This was a great question that I hope can reach a more general audience - so enjoy the re-post!
Original Question from LinkedIn Group:
Thanks for the post and link to your blog. One question I have is 'what are the boundaries of the War Room' from your perspective ? For example, my experience from a prior roles and with our current clients indicates a true distinction in the use of the War Room for internal IT action and the relationship with the Business customers. Interested in your thoughts :) !
Answer:
think what you are talking about is – do we want or should we let the customer see how the sausage gets made? Generally, I think the answer is no. However, the interesting aspect to the answer is should we look at the process on a percentage basis and only answer “no” to part of the process?
When I was a kid I remember a diner where the handoff from the kitchen to the counter was a little slit in the - the food magically appeared. Now, my local diner has a big glass wall where you can see the cook hard at work using meticulously placed ingredients that are constantly refreshed. He is entertaining the patrons convincing them this is the cleanest, hippest place to grab a stack of pancakes and hash browns. Many Krispy Kreme stores have large glass walls where the kids can see the donuts being proofed and dropped into the fry pit and then rolled through the glazing machine. All of these things market the value and quality of the process while obfuscating the less attractive pieces. No one sees the ingredients being prepared, no one sees the dishes being cleaned, no one sees the ham come out of the freezer, and no one sees the donut being mixed or the pots being cleaned. The process is part of the marketing and assurance you are spending your money and time wisely.
Roll that same concept into IT and you get how I handle the War Room. We perform some type of significant maintenance to all or part of our domestic infrastructure every quarter. Usually this is over a weekend. We start the weekend off with a War Room that is IT only and dedicated to managing the maintenance events. We don’t communicate much about this part of the exercise until the infrastructure and associated systems are ready to go and then we start a check out process. The folks engaged in the check out process now start interacting with the War Room staff to verify – from their perspective – everything is ready to go. Now, on the next business day we actually set up a War Room in a visible location within the building and broadcast to every stakeholder where we are and what we are doing. They know we are on the job and focused on issue management, resolution and follow up. Of course, the risk is low at this point because of the process over the weekend. However, the sense everyone has of what we are doing and why is strongly enforced. The trust we are on the job is enhanced. If a problem does materialize people can reach us easily and feel good about the status. I think this “part” of the War Room process is shared with everyone and results in a very healthy outcome!
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Part 2: Is the War Room really so bad for a CIO?
Previously, I explored why title and organizational accountability seem to surface on a regular basis for CIO and IT Directors as a critical aspect of their career ambitions. The metaphor I developed was based around the idea that being in the “Boardroom” with the senior management of an organization was somehow related to your title as Chief Information Officer or the title of the person to whom you directly report. Wrapped into this metaphor is the idea of the “War Room” being a reflection of a tactical obligation and career limiting alignment which will have a direct negative impact on your career ambitions. The goal of Part 2 is to dispel this assumption within the metaphor, shine a bright light on what the War Room really is and explain why it is an essential career development platform.
Of course, the War Room is not the place we gather to discuss casual events. This is the place where the folks who work for you (or you work with) convene to cope with some type of challenge, emergency or event that requires a focus and dedication to detail not possible in the normal course of conference calls, meetings and cubicle communiqués that fulfill the normal troubleshooting and communication needs of your organization. The War Room is a tense, highly charged and dynamic environment.
Furthermore, I would ask you to see the War Room as a personification of the responsibilities we carry to maintain, fix and improve the infrastructure, applications and services of our companies. The War Room simply represents the fact IT needs to work and it only works when the IT people in a company are organized and attentive.
We, the CIOs and IT Directors of the world, are responsible for the daily success of our operations. Fundamentally, when you pay ample attention to the War Room and everything it represents you are paying attention to making sure IT works. I know there is very little glamour and excitement associated with being the type of leader that simply makes sure things work, but let’s take a minute and think through the ramifications of not – at a minimum – being able to achieve this level of competency.
First, why would you be entrusted with any amount of corporate strategy and leadership if your own house isn’t in order?
Second, how can you successfully build and grow a company when the underlying foundation isn’t solid?
Lastly, how can you get your team to go after big hairy goals when they simply don’t see you as a being in touch with the rigors and obligations of daily life in an IT department?
I can’t honestly think of too many conversations with CEOs or CFOs where the primary verbalized complaint was “our stuff doesn’t work”. I don’t believe most leaders or executives really want to be so vulgar in their description of such a critical asset. Usually, the pejorative attitudes I encounter further exacerbate disconnects between Boardroom and War Room. The other senior folks develop a sense the IT leaders aren’t strategic enough or can’t leverage the investments made to date. Realistically, what they are thinking is “why can’t these people make the basic things work without?” I am not a mind reader, but I do ask questions. When the Q&A starts what comes to the surface quickly is one simple fact: most executives outside of IT want IT to work like dial tone – always on.
So, before you think being skilled in the War Room doesn’t help your career remember one thing: managing the War Room means you are managing the reliability and quality of the services your company realize from IT. That is always a good career move. If you crave more get this one right first. If you still aren’t satisfied make sure you honestly assess the type of company you work for – some companies really don’t need IT to be strategic as much as they need it to be operationally excellent and there is no career failure associated with giving your company what it needs.
Next, Part 3, How to own the Boardroom and the War Room.
Of course, the War Room is not the place we gather to discuss casual events. This is the place where the folks who work for you (or you work with) convene to cope with some type of challenge, emergency or event that requires a focus and dedication to detail not possible in the normal course of conference calls, meetings and cubicle communiqués that fulfill the normal troubleshooting and communication needs of your organization. The War Room is a tense, highly charged and dynamic environment.
Furthermore, I would ask you to see the War Room as a personification of the responsibilities we carry to maintain, fix and improve the infrastructure, applications and services of our companies. The War Room simply represents the fact IT needs to work and it only works when the IT people in a company are organized and attentive.
We, the CIOs and IT Directors of the world, are responsible for the daily success of our operations. Fundamentally, when you pay ample attention to the War Room and everything it represents you are paying attention to making sure IT works. I know there is very little glamour and excitement associated with being the type of leader that simply makes sure things work, but let’s take a minute and think through the ramifications of not – at a minimum – being able to achieve this level of competency.
First, why would you be entrusted with any amount of corporate strategy and leadership if your own house isn’t in order?
Second, how can you successfully build and grow a company when the underlying foundation isn’t solid?
Lastly, how can you get your team to go after big hairy goals when they simply don’t see you as a being in touch with the rigors and obligations of daily life in an IT department?
I can’t honestly think of too many conversations with CEOs or CFOs where the primary verbalized complaint was “our stuff doesn’t work”. I don’t believe most leaders or executives really want to be so vulgar in their description of such a critical asset. Usually, the pejorative attitudes I encounter further exacerbate disconnects between Boardroom and War Room. The other senior folks develop a sense the IT leaders aren’t strategic enough or can’t leverage the investments made to date. Realistically, what they are thinking is “why can’t these people make the basic things work without?” I am not a mind reader, but I do ask questions. When the Q&A starts what comes to the surface quickly is one simple fact: most executives outside of IT want IT to work like dial tone – always on.
So, before you think being skilled in the War Room doesn’t help your career remember one thing: managing the War Room means you are managing the reliability and quality of the services your company realize from IT. That is always a good career move. If you crave more get this one right first. If you still aren’t satisfied make sure you honestly assess the type of company you work for – some companies really don’t need IT to be strategic as much as they need it to be operationally excellent and there is no career failure associated with giving your company what it needs.
Next, Part 3, How to own the Boardroom and the War Room.
Monday, March 5, 2012
CIO in the Boardroom vs. War Room Part 1 of 3
Part 1: Why are we fixated on The Boardroom?
Many of us have been indoctrinated to fixate on one career goal - make it to the Boardroom. You must report to the CEO, you must have a "seat at the table" and you must do all of this or you simply can't be effective in your role. Sound familiar? Furthermore, the same mentality applies when talking titles. Every person who is the top IT leader in their organization wants to be titled CIO or CTO.
There is so much pressure to meet these goals one can miss the opportunity to do the thing that brought us all into this profession in the first place - solve problems and manage change. When you allow your career goals and opportunities to be measured on title and reporting relationship, as a dominant factor, you start making decisions out of context and with ill conceived ideas of how to produce the best results.
In my career as a senior IT leader I have held titles other than CIO while still being the top IT leader for my organization. I have held the title of CIO and reported to the CEO, the COO and various other acronyms. I really can't say, upon reflection, any of these scenarios were a direct impact on my success. The organization, my colleagues, person(s) providing direct supervision and the teams I built certainly affected my results. However, my title and my immediate manager's title - well I really can't offer that as a justification for my successes or failures.
So I offer everyone these three bits of advice. First, honestly assess your situation and ask yourself this: What would I do with my IT organization if I were the CEO? Actually, when you look at your title and reporting structure with an "outside in" perspective most of our situations make sense. CEOs are smart people and when they decide how to organize and title their senior management team it is usually a fair reflection of many factors. The type of industry, the size of the industry/company, the responsibilities of IT and the role it plays in the company and the comfort, time and insight a CEO feels justified providing to the top IT leader. Second, never be afraid to join larger or smaller organizations just because the title or reporting relationship changes. If the opportunity makes you grow - go for it. Third, if you already work in a larger organization with lateral opportunities don't fear making a move - if it makes you grow.
Next, Part 2, Is the War Room really so bad?
Many of us have been indoctrinated to fixate on one career goal - make it to the Boardroom. You must report to the CEO, you must have a "seat at the table" and you must do all of this or you simply can't be effective in your role. Sound familiar? Furthermore, the same mentality applies when talking titles. Every person who is the top IT leader in their organization wants to be titled CIO or CTO.
There is so much pressure to meet these goals one can miss the opportunity to do the thing that brought us all into this profession in the first place - solve problems and manage change. When you allow your career goals and opportunities to be measured on title and reporting relationship, as a dominant factor, you start making decisions out of context and with ill conceived ideas of how to produce the best results.
In my career as a senior IT leader I have held titles other than CIO while still being the top IT leader for my organization. I have held the title of CIO and reported to the CEO, the COO and various other acronyms. I really can't say, upon reflection, any of these scenarios were a direct impact on my success. The organization, my colleagues, person(s) providing direct supervision and the teams I built certainly affected my results. However, my title and my immediate manager's title - well I really can't offer that as a justification for my successes or failures.
So I offer everyone these three bits of advice. First, honestly assess your situation and ask yourself this: What would I do with my IT organization if I were the CEO? Actually, when you look at your title and reporting structure with an "outside in" perspective most of our situations make sense. CEOs are smart people and when they decide how to organize and title their senior management team it is usually a fair reflection of many factors. The type of industry, the size of the industry/company, the responsibilities of IT and the role it plays in the company and the comfort, time and insight a CEO feels justified providing to the top IT leader. Second, never be afraid to join larger or smaller organizations just because the title or reporting relationship changes. If the opportunity makes you grow - go for it. Third, if you already work in a larger organization with lateral opportunities don't fear making a move - if it makes you grow.
Next, Part 2, Is the War Room really so bad?
Thursday, March 1, 2012
CIO Squared - a better way to reach your goals?
It is always dangerous to generalize. However, when you think about the people you know who read magazines such as CIO (or other industry/professional type publications) there is always one person who likes to take the smallest possible blurb and turn it into the next big thing. That isn't me.
I do like to keep up to date on what topics the publications within our profession believe will spark our interest. Ultimately, being plugged in will spark something in my own thinking or be a trend/concern I will have to address at some point in the future.
This article from their digital edition written by Peter High regarding the CIO Squared is a good example of how we should allow our thinking as CIOs to expand.
We get so fixated on our strategic impact we sometimes miss how difficult it is corral and control strategy in an organization. However, innovation is the root of a valuable strategic plan. Putting more emphasis on how you affect the innovative cycle within your organization may be the best roadmap to having an impact on the strategy.
I do like to keep up to date on what topics the publications within our profession believe will spark our interest. Ultimately, being plugged in will spark something in my own thinking or be a trend/concern I will have to address at some point in the future.
This article from their digital edition written by Peter High regarding the CIO Squared is a good example of how we should allow our thinking as CIOs to expand.
We get so fixated on our strategic impact we sometimes miss how difficult it is corral and control strategy in an organization. However, innovation is the root of a valuable strategic plan. Putting more emphasis on how you affect the innovative cycle within your organization may be the best roadmap to having an impact on the strategy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)