InformationWeek

Ask The Secret CIO

By Herbert W. Lovelace
Issue date: April 22, 1997

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.

Dear Secret CIO,

I'm a graduating senior in a computer science undergrad program and I am now off to the Real World. I consider myself to be an ambitious individual and hope one day to be a CIO. As a result of the current job market and my performance in college, I have received several offers from blue-chip companies. I have narrowed my choices to Price Waterhouse Management Consulting, EDS and Bell Atlantic, each I believe to be leaders in their particular industry. Do you have any opinions on the reputations of these firms? Which do you think will help me fulfill my career goals? Thanks in advance, it would be nice to get an opinion from a real IS professional and not a recruiting brochure.

John

Dear John,

These are just my opinions and others may see things differently. So take them as input, not gospel. Of course, if you want to take them as gospel, I can't stop you. I might even be flattered.

The three firms you mention are different in direction and focus, so you have to factor in your own personality as well as where you want to go with your career. Any of them could potentially be a stepping stone to a CIO position.

Price Waterhouse is a Big Six firm. That means that entry level people work many, many hours with the hope of impressing the partners so that some day they can make partner themselves. If they do make partner, they can share in the gravy produced by hungry new kids and success-seeking younger associates. Some people make it and some don't. The longer the hours you work, the better for the partner-in- charge of the engagement, who is billing your time. A key objective of each engagement, right up there with satisfying the client, in a management consulting firm is to make sure that there is a follow-on contract. Those that get ahead will be good at selling engagements and in billing many hours.

EDS still retains the military bearing of Ross Perot, although they have lightened up somewhat. It was just about 10 years ago that they allowed facial hair on men and only recently were women permitted to wear pants suits to work. It is a hard-driving, straight-arrow firm. The former Marines are still in charge. They are finally away from GM and will try to recover from what was not a happy marriage on either side.

Unless you're talking about its Network Integration group, Bell Atlantic, unlike the other two companies, focuses primarily on its own internal systems, rather than on selling consulting. Ray Smith has a vision for what he wants for the company and his successors will most likely follow it. I don't know whether you are interviewing for one of their outside ventures or for their own systems group, but either will be more different from Price Waterhouse and EDS than Price Waterhouse and EDS are different from each other.

Hope that helps. Let me know how you make out.

Dear He rbert:

Part of the problem in communicating a vision and direction, as I see it, in Kathe's letter (Ask The Secret CIO, 1/28/97) is that marketing people are making business decisions and they are not technically knowledgeable since they take their instruction from the Wall Street pundits on CNBC and CNN -- a joyless lot deriving glee from droplets contained in the rumor mill surrounding Alan Greenspan. These folks are as long-winded as that last sentence, but they recognize a name when they see or hear one, and so are able to repeat it into the ears of financial officers who know even less about the subject than they do. In all, it's not a coherent strategy and no one can satisfactorily explain how this has anything to do with the technology, but it may explain how many of us may find ourselves, as you poignantly suggest, stuffed in an obsolete section among obsolete species, but probably not in the Smithsonian.

It's so amusing to read your trusty column and reassuring, too!

Bashley

Dear Bashley,

What we have to do is either pile on the hair spray and take voice lessons so that we can appear on the programs that the influential people watch, or else communicate more clearly in person to our own executives. To communicate more clearly, we have to be able to explain complex concepts to people who have neither the time nor the inclination to try to understand us. It's a lot of work, but all in all a better idea than being stuffed and mounted in the Smithsonian. I remember as a child seeing Robert E. Lee's horse in the Smithsonian, and Traveler did not look happy. In fact, he looked just as unhappy as a CIO who is told to explain the new technology budget.

Dear Herb:

Have greatly appreciated your common sense relating to issues such as Win '95 and the race to change, seemingly, for change's sake. I am curious as to when and if the market will rebel.

The issue you present ("2001: An IS Oddity") tru ly extends to all of the investments we are making on behalf of our respective organizations. How long before our respective CEO's look around and conclude that we have spent a great deal in the wrong places?

Point: Computer power is growing exponentially. Costs of these systems are increasing as well, but both of these increases are outpacing increases in personal productivity.

Steven

Dear Steven,

I firmly believe that the market will rebel. As to when, I think we are beginning to see the signs of revolution -- witness the lack of penetration of Office 95 upgrades in the corporate world and the high retail sales of Corel's WordPerfect, a good low-cost product.

When we were the high priests behind the curtains (the "Wizard of Oz" syndrome) people did not know enough to control us except through constant skepticism and occasional ridicule. Besides being effective, practicing constant skepticism and occasional ridicule makes a uninformed person feel superior to others, and can be fun -- jus t ask Kratmeyer. But, I digress.

Today, the PC has taught enough executives about computers that they are expecting value for their dollars. After all, the same capital that we spend on meaningless computer enhancements could be used to help build a plant or develop a new product -- and these executives know it.

Dear Herb:

Managing expectations is an iceberg and IS is the Titanic. There is a myth that computer technology is unsinkable because of the "quick successes" we've had with high-profile projects such as E-mail, imaging, and some client-server systems. The problem is that many folks, IS included, seem to be unaware of the bulk of the problem beneath the waves.

The easy stuff has all been done -- order entry, accounting, etc. These things had fairly clearly defined relationships, forms, and procedures. Now IS is automating things for which the business processes have not been well defined, if at all. We can't even begin to imagine how to codify the rules for some of the thi ngs we're asking our automated systems to do.

But CEOs, and even CIOs, seem to think that these new systems ought to be built as quickly as installing a local area network. They don't see the immense amount of research, debugging, standards-setting, etc. that went into creating the wiring, developing the protocols, writing and debugging the network operating system code, and so on just to make a LAN work. All they see is that it took two weeks to wire the office, a day to load the server and a couple of days to install clients. So they tend to think that complex new client-server systems ought to come online in six months.

They just don't understand that the business focus must be established, corporate rules need to be developed, supporting infrastructures created, and so on. In short, the scope of a large project is usually vastly underestimated. And as computers take on more "intelligence" (i.e., appear to be more "human"), the computer-social-business systems become exponentially more complex and resistant to debugging.

Nick

Dear Nick,

It is a human condition that we always think that what is done by others is easy and what we must accomplish is difficult. In other words, I am sure that I know how to balance the Federal budget, revise the tax laws so that they are fair, and build a strong national presence in the world; it's just figuring out the value of our new enterprisewide integrated system that has me baffled.

We will not convince our CEO's of the difficulty of our jobs or of the impossibility of automating processes that are not defined until they have major-league trust in us. To do that, we cannot appear defensive and resistant to change. I have heard more than one CEO say that he is tired of his IS person always saying that something cannot be done. Instead, we have to focus on telling them how much easier (i.e., cheaper and faster) it will be if such and such is done first. In other words, put the shoe on the other foot and let them see how defining some of these processes can give them, not just the CIO, benefit.

As for CIOs that don't understand the difficulty of installing technology and promise more than their staff can reasonably deliver, there is little hope for them and they normally wind up getting what they deserve.

Dear Mr. Lovelace,

I read your Jan. 13 InformationWeek article, "Paranoids Have Enemies, Too" . Can you give me the Lexis-Nexis address to have my name removed from their database? I can't find the correct one and am getting paranoid about some people having information they have no business disseminating.

Joe P.

Dear Joe,

It is a terrible thing to waste perfectly good paranoia on an easily resolved problem. So, in the interest of you being able to reserve yours for seeking out your real enemies, here is the information you have requested:

There are four different ways to get you name off of the Lexis-Nexis database.