A Few Additional Voices. . . .

Although I meant for my next post to start breaking down how organizations can become adept at the trends that comprise digital transformation, well. . . . it's the end of 4th Quarter, and time has been a bit tight recently. However, in the meantime, two people yesterday sent me phenomenal articles that illustrate exactly this discussion. So, go read about it from sources far more authoritative than I.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/tomgillis/2013/11/11/why-the-cios-time-to-lead-is-now/

http://customerthink.com/marketing-and-millennials-using-big-data-in-the-fight-for-younger-buyers/ 

Many thanks to Joe Osborne (@JoeJOzzie) for the Forbes article, and Scott Blahauvietz (@GoScottB) for raising the topic of how millennials are consuming differently than previous generations.

Get To Where The Puck Is Going

Anyone who has talked to me recently has probably endured an enthusiastic pitch about where I think Digital Transformation is headed, and I'm more excited about that than ever. However, in my day job, I spend a lot of time talking to IT folks about what they need and what they are trying to do, and those two conversations are disturbingly divergent.

Wayne Gretzky famously said "I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been." I have the luxury (which I recognize as such, and for which I am very thankful), of working for a company that pays me to learn new technologies, identify trends, and talk to interesting people. In my opinion, the puck that all businesses are chasing has changed directions, and only a few have picked up on it. Worse, because IT folks are so overworked, many haven't had a spare moment to look up from their immediate project trying to deliver what the business has already been hounding them for.

So let's talk about where the "puck" of profits and consumers is headed - right at most businesses' foreheads, and it's going to put a lot of companies on their backside. Lest you think this is unfounded hyperbole, see this article, although I could include a much longer list. Here's why:

Since time immemorial, anyone wanting to make a reliable profit has had to do four things:

1.  Get timely access to information.
2.  Figure out what is wanted by the consumer.
3.  Make it known that "I have that thing."
4.  Engage and transact before someone else beats them to it.

Merchants and customers on the busy Bosphorus Strait, not far from where my brother lives today. I'll bet the guy standing really wishes he knew how much the lady would really be willing to pay for a ride across at this moment, and the boy behind the oars wonders if he can get her attention to say his boat is a Kuru cheaper.

While the how of that process has changed over the centuries (I picture caravans of camels, town criers, tall ships, stevedores with hooks, ads in old-timey newspapers), the tasks themselves remain unchanged. For the past decade, we have thought in terms of customer surveys, market research, TV/ print/billboard ads, and either bricks and mortar retail, or e-commerce. 

It's easy to read case studies or look back on some shift in history, and smugly assume "we would have seen it coming. Surely today we are too sophisticated to fall for that." It's gratifying to think of ourselves as the inevitable conclusion of a long chain of suckers, culminating in our much more advanced and educated society. Whereas in fact, our grandchildren will be smugly scratching their sensor and screen filled helmets, wondering how we missed it, during our brief and somewhat quaint moment in time.

There is a massive shift that has been underway for a few years, but  is now reaching critical mass.  Emerging influences that had been nascent or faddish are becoming mainstream, and growing numbers of previously-blissful companies are receiving rude awakenings. Why? Because the basis of competition in their industries is changing, and along lines that are unfamiliar and oblique to their understanding of the market, internal culture, and existing business processes.

1.  Organizations are creating smart, new products that carry on the conversation after the purchase, and produce streams of real-time data that can be harnesses to improve awareness of what's happening, and the timeliness of automated responses.

2.  Big Data is changing the granularity at which companies can understand who potential customers are, where they are, what they want, who they are talking to, and what it would take to make them change their buying habits.

3.  Digital Marketing is allowing savvy companies to engage customers in new, focused ways that are more "pull" than "push." Rather than pushing one generic message out across the airwaves hoping it might hit a few receptive eyes, and frustrating everyone else, companies can now engage their ideal demographic in a much more targeted way as those people "pull" and consume content and services that are valuable to them.

4.  These mobile sensor and communication packages we still quaintly call "phones" are disrupting both supply-side and demand-side economics by pairing up buyers and sellers in novel ways, allowing more specialized and niche offerings to be profitable where they never would have previously been feasible. Not only is this bringing new entrants into markets who never would have been profitable before, but it is also defining new business models that are upending established assumptions. Anywhere there are perishable goods (hotel rooms, rental cars, tour experiences, consumables, electronics, software), buyers and sellers can now find each other directly, while circumventing established middle-men. Most of all, these devices are vacuuming up the data that we gladly feed them, because these apps offer just enough functionality to make us willing to carry them, interact with them, and invite them into every corner of our lives.

The reason the combination of these trends is so disruptive isn't because the technologies are new, but because they alter how the math of the very business models themselves are calculated. New market entrants can find new customers, for new and existing products, in new ways that were never feasible before. Some companies get it - but others are dismissing this as faddish, something unique to Millennials, or as inapplicable because they "aren't software companies." Without naming names, I can only say that from recent personal experience, I am flabbergasted by the near-sighted dismissal of mobile applications by companies in an industry that is being stood on its head by mobile applications! Everyone knows what Netflix did to Blockbuster, and what Uber and Lyft would have already done to taxis if not for legacy regulations, and what Tesla will inevitably do to car dealerships. But most companies are only reflecting on this long enough to conclude that they aren't in these markets, and therefore aren't susceptible. Rest assured, though, - someone, somewhere, right now, is considering ways to exploit the apex of these three developments to alter the basis of competition in your industry. 

What makes the combination of these trends so powerful is that they represent not just a new set of things companies need to have as table stakes (like a mobile app)  - but a vehicle for codifying and turbo-charging the "emergent strategy." (Seriously, go read that link).  Smart and fast companies are exploiting it using the Lean Startup Methodology, not just for software companies, but for all industries. If you read only one book this year, it should be The Lean Startup by Eric Ries.

I would make the virtuous cycle that Mr. Ries outlines (yes, I am in awe of the man), more generic and applicable to non-software companies by altering it very slightly:

Eric Ries lays out a compelling argument that this is the only way to run a software startup. I'm going to go out on a limb and postulate that operating with this mindset, and focusing on speeding through the cycle as efficiently and often as possible is the only way incumbents avoid being "Blockbustered." I am confident in saying that because all companies are becoming software companies. Marc Andreesen said it first here, and after much scoffing, people are realizing he was right.

Not only that - but the smartest companies are acknowledging that they don't have time to organically grow their own technology expertise in the C-suite, and are looking for help both from their own in-house technology folks, and outside the company.  Again - don't believe me - go read it for yourself. Even technology companies like Facebook occasionally bring in outside help.   The companies that these authors call "Digital Masters" have positioned themselves to run away from their competition. They have built a competitive advantage in this new era of emergent strategy by building the capability to speed quickly through the steps of the Lean Startup Methodology. The authors point to strong leadership endorsement from the top, and investments in developing digital expertise as the main factors.

I would be just one more voice of doom and gloom if I stopped here. But please believe me when I say that this challenge is very surmountable. The gap can be closed. Regular companies can develop competency in this area relatively quickly, if they are willing to do some soul-searching and invest. Much of what the "big boys" at Google, Facebook, and Netflix have spent a decade or more developing in terms of technology is available off the shelf with enterprise support, today. Getting started on this virtuous cycle is both easier and more affordable than you would believe, and with the tools and technologies you have today. I recently helped start a team at EMC called "Pathfinders," focused on how to help companies navigate their way through this market transition, which is why our logo resembles a compass rose. It's a team of six very talented people, and me. ;)

I call on a lot of technology organizations, but am rarely encountering any topic that matters to the business. Compounding this problem is a bunch of vendors running around claiming their all-flash array or other widget "transforms business." If you work in IT, trust me when I say that we hear business leaders begging for their IT teams to help with this coming transition, and would rather buy pre-built infrastructure than have their people wasting time on local optimization instead of focusing on overall IT throughput. I'll be delivering a talk at Interface 2014 in Seattle next month, on how IT folks can get out ahead of whats coming, and skate to where the puck is going to be by developing the necessary skills and mindset now. We're going to follow that up with a workshop over dinner where we can dig into the steps, initiatives, and projects needed to get started, and how to go sell it to the CFO.

The HBR article above closed by saying "The distinctions between industries will become less pronounced than the differences between market leaders and laggards within the same categories." Your company wants and needs you to step up and help them be a market leader. In my infinite spare time, I'll be writing subsequent posts detailing how to start acquiring the skills and mindset necessary to be ready to catch the puck. However, if you'd like to talk about how you can help lead at your company, hit me up on LinkedIn, or Twitter. I'm a free resource, and am overjoyed at the privilege of doing this job!

IT Can't Win By Only Playing Defense.

One of the myriad benefits of my current role with EMC is that I get to work with the IT groups from hundreds of companies, and get exposed to a lot of different environments and viewpoints. It's been very interesting to see how different teams are responding to the pressures being placed on IT today.

In the majority of the companies I have worked at or been exposed to, there is an . .. . interesting relationship between IT and the rest of the company. If you work in IT, you know what I'm talking about. It sounds something like:

"IT is a cost center."
"Our budgets are shrinking."
"Data centers are old technology, and all of this will be running somewhere else soon."
"IT is slow, and unresponsive, and it's inhibiting the company's ability to innovate."

I've heard people say "perception is reality." I think a better way is to say that often perceptions create reality, in that they become self-fulfilling prophecies.

If you believe IT is [only] a cost center -  then your only response is to seek to drive down cost.
If you believe that IT budgets must shrink -  then your only option is to choose where to cut.
If you believe that on-premise data centers are obsolete - you are unlikely to invest in modernization.
If you believe that IT is slow and unresponsive, why would you provide training and budgets to change that?

Here is a law I believe wholeheartedly:  "Over time, all organizations get the IT service they deserve."

If you believe that technology isn't a competitive differentiator, why hire anything more than the candidate asking the lowest salary? You are sure to have your assumptions affirmed after a few hires.

My father led a challenging organization (ask me sometime - it's an interesting story), and he was constantly reading everything he could get his hands on around organizational theory and leadership. As a result, from a young age I received dinnertime lectures on Covey, De Pree, and Collins' writings and theories. Dad used to spend a lot of time talking about how short-term leadership can "hollow out" a company to show short-term savings. A new VP comes in, postpones maintenance and defers training ("because after all, IT is a cost center"), shows a few million saved, and gets promoted to a senior VP role with a nice pat on the back. In his short-sighted wake, IT is now further behind and deeper into technical debt. This becomes a negative, downward cycle.

Here is another law I believe:  "Rest assured that if you value yourself cheaply, the world will not raise your price."

IT has every reason to have a seat at the table, and more than most. The senior leadership of companies going forward will need a solid background in technology more than ever. Companies today cannot attract customers, transact business, communicate, or operate internally without technology. It is as fundamental to business as calculators, pens and paper were decades ago. Who are you to require a higher budget? Who else needs it more? Show me the big initiatives that engineering, marketing, sales, and operations have at your company and I'll show you a litany of requests for IT services before any of those projects can begin.

My father used to spend a lot of time theorizing about the differences between "management" and "leadership," and I've come to realize that he was pondering an important distinction that gets far too little thought. He finally decided that in simple terms - Management is getting daily things done. Leadership is deciding what we ought to be doing. In a world where IT has become so central to getting things done, a key role of IT leadership is to intercept the existing dynamic (see above) and outline how IT can help, and what it needs in resources to succeed. Why do anything else?

To accept what you know to be a losing proposition in constantly declining budget and headcount, and make cuts in areas you know to be strategic is to essentially resign yourself to just delaying the inevitable. Once you are on the downward spiral of missed deadlines, failed projects, and disappointed expectations, will the business be more inclined to give you the budget you need three years from now? Your only option in that world is to play defense, and dodge the axe of outsourcing as long as possible.

****Disclaimer:  Easier said than done, I know. Everyone has to take cuts at some point, and that's part of the benefit of on-premise, in-house IT. Try getting AWS to postpone their bill! It may be that in some years things get deferred. However, this shouldn't become the norm. There should be some discussion and understanding that this is a temporary setback, and needs to be remedied by a year of plenty, and that sustained cuts and deferrals aren't in anyone's interests.****

The best IT shops I visit today are characterized by a few common elements:

1. The business understands that effective use of technology is a key differentiator, and so is willing to invest in order to do it right.
2. IT leadership recognizes that they have to deliver value to deserve a seat at the table, and strongly advocates for the resources necessary for success.
3. From top to bottom, IT staff recognize that they are competing for their (internal) customers, and their jobs.

Now, I think all of us can agree that the above three elements are every IT leader's dream! However, very few inherit this situation, or find it naturally occurring in the business world. It's a rare species. Usually, it has to be created. The key to creating this dynamic is the decision that IT needs to go on the offensive. To get more salary, major league teams have to show a plan for how they are going to win more games. Once they win more games, more people attend, and ticket sales go up. Once the money is rolling in, the business side of the ball club is willing to think about growth, and investment. 

What does going on the offensive look like? IT has to find something the business cares about, and deliver quickly and reliably. If you are going to pick something the business cares about to get started, pick something as close to the decision maker's hearts as possible. 

Easier said than done, right? Here's a simple idea that has caught my imagination. A wise man told me that if you have all the facts and data, making the right decisions is relatively easy. The challenge is that we rarely have many facts or useful data. What if IT had access to Ph.D -level data scientists who understand business, and had them interview every VP about what it is they wish they knew? "What answers do you wish you had in order to run a more effective business?"  What if IT could have those Ph.D Data Scientists examine the company's data, and determine how to answer those questions, using the existing tools and technologies the company already owns? What if they then held a session with all the company leadership showing all of the questions, ranked by feasibility, and value, and highlighted which ones could be answered, and then gave the answers? What if all of that could be done in three weeks?

At the end of it, the leadership has a strategy for how to go about using information and technology to directly drive revenue and make better decisions which is what IT is all about in the first place. IT has undeniably brought value to the table, and delivered in rapid fashion. Best of all, it hardly took any time or cycles from IT, and didn't come with strings attached to large capital outlays for infrastructure. 

This theoretical service actually exists, and is exceedingly affordable. Pivotal Data Labs is an amazing part of the EMC/VMware/Pivotal Federation of companies, and has an amazing pool of world-class professors, consultants, and true data scientists that are accessible to customers. We're talking about less than $60K to get access to the types of talent that helped Goldman Sachs create their money-making models. Three weeks to having made a case that IT is worth investing in. 

Yes, I work for an IT vendor, but I'm not asking you to get more budget to spend on large storage arrays. I'm not asking you to buy Greenplum, or Pivotal HD. If you need those things at some point in the future, fine, we will be here for that. Increasingly, we are less about the hardware, and more about helping you compete in a world that demands flexibility, choice, and speed-to-value through self-service, automation, and software. Let's do it on the hardware you already own, or some whitebox stuff you buy at Fry's. Skeptical? I'd be happy to explain how we can help you do that - and I'm a free resource.

However - the above is just one idea. The larger point here is that IT must go on the offensive. By only playing defense, one can't hope to stay ahead of the pressures and disruption that businesses are going to experience in the coming decade. IT leadership has two choices - to shrink from engaging and to try to dodge the outsourcing axe as long as possible, or to try and take their budgets into their own hands, and make a strong case for why the effective use of technology is more critical than ever.

Many thanks to the great leaders who I have witnessed doing exactly that, and to my father for thinking out loud at the dinner table.

Creating Shared Vision, Part II

So - after a long period of doing other things - family vacation, training, multiple work trips, diving with sharks in Belize (it was so cool!), I finally decided that this is the afternoon I would sit down and finish this thought. If you haven't read the first part of this post - go read that first. This is the second half, where we get down to conclusions.

To review the challenge: how can 20 or 30 people of disparate and highly specialized disciplines quickly develop common vision and understanding on complex projects that no-one fully understands, and that aren't repeated?

1. Top-down "command and control" [often] doesn't work, because frequently if the leadership has the vision for what the final outcome will be (and they don't always), they almost always lack the deep technical expertise to deploy/build each part. IT projects are often very, very complicated and technical.
2. Bottom-up is too slow, because each person approaches the problem from a completely different viewpoint, because of their different areas of responsibility, and it's not possible for everyone to learn everything. . . . . and this is where the endless meetings come in.
3. Organic learning effects don't work, because most IT projects are one-offs, where that project with those technologies and team members will probably never happen again (I'm primarily talking about infrastructure projects, here).

So. .. . . how can IT groups quickly agree on the why, what, and how? (PMO can figure out the when, usually)

I think the answer is to find a reference model outside the organization. Unless you are Google, chances are someone else has done a similar project before. Better yet - find someone who has done a similar project many, many times, and who has deep expertise in each domain, but also sufficient scope to not only be able to explain each part, but also how they all go together.

Let's go back to the theoretical group trying to consolidate many smaller IT departments (part 1). 

• Security has their concerns, and doesn't understand the other pieces
• The virtualization, storage, and networking folks have pet peeves and issues they want to ensure get addressed.
• The VP often knows what's wrong with the current, and maybe what needs to be done to fix it, but may not be able to articulate a feasible technical solution that can accomplish that.
• The finance folks are worried, and I have to admit they often have reason to be.
• The VP of X is annoyed because project Y is being postponed until after this one.

What if (and I'm just totally spit-balling here!), we were able to take each of these groups, and expose them to deep-domain expertise in their field, and each department came back 8 hours later with an overview of the larger project and goals, and actionable specifics around their part in it? What would that be worth in terms of saved time, stress, endless meetings, conflict, waste, and compromises resulting in sub-optimal outcomes? What would that be worth to YOU as a leader, to have a team that identifies itself as productive, and effective, rather than what IT often gets labeled with? 

That's one of the value propositions of a portfolio of solutions, and companies. Rather than having security figuring out how to integrate a disparate solution with a backup technology built by another vendor, and a highly specialized storage widget made for a completely independent use case - what if all these solutions were designed with each other in mind, and with a single vision? What if there were products (and expertise) in each category that all "snapped" together to accomplish the task? Essentially - what if you could task thousands and thousands of people to develop an integrated solution before you needed it?

That's what I love to see come out of a really well-run engagement with customers. Ideally, after an executive briefing (we often have a joint session, and then break-outs by discipline) their VPs are satisfied that the team understands not only where they want to end up, but also each piece of how they will get there. The individual disciplines have gotten to beat up on (it's OK) and ask questions of experts who understand how all the pieces fit together, but also speak the [security|storage|analytics|development] language, and understand the pain and criticality of the field.

Essentially, I believe an engagement with a vendor should be about only a few key things:

A. How are you going to help me compete for and keep my customers, and my job? (If you don't understand that YOU as an individual have customers, and don't believe that you need to compete for your customers, we need to talk. There is no such thing as a captive customer base anymore. Your competitors are gleefully extending the lead if you are standing still)

B. What is the vision your product(s) were developed around, and how complete is that vision?

C. How can you help me rapidly and quickly deliver on the answers to question #1? (hint: shared vision)

Because of my tenure and because I enjoy it, I often get called in to talk with people who are either:

Painfully aware of point A, and actively looking for an answer to point C, 

OR:

people who are unaware of point A, and believe the "new" and "best" thing for [storage|networking|analytics|development] is going to cure cancer and solve world hunger [at least for their department]. There will always be companies willing to agree ("it's transformational!"), and sell them that "thing." 

So - this is why I am resolved to always, always, always start with "what are we really trying to do to help you compete?"   Unless I forget, am having a bad day, or have been brought in half-way through. 

In which case. . . . . would you do everyone a favor, and ask us? 

"What is the EMC+Pivotal+VMware+RSA+VCE vision for helping me compete for my customers?"

(And - btw - give all your vendors/partners an opportunity to answer that question!) 

Creating Shared Vision

I should first say that I have made a career (so far) out of IT Infrastructure. Aside from a short jaunt doing something else, I have worked in IT since I first got an internship when I was 15. So - I understand how very difficult it is, and have done everything from IT helpdesk, to being the IT Infrastructure Manager for a small group of shipping and logistics companies. I've worked for everything from a non-profit, to Washington Mutual Bank which had 55,000 employees at one point. I've burned the midnight oil upgrading Exchange, and sweated bullets when I couldn't bring things back online, and my maintenance window was fading fast. So - at numerous levels, in various industries, in two different countries - I've been there. The complexity and pressure IT Infrastructure teams have to cope with these days is tremendous. I am not saying that the technology isn't important, or is easy. However - it's not the technology that is the challenge for most organizations. It's the people.

Specifically, the challenge is in getting to the technology. Ask any project manager or team lead, and they will tell you that by the time the project has gotten to the "pointing and clicking" phase (the "doing" if you will), that step is 95% done. Think back through your own career - How often have you seen a project fail because some technology wouldn't work? If you have - I'm willing to bet it's still the very smallest fraction of the projects you have seen fail for myriad other reasons:

1. Budgetary challenges - the company is willing to spend $750K on yet another triple-redundant item for some other department - but IT cannot get $150K to set up even rudimentary DR capability (ignoring that the other expenditure/item will be a moot point if IT isn't running, anyway)
2. Lack of organizational will - the group has 30 initiatives to get done, and enough throughput (people and time) to handle 15. Your project got pushed to next year (for the third time)
3. Project problems - people leave, resources aren't available, contractors are unfamiliar with your environment, team members can't get along - you know what I'm talking about.
4. Too many silos - I know this sounds like a buzz-phrase, but have you ever been on an email thread of  >50 "replies" that keeps growing in the number of people on the thread - all to get something completely trivial done? Should it really be that hard to get a simple request filled? Should it require approval from 5 different people, and information from five others so one person a week from now can check a box?
5. The corollary to #4 is too much process. Ever been at a company where any change required three weeks of paperwork, two approval boards, and a three week waiting period?
6. The end-users reject the new project, either by not learning or doing what is needed of them, or outright and explicitly.

There are many more, but that's for another day. All of the above are project killers, for sure. But the one that I see again and again, and that I believe saps the productivity of IT like no other, is Lack of shared vision. Compared to this challenge, the others above are mere pretenders. Everyone has been both party to and victim of this merciless scourge of IT productivity.

Notice that all of the above are complete people problems, not technology problems. At a startup where two people could just get down to "clicking and doing" - and where there weren't a lot of decisions to be made, the technology project would be done in record time. It's the addition of more people, and more organizational issues that introduces the other challenges, and organizational complexity is something people create. 

Shared vision solves a host of ills. Typically - people want to succeed and will try, if they know what success looks like and how to get there. If everyone knows what they should be doing, and what the desired end-state is and why that is important, it greatly reduces the odds that problems #1-5 will be a significant obstacle. The Army spends a lot of time trying to train young leaders to distill and communicate "commander's intent" to their platoon or company. When difficulties are encountered, small units leaders can take individual action to circumvent or adapt to most problems, and still achieve the desired end-state. While they aren't always successful in these efforts, it's powerful when everyone is driving toward the same clearly-defined goal.

However - shared vision is incredibly difficult to create ex nihilo. Taking a group of people who have never done something before (of even trivial complexity), and explaining their individual roles in sufficient detail takes almost as much time as if you just did all the tasks yourself. Teaching a group of 30 soldiers a simple team task can take hours on end, and continual drill to keep it fresh. Obviously, that approach doesn't scale very well on tasks that can't be rehearsed.

This "top down" model completely breaks down when the task/project is something new, and that's the norm in IT projects, not the exception. To complicate this - how often do the leaders themselves actually understand (much less agree on) the desired outcome? That isn't necessarily a judgement on the leadership, because technology is changing so rapidly that it's nearly impossible for anyone to stay abreast of new developments across a wide range of disciplines and at sufficient detail for a "top-down" approach to work. Unfortunately - that is usually the way that most groups are organized - with an old-school, hierarchical, "command-and-control" structure with the authority at the top.

Take for example a fictitious organization that is consolidating a number of smaller IT groups into a shared services and shared datacenter model. At the point the technology folks were needing to make purchases and get to work in order to meet deadlines, the leadership was still trying to forge a common vision of what the purpose, scope, and desired results of the project were. No-one could buy anything or begin work until those decisions were made, and before those decisions could be made - everyone had to agree on a shared vision. The security folks could outline their requirements, but couldn't necessarily articulate what that would mean for the other groups, or vice-versa. The infrastructure folks weren't sure what they would be doing after the consolidation, and each group had concerns about what life would be like as a tenant on the final product. And all of this is completely necessary and normal. There's no judgement in what I am saying - all of those things do need to be done, and all of the people there are bright, dedicated, and impressively friendly and articulate, and they will get there. But, the end result remains the same, and is still sub-optimal - a lot of people are waiting on a few people, and the meetings continue day after day.

Another factor that needs to be considered is that very often the technical know-how and architecture expertise does not lie with the leadership, but rather with someone in an individual contributor role, or middle management. Frequently, the people who are best suited to making a decision around which technology or platform to adopt aren't the ones who have the title and corner office, but instead live out in the cubicle farm. These are typically the people who will be needed to make any project succeed, because they are the ones who will do the actual work, and are the subject-matter experts.

The pace of disruptive innovation in the technology world also negates the benefits of organic learning effects. Typically, if a company or team does something more than once, they develop some familiarity with the topic material, and the mechanics of completing the process, and they can deliver subsequent iterations of that same project in a fraction of the time initially required. As a case in point, consider the Boeing 787. The first unit took about 3.5 years to assemble and test. Today, Boeing is working to deliver 10 units per month. While learning effects are applicable across nearly any sector (doesn't have to be manufacturing), classical learning effects are dependent on the task being repeated a number of times.

So, how can IT groups short-circuit this process, and more quickly converge on a shared vision?

I'll throw it out there so you can mentally mull it over while I draft the conclusion to this!

(Click here for part II)

Why?

I meet with a lot of people, across a lot of different industries, in many states. You would think that every situation at each company would be a very different story, and while the people stand out, it is surprising how often the same themes come up again and again.

This blog is both for your benefit and mine. Writing it helps crystallize things rattling around in my head, and maybe something useful might end up in here from time to time that helps with something you're thinking about.