InformationWeek

Ask The Secret CIO

By Herbert W. Lovelace
Issue date: Nov. 5, 1996

Your letters to my print column and this E-mail forum ask some serious questions about managing information technology in today's world. Since today's world is essentially absurd, my serious responses may sometimes sound a little whimsical, and my occasional whimsical ones, serious. In any case, if you want to participate, write to me at secret@cmp.com . I'll respond to those letters that I can. I reserve the right to edit for size and content. Just sign your E-mail the way you want it to appear online. The information systems group that is overworked and disconnected from the business (non-aligned in today's terminology) is a classic story we have all heard. It's so important and so common that this entire online "Ask The CIO" is devoted to it.

Dear Herbert:

Okay, I'm willing to admit when I've been beaten into submission. After numerous attempts at addressing my little difficulty, I've decided to actually seek outside advice. Given how utterly ridiculous I think this situation is, I believe my best hope for guidance resides with either "The Secret CIO" or "Dilbert." I hesitate to converse with Scott Adams for fear of showing up in next week's cartoon strip...so you're it...

First a few details to get you up to speed on my problem. The following chart will give you some "then and now" comp arisons for a certain Information Systems department in a heavy manufacturing industry that has this little problem.

Item	1986	1996
Total registered system users	30	200
Application development	100% custom	100% custom
Number of PCs	10	110
Network nodes	4	150
Yearly revenue	$75 million	$180 million
MIS budges as % of sales	0.22%	0.27%
Support window	5 days/week	7 days/week
Relational database applications	0	12
Relational t ime manufacturing interfaces	0	22

Now the little problem: In 1986 we had an MIS staff of five; today we still have a staff of five. What's wrong with this picture?

When compared against any survey in IW or other IS publication, this department ranks No. 1 or No. 2 in all categories for our industry. We've been recognized by our peers as well as the "unwashed masses" in newspapers, magazines and even featured on a Discovery Channel feature on technological innovation in the traditional smokestack industries. We've introduced the latest technologies into operations, have had less than 8 hours of down time in the last 6 months and until two years ago, never had a project come in over budget or late. President Reagan's Adviser on Industry said that our cost reporting systems for operations was the best he'd ever seen in 30 years of industry affiliations.

For the last two years I've been trying to explain to our executive managemen t that our backlog is growing dangerously fast while our response time to problems is dropping off. I've presented charts, graphs, brought in consultants and pitched an absolute fit at times. The "Haavaad" Ph.D.-holding president of the company refuses to budge. Worse yet, he wholeheartedly agrees with us, ruffles our hair, takes full credit to the owners for our performance, and refuses to add a single staff member. We can't even get him to agree to drop some of the ancient legacy custom cobol systems like payroll and go to a canned system.

This staff has worked many 100+ hour weeks over the last 10 years to get where we are. They are dedicated, brilliant analysts that we couldn't replace today for twice the money. Hell, we even put an Internet Web presence out there so our Yuppie owner in Boston could say his companies were "on the Net" (we understand the objective is to get the nose coloration just lightly brown so it could be passed off as a "tan"). Our real-time shipping interfaces with RF gear saved the company over a million dollars it's first year of operation alone. Don't get me wrong, this staff is well compensated (not above local norms, though) and enjoy the blue jeans/T-shirt environment we have. It's a "work hard, play hard" environment. They take enormous pride in their jobs, and that's the real root of my problem. They perceive executive management's lack of concern over these issues as a dangerous position and somewhat stupid, so it creates a great deal of stress for them.

So tell me...are we wrong here? We're not stupid management people; we know how to present our case, we even have them agreeing with us. Four of the five executives will state, not in front of the president, of course, that "we need to increase IS staffing"...

We've decided at this point that short of a mass resignation (we all have offers on almost a weekly basis from other local companies) we just don't know how to deal with this. We're all in our mid-30's to early 40's...I'm the old man of the bunch at 42. This c ompany has become unbelievably dependent on our systems, and if we bail, we could put other people's jobs at risk.

I'm open for suggestions. You've seen a lot of IS environments; are we wrong in thinking that adding one or two more IS staff members is within reason? We have detailed information on our direct top 10 competitors and no one has less than double our staff size, and no less than double our budget (in some cases they are 4 to 5 times larger). Do you have any brilliant ideas that we might try to get the caviar crowd off of the fence? Even moderately intelligent ideas would be welcome. I'd even settle for some whimsical ideas at this point...at least we could get a laugh out of it.

"The Aggie"

Dear Aggie:

In deference to the seriousness of your problem I will neither tell any Aggie stories nor structure your problem like a Harvard Business School Case Study, although both thoughts did occur to me. I am glad that your narrowed your choice of advisers to Scott Adams and me. In talk ing to Scott at the InformationWeek 500 Conference, I came away convinced his advice would be as good as anything I could offer, but I do not draw as well as he does. I am, however, somewhat taller than he is.

Many of us in information systems can relate to your problems. Let me see if I can summarize what I've heard from you: You are supporting a significant increase in systems and computers more days of the week than 10 years ago with the same size staff. Your management won't listen to your appeals for more help, even though they are supported (but not openly) by four of the five executives.

Okay, now for some questions for you to ask yourself, and then the suggestions.

Why won't these VP's support you in public?
Why isn't the information you are presenting able to convince the boss to change?
What is the value of this backlog you can't do?

Your letter was a really good one. It was clear and well communicated. But, read again what you wrote. It talked a lot about all the good work your have done in the past, not about the business value of what you don't have the staff to do. It didn't say anything about why you need more people beyond the reason important to us, but evidently unimportant to your boss: Your colleagues are killing themselves.

Now for the suggestions, and you'll have to judge, to use your words, whether they are brilliant or moderately intelligent. Given the tension you and your team are under, the only thing I promise is that they are not whimsical--this time.

Sit down and honestly assess how much control you have over the backlog. If you have none, draft the letter of resignation. If you have some, or want to try to get some, read on.

Find out from the executives why they won't support you in public. If you hear that they don't want to risk their butts, point out that you can hardly be expected to kill your staff for them if they won't support you. Don't fight over it with them. Your objective is to get the lay of the land for your next actions.

Rethink how you are communicating your needs. When you tried to get rid of the old payroll system did you point out any concrete benefits? Focus on talking in terms of what's important to your audience, not what is important to you.

Rethink your attitude toward your bosses. If you think they are all idiots, chances are that attitude is coming across to them. And no one, even an idiot, appreciates a subordinate who is disdainful. To be blunt, it's a rotten way to get a boss to do something for you.

Go to the executives who are sponsoring the backlog and ask for the benefits to be achieved by completing the backlog. If they can't make a case for the project, remove the project from your plan. If they do have benefits, make sure they take ownership for getting the work done, and that means helping you get more staff. If they won't, simply tell them the work will not get done. After all, the worst they can do is fire you, and you're thinking of quitting anyway. Put together a presentati on to the boss summarizing the revised backlog. Review the presentation with the executives before you present it to the boss.

If you can't do proper day-to-day maintenance and trouble shooting even with the backlog removed, take a look at user training, and your staff's work habits. I know you think they are great and, as the "old man of the bunch," you feel close to them, but in fact you are their manager and you need to make sure they are working efficiently and effectively.

Spend some time with these other companies against whom you are measuring yourself. You may find out something useful, if they will talk to you (chances are there is a trade association in which your bosses talk, anyway). After all, if they have double the budget and double the people with four or five times the sales, you really don't look that good compared to them.

If nothing changes, tell your staff what you are doing and send the resignation letter. You've heard all of the Aggie jokes and have probably told more tha n a few, yourself. No point in being in a situation where you feel like the punch line of one of them.

Got a question for The Secret CIO? Just send an e-mail .

View past issues of "Ask The Secret CIO"
Oct. 21
Oct. 7
Sept. 24
Sept. 9
July 29
June 24

Comments on this story?

http://www.informationweek.com