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

Apparently, there is no shortage of ways to generate revenue for cash-strapped government programs. Now we hear of New York Senator Charles Schumer’s idea for a 25 cent tax on calls to offshore call centers.

From CIO.com:

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) introduced legislation that calls for taxing companies that transfer domestic customer service calls to foreign call centers. In a prepared statement, Schumer said the $0.25 excise tax is designed to provide incentive for companies to keep call center jobs on American soil.

Of course, this “incentive”  is highly unlikely to have its desired effects for the following reasons (and probably many more):

1. This will cost everybody 25 cents more for each customer service, help desk or other such call. Either the government will get the 25 cents, or a US-based service provider will be able to charge its US business customer higher rates (up to 25 cents per call) than the offshore provider.
2. The cost of doing business will increase as companies will have quarterly disclosure filing requirements, related audits and other bureaucracy-related fees.
3. The cost and size of government will increase to administer the program.
4. The switching costs to move already-implemented business process solutions from offshore centers to onshore centers would likely exceed the “benefits” of bringing the solution back to the States.

Other than this government’s insatiable appetite for taxing its citizens, what other reason could there be for imposing such a tariff?

With midterm elections less than 5 months away, populist programs that tout job creation/protection will be the rage.

In a blog post at OutsourcingPortfolio.com, it was noted that:

the National Association of Call Centers (NACC)  reported that US call center employment has generally grown – even through the current great recession…

So, are we trying to fix something that is not broken? No. We are breaking things further by creating an even uglier climate for businesses trying to succeed in America.

Further, from CIO.com:

According to Schumer’s plan, companies would have to certify annually with the Federal Trade Commission that they are in compliance with the offshore call center rules, or be subject to civil penalties. But the logistics involved in actively policing offshore call center traffic could prove much more costly to the federal government than to companies that outsource overseas.

Bottom line: another government money grab that increases the cost of doing business (thus killing job growth) and adds to the cost and size of government.

©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

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 decided to let the PC run for a while to see if it could work out its problems on its own. My iPod was close by and I selected some music to help me kill the time.

I wound up selecting one of the greatest music albums ever released: Hotel California, by the Eagles, in 1977. Its greatness is backed-up by all conceivable measures: total album sales, #1 singles, critical and popular acclaim, and, most of all, the test of time. New bands “cover” the songs in their live shows and recordings. Radio airplay of the original recording is still significant and the members of the Eagles reprise these and other songs for enthusiastic audiences in live shows throughout each year.

Listening to the title track, “Hotel California”, one of the great lines is

We haven’t had that spirit here since 1969.

It struck a chord (no pun intended) and I started thinking that this is an appropriate sentiment for the (current) year 2009.

A lot was happening back in 1969. We put a man on the moon. We were in the most violent period of the Vietnam War. We were closing out a decade that brought about dramatic social change.

While all of this was going on, information technology was also undergoing tremendous change. Intel was formed in 1968. The internet was being born as ARPANET. And, 2 developers from Bell Labs took their dream of a new operating system to reality as UNIX. So, essentially, we had the birth of Moore’s Law, the creation of the Internet and the beginning of the era of open source. Quite a burst of creations that underpin almost everything we use today.

So, here I was, listening to Hotel California for maybe the 10 thousandth time in my life. It hit me that, what the band members were lamenting, in their context, was what I was starting to lament in my context.

Have we taken the “gifts” of 1969 — processing power, boundless storage, ubiquitous communications and collaboration — and managed them well? Are we doing all that we can to hand an even greater set of treasures to generations that will follow?

I think that the answer is “No”. The space is dominated by large multinational enterprises. Who would have thought that Oracle would ever own Java? Desktops and web browsing are still dominated by Microsoft.

The Internet is something short of a “bad neighborhood”. We still use keyboards rather than our voices.

In short, we are squandering our capabilities on marginal and incremental things. We call certain technologies “disruptive”, because they require the installed base to change. We have releases and patches and hot packs. We talk about things like clouds as if we invented the sky.

Wikipedia says that the song tells the tale of a weary traveler who becomes trapped in a nightmarish luxury hotel that at first appeared inviting and tempting. Hmmm.

The Eagles finish the song. My iPod dutifully selects the next track from the playlist. I am now, appropriately, tapping my pencil to Devil’s Haircut by Beck.

Something’s wrong ’cause my mind is fading

And everywhere I look

There’s a dead end waiting

Suddenly, for a moment, there is an incredible thought that maybe the best approach is to START OVER!

But, as another lyric from Hotel California goes:

you can check out anytime you like,

but you can never leave

Pondering this thought for a moment, I simply rebooted.

12 minutes later, after all the programs, drivers, virus definitions, firewall rules, boot record scans, diagnostics, and network log-ins were complete, I was back to writing.

Image: FreeDigitalPhotos.net

As a long-time CIO and, now, consultant for CIOs, I am seeing that there is a role shift that is happening, ever so subtly, but it is going to be transformational for the role of CIO in most organizations. Perhaps it will not be manifested in a “big bang”, but all CIOs will be affected.

Some have referred to this as “CIO 2.0” as if to suggest that it is a planned and that there is some sort of documented manifesto that has popped out of some lab, university or think-tank. No, this is entirely circumstantial. It is also inevitable, unstoppable, irreversible, unavoidable, and, well, a good thing. A 2007 article by Deloitte and Touche, aimed mostly at government IT leaders, identified the changing roles and imperatives for public sector CIOs and was highly suggestive of the changes brewing for private sector CIOs.

The bottom line is this: a CIO is a broker of business solutions that involve cross functional process stewardship and a provider of a technology and infrastructure framework. Beyond this, there is an opportunity for the business-savvy CIO to contribute to joint enterprise strategy development with senior leadership. As described in an April 2008 blog post CIO 2.0: The Chief Impact Officer:

In other words, the ideal of CIOs becoming key players in the business arena is taking shape. Call it CIO 2.0 — the evolution of the IT czar into the role of “chief impact officer.” Call it the SCIO — the strategic CIO. But whatever you call it, the transformation is inevitable.

Those that are able to transcend the perception that they are zookeepers of the geeks and propeller-heads (as very talented technologists are unflatteringly labeled) will find themselves as thought leaders and key players in making things happen at the speed of business. Any attempt to be controlling, withholding, short-sighted or locked-in will simply generate powerful incentives for the organization to go it alone, underground, in any number of ways.

CIOs that fail to migrate from IT czar style CIO to chief impact officer style CIO will find themselves moved out, passed over or working for a more powerful executive (read CFO), rather than the CEO.

Nothing represents a game of ‘chance’ more than a pair of dice. Even with “loaded” dice, the outcomes are far from certain. Very often there is money on the line, significant money. So, I couldn’t think of a better subject –gambling on the roll of the dice– to compare with the use of consultants for high stakes decisions, intitiatives, etc.

Very often, consultants come to the same conclusions as the company’s own internal analysts. There is a perception that a prestigious consulting firm can 1) validate and therefore ‘certify’ the solution as the correct approach; 2) provide risk-averse executives with a scapegoat if things go bad; 3) increase commitment of the organization’s leaders to justify the large consulting bill.

But, at the end of the day, does any of this lower the possibility of rolling “snake eyes” with respect to the issue or opportunity that is being addressed? Does the lovely PowerPoint presentation leave you ready to “let it all ride” on the next roll?

As the truly great consultant would say, “it depends”. Perhaps, surprisingly, that consultant would actually be correct.

If so, then what does it depend on? While each situation is different, my take is that the biggest factor is matching the consultant to the mission. If you need ideation and strategies, hire a consulting firm that has demonstrated success in such engagements. Be wary, however, when the partner tries to sell you the implementation work. The firm may be great at analytics but does it have impeccable execution and delivery credentials?

In a very recent blog post, Chip Camden comments on the reasons why a client should hire a given consultant:

Prestige comes at a price that fewer companies are willing to pay for these days. In this economy, it comes down to the bottom line: What is your net effect on profitability (short- and long-term), and how does that compare to their other options?

So, basically, it ultimately depends on who can step in and “deliver the goods”. And it is this point that, to me, is the most important. Has the consulting firm or individual ever delivered a complete and successful solution? Have they ever had to live with the outcomes of delivered projects? Maybe, but usually, the consultants are long gone a month or two after the project is ‘complete’.

The world is now full of people who are mid to late stage career professionals that have early retired or have been let go in staff reductions due to the troubled economy. Some will come back to work at their former employers, albeit at lower cost to the company because the worker will be responsible for overheads like health benefits.

Others will become entrepreneurs and start their oun consulting practices, either as individuals or banded together as small “boutique” firms.

In any case, their “brand” will be etched on their faces, come through in their resumes, be evident in their wisdom and show in their been-there, done-that attitude. Their accomplishments and decades of experience will be a compelling option for managers looking to increase the odds of winning in this business version of the game of craps.

Image: FreeDigitalPhotos.net

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.

Ultimately, there is a fundamental question to be answered: “Do Consultants Deliver Value?”

I certainly can’t answer this question alone. And, such a broad question invariably leads to more questions:

1. Do you use consultants?
2. If so, why do you use consultants – because of the lack of internal expertise; because of the lack of internal ‘bandwidth’; because a strategy, project, etc. needs a boost of credibility?
3. If not, why not?
4. What do you look for in a consultant?
5. How do you determine ROI for a consulting engagement?
6. How do you hold consultants accountable after they are gone?
7. Is it all about the size of the engagement or the perception that it is less risky to engage a name brand?

Please take a moment to post your answers and comments. What further questions would you ask to clarify and provide the data points to answer the larger question? My aim is to consolidate the responses into a formal post that not only represents my opinions on the matter but those of my colleagues and contemporaries. All contributions will be carefully cited.

Also, feel free to take a look at some of the following references to help frame your thinking:

Companies urged to keep control of consultants [Andy McCue Published: 21 Jun 2007]

Simplifying the ‘Social Media Expert’ Discussion [Amber Naslund Published: 13 Jan 2009]

A Consultant is Not a Leader [Laurent Duperval Published: 24 Feb 2009]

Management Consultants in Higher Education [Keith Hampson Published: 29 Mar 2009]

Women In Consulting: Differentiators [Deborah Plumley Published: 27 Feb 2009]

Making a Value Choice [Omar Khan Published: 02 Feb 2009]

Social media consultants: snake oil or value add? [Jennifer Leggio Published: 20 Oct 2008]

How Economic or Business Consultants Add Value [Bill Conerly Published: 10 Jun 2008]

Value Method: Another Strategy for Bill Rate Calculation [Liz Greene Published: 27 Mar 2009]

Consulting Is My Sixth Revenue Stream [Jason Alba Published: 30 Jan 2009]

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