In complexity we trust

I’ve had a number of people contacted me about my last article on Complexity Costs. It seemed to have hit a nerve that has resonated in people with many lamenting that technology is becoming increasing difficult to manage in the modern enterprise. So much so that, for the larger IT shops, in order to understand how the technical environment hangs together, you need to work there for many months (regardless of how technically competent you are). 

This has obvious impacts on how you have to manage your resources. The old days of hiring a contractor for a quick three-month piece of work are fast dissolving as the level of complexity is making it difficult for them to be productive quickly (due to the amount of technical stuff they need to get their heads around). This is also having a flow-on impact for the availability of skills in the market with longer contracts being offered so skilled people are being locked away resulting in an increase in demand and resultant, some would say, ridiculous hourly rates.

A number of these systems also mirror complex business processes. In most of these cases, the processes were developed in the era founded on filling in some kind of paper-based forms. Screens were designed to look as close to the paper version as possible regardless of the usability issues this introduces.  

So we have a set of complex systems, which are supporting an inefficient workflow using an outdated input and output mechanism. In some public sector situations there is a legislative requirement, which has other constraints like requiring a physical signature. To change the legislation is seen as too hard so instead old IT systems remain in place adding to further cost and complexity. So is it the technology that’s the problem or an out-of-step political system that makes it so hard to change the laws in this country?

The other thing I’d suggest we need to add into the complexity mix is expectations - haven’t those changed over the years? From a Government perspective, the old days of releasing a campaign around something like public safely was relatively simple. You would contract a marketing company to create a TV ad and follow-up with a few commercial radio slots and you would cover 95% of the population. It’s a bit more challenging now. Social Media has been a wonderful edition to many of our more connected lives but also a challenge for Government on how to use it effectively. Add in the fact that the Social Media landscape is also constantly changing. As an example my teenage son the other day told me that only ‘old people’ use Facebook now!  

Community expectations have risen in so many areas – the demands for convenience in an increasing busy world, effective use of communication channels and input into decisions, which affect them. This can be a good thing and, if developed right, such a system will result in much better Public policy being developed over time.

But, of course, this all comes at a cost and are we just adding to the IT complexity by investing in even more systems without cleaning the residual mess we’ve already made? 

So a balance needs to be drawn between cleaning up technology sprawl, re-engineering business processes and redesigning user interfaces as well as introducing new capabilities to manage citizen expectations – all while keeping the lights on and burning brightly with ever reducing budgets!

Two speed or bimodal IT has been bandied about as a concept that will change things for the better, and this has indeed gained acceptance in recent times but is this just duplicating capabilities and not actually fixing the real problem? Although it’s easy to understand the reasons why organisations need faster and more agile software delivery, for mine, I can’t see this approach being a sustainable model in the longer term. That said, it can be a good way to experiment with new ‘devops’ and the ‘agile’ worlds. But is bimodal IT the only way can we build a new capability which produces sustainable software products while also maintaining our legacy systems? Or are we just not serious enough about fixing the underlying problem?

As an ex-CIO, I know how difficult it can be to convince a failure-shy Board to invest in cleaning up technology sprawl and simplify the technical environment. You do need to spend time on developing a business case pitched at the right level, which engages or ‘sells’ the case for investment effectively. It can also get hard for a CIO to present a business case like this to a Board as this may be seen as an admission of failure (as such a sprawl may have happened under his or her watch).  

What is actually harder is convincing the business that their processes are out-of-date, inefficient and driving costs up. It’s a lot easier to focus on the technology as the issue rather than business process as this is usually simpler to get people’s heads around. Like a CIO can take the criticism of their IT systems personally (they shouldn’t but they do!) a business Executive can take a comment on their business processes personally – no one likes being told their baby is ugly! 

The most successful Executives I have worked with (and for) are masters of managing internal relationships. Like all relationships there is a bit of give and take and ‘selling’ of ideas with trust built over time. Game playing, undermining and only being concerned with oneself will result in a fractured, non-preforming workplace.

Effective CIO’s spend time building these relationships. They build trust, and with this comes support for taking risks and, importantly, a level of understanding (and empathy) when things don’t go to plan. An effective CIO also plays a role in educating his or her fellow Executives about technology and its challenges.  

It still surprises me that most non-IT Executives don’t want to understand IT and just glaze over when you begin to explain it. In this day and age where technology is such a driver of organisational reform, Executive who don’t, or don’t want to, understand it will soon find themselves left behind.