Whether it is the all-too-familiar “fail whale”, or the depressing “API Limit Exceeded” message in TweetDeck, users are finding it difficult to deal with deteriorating service levels that are rendering the service unusable for any serious social networking.

Of course, Twitter is “free”. As such, we are told that it is offered to us “as-is” and, since you get what you pay for, expectations that it will be there when you need/want it; fully-functional and void of yo-yoing, syncopating starts and stops; is simply asking too much.

In today’s post by Thomas Wailgum, “Twitter Rage: Can you Really Complain About Outages?”, he makes the point:

Think about it: The fact that I’m not paying a cent for the Twitter service means that I don’t have much ground to place “buyer-seller” type expectations upon the immature service. (This isn’t Salesforce.com downtime or disruptions with internal enterprise systems.) My outrage is tempered by my acceptance of the “free deal” I have with Twitter: You get what you pay for.

While a conventional “buyer-seller” arrangement is not evident, a binding contract is a bargain where the parties each get something for good and valuable consideration. Indeed, as the Twitter Terms state “… You may use the Services only if you can form a binding contract with Twitter…”.

Twitter’s Terms go on:

In consideration for Twitter granting you access to and use of the Services, you agree that Twitter and its third party providers and partners may place such advertising on the Services or in connection with the display of Content or information from the Services whether submitted by you or others.

So, the bargain is that you get access to and use of the Services and Twitter gets all of the ad revenue, content, demographic information, and the ultimate financial value of their property that appreciates on the backs of the millions of users that expect to be able to have access to and use of the Service. Seems to me to be reasonable “payment” for “services” rendered.

And, of course, there is that “AS-IS” escape hatch. Thus, there is no warranty and I (or anybody else) cannot make a claim for damages. Fine.

But, as far as expectations go, I am not as willing, anymore, to give Twitter an easy “Pass” because they are growing so fast and are not yet mature. The Twitter value proposition is diminishing as my time is being squandered on a service that is not getting better because too many interfaces are sucking the life out of it and too many users are being added to the pile.

I hope it gets better.

Luckily, we, as users, have no obligation to stay with the “service”. If it gets bad enough, we’ll be gone and “AS-IS” will become “AS-WAS”.

Tell me what you think.

©2010 George M. Tomko All Rights Reserved

CIOs Must Have the Ear of the CEO

The Chief Information Officer is not a second-rate executive position as some would claim. Also, CIO, does not, as the saying goes, stand for “Career Is Over”. And the CIO position is certainly not “dead”, contrary to rumors to the contrary. As Mark Twain once said, “rumors of my death are premature”.

There is this notion that CIOs deserve a “seat at the table”. The “table” in this sense is the CEO staff, as a peer exectuive with the CFO, COO, and assorted VPs of Operations, Sales, etc. Much is written in blogs (included my own), magazine articles and discussed in forums about the justification for this belief.  The main idea is that CIOs have to be more ‘strategic’. Supposedly, the mechanism for becoming more strategic is most often termed “alignment”.

Let me so bold as to suggest that things like ‘contribution’ and ‘value’ go right along with ‘strategic’. There are plenty of tactical issues with managing a business. Things are dynamic, a flow, requiring a dexterity of seamlessly migrating through issues of business performance: sales, product quality, customer satisfaction, supply chain, etc.  Information Technology is clearly threaded through these and other areas of the business. However, the trick is to demystify and ‘dis-abstract’ this stuff so that you are not spending half of the monthly strategy meeting talking about who should be allowed to get a Blackberry or an iPhone.

So, the big picture has something to do with not being the “moron in the room”.  True executive ”peers” suffer fools badly. The thought that there is somehow a special microscope for CIOs is nonsense — unless it takes one to see the value that the CIO is delivering. It is more about culture and being in the “club”. The one thing about clubs full of highly-ambitous people is that they are territorial and very picky about letting others inside.

Prior to being hired for a CIO position a few years ago, the HR executive told me that the company was thinking about slimming down the number of direct reports to the CEO. Thus, they were considering having me report to the CFO. My response: a non-starter. If they were trying to reduce the number of CEO reports, I had just the solution: have the CFO report to me.

After an awkward chuckle or two, the HR executive was back to his senses. I wasn’t asking for a seat at the table. I expected one. It is all about grabbing a chair and acting like you belong there.

Bottom line

quit whining. If you do not have the business-savvy to earn the respect of fellow business executives, then you deserve to be seated in the gallery.

For more on this topic: Business Solutions: Death of the CIO?, by Nadia Cameron; The Death of the CIO–Again, by Brian Watson; Is the CIO a “pinnacle” position?, by George Tomko; and
What Do CEOs Want from CIOs?, by Maryfran Johnson.

Image: Arvind Balaraman / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

©2010 George M. Tomko All Rights Reserved

Night Blue Sky and Tree of Light

We may be skiing, on vacation, digging into another batch of cookies, reading, making resolutions or putting the stacks of papers into some kind of order. But, In general, we aren’t working; or, in wall-to-wall meetings; or planning a weekend cut-over to a new system.

The brief respite that we have been given will end with a vengeance on Monday, January 4, 2010. So we better be ready.

Clear memory, reboot, recharge – whatever you do, take this gift of time and backflush all of the crud and waxy buildup that has accumulated on your brain in what was a brutal 2009.

Quite a number of challenges await your return. 2010 will be a pivotal year. The rate of disruptive technology changes, and the new social contract that will emerge from economic recovery, will drastically test the “elasticity” of the organization to deal with things.

Whatever happens in 2010, it is going to take more guile and determination, intensity, creativity, resourcefulness and tenacity from leaders.

So, enjoy the time off. IT Leaders will be called upon to actually lead in 2010. Figuring things out will take a clear head and the ability to find some think time and plan the moves. We used to call it “blue sky” or thinking outside the box but, first and foremost it requires thinking.

Simple, maybe. But such a simple thing is often sabotaged by knee-jerks and bad reactions.

Bottom-line: Come out of this holiday season thinking right.

Image: Francesco Marino / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

©2009 George M. Tomko All Rights Reserved

Readers of my recent post “Does Business Intelligence require Intelligent Business?” can find a great post to continue the thought at CIOZone: “Ask the CIO–Do you want more BI & a smarter company?”.

In her post, Lauren E. Bielski writes:

“Nobody wants a less capable organization if there’s a way around the usual trade-offs posed by budgets, time constraints, and the competition.  Hence, more talk than ever these days about fact-based decision making— which is pretty revered in management—and more efforts around data mining in an effort to learn more about operations, customers, and winning tactics.”

Good observations. But, are companies getting anywhere with their efforts? Quoting from a recent Aberdeen research report:

“the creation, management, and continual review of key performance indicators can prove to be a difficult process, particularly when large, complex data volumes are combined with rapidly changing business dynamics.”

Yes, it is not easy to do. I would also suggest that asking the CIO to make the company ‘smarter’ may not be the best approach.

Net-net, companies have to do a number of things with their culture, vision, approach and, above all, not leave the job to the IT department.

Business leaders will not be able to get away with the abdication of attention and support that has doomed many an ERP implementation. No, they “own” this one. IT will lend its helping hand, but CIOs should push back and push back hard.

The CIO will have enough challenges executing the enabling initiatives.

What do you think? Please offer your comments.

©2009 George M. Tomko All Rights Reserved

Image: FreeDigitalPhotos.net

As I started to develop this blog post, it occurred to me that my working title, “Does Business Intelligence require Intelligent Business?” might have been previously used in some other publication. So, I Googled it.

I did find some very close variations, but not exactly in the form of the question that the title poses.

I was led to a white paper, “business intelligence is intelligent business”, by Gerry Davis, Regional Managing Partner, Asia-Pacific for Heidrick & Struggles. In the opening paragraph, the problem is summarized thusly:

“Collecting information about customers is relatively easy. Analyzing customer information for potential cross-sells, increased revenue streams, and improved service is more challenging. But getting the information to the front line in a timely manner and thus providing further competitive edge is proving increasingly difficult for many corporations.”

As we look at this statement, there are three main points: 1) collecting is “easy”; 2) analyzing is hard; and 3) disseminating it is very hard. Perhaps a bit oversimplified. But, in reality, most users will need this to be oversimplified to be able to overcome all their biases about IT, systems in general, any extra “work” that will automatically be assumed and fears about job security. This is said this way, not to be unkind, or even to be negative, but to make sure that the focus is on the right “problem”.

Like the human brain, which, in a lifetime, is barely tapped for 10% of its ultimate potential, the organization “brain” is woefully underutilized. A number of studies and surveys have consistently shown that enterprise resource planning (“ERP”) software, such as SAP, Oracle, etc. are underutilized.

As Albert Einstein was once quoted, “Computers are incredibly fast, accurate and stupid. Humans are incredibly slow, inaccurate and brilliant. Together, they are powerful beyond imagination.” Such a proclamation will only be true if there is a significant change in the approach that knowledge workers take to their jobs.

Mr. Davis suggests that organizational change may be the answer:

“As business intelligence divisions spring up in organizations across the globe, the same question is being asked: “How can we unlock the value of our data?” At Heidrick & Struggles, we believe that the answer lies in implementing an appropriate organization structure and in identifying and appointing the right executive — someone with superb business acumen combined with a sound technical understanding — and tasking them with delivering real business intelligence.”

In a very weird way, I actually agree and disagree, simultaneously, with this statement. For a company like H&S, an organizational solution is going to feel like the absolutely right thing to do. After all, that is one of the main things that they do. For organizations that commit to this approach and throw the full weight of their senior management commitment (and funding) at sustainable levels, it may work out very well.

But, there are quite a few brilliant people who are many times smarter on the subject of business analytics and business intelligence that will tell you that knowledge is a process that begins with data (“D”) and moves along a progressive transformation process into information (“I”) then knowledge (“K”) and ultimately, wisdom (“W”).

If the CIO owns the “D” and the “I”, and the CKO owns the “K”, who “owns” the “W”? Is there a collective ownership of the wisdom of the organization? Will we be seeing “CWO”s in our future?

It was back in 2000 that, with great assistance from Bill Odom, I drew the following picture. At the time, I was a first year CIO trying to stand up a new joint venture. With as close to a clean sheet of paper as one could get, we were architecting the mission of IT from end-to-end. And we got the chance to build it.

Since then, a lot has changed in this world. But, some things stay the same. No matter what the advances are that enable us to do things better, faster, cheaper, it still comes down to people and how people do things. Remember Einstein’s quote above.

Another brilliant thinker that captures the essence so well is Peter J. Thomas who writes in his recent blog post:

Business Intelligence is not just about technology and cannot be effective in isolation. To live and breath it needs to be part of a broader framework covering the questions that its users need to answer, the actions that they take based on these answers and the iterative learning that occurs in the process.”

At the end of the day, there is nothing I would like to see more than knowledge-based business processes executed by knowledge-savvy workers (and anyone else in the value chain) benefitting knowledge-enabled customers.

But, to see that idea realized, we have to understand and deal with the three main challenges that we previously identified.

1) Collecting information about customers is relatively easy. CIOs have been pretty effective at collecting data through transactional and automated data collection. So good, in fact, that most organizations are “drowning“ in data. In most cases, it is in multiple formats, fragments, repositories etc. Master data must also be dealt with, but, given the unbelievable chore of maintaining it, master data is often an “attic” filled with junk mixed in with the useful stuff.

2) Analyzing is hard. The issues cited in item 1 give the first clue why this is so. First, as previously noted, we are drowning in data. Second, the data that describes the data, i.e. “Master Data” and gives it purpose and context, is often an overburdened mess. Efforts at standardization of form and meaning collapse under their own “weight”. It certainly does not help that many companies are actually companies of companies. There are so many pieces that are pulled together via acquisitions, “carve-outs”, reorganizations, etc. that base lining and normalizing company data so that historical analysis can be done is like boiling the ocean. At a minimum, this becomes an activity that I call “data mashing”.

3) Disseminating it is very hard. While products are evolving to provide robust tools that will essentially offer “composite” applications that sit on layer(s) above the legacy applications and data stores, few organizations and their business processes are set-up to meaningfully “plug-in”. What will happen to all of the spreadsheets!?

Having said that, I am not sure that the answer lies with a new executive in the organization, driving the organization to come up with its business intelligence. Indeed, it is the remnants of the middle manager and senior analyst layers that are closest to the actual in-place and functioning business processes and work-flows. They know the business rules. They know how things “really” work. They know how to handle situations that come up that require judgment and understanding of the facts of each case.

Too many businesses play with fire by running in the margins with their knowledge workers. Thus, a problem exists where these folks are highly marginalized and “one-deep” on the resource chart. They are essential members of the business teams for everything that the business wants to do. What happens if they get hit by the proverbial bus, retire or quit?

Looking through this lens, creating a new silo, or a new organization matrix that adds a new “boss” for these individuals does not, in my opinion, get the organization the knowledge and wisdom that it needs to sustain and grow.

Ironically, this is one of the major business problems that service-oriented architecture (“SOA”) and business process management (“BPM”) is/was supposed to cure. The problem with SOA and BPM is that they are BIG ideas. BIG ideas usually require BIG money, time and resources. Of course, the expectation is also for “BIG” results, which would make it all worthwhile.

Going beyond this point would far eclipse the scope and intent of this particular “Rant”. Getting back to the question that was posed in the title of this post: “Does Business Intelligence require Intelligent Business?”.

Organizations are structured, for the most part, in verticals a.k.a. “silos”. Having efficient, well-designed, ubiquitous cross-functional processes that work is still a rare find. In that regard, a new executive and organization that creates the silo-to-silo (i.e. “horizontal”) channels and portals may have promise. But, hierarchy still rules the day and there is personal “safety” in these turbulent and vulnerable times for incremental approaches.

This sort of “incrementalism” does not create a noticeable increase on overall organizational business intelligence. To the extent that transformational change brings the IQ of the organization to new heights, then there is hope for creating an intelligent business.

Is there a chicken or the egg story here? What comes first – the chicken or the egg?

In organizations, what comes first – business intelligence or intelligent business?

There is, of course, no absolute answer. It could be said that if not an intelligent business then what worth business intelligence?

What do you think? Please offer your comments.

©2009 George M. Tomko All Rights Reserved

I put out a set of exploratory questions to see how people see this.

Through a number of direct conversations, comments to this and other blogs and the use of other forums, some very good ideas came forth. To be sure, I am going to be hunting for more. Surprisingly, there does not seem to be much in the public domain on this subject.

Consider Google search results for May 6, 2009 where all of the words appear :

• 95 million for web pages that have the word: consultants
• 57 million for web pages that have the words: do consultants
• 23 million for web pages that have the words: do consultants deliver
• 10 million for web pages that have the words: do consultants deliver value

Now, Consider Google search results for May 6, 2009 where the exact phrase appears:

• 95 million for web pages that have the word: consultants
• 14 thousand for web pages that have the words: “do consultants”
• 88 (eigthy-eight) for web pages that have the words: “do consultants deliver”
• 62 (sixty-two) for web pages that have the words: “do consultants deliver value”

Interestingly, 53 of the 62 referred back to this blog.

So, suffice it to say that whether this is a top-of-mind question or not, it isn’t asked (and answered) very much.

There are certainly other questions that offer insights, such as “What do consultants really do, anyway?” or “Why did I hire the consultant anyway?”.

You can gleen from many of these that either people were satisfied customers or they weren’t satisfied. A generalization can be made that consultants give consultants a “bad name”. That is, all consultants get painted with the same brush. There have been enough overpriced, arrogant, know-it-all, blow-hards that the truly good ones can be overshadowed, at least initially, by the collective angst of organizations who feel betrayed when senior management brings in experts to tell them what the internal staff has already told them.

But, things are changing. One is that the economy has driven more people from retirement back into the workforce. While it is a tough job market, the best and most experienced are recognizing that putting up a shingle of their own and contracting out their knowledge and experience as a consultant, temporary worker, project resource or other paid contributor.

I will be conducting further research on this trend and what consulting firms and their customers have to say about it. In the meantime, please read the comments that were generously contributed by John Moore, Tracy Austin, Virginia Steinberg, and Chris Bunnett.

As an advisor to CIOs and a well-traveled CIO myself, I have come to appreciate the disruptive nature of technology innovation and the valid (and sometimes painful) introspection that it engenders.

Most of the time it comes down to being the bridge between “geek-ness” and sound business management practice. God bless our technical architects but, if it was up to them, we would be running things with a goal of technology exploration first.

Of course, we have a business to run and customers to serve. The CIO has to provide the ‘glue’ to such fiduciary necessities like internal controls, SOX, regulatory compliance, process management, security, business continuity, privacy, cost management and operational integrity.

Such things are not popular topics when talking about exciting new developments in cloud computing, social media, etc. Eyes roll when process frameworks like ITIL, CoBIT, CMMI, etc are brought into the conversation. So, among the plethora of content posted daily about cloud computing technology and enticing offers to get into new service offerings, it was encouraging to see some content about some basic management facts and considerations about the cloud.

In his recent blog post, “Operating the Cloud: the people and process questions”, The IT Skeptic wrote these refreshing words:

“Cloud computing is a popular topic right now. Some see it as a saviour technology for cost cutting but there is too much thought given to how you will connect at a technical level with a Cloud service provider. Just as important is how you will connect at a process level and at a business level. IT development and solutions staff are prone to waving these considerations away as an issue for the operations people and the “suits”, but the process and business considerations are more important than the technical ones.”

I couldn’t agree more. This is not to say that I am against new technology. On the contrary, over 33 years I have been an aggressive implementer of technology. I am also not saying that there are not well-crafted and carefully considered deployments out ‘there’. What I am saying is that, like all developments that have come before, sanity and sound management needs to be applied stringently and early. This is the fundamental purpose of the CIO: to match the mission of his/her enterprise to the capabilities necessary to carry out that mission. This has to be done within all sorts of constraints that come with people, processes, technology, cost, benefits, business imperatives, management values and beliefs.

Exploration and experimentation need not be dampened. CIOs, more than ever, must apply their guiding hands over the healthy exuberance of innovation to extract the sustainable and repeatable opportunities that the market has to offer.

George M. Tomko is CEO and Executive Consultant for Tomko Tek LLC, bringing game-changing knowledge and experience for transformational analysis and decision-making; planning and execution of enterprise-wide initiatives; outsourcing; strategic cost management; service-oriented business process management; and technology investment assessment. He can be reached at gtomko@tomkotek.com or on Twitter @gmtomko. Profile: www.LinkedIn.com/gtomko

As I began packing for this week’s business travel, I thought back to an article that I wrote in CIO magazine ‘way’ back in 2002 (available here). It had several themes, but the primary reason for writing it was that I actually accomplished a three-week vacation and felt that the world needed to know about it. By this time, I was less than 4 years as a CIO. However, in that time, I had been through enough global system and infrastructure deployments to fill several careers.

But, that was becoming something I could do in my sleep. 2002 was a time of the coming of age of the business savvy CIO. It was the only way that a CIO would be able to survive-at least those who considered themselves “strategic”. At that time, the average tenure of a CIO was something like 18 months and that wasn’t good for anybody.

At the end of the day, the true revelation about actually taking a three week vacation was more about the fact that I could let go of the techie stuff. I had built a high potential group of managers that were running things just fine. When I got back from that vacation, I was all fired up about diving into the business issues and strategic imperatives.

So, here I am, on fire and ready to go. Refreshed and ready to drive. As Yogi is often quoted, “It’s deja vu all over again”. Maybe. Things have a way of cycling back through. Take “Cloud Computing”… No, make that Software as a Service. Oh, wait, too long, SaaS. I love the attention to the lower case ‘a’s. Hype, hype and more hype.

It wasn’t so long ago that we were talking about ASPs and I was an early adopter. Then, it was “Network Computing” where all of our apps and even the computing power itself would come from the network a.k.a “the Cloud”.

My advice – take a 2 or 3 week vacation and, when you come back, see if it is still being talked about, written about, hyped, etc.

Better yet, at your next CIO conference, set-up a birds of a feather table and invite everyone who has a significant working implementation that is not some hybrid kluge. Have them show you how they mashed their legacy data into the provider’s database and got their user community trained and on board. Have them show you their SLAs and the performance against them. Then, have them show you how much cost they were able to take out of their operations. Finally, have them show you how they supercharged their businesses to achieve new heights and raised the bar versus the competition.

You will be sitting alone.

Folks, we can’t feel good yet about turning e-mail over to providers let alone order processing. There are successes out their like salesforce.com. But, show me full process integration. You know, kinda like that SOA stuff that was so hot 2 years ago.

The bottom line is that all businesses are different in how they invested in and evolved their computing infrastructure, data, processes, financial analysis and reporting, etc., etc. New organizations, start-ups, spin offs and the like have a better shot at the “clean sheet of paper” and that is what it will take.

So, take a vacation, a long one. Come back and see if things are any clearer than when you left. Stay off the crack berry, leave e-mail and voice mail alone. Reintroduce yourself to an ocean breeze and the people that have the same residential mailing address as you (your significant peeps).

Upon your return, it will all still be there but you will be in a different ‘place’.