the questionnaire was send to different levels of the organisation. On strategic, tactical and operational levels. This was useful as well, because this gives insight in differences between these levels.

From a practical perspective, this survey is easy to apply. It’s not the overall maturity score which is important. It’s the insights the individual scores provide. These scores enable the dialogue between business and IT. And, once this dialogue has started, it’s so much easier to start working on improvements.

References

Luftman, Jerry: Assessing Business-IT Alignment Maturity, Communications of AIS, Volume 4, Article 14, December 2000

Luftman, Jerry and Kempaiah, Rajkumar: An Update on Business-IT Alignment: “A Line” Has Been Drawn, MIS Quarterly Executive Vol.6 No. 3, September 2007.

MIT Sloan Logo

Image via Wikipedia

In this post I will introduce the IT Engagement Model, developed by Nils O. Fonstad of CISR, MIT. In previous posts I already showed the importance of alignment on and between different layers in an organisation. In a study of the Center for Information Systems Research (CISR) this issue is adressed as well. Fonstad (2006) states that IT departments always struggle with the eternal dilemma how to achieve company-wide strategies while simultaneously responding to urgent requests from business units to implement dozens or even hundreds of solutions for local projects. Two different streams of research have attempted to adress this challenge.

Research on IT Governance has taken a top-down approach and specified how management allocate decisions. The other stream of research, with a more bottom-up approach, focuses on how projects can be coordinated and managed.  According to the CISR study, neither of these approaches is sufficient. Succesful approaches adress two fundamental goals – alignment between IT and the rest of the business and coordination across multiple organizational levels. In earlier post I mentioned horizontal and vertical alignment, to adress these different dimensions.

An IT engagement model has been introduced, which is defined as the system of governance mechanisms that brings together key stakeholders to ensure that projects achieve both local and company-wide objectives. This engagement model consists of three general components.

  • Company-wide IT Governance – decision rights and accountability of comapny level and business unit level stakeholders to define company-wide objectives and encourage desirable behaviour in the use of IT
  • Projectmanagement – a formalized project management process, with clear deliverables and regular well-defined checkpoints, that encourages disciplined, predicatable behaviour for project teams.
  • Linking mechanisms – processes and decision-making bodies that connect project-level activities to the overall IT governance.

The first two are well recognized. What CISR has found to be the ‘missing link’ is the third element: Linking Mechanisms. Linking mechanisms are at the heart of a company’s IT engagement model. They enable ideas to flow back and forth between company-wide IT governance and project management. Linking mechanisms ensure that high-level governance decisions are understood and implemented by project teams, so that projects help to incrementally achieve the company’s objectives and the company learns from every project.

An effective IT engagement model enables traditionally independent stakeholders to negotiate between competing demands, influence one another, learn from each other, develop trust across the company, and work collectively on achieving local and company-wide objectives. It ensures that project solutions are not developed by any single stakeholder, but rather, result from multiple stakeholders working together to resolve competing interests (e.g. tactical versus strategic, local versus enterprise-wide, new versus reuse).

All three components of the IT engagement model are important sources of mechanisms. Engagement mechanisms take the form of roles, procedures, decision-making bodies and work-groups.

Engagement Mechanisms:

Linking mechanisms can be found in three categories: business linkage, architecture linkage,  and alignment linkage. Business linkage mechanisms link projects to company- and business-level strategies. Architecture linkage mechanisms link projects to enterprise and business unit architectures. Alignment linkage mechanisms link IT with the rest of the business, particularly at the business unit level. There are all kind of mechanisms possible. In the enclosed figures, some of the most prominent are shown.

CISR found out that firms with a stronger level of alignment distinguished themselves by engaging IT and non-IT stakeholders in three areas:

  1. Establishing and maintaining a daily level of conversation between IT and non-IT peers
  2. Ensuring that different projects link to corporate goals and shared resources, and
  3. Asessing and learning from project performance.

These firms had a key mechanism in each of these three areas. These were:

  1. Business-IT relationship managers:  A business-IT relationship manager is a formal role in which an individual engages with IT and a specified part of the business.
  2. Program Management Office: this typically consist of a central group that coordinates resources across projects, ensuring they collectively contribute to corporate level objectives.
  3. Post-implementation Reviews: PIRs typically consist of a group that essesses a project’s key targets and deliverables at the conclusion of a project or project cycle.

In following posts, I will dive deeper in the topic of IT engagement in relation to Alignment.

 

References

Fonstad, Nils, and Robertson, David: Engaging for Change: An Overview of the IT Engagement Model, CISR Research Briefing, Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), March 2005.

Fonstad, Nils, and Robertson, David: Transforming a company, Project by Project: The IT Engagement Model, CISR Working Paper 363, Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), September 2006.

Fonstad, Nils Olaya: Engaging Matters: Enhancing Alignment with Governance Mechanisms, CISR Research Briefing, Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), December 2006.

There are numerous articles, studies and models to be found on the topic Business/IT-alignment. This makes it hard to define which model is most adequate to use. But some models are apparently much more accepted than others, although there seems to be no consensus on the best one. The basis of many models seems to be the Strategic Alignment Model (SAM) of Henderson and Venkatraman [Henderson and Venkatraman, 1999]. This model suggests that IT-business alignment can be achieved by building linkages among four strategic domains:

The dimension of strategic fit differentiates between external focus, directed towards the business environment, and internal focus, directed towards administrative structures. The other dimension of functional integration separates business and IT. According to the authors, Strategic Alignment can only occur, when three of the four domains are in alignment.

According to Leonard [Leonard, 2008] the SAM-model merely describes what needs to be aligned. In the same study, Leonard points out that there has been far less consensus regarding how alignment is to be achieved. The model which is seen by Leonard as the model which gives insight in the processs by which alignment can be improved is the model of Luftman. This is more about the question how alignment is achieved. The theory of Luftman is found in many articles as a framework for assessing Alignment within a company, and looks very useful.

Luftman developed a maturity assessment model, based on the 12 elements of Business/IT-Alignment, which can be recognized in the model of Henderson and Venkatraman. The components of this model, in concert with the earlier enables/inhibitors research [Luftman and Brier, 1999], form the building blocks for the strategic alignment maturity assessment method [Luftman, 2000].

This model can be used in a survey to see where a company stands regarding maturity and once this maturity is understood, it can provide the organisation with a roadmap that identifies opportunities for enhancing the harmonious relationship of business and IT [Luftman, 2000]. The model consists of 6 alignment areas. Each area has multiple attributes. For each area there are clearly defined maturity levels. All areas should be given attention to mature the alignment between business and IT.

The areas are:

Communications

How well does the technical and business staff understand each other? Do they connect easily and frequently? Does the company communicate effectively with consultants, vendors and partners? Does it disseminate organizational learning internally?

Competency/Value Measurement

How well does the company measure its own performance and the value of its projects? After projects are completed, do they evaluate what went right and what went wrong? Do they improve the internal processes so that the next project will be better?

Governance

Do the projects that are undertaken flow from an understanding of the business strategy? Do they support that strategy?

Partnership

To what extend have business and IT departments forged true partnerships based on mutual trust and sharing risks and rewards?

Scope & Architecture

To what extend has technology evolved to become more than just business support? How has it helped the business to grow, compete and profit?

Skills

Does the staff have the skills needed to be effective? How well does the technical staff understand business drivers and speak the language of the business? How well does the business staff understand relevant technology concepts?

In my experience, the assessment-method of Luftman really provides enterprises and organisations with a tool which gives insights in the business/it-relationship. It is very useful in defining improvement areas, and even more important, it facilitates an open discussion with executives from business and IT. What it doesn’t, is providing guidelines how to improve the alignment between business and IT. But, the six dimensions cover, in my experience, quite nice on which elements attention should be given. Not at one specific, but all dimensions should be in harmony. I will come back to these dimensions in following posts.

References

Henderson, J.C. and Venkatraman, N.:Strategic Alignment: Leveraging Information Technology for Transforming Organizations, IBM Systems Journal, 1999

Leonard, Jenny: What are we aligning? Implications of a Dynamic Approach to Alignment, 19th Australian Conference on Information Systems, Christchurch, 2008

Luftman, Jerry and Brier, Tom: Achieving and Sustaining Business-IT Alignment, Calirfornia Management Review, Fal 1999

Luftman, Jerry: Assessing Business-IT Alignment Maturity, Communications of AIS, Volume 4, Article 14, December 2000