InformationWeek
Defining The Business Value Of Technology
May 25, 1999
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 lovelace@home.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 Herb:I read your article, "The Useless Estimate." I had a couple of similar encounters in my company. My personal answer is, "Do not even bother to try. That is a battle you can never win."
Am I too pessimistic?
Eric
Dear Eric:My encounter with Kratmeyer is familiar territory to many of us. He, unfortunately, isn't the only person in the world who has no interest in how much extra work and aggravation he is causing the support staffs in his company. His attitude is that we get paid to do his bidding and if we don't like it, we can ply our trades elsewhere.
I would hate to think, though, that we should just give up when people like him are rude and inconsiderate, or use their power without regard for others.
My feeling is that we don't stop trying to improve the situation. Unless we have the authority to force such people to do our bidding under pain of dismissal, the only way we can change their attitude and behavior is by a diligent campaign to get them on our side. To do that, we have to provide results to alleviate their problems and build their
trust in us. While that will not necessarily convert any of them to being a decent human being, it's the best choice in the long run. Even if it fails, we have operated with the professionalism that they don't have.
Are you being too pessimistic? You are probably fairly accurate in your assessment. However, I am encouraged when a few people do change their ways, and I think it's worth the effort. So, I suppose that I am a little more optimistic than your are.
Dear Herb:Why not let the situation you describe in "The Useless Estimate" elevate to Phil, your CEO? Let Kratmeyer be the one to argue about lack of cooperation.
Since you have a sound track record, let that record speak for you. "Gee, Phil, we've always delivered in the past. And no one can deliver without cooperation. We just want the chance to show that we can do a better job if we know what is going on. Aren't we all in this thing together? I'm not going to tell you anything you haven't heard before, but some things are important enough to bear repeating.
By getting involved up front, we can save money on licensing, etc."
In the article you said, "Been there, done that." But have you asked Phil for a test case? "Phil, the next acquisition, get us involved up front and see if what I am saying isn't on the money."
Phil, of course, gets all the credit.
John
Dear John:Ideally, I would agree with you, but I don't think I would get anywhere setting up a situation in which Phil would have to take sides with me against Kratmeyer, someone who brings a great deal of revenue into the company. As a longtime reader, you're aware that Phil, our CEO and my boss, is not a confrontational individual. In a recent column, "Let The Task Force Decide," his habits in this respect take front and center stage.
If the issue had come to Phil's attention and Kratmeyer had said I was being uncooperative, Phil--whose mind is always on the bottom line--would have focused on getting the job done and the battle would have been futile. He might have sympathized with me, but I would have been told to do the best I can (translation: get the job done) under the circumstances.
While your suggestion to ask Phil for early involvement in the next acquisition is appropriate, he has heard these complaints from me before. There's no reason to believe he would have followed through and interfered on our behalf in the next acquisition. After all, every deal is a little different, he is a very busy man, and my concerns are not necessarily foremost in his mind.
I decided that to initiate a war I could not win would do no good and--my outburst aside--it would be best for me to try to get Kratmeyer to recognize that he runs less risk of his acquisitions failing if we have more lead time. Self-interest has always been one of his most consistent traits.
Dear Herb:I am surprised that you continue to put up with the likes of Kratmeyer. From all I have gathered, you are not in his organizational chain of command. He is someone to tolerate rather than to obey. You should treat him accordingly. Ask him to your office and do not serve him coffee.
It sounds like he is again putting you in a bad spot, and you are simply letting him get away with it. Again.
He wants a budget? Give him one that you think reflects the effort, and to hell with him if he thinks it's too high. If I'm correct about the organizational structure, your evaluation does not come from him; agree on the budget with your boss, Phil, since in the end he's the one that rates how you did on it. Not to mention the fact that any overrun will show up in your budget, and he has to know about it and be prepared. (If it goes bad, let Kratmeyer take the issue to Phil with suggestions on how to keep out of these situations in the future by getting the execution principals involved in time to effect the base plan, etc.)
As to Phil, pointing out the problems with Kratmeyer should not be a battle, unless Kratmeyer is one of Phil's golden boys. If Kratmeyer is not, the worst you do is irritate Phil with a minor matter. Which he will get over. On the other hand, you have made him aware of an ongoing situation. It's not about Kratmeyer (his name doesn't even need to come up) but that the company is making commitments perhaps without having all the real players involved, leading to problems that could in time affect a future project that might be close to Phil's heart.
Seems to me though that you have a much bigger problem: Apparently, you are not trusted when it comes to sensitive matters. I would suggest that this is your real battle. Fight it, and either win or find someone to work for who will trust you.
That's my opinion.
Pete M.
Dear Pete:How many times in my professional career have I sat late into the evening and thought, "I should have said ..."?
Many people have asked why I did not tell Kratmeyer exactly what I thought of his arrogant and inconsiderate behavior, or why I did not go immediately to our CEO and complain--even though I knew I would not get any backing.
As you can imagine, the limitation of having to fit everything on one page means that the print column rarely lets me go into the background of the situations I describe, and "The Useless Estimate" was no exception. Since I don't have the same limitation here, I'd like to share with you my reasoning for handling the situation as I did.
My objective was to do what would be in the best long-term interest of the company and the IT group. I was, however, very concerned after my meeting with Kratmeyer that I might be rationalizing my behavior in avoiding a battle that I could not win. Indeed, I believe my actions did reinforce his arrogant behavior. However, the alternative of trying to involve our boss would have resulted in Kratmeyer reacting even more negatively in the future. He isn't a pleasant human being. Out of spite, he would cause even more trouble for our staff.
And, I'm worried about their willingness to continue to work long hours on projects for someone who is so unappreciative of their efforts. The market is good enough for IT people that the last thing I need is for them to have any more pressure put on them. It is unfair to a group of dedicated professionals and it is a mistake for the company to risk losing them to the competition.
Kratmeyer is not, however, a stupid person. He took note of my frustration even as he decided to put me in my place (as he feels is his right and duty) for daring to question the behavior of such an important person as himself. But, if he thinks it is in his best interest, he will modify his actions in the future. Why? Because, most of all, he cares about getting the results he has promised Phil for his organization.
If you remember, he acknowledged that we had always delivered in the past. If he believes we are working as hard as we can to accomplish his goals, but that what he's doing by holding off on our involvement is putting his success at risk, he will bring us into the picture earlier next time. He has no desire to have us fail when the blame could be viewed as clearly on his shoulders.
So, all in all, I suspect that if I had it to do over again, the pragmatic side of me would handle the situation the same way. I would swallow my pride and try to continue to build the best working relationship between Kratmeyer and the IT organization that I can. Of course, the nonpragmatic, semi-emotional, side of me would still have a fleeting, but immensely strong urge to take his cup of coffee and pour it in his lap as a big smile established itself on my face.
Dear Herbert:Sorry to bother you. I am an advertising student at New Hampshire College in Manchester, N.H. I have a question about mission statements. It would be greatly appreciated if you would respond.
I am starting my own advertising firm as a project in one of my classes. The company is made up and I need to form a mission statement. I did research and found your name and E-mail, which referred to you as an expert on the matter of mission statements.
I was hoping you could give me some pointers on writing my own mission statement.
Thank you,
Kurt
Dear Kurt:If I am referred to as an expert on mission statements, then all of us can be certain as to how carefully we need to filter the information we get on the Internet. In any case, here's my advice: keep that mission statement simple and make it matter at the gut level to the virtual employees of your imaginary company.
You'll find some more of my supposedly expert opinion on mission statements in "A Mission Is Our Mission" and "Mission Irreversible."
Good luck in your assignment.
Herbert W. Lovelace is CIO at a multibillion-dollar international company. Herb practices his day job under an alias and has changed the names of colleagues to protect the guilty.
View past issues of "Ask The Secret CIO"
Got a question for The Secret CIO? Just send an E-mail
Send Us Your Feedback
Top of the Page
Featured Microsite
