What Differentiates Top IT Performers from the Norm?

Talent is both nature and nurtured. 

With the changing nature of technology, IT talent may also need to present such ability to adapt to the changes, so what differentiates top IT performers from the norm? Or an alternative question might be to consider what personality and behavioral characteristics are displayed by top IT performers. Are there any key differences between IT leaders (like CIOs) and top performers on their staffs? With the pace of change speeding up, are those key performance indicators changing?

Top IT performers advance business goals first and foremost: IT initiatives are not discrete from the business as a whole. The CIO knows/makes the 'scope' while the top IT performer makes an excellent work breakdown structure that results in an accurate cost, time and resource estimation. The good IT leader has to be prepared to constantly align technology against the enterprise's business needs. He/she has to orient the IT organization for constant realignment therefore and has to communicate vision with credibility and passion, motivating business stakeholders and the IT team to collaborate effectively in everybody's success. Top IT performers, just like top performers in any other discipline, seek a balance of their influence with other disciplines to effectively add value to the whole, through their specific knowledge and experience base. Sometimes people only focus on what they know and have no interest in understanding the world from a different perspective. Sometimes their view will be limited by others around them unintentionally because of old paradigms or intentionally for self-serving reasons. All of this adds up to people vying for influence within an organization to achieve their own objectives or the objectives of the organization. But high-performers believe the whole is better than the sum of pieces. In short, understanding the relevant role that each functional discipline has within the organization, actively pursuing influence to achieve a balance, and focusing on the practical application of your knowledge base to achieve the objectives of the organization are all characteristics of a top performer.

Top IT performers are those who keep themselves updated with the latest in technology: Because it relates to business and those who can suggest to the business what they can do to improve their business. By changing the nature of technology, it’s not ok if people who are in the IT operations and think what they learned ten years back is sufficient for a lifetime. Top IT performers are more competitive, "adaptive, adaptive, adaptive, adaptive," have a knack for meeting the business requirements while improving existing infrastructure and operations; to put simply, top IT performers need to be life-learner, as the knowledge life cycle is significantly shortened and information is only a few clicks away at age of digitalization. Top IT performers, either a CIO or an IT operation person, all have the same drive to innovate and capacity to find ways to deliver. Although there are different skill sets between a CIO and a Technical IT top performer, the common denominator for these top performers is the understanding of the business requirements with stakeholders engagement in the activities they perform. This could range from a simple as spending extra time or shift priorities to resolve a critical request important to the business to a high level adjust the strategy to adapt to the business environment in the next three years. Top IT performers are top business performers. IT needs to measure its impact in the eyes of the business value being created - looking at ways to improve employee productivity, enable business growth, business efficiency in addition to improving the way IT runs (costs, availability, agility). Top IT performers at all levels often display
1) They care about 'the customer'
2) They are happy to 'go the extra mile'
3) They are always on the lookout for ways to improve
4) They realize the technology is just a means to an end
5) They can bridge the gap between technology and the people who use it

TOP IT performers have the ability to talk and walk on both sides of the fence: Top IT performers don't think of themselves as IT guy/gal only, they understand the business as well as the business people they work with and focus primarily on solving business problems and creating business capabilities. The best IT leaders are focused on success at all levels - from the success of their own team to the success of their boss, the organization, and even the business sector. What's key here is the ability to talk and walk on both sides of the fence. Top IT performers "get" technology and are astute at the solution and implementing it. However, they also fully understand how the business operates and how technology helps/supports obtain business objectives. Top IT performers have three main differentiators, as IT exists to enable and facilitate the business and the top performers are the ones who understand the business requirements, delivering on time,  with the right technology and solutions in collaboration with the business.

1) Business orientation; Enabling both Business and IT to achieve organizational objectives
2) Ability to define, articulate and execute the IT strategies and priorities needed to win
3) Leadership skills - ability to listen, align, motivate, inspire their entire organization to achieve the desired results

IT leaders like CIOs, should think like the CEO and then, use IT Innovation and technology to drive business value. The best CIOs connect the dots and lead their organization to embed the culture throughout the entire IT organization and the business. In other words: Future IT leaders will be business leaders who are IT savvy. As top IT performers are identified in their early career they will need opportunity, exposure and mentoring in the business space. Know the business that you are in from the business perspective. Leverage knowledge to get buy-in on the business level. Talk about the business. Don't talk about technology except with your team. The final measure is whether you actually influence and get the buy-in for the initiatives that you strategize for and actually bring these ideas into the business as an adopted methodology. The more successful IT leaders:
1) display good self-awareness,
2) are comfortable communicating at all levels,
3) inspire confidence through honesty and integrity,
4) work hard to engage with stakeholders,
5) invest in personal development as well as technical skills (for themselves and their teams)
6) maintain a good balance of inward (IT) and outward (business) focus. 

What about the quantitative measure? Most of the items that are mentioned above are qualitative. Are there any systemic ways that organizations can identify their top performers? From a statistic perspective to quantify, that one must first group the likes, select key values, establish a baseline then measure. So, the top IT performer is really the top performer of the like in the group. CIO may be measured by the impact on the bottom-line efficiency or top line growth. Project Manager may be measured by the success of the project delivered. The developers may be measured by how many business problems via their work being solved (such as adding the new feature., etc), not just by how many lines of code they write. Therefore, top performers are differentiated through their attitude, aptitude, and altitude (3As), as well as communication, creativity, and collaboration (3Cs).  

Read More

CIO as ‘Chief Idea Officer’: Three Aspects of Idea Management

Innovation is not serendipity, but a management discipline

Innovation is the light every forward-looking organization is pursuing. However, innovation should no longer be treated as serendipity; it can be managed systematically and scientifically. From strategic planning to resource allocation and funding, to program management, to rewards and recognition, the comprehensive innovation management with platform support, and on-site program management can help an organization build a strong innovation program from the ground-up.

1. The Principles, Barriers, and Practices in Idea Management

The owners or stewards of idea management are ‘corporate intrapreneurs’ who need to transform problems and opportunities into tangible and value-creating ideas to build solid business values. The main principles of idea leadership may include: 

• Ownership over administration 
• People over tools 
• High-quality ideas over many ideas 
• Content over process 
• Communities over competition  

The main barriers to innovation: What're the obstacles to building scalable idea management which means for sharing and building ideas throughout the enterprise, even across silos and geographies. Do you think that the main barrier to doing that is a lack of software? Perhaps not, the main barriers are related to culture (do you share?), language (do you understand each other?), incentives (do I want to share with you?), focus (do I even pay attention to ideas from others? Are your ideas relevant to me?), pressure (do I find the time to listen to you?), skills (can you outline your idea in a way I can follow?), etc.

Key things to remember when trying to aggregate/manage good ideas:
1). Good ideas nearly never emerge spontaneously. They need to seed and mature.
2). Most good ideas emerge from interactions, not single individuals.
3). Most organizations have too many ideas. But more is not always better.
4). Describing a good idea in a short template is very difficult for most people.

5). Good ideas and expertise are correlated. There is nothing most wasteful than ignorance in action
6). Innovation is 1% inspiration, 99% perspiration.
7). Less than 5% of the ideas submitted will be implemented. This could leave more than 95% of people frustrated.
8). Bottom-up ideas are mostly incremental and process driven. Idea portals tend to have limited bottom line impact but can create healthy emulation if combined with other tools.
9). The person submitting an idea is not necessarily the right one to pursue it, but sometimes he/she is. 

10) Set the criteria to evaluate and prioritize ideas accordingly, but how.
11). Innovation is a means, not an end. If you don't know where you want to go, you are unlikely to get there.  

2. How to Evaluate an Effective Innovation Platform 

The appropriately configured innovation platform creates a scalable means for sharing and building ideas throughout the enterprise. As a result, innovation becomes a persistent, shared reality — even across silos and geographies. A well-considered tool/platform for innovation, in the given culture, operating environment, and governance, which can be part of innovation management planning and implementation, could strengthen the innovation effort and success rate to the organization. But how to evaluate an effective innovation platform/tools:

What features Idea Management Tools should have:

1). Where people who are contributing receive updates on the status of their ideas
2). Help achieve maximum visibility of ideators & contributors and also showcase success stories to help keep up the motivation level
3). Enable the management to communicate their thoughts & guide the people
4). Open up these ideas for collaboration to help bring valuable inputs to help the development of the idea
5). Facilitate ease of idea evaluation with stage gate process
6). Reports to manage & monitor the performance of activities
7). Integration with existing LOB applications 

How to evaluate Innovation Process Effectiveness?

1). How will it increase speed in the innovation process
2). How will it decrease risk in the innovation process
3). How will it effectively leverage diversity to create meaningfully unique ideas
4). How will it effectively use the power of stimulus to create meaningfully unique ideas
5). How will it help to reduce fear in the organization? 

What’re the characteristics of the idea management platform?

1). Easy to submit ideas and challenges
2). Easy to find relevant ideas without wading through
3). Easy to track the stage of an idea and how it is progressing
4). Easy to collaborate and find like-minded people in the community
5). Engaging enough that users come back over and over.

Top 5 criteria + extra 1 to Assess Idea Management
1) The simplicity of use (friendly tool, accessibility from any devices...)
2) Flexibility to manage different discussions and votes
3) Link with usual company IT systems used by employees
4) Social & collaborative systems to encourage discussions
5) Transparency in follow-up a system of the innovation process from the idea up to implementation ! Give feedbacks and management & peer recognition are so important.
And the extra one - the last but not the least - a charismatic, influent, open-minded board sponsor

3. People are Innovators, not Processes 

Every good innovation management tool (idea, concept, project, and product) is as good as the people that are using it. People are innovators, not processes. The tool comes AFTER the strategy is set to place and common business goals are well defined. And the main function of the tool is to SUPPORT innovation activities. 

How to spark creativity? There are two ways creativity can be influenced:
1).By providing a challenge to select a set of audience
2). By displaying content on interest (innovation news, success stories & case studies)

Why should people join?
1) Rewarding: It’s an accepted thumb rule of rewarding people which motivates them to join and engage, create and share ideas

2) Recognition also it has been observed that recognition too helps people to participate. 

Who should join?
It relies on where the organization is looking for ideas. It can be a specific set of people or all the people in the organization; it can be customers/ consumers, general citizen, we’ve been living in such a crowd-sourcing, idea-abundance world now.

How to build an innovative team & culture?

3C (Communication, Collaboration, and Coordination) are necessities for good idea management and shaping the culture of innovation. The expectations for cultural and governance settings to do the heavy lifting alone without a well suitable tool/platform, or relying on a magical tool/platform alone without a genuine commitment to shifting cultural and governance settings as part of innovation strategy, are skewed ways of understanding what it takes to innovate

Idea Management, like all other key management disciplines, takes the good alignment of people, process, and technology, the capabilities of managing innovation in the organization is part of the value of innovation. 

Read More about magic "I" in CIOs:

CIO as Chief Inquisitiveness Officer
CIO as Chief Idea Officer

CIO as Chief Interaction Officer
CIO as Chief Interaction Officer II

CIO as Chief Inspiration Officer

CIO as Chief Improvement Officer

CIO as Chief Improvement Officer II

CIO as Chief Improvement Officer III

CIO as Chief Insight Officer

CIO as Chief Insight Officer II

CIO as Chief Influence Officer

CIO as Chief Innovation Officer

CIO as Chief Intrapreneur Officer

CIO as Chief Integration Officer
CIO as Chief Integration Officer II

CIO as Chief Intelligence Officer

CIO as Chief Information Officer

CIO as Chief Investigation Officer

CIO as Chief Investment Officer

CIO as Chief Interpretation Officer

CIO as Chief Inclusiveness Officer

CIO as Chief Interface Officer

CIO as Change Agent

CIO as Governance Champion

Read More

Why Achieving Execution Excellence is so Hard

Execution excellence is difficult to achieve because it is both art and science, hard and soft; decisions and actions, qualities and habits. 

Compare to ‘Strategy Hype’-the variety of theories or best practices, books or white papers brainstorming about strategy, execution seems to be the much ‘cooler’ space, do you know why Strategy Execution is a discipline which has not been extensively developed, despite being so crucial?

Execution has to connect more non-linear dots:. It is a broadened arena which has to connect more non-linear dots and take multi-disciplinary understanding. Why the silos still exist - part of it is academic/industrial ecosystems tend to train talent (and companies encourage it) into being specialists - yet in this field, the capacity to synthesize variety of insights and data into what looks like complexity and then simplify it to the underlying dynamics is not a traditional practice although it is a necessary skill.

Also, execution is hard because it evolves many decision makings, large and small. Computers excel at looking at lots of data and making it visible and understandable. Humans still have to do the understanding and decision  making, as well as provide the initiative and creativity required to execute those decisions effectively and, with luck, artfully. Who out there thinks their organization has a truly excellent, repeatable, trainable, continuously improvable approach to strategy execution? Perhaps very few.

The strategy execution excellence is hard because it’s both art and science, hard and soft: The art is a strategy; it's what differentiates you in the marketplace. The science is the process used to form a well-thought out strategy and the process for putting the strategy into action to get the desired business/ organization results. In a high-level generalization, the process is good. But at a lower level, it’s not easy to get convinced as process = excellence. Regarding excellence, the insight can be captured in the simple quote by Aristotle, "We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act but a habit.”

Organizations must have the strategic agility to achieve execution excellence: Very few businesses have such agility, that's why execution excellence is so hard to achieve. Strategy and execution are composite; one is useless without the other. The challenge is that the environment changes so fast nowadays that your strategy must be very flexible. Therefore, you need to have a strategy before execution, but it must be an agile strategy, Making this change requires a more fundamental and effective approach. It starts with creating a working environment that requires the change to take place, Execution is difficult, also because all the key ingredients in it have mixed flavors. Most research to date has pointed to key aspects of successful strategy execution being: leadership, culture, and performance management systems/rewards, they all well mix the art and science of management disciplines.

It is the thorny path from strategic vision to execution excellence, but still, there’s a way, or alternative routes to take the journey, even with the scenes.

Read More

How to Understand Enterprise Performance Management Holistically?

Enterprise Performance Management is an Overarching Umbrella for other Management Disciplines.

Corporate performance management is not just about managing numbers with metrics, so what’s exactly corporate performance management regarding for, and what’s it related to other key components of corporate management such as strategic management, risk management, information management., etc.?

Corporate Performance Management is a management control from strategy till shop floor. Managing performance means understanding results, setting metrics, fixing plans, and making decisions to ensure it happens. This also means: 

• Translating strategy into operational terms 
• Aligning the organization to create synergies 
• Making strategy everyone’s everyday job and a continual process 
• Mobilizing change through executive leadership anticipation, monitoring results and act.

Enterprise Performance Management is more as decision management: All company’s performance is directly related to the decisions people make every day—from executives to the frontline, across functional areas and regions. Performance management facilitates the flow of the right information to the right people at the right time to get these questions' answers, to help and coordinate your STRATEGY, TACTICS, AND RISKS. Enterprise Performance Management is the integration of multiple methods with each embedded with business analytics, such as segmentation analysis, and especially predictive analytics … to achieve the strategy and to make better decisions.

Enterprise Performance Management is critical: Because new competitive challenges and active market changes underscore the strategic imperative of managing performance more than ever. But the various activities are needed to manage performance— STRATEGIC and OPERATIONAL plans, METRICS, day-to-day decisions. Enterprise Performance Management methods include strategy maps, scorecards, customer profitability analysis using activity-based costing principles, customer intelligence, driver-based budgeting / rolling financial forecasts, lean management, and quality management. Enterprise Performance Management integrates them as a large umbrella.


Strategic Management, Operations Management, Risk Management are ALL part of good Enterprise Performance Management (EPM), in essence: EPM is the tree, Strategic/ Operations/Risk Management are the main Branches. A company benefits most when it executes Enterprise Performance Management (EPM) and Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) in a complementary fashion, as two elements both critical for achieving the vision and mission of the company:
(1) Under EPM one looks at what one wants to take place. One translates the company vision and mission into a strategy with objectives; then translates the strategy into operational plans to achieve the strategic objectives; then execute these plans and monitors actual performance. The classic PDCA-loop.
(2) Under Enterprise Risk Management (ERM), one then looks at the things one essentially does not want to happen. The things that would prevent the execution of the strategy or operational plans from achieving the stated aims or that would even make the strategy and operational plans completely obsolete.

Metaphorically, if the enterprise is a vehicle, Enterprise Performance Management is like the gas pedal with speed scoreboard: Enterprise Risk Management is like brake, and governance is like steering wheel, to keep the business in the right direction; while ‘EPM's "strategy map" component could be the GPS for direction setting. The motor might be the organization's assets and capacity (including its workforce). Predictive analytics might be what is seen through the windshield. The purpose of all such management disciplines and practices is to ensure enterprise vehicle running at optimal speed in the right direction.

Enterprise Performance Management is a management discipline to run numbers in context, use data to tell stories, and getting results related to business goals.

Read More

Process Design vs. Process Modeling

Processes underpin business capabilities; capabilities decide business's competitive advantage. 

In a nutshell, Process Design may be described as the larger activity of creating new processes or improving on existing ones, while Process Modeling may be described as a part of the overall design phase which aids in process analysis. In designing the process the analyst would need to rely on several tools and skills. One of them would be Process Modeling. This is where the analyst examines the “as-is” by making a graphical representation of the model using illustrations. After “drawing” out the process, the analyst would find it a lot easier to measure the relevant process metrics.

Process Analysis vs. Process Design vs. Process Modeling: A first distinction should be drawn between process analysis and process design. The analysis is conceptual (what is done, what is needed) and describes the problem and what can be done for existing "as-is" processes or for future "to-be" processes (what is needed). Process design is logical (how it is or will be done) and describes a solution. - It's more detailed than process analysis and is constrained by the requirements that come out of the analysis. Design is usually only done on "to be" future processes because the existing "as-is" processes are already designed. Both process analysis and process designs are done using process documentation. This documentation should contain text, diagrams, and numbers. The creation of this process documentation is called process modeling. The resulting process document contains "process models"

-Process Analysis - Document how an existing process works / flows
-Process Re-Engineering - Making improvements to an existing process
-Process Design - Creating a new process (one that does not exist in the organization already)

-Process Model: Documenting and getting process in a production environment. 

Designing and modeling are the two sides that make a bit of metal a coin. Design is figuring out what to do and how. Modeling is testing the practicality, efficiency, and effectiveness of your design. Modeling is a means to capture and communicate design. Modeling and models can be also a driver for a thinking/design process, especially when done in collaboration. Design is the thinking part; modeling is the documentation part. Modeling is for getting the process in a production environment, the design is the process to be understood by peers and stakeholders.

Add caption

These activities are a continuous improvement cycle. Process design is when an analyst looks at how things are currently being done (as-is) in an organization and creates better processes. Process design means to identify existing processes and focus on the area like SLA, representation of the process flow, provide solution on bottlenecks during process flow, etc. Then based on these factors, process professionals design the process and prepare the process design document. So the outcome is theoretical design. Process Modeling means representing a sequence of activities, events, decision gateways, links the sequence from end to end and taking the theoretical design to implementation using BPM tool. These activities are cyclic; you design the process, then Model, execute, monitor, optimize then again back to design. It's a continuous improvement cycle.

In context, Process Design is the blueprint for the selected implementation after you have modeled the process, evaluated and selected a design you are going with, your intent with the design is to go forward with the implementation. Modeling can be seen as an evaluation activity (simulation and/or analytics review) prior, during or after the design phase. Process models allow analysts to manage large volumes of activities and run simulation events to identify areas in a process that can be changed and optimized. That said, modeling and design are not ONE shot activities. As soon as the design is implemented, the improvement team goes into a feedback loop to new evaluate models.  

.

You have to balance the art and science that goes back and forth between Process Design and Process Modeling in order to managing business process life cycle successfully.

Read More

Agile Mindset

Agile is a state of mind!

Agility is the ability to adapt to the changes. At its core, "agile" is a mindset, a way of looking at the world and a way of thinking about work. This mindset is influenced by 12 principles of the Agile Manifesto. It is crucial for successful adoption of a better way of working that the people in the organization begin to embrace the values and principles, and then they look at the set of practices which will work for them at the level they are at. The twelve Agile Principles/guidelines of Agile can shape 12 types of minds that integrated into which being called Agile Mindset: 

1. Customer-Centric Mindset: ‘Our highest priority is to satisfy the customer through the early and continuous delivery of valuable software’. Being customer driven is the key to run today’s businesses.Customer-centric mindset brings outside-in customer viewpoint to see the business process from a new angle.

2. Change Mindset: ‘Welcome changing requirements’, even late in development. Agile processes harness change for the customer's competitive advantage. Agile is the ability to adapt to the fast pace of changes. Identify the positive early adopters with change mindset and they'll help you convert the rest.

3. Speedy Mindset:  ‘Deliver working software frequently, from a couple of weeks to a couple of months, with a preference to the shorter timescale’. Agile is, in its deepest and most profound sense, a philosophy of intelligent adaptation to constantly acquired knowledge and changing circumstances.A mind with speed can drive faster action to the changes.

4. Collaborative Mindset: ‘Business people and developers must work together daily throughout the project.’. Agile promotes the collaborative spirit to break through silo thinking and encourage cross-functional interaction. Agile encourages three 'I's: Interaction; Incremental and Iteration.

5. Respective Mindset: 'Build projects around motivated individuals'. Give them the environment and support they need, and trust them to get the job done.People are willing to let go of their ego and respect with each other to work more seamlessly in order to achieve common goals.

6. Open Mindset: ‘The most efficient and effective method of conveying information to and within a development team is face-to-face conversation’. People with an open, positive attitude towards change tend to embrace agile while those who dislike change, don't communicate well, or are overly defensive are at the other end of the spectrum.

7. Progressive Mindset: ‘Working software is the primary measure of progress.' We are uncovering better ways’ - learning and discovery are constantly happening in agile organizations. The agile values and principles are a foundation on which being built - the practices are much more fluid and will evolve over time

8. Focused Mindset: ‘Agile processes promote sustainable development. The sponsors, developers, and users should be able to maintain a constant pace indefinitely’. The customer is Agile's main focus, and being focused is key success factor to welcome customer feedback and solving problems with synergy & energy.

9. Design Mindset: ‘Continuous attention to technical excellence and good design enhances agility'. The purpose of design thinking is customer-centric, agile, and collaborative problem solving driven by 'thinking outside the box' approach and ensure to look at the organization from a 360 degree perspective with a key focus on customers.

10. Simplicity Mindset: ‘The art of maximizing the amount of work not done--is essential.’ Simplicity means or is related to too many things such as manageability, availability, scalability, flexibility, reliability, robustness, sensitivity, comprehensiveness, speed, responsiveness, etc. People that are looking for a fixed methodology or a heavily controlled process for agile will always realize less benefit – if not experience downright failure.

 11. Disciplined Mindset: ‘The best architectures, requirements, and designs emerge from self-organizing teams’. Being Agile takes more disciplines in architecture/engineering/ management, not less.

12. Adaptive Mindset: At regular intervals, the team reflects on how to become more effective, then tunes and adjusts its behavior accordingly. In short, being agile is not about methodology or process,  it is about being flexible and adaptable. The key words here are adaptation and success.

Agile is a state of mind based on a set of values and principles. Getting the understanding that for Agile to work, it needs to be cultural, not an imposed afterthought. Ultimately, all aspects of the enterprise from strategic planning to the most atomic level tasks must embrace agile for optimal effect.

Variety of Ultra-Modern Mindset
Intuitive Mind
Strategic Mind:

Agile Mind

Creative Mind

Complexity Mind

Flow Mind

Design Mind

Systematic Mind

Read More

Does Big Data need “Big Governance”

The value of big data is only multiplied by good data governance.

Big Data has big value, it also takes organization’s big effort to manage well and an effective governance discipline can fulfill its purpose, but does Big Data need “Big Governance”?

There’s misconception that "data governance" is an inherently heavy weight process. Just to clarify data governance is simply proactively decided how much and what type of effort is needed for different types of data; and then creating mechanisms to make management of the data easier and transparent to the business. It’s different from master data management, in the case of "master data", it’s used to "stitch" data together there is usually a fair amount of data management, cleansing, privacy considerations etc

Good Data Governance can never be "old solution", but a good habit: Data Governance really comes down to making a proactive decision about what data is needed, what it means to the enterprise and how to understand the quality of data (Big Data, Master Data, Reference Data, Transaction Data, etc.). Also how to improve the data quality where needed, thus, Data Governance should be seen as a good habit, not a software package or an old solution. The end result is their "big data" will be viewed as accurate and trustworthy.

Governance is also an attitude - one that gets confused with censorship and overwhelming controls. Big Data keeps the CIOs on their toes especially now with the very definition of "Data" is changing from a volume, variety and velocity perspective. Data governance was never about a structured data or an unstructured data, it was always about discipline, consistency and streamlining your processes to ensure you have right controls, and there's always a "known element" in what you do. And always be savvy about the user cases and workloads that run in these new environments. Treat these environments as an inherent part of your governance approach

Quality is only one dimension of governance. People are seeing governance as a synonym for quality; the latter can certainly be viewed as a dimension of the former but all too often seems to dominate the business case. Further, proper data governance is not a one time exercise but a constant review. Successful companies with great data governance have set up governance committees that include representatives from various parts of the business and agree on how the data will look (definition of the customer), be deployed to create value.

Data Governance is also not the same as Master Data Management: One of the problems is that DG get conflated with heavy weight processes like master data management. Effective governance doesn't always have to be defined under "building a master data management" or "data quality", otherwise you may never be able to initiate a data governance in first place. It's a proactive step, and one which will start paying its dividends as you start implementing in manageable steps. Of course MDM, Data Quality etc are relevant, and will come under the preview of Data Governance however it's also a lot dependent on organization maturity to reach those stages. 

Data Governance is to bring all stakeholders (IT, Business, Functional Departments n others) together towards a common enterprise objective, where each of the stakeholders have a role to play - you can throw various popular acronyms like Data Stewards, Shadow IT, Business Analysts, Data Champions, Governance Councils.Thing is, if you are trying to build new processes or integrate them with existing processes, the reasons you need at least some level of governance will become all too apparent.

Data governance is integral element of IT/Business Governance. That is exactly the sort of thing that you run into on a daily basis. The fear of uncovering problem areas that threaten the political capital of the management sometimes cripples the ability to really understand and leverage the data assets of an organization. A strong differentiation to effective management in today's market is the willingness to examine all aspects of the organization, whether that is established process and structures or even organization delegation and control. 

Data Governance is a Holistic Mindset: It used to be that we were seeing silos as marking the boundaries and territories of different lines of business within an organization. In those cases, the most effective transformation was the change in culture that made the data and process an organizational asset, rather than a LOB one. These days it seems that more organizations are going to the position of "its big data, therefore it is not my responsibility". So no governance is applied and equally difficult issues arise in the attempts to effectively leverage the data assets. Thus, an effective Data Governance needs to shape such a holistic mindset for business to visualize the full picture of big data and  through connecting  information dots.

Big Data does not need a big governance, but it takes agile governance practice to orchestrate organization’s information strategy, to ensure the big value can be achieved from the abundance of data and information flow.

Read More

How to Measure Software Quality?

The software can be measured in the 'hard' way accordingly.

Software eats the world, all forward-looking organizations declare they are at information businesses and strive for software Quality, but most of them may not know how to define Quality. As the quality, especially software quality is contextual and relative, but still,  there can be a set of guidelines which can help the team to follow the best practices to measure software quality accordingly.

1. Why it’s Hard to Measure Software Quality 

There’s always debate upon quality's subjectivity and objectivity. Should a quality software only conform to its specification to move towards to the objectivity; or should software quality is always some sort of subjectivity, as it is a waste of time, money, and effort to build a product that conforms to its requirement specification if its end-users perceive that the product is less than fit for their view of its intended purpose. 

Software Quality can be subjective; it means various things to the different roles: As the product owner - quality may mean how many features you can deliver that are not buggy and how long does it take. This probably holds true for the customer as well. For a development manager/Scrum Master - it may mean how is the code developed and what are the deployment standards. In other words, is the code flexible and expandable, how long are enhancements taking to complete based on coding standards, automated testing, and unit test coverage? Also, can you build once in an automated fashion and deploy in all environments.  For the developer, it may mean - how easy is it to get started on an assignment? Is there good up to date documentation, preferably automatically created? Is there safeguards in place before you deliver code to an environment that ensures adherence to standards - static code analysis, unit test, automated testing, build pass/fail, style standards. 

Attempting to define quality in terms of metrics is attempting to define objective measures for a subjective attribute; you can measure lots of numbers, but you can't establish a comprehensive set of them. At some point, you have to look away from the metrics and toward your users and their often highly subjective opinions - which is a very Agile thing to do. If you have to choose between zero defects in a product the customer doesn't want, or "too many" defects in a product for which the customer is beating down your door, which is better for you in such circumstances. 

2.  Measure the ‘Health’ of Software Project  

The point is, if you don't know what exactly mean by Software Quality, you will never be able to justify the business value of that. And what you measure gets cared about and only focus on defects is too limiting, Perhaps the good approach is to measure the 'health' of software projects, trending the well-defined metrics to see how you're managing rework, defects, technical debt, automation, documentation and customer satisfaction, to name a few. So the measure is not about counting defects, but about: 

• Analyzing those defects that give you information on where to improve your process, and prevent similar defects in the future 

• Knowing what the quality of the product to be delivered will be, and take action if that quality will be insufficient early at lower costs. 

• Improving collaboration between designer and testers, by having them discuss defects and the measures that they can take to improve quality 

• Helping your stakeholders to balance quality and functionality. Help them to decide when to invest in testing, in reviews, and in defect prevention. 

• Manage your technical debt: Involving the EA early on, provide inputs from an architecture perspective, such as complexity management, reusability., etc. 

3. Measure Software Quality via Two Axes 

So, how shall you measure software quality? Quality is a quantity measured in two dimensions so you may need to measure it on two axes. The technical view (vertically?) and the user view (horizontally?). 

• The user view, measures the degree of satisfaction of all involved, as experienced on actual products. The product is of quality when it does:

1) What the users need it to do
2) The way they want to do it
3) Quickly enough
4) Accurately enough
5) Safely enough
6) Securely enough
7) Economically
8) and when they want it changed it is quick and easy to change

• The technical view: Confirm specification and the characteristics of quality software: What about measures of modularity, reusability, conformance to architectural standards, use of patterns, loose coupling, functional cohesion, testability, accessibility, portability, install-ability, reconfigurability.....  

Software quality is eminently measurable and achievable but only if we use suitably systematic and robust requirements elicitation and product development techniques. These techniques span the full spectrum from agile to well-planning. That whole spectrum requires high levels of training and DISCIPLINE.

Read More

Does Prioritization Stifle Creativity?

Prioritization needs to provide a framework for focusing on the creativity.

A company has finite resources to apply to get the best yield possible to meet a stakeholder expectation. So there’re always some constraints for businesses to explore the new opportunities or deploy the new ideas, therefore, evaluation and prioritization are taken place to leverage resources in project or innovation management. Does it mean such prioritization process will stifle the creativity?

Evaluation vs. Prioritization: Creativity can be in the form of an idea, a solution, an approach., etc. It is up to the idea proposed to show it is worthwhile. Evaluation is where creativity lives or dies - depending on the nature, culture, and needs of the organization. Evaluation should ask, "Is this a good idea?" and "Can we do it?" Prioritization then asks, "Is this the best use of our resources, now?" Prioritization is about managing constraints - you can't do everything; so which projects will you do? The key is to separate 'Evaluation' of ideas from "Prioritization."

Prioritization brings transparency to the organization, creating internal competition among new ideas and projects. Prioritization forces people to be more creative, to come up with better ideas because now they know that their ideas will be discussed at the board level, and if chosen, they will be followed closely. In addition, prioritization helps to focus the strategy of the organization, which has huge benefits in terms of execution.

In general, prioritization increases creativity and does not decrease it: But the term has a different semantic connotation, and each situation is different, so there is always going to be lots of different opinions. If you prioritize across all projects, you know which projects should get that extra increment of analysis and design effort. Creativity typically comes from having some slack resources that you can apply to problem-solving.

The risk-averse corporate culture could also be the issue to stifle creativity: Some organizations are open to new ideas and others resistant - it doesn't depend on whether there is a prioritization process or not. Corporations do need to prioritize. They also need a process by which evaluation of those priorities occurs and through that process review new ideas, revisions or changes, and just the killing floor of non-productive projects, programs, or activities on the prioritized list.

An overly complex process can easily stifle innovation: Because organizations get locked into huge processes around building extensive business cases. You may also refer to cases where the prioritization process is not well implemented, not respected, people use tricks to cheat the system, or eventually when the process becomes more important than the content and the goal, or too bureaucratic, which is when creativity is killed. In all these cases, the issue is not prioritization.

 Prioritization provides a framework for focusing on the creativity: It's only if the actual work is micromanaged and regulated to the point where resources are not able to create, then creativity becomes stifled. Prioritization is also the process and method that one communicates either top down or bottom up and impact how a creative approach, idea, or project is received in an organization. If you have two somewhat conflicting needs - high quality and low cost for example - you can apply creative techniques to achieve both. Prioritization of requirements can be an excellent augmentation to creativity in this case.

Prioritization is critical – as the alternative is a land grab for resources: It is usually suboptimal and damaging, especially when legitimate top priorities are delayed while pet projects are fully staffed. Since the projects have different investment considerations - for example, risk reduction for maintenance work, ROI for tactical and some strategic work, and organization learning measures for true innovation work. So the objective shouldn't be to work on only those projects for which you have staff - it should be to maximize what you can accomplish through creative leverage of your talent pool. 

Thereof, good process design should encourage creativity by giving people space to be creative and including evaluation of creativity as part of that process. If companies don't make room in the prioritization process for projects that have significant risks but also potentially significant upside results, it can, in fact, drive creative thinkers out of an organization. "Creativity" and "progress" don't always mean greater risks, but often the two go hand-in-hand if you are looking for breakthroughs or real innovation.

Read More

Do you have Enterprise-Wide Data/Information Strategy

Information is Life Blood in Modern Organization. 

Information is lifeblood in modern businesses today, however, from industry survey; a very real gap exists with just over one-third of respondents having an enterprise-wide information management strategy in place currently. What’s holding these organizations back from building out an enterprise-wide information management strategy? What’s needed to close the gap? Also, keep in mind, data/information strategy needs to be the key element of the IT strategy, which is also an integral component of the overall corporate strategy.           

1. Enterprise-Wide Information/Data Strategy is Critical 

The strategy framework: The best strategies are living and ever-evolving, and when deployed, it should provide the framework for the business going forward. Information in itself isn't power, it’s the ability to seamlessly access, analyze and utilize data. Information strategy as the key ingredient of business strategy can enable executives to make a data-based decision and build up an analytics-driven culture cross organization.

The future state of the business: Information Strategy is critical as it describes the future state (and how to get there) of how an enterprise will leverage information to power its business. But information and its lifecycle are complex, enterprises generally have governance and compliance rules on the information. They want people to be able to find, reuse, publish, re-factor and republish. Information is the lifeblood of the enterprise, but if not properly managed, it becomes at worst case liability and at best case an underutilized asset. An information management strategy can well define the principle, processes and best practices that optimize the value of information while minimizing risk.

An Information Strategy that outlines how an enterprise can achieve important business goals: such as innovation, process efficiency, increased employee productivity, or customer delight through information is well worth investing time in creating. Especially, as the millennial generation continues to permeate the workforce, the challenge will only intensify. It will be those who proactively invest in strategic solutions today will be able to competitively leverage their own information going forward.

The business benefit of Information Strategy: As survey respondents note there are real benefits to having a comprehensive enterprise-wide information management strategy in place such as:
• Enables better data access and analysis by breakdown the silos. 
• Reduces costs and increases efficiencies
• Increases IT alignment with the business

2. The Three Constraints

There are a couple of ‘constraints’ in an organization that seems to hold the business back from a holistic data strategy. Indeed, such constraints may become the very reasons why organizations need to craft their information strategy:

The first constraint is the priority setting: The technology leaders are starved for resources. The lack of resources and focus on expanding their business revenue takes precedence to projects like an enterprise data strategy- a strategy which does not show up on the bottom line or immediately drives top line growth. This is a short-sighted view, but a view which shows the gap in understanding strategy for mid to long-term business growth.

The second is the consumerization of IT. The concept that SAAS or cloud systems are instantaneous solutions to an organization’s business challenges. This concept is fragmenting information, creating an even bigger challenge in addressing an enterprise policy. The idea of moving fast, moving to new technologies to be flexible and responsible puts you back to the first reason, time, and resources for increasingly diverse information. IT consumerization is one of the biggest trends to come along, but it shouldn't be led and handled with ignorance of what I.T. is fully concerned such as integration, governance, risk management, etc.

The third is that most organizations are in transitions: Data is in dissimilar systems which are being migrated, converted or just staying out due to budget and time constraints. The constraint is in getting all of the systems up to current technology to snap into an enterprise information strategy. The other main obstacle is getting everyone to agree on what is necessary and what the information lifecycles should be.    

But all these constraints above are actually the reasons an organization should have an enterprise-wide information strategy. As a good strategy can provide guidelines for the business’s digital transformation journey.

3. Strategic Alignment 

Strategic partnership and alignment with business goals need to remain at the forefront for IT leaders going forward. Even though budgets pale in comparison, business is heavily dependent upon IT today deliver solutions that help the organization best leverage its assets whether that is technology, information, etc.

What is important in the "Strategic Alignment": "Executive management buy-in" or "executive management's unconditional collaboration" is critical and it takes leadership & management discipline & practices.

Information strategy is a complex domain: The best approach requires to take some leaps of faith setting some of the right things in motion, and delicately balancing and re-balancing the results toward urgent, but hard to predict outcomes.

IT “alignment vs. Integration”: Strategic alignment is important in working to a common goal.  Information strategy also needs to be integrated into the organization's goals and strategy, and allow the organization to measure, serve, deliver, innovate and ultimately excel in returns.

Data and information are central to business today, IT become duty-bound as custodians to steward these assets with purpose; through an active set of guiding policies and principles. A passive approach to enterprise information resources is akin to the abdication of this duty. So the question is not why you should have an information strategy, but what is the appropriate strategy based on your organizational requirements?

Read More