InformationWeek

Dear Herb:

I'm curious to know the number or percentage of CIOs who are not only interested in exploring an E-learning solution to provide the proper training (IT, business skills, management competencies, etc.) but who are actually committed to doing so within the next 12 months, either as a complement to traditional employee training or as a replacement (partial or full). I've heard many different responses to this question so I thought I'd ask the expert because this question directly affects a CIO's job and success.

Thanks,
Lou

Dear Lou:

I don't know of a CIO who's not interested in rapidly adopting some form of E-learning. When you think of all of the positives--speed, cost, convenience, customization--we have available to us a really valuable new tool. So many of our problems occur because of a lack of training, anything that would improve the situation would be a blessing. When the solution isn't only an improvement, but a lot easier on the participants (no more boring classes when you'd like to take a break) and potentially less expensive than traditional instruction, you have a winner.

As for the size of the market, International Data Corp. is projecting that the year 2000 will wind up with over $2 billion being spent on E-learning. I wouldn't be surprised if we exceeded that number. What's even more important will be the growth rate. We're dealing with a tool that's in its infancy; adoption will be swift and widespread. Given the increased demands on people's time, the higher travel costs due to higher airplane fares, and the sheer inconvenience of it all, I think we'll find that E-learning is a solution to many of our difficulties today with installing new systems and helping people to use them effectively.

Hi Herbert:

After several years of following, nay, living your CIO's life, I admit that recently I've become disturbed.

Although the picture is far from a Mayberry (yes, I watched that TV show of many years ago) I'm puzzled about your boss Phil's long run of consistent focus on the core business. Has he not yet realized the need for all CEOs to bond periodically with other CEOs in monthly migrations to the many business hotbeds located near ski resorts, tropic islands and Broadway shows? Has he not yet jumped at the chance to organize an event himself, hijacking his corporate talents to demonstrate to all the world his effortless organizational strength? Perhaps after Warren's ouster (The Testimonial Tradition) he's shouldered too many non-CEO responsibilities, distracting him from the privileges of rank, and thereby inadvertently thwarting Sid's clear ambitions to become the de facto CEO. Perhaps I underestimate him and his biweekly performance (Let The Task Force Decide) in the Executive Committee has, if anything, reinforced his uncanny ability to leave the other members unsettled enough to prevent any usurping of power.

But then, to really know, I'd have to be a fly on the wall, or less likely, I'd have to be invited, under some guise of IT having something to offer the Executive Committee.

Oh, have I been using the first person? Please think nothing of it. This is all hypothetical, of course.

Regards,
Another "Herb"

Dear Another:

It's not surprising to hear that more than one company has a Phil. There are, I'm sure, many CEOs such as my leader who don't spend their time hobnobbing with their peers at those ever-so-fancy social events. As I'm sure that you know, there can be many reasons for such a lack of camaraderie. Some of them might be that your CEO and mine (1) have such a high level of self-esteem that they feel such gatherings would be a waste of their valuable time, (2) believe that the shop can't run without them and thus give themselves up to the greater duty of the office, (3) don't want to be away from the executive suite lest some usurper attempt to grasp the reins of power, or (4) have a standing golf game at the country club whenever they can get away and don't want to give it up for yet another boring meeting.

Our Phil doesn't have an overwhelming ego (he gets his jollies from the deference he receives from his underlings and doesn't crave outside attention), so I think we can scratch reason #1 from the list. If anything, Phil talks a good game but is still somewhat unsure of his decisions--hence his dependency on committees and strong subordinates such as Sid Gornish and Kratmeyer.

As far as Sid is concerned, I've never seen him yearn for Phil's job or attempt to usurp Phil's power. Sid is much too smart to grasp for the one thing that's really important to Phil, and besides he seems perfectly happy controlling his own, not so little, world. So, I think we can eliminate reason number #3. That leaves being involved (#2) and golf (#4).

Since our leader really does care about the business, I think he misses being part of the action when he's away. And he certainly wouldn't spend the company's money and our time throwing his own gathering and entertaining anyone who's not a customer. Thus, he's not much for external meetings, although once a year he does go to an industry gathering at a very fancy resort (where he very much gets to play golf, thus making up for missing his standing game at the local country club).

What's your Phil's motivation?

Dear Herb:

I read your column and enjoy your views. I find your commentary accurate and useful as a guideline for CIO "hot buttons" and IT issues.

I recently met with a CIO and found that my attention to the creation of a partnership played a very minor role in the sales call. My own perception is that this is a result of so many consultants talking about "partnerships" without providing any substance to the notion. Is this no longer appreciated, outdated, or just overused without regard to meaning?

Would you please define what you view as a value partnership relative to consulting companies?

Thank you for your response.

Ed

Dear Ed:

You're right on with your perception by CIOs of partnerships. And the reason, I think, is exactly the one that you might think: In most cases the talk by consultants or other vendors are without substance. Most CIOs that I know are in a pressure cooker environment with a mandate to produce and Aren't concerned with building alliances, especially ones that are just so many words.

As I've said (Everybody Wants To Partner), the idea of partnerships is really in vogue. The only difficulty is that I have trouble understanding just how a consulting company can be my partner under that term that most of them offer in their consulting agreements. According to my old desk dictionary, a partner is someone who engages in the same business enterprise as me and shares in its profits and risks with liability for the debts of the firm.

Under those criteria, a partnership with a consulting firm would be one where the consultant would invest some money in my company and I would get my consulting for free (or for a modest fee) in return for a percentage of the value obtained by said consulting. Or, at least, where if I don't get value, I don't pay for the services rendered. Anything less than that would be a standard relationship where I hire someone for the work performed. I really don't understand any type of a partnership where the only thing the consulting firm has at risk is the possibility of me telling my associates that I think that they did a poor job.

I have to say that I'm not surprised with the reception that you received. Not too many firms will buy into the type of arrangement that I describe.

Hello Herbert:

Thank you for your E-mail invitation to feedback.

Have appreciated your leading-edge views, but all along have wondered why a credit line to the "Countess of Lovelace" or some kind of an acknowledgment isn't given. Surely the first woman in the history of the human race to participate in a computer design by Babbage, is worthy of mention.

You likely knew she was Lord Byron's daughter, and not just any old run-of-the-mill gal with time to spare. Am looking forward to your revelations and endowment of the Countess, which would surely enhance the entire enterprise and bring women magnetically to your columns.

Keith

Dear Keith:

As you have so forcefully exclaimed, Augusta (Ada) Byron, Countess of Lovelace, was an important figure in the history of computing. Born in 1815, she learned mathematics and astronomy in an era when women weren't supposed to be interested, or capable, in such fields. She met Charles Babbage, the inventor of the difference machine, in 1833. Even after marrying (whence she received her title) and bearing three children, she worked with him over the years on the invention of the analytical engine, which is the logical forerunner of the computer we use today. However, because the machine attempted to use mechanical parts to do its calculations, it wasn't able to realize its potential, but it used the basic concepts of today's computers in that it could read instructions (from punched cards, no less) and perform arithmetical operations. Her writings show that she foresaw many of the uses of a modern computer. She died in 1852 at the early age of 36. In the late 1970s the Department of Defense introduced a new programming language which it named Ada in her honor.

Ada Byron was a key figure in the development of the field of computing, and a person of major mathematical ability. Sadly, I don't believe that she and I are related, except for the fact that neither of us were born with the last name of Lovelace.