In depth: Ensuring that business goals and IT processes
work together
Dec 19, 2000
Auerbach Analysis
Summary prepared by
TechRepublic
How well does your IT staff understand your
organization's strategic objectives? How does each job in your business
contribute to company objectives? If your company's objective necessitates
change in the organization, how do you address employees' fear of
change?
In "Creating
the perfect merger: Business goals and IT process management," authors Ann
R. Roberts and John M. Smith profile the progress of a CEO trying to align his
business processes with IT strategy.
Their article, taken from the Fall
2000 edition of Information Strategy: The Executive's Journal, addresses
four questions:
- What are the company's strategic objectives and issues?
- How do its internal processes help the company reach its strategic
objectives?
- Can the company measure what it does?
- Is the company managing change?
To read this Auerbach article,
continue
to page 2.
Auerbach Publications on TechRepublic |
For 40 years, Auerbach Publications has been publishing
premier content for IT professionals. You can find many of its enterprise
computing articles at TechRepublic. You can read more Auerbach
Publications articles by clicking
here. |
Creating the
perfect merger: Business goals and IT process management
Ann R.
Roberts and John M. Smith
Companies committed to competing
effectively ensure the total integration of their strategic objectives with
process management and measurement. The keys to aligning IT processes with
business strategy are focusing on strategic objectives, understanding processes,
establishing an integrated measurement program, and managing
change.
"I've been with the company for three years, and I've had 11
managers. That's almost one manager per quarter."
"After only a few
months, I realized that the company had been defining requirements for my
project for six years and still had not completely identified them. The project
still is not complete."
Readers are invited to take a look around the IT
organizations they know. Does this sound familiar?
"Stephen" (not his real name), the CEO of a software company
that employs 5,000, was frustrated and annoyed. The firm's profits were growing
at an astronomical rate, yet all was not well. Product development costs were
also rapidly increasing. Stephen could not predict when products would be ready
for delivery, what they would cost, or whether they would meet customer needs,
and he knew that situation needed to change. Although Stephen did not know it
yet, these symptoms indicated an even larger underlying problem—Stephen's
inability to predict whether the company could meet its strategic
objectives.
U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan regularly gives
information technology (IT) most of the credit for our booming, low-inflation
economy. IT helps everyone be more productive and is widely credited (or blamed)
for the increasing speed of business and life. More than any other industry
group, IT companies should be best suited to exploit the strategic business
advantages IT offers.
Why, then, do so many IT companies and
organizations struggle to reach their strategic objectives? How can they do
better? These are the challenges many organizations face. Companies committed to
competing effectively are ensuring total integration of strategic objectives
with process management and measurement. The keys to aligning IT processes with
business strategy are focusing on strategic objectives, understanding processes,
establishing an integrated measurement program, and managing change.
Four
key questions about the business should be asked up front:
- What are the company's strategic objectives and issues?
- How do its internal processes help the company reach its strategic
objectives?
- Can the company measure what it does?
- Is the company managing change?
What are the
company's strategic objectives and issues?
Many organizations try to
achieve cost reductions but wind up reaching them only on paper because they
fail to integrate their strategic objectives. A few years ago, Stephen initiated
a corporate-wide reengineering effort by forming an internal team staffed by
three company directors.
Unfortunately, few employees actually dealt with
the reengineering team. Instead, the directors and a few managers periodically
disappeared for a few days of off-site meetings, but no one outside the team
seemed to know the results.
Stephen understood his strategy, but he had
not ensured that his management team was on the same wavelength. What Stephen
and his management team needed was a systematic approach to strategy development
that includes three key steps:
- Select a value discipline that will focus the organization. This can
include product preference, customer intimacy, or operational excellence. This
must be done to ensure the consistency of the company's strategy and market
approach.
- Based on the company's value discipline and strategy, identify specific
strategic objectives from multiple perspectives, including the customer's,
financial, internal process, and growth and innovation.
- Understand the cause-and-effect relationships among the four strategic
perspectives. This ensures proper balance among the four perspectives and
requires that management understand the company's internal business processes
well enough to accurately model the cause-and-effect
relationships.
TechRepublic and Auerbach Publications |
This article first appeared in the Fall 2000 issue of
Information Strategy: The Executive's Journal. It appears here
under agreement with Auerbach Publications. For information on subscribing
to this journal or to see a list of previously published topics, click here. To find out about other Auerbach
publications, click here. |
Here is how things
went differently for Stephen once that approach was implemented. In place of the
internal reengineering team, Stephen and his key executives decided that product
preference was their best value discipline, given their products and markets.
The executives reviewed company financials, customers, products, and processes
to understand how each could help establish customer preference for company
products. This integrated view was used to communicate the overall corporate
strategy to the next layer of management before moving to the next
step.
One key to successfully addressing the strategic objectives and
issues is to focus on process. Without an understanding of internal processes,
management cannot establish the company-unique cause-and-effect relationships
among the four strategic perspectives (customer, financial, internal process,
and growth and innovation). This makes it impossible to translate the overall
strategic objective into specific actions required by employees.
How do internal processes help reach strategic
objectives?
Too often, companies do not have defined processes; they
literally do not know what they are doing internally, so they do not know
whether internal processes are helping them achieve the company's strategic
objectives. Many organizations also run into trouble when they fail to integrate
strategies and processes throughout the organization.
For example, when
IT processes fail to integrate with sales and billing processes, customers may
routinely complain of billing errors, which triggers finger-pointing among
sales, accounts payable, and IT. Often, IT developers do not understand how
overall corporate strategies affect their work and how their work leads to
strategic success or failure for the corporation.
Stephen's reengineering
team did not have enough information about internal processes to know which jobs
really could be eliminated. Processes were understood only superficially—the key
process details were invisible and undocumented. Because the reengineering team
did not go beyond its superficial understanding of internal processes, linkages
between strategic objectives and key process details were never established.
Included in these lower-level process details were hidden undocumented linkages
with other parts of the organization, so the team missed opportunities to
effectively integrate the organization. The reengineering effort failed to grasp
how broadly and deeply the company's processes affected strategy.
As a
result, staff cuts were made based on seniority, organizational position, and
personal relationships—not the strategic needs of the business. Value-added
processes were damaged because key knowledge was lost through indiscriminate
staff cuts. Wasteful processes persisted because they were not visible and
therefore were not eliminated by the staffing cuts. Within their internal
processes, the management team must find the cause-and-effect links that connect
financial results to internal operations, growth and innovation, and customer
relations. Here are some keys:
- Understand internal processes before trying to change them.
- Understand that defining processes will cause fear and resistance in the
organization.
- Focus on managing the change.
- Establish a commitment to process. Individual people cannot solve the
organization's problems, nor are there any technological silver bullets.
- Ask questions until the internal process is completely understood.
Settling for a superficial understanding of the process creates problems and
wastes opportunities.
- Ensure that all internal processes are understood and documented for use
throughout the organization. A documented process establishes expectations,
responsibility, and accountability. Complete processes document inputs,
activities, responsibilities, interactions, and outputs.
- Make sure that all employees understand the strategic objective of the
process engineering effort. They must understand what management is doing and
why. If they do not, fear could cripple the change effort.
Whether
external consultants or internal people are used for process development, senior
management must lead the effort. In either case, it is essential to set up
checkpoints along the way to ensure that the whole organization stays
focused.
TechRepublic and Auerbach Publications |
This article first appeared in the Fall 2000 issue of
Information Strategy: The Executive's Journal. It appears here
under agreement with Auerbach Publications. For information on subscribing
to this journal or to see a list of previously published topics, click here. To find out about other Auerbach
publications, click here. |
When Stephen's team
implemented this approach, business transformation began. Instead of identifying
staff cuts, the management team worked with employee teams at all levels to
document existing processes.
Now employees knew how each part of the
process affected the strategic objectives in each of the four perspectives
(financial, customer, internal process, and growth and innovation). Working with
individual key employees, the team discovered many internal processes that did
not support some of the strategic objectives. As a result, the management team
worked with key employees to launch focused process improvement efforts. The
resulting internal processes implemented the integrated strategy, and it was
clear to everyone that they did. Everyone understood the process—what it was and
why it was. Processes that did not support the strategy were eliminated,
resulting in real and permanent cost savings.
Simply put: "If you
understand the process relationships and you understand your process costs and
the benefits that come from that process, you can make effective changes that
will get the results that you want," said client George Meinke, vice president
of Information Systems, Lexis-Nexis Group, a division of Reed Elsevier, Inc.
"For example, if you parachuted into a company and were uninformed, but observed
that cost was a major factor in the business, you might start looking at those
departments that cost the most to maintain or operate. It might turn out that
those large cost generators also happen to be the areas of the company that are
generating the most growth and the most revenue or are of some strategic
importance. So just cutting costs without understanding the process basis for
that cost is ill-advised."
One key to aligning IT processes with strategy
is to effectively measure processes and progress toward strategic objectives.
Companies that have successfully implemented measurements are realizing
calculable results. Studies show they are better able to meet strategic
objectives and reduce costs, improve product quality, reduce rework, speed up
time to market, predict time to market, and increase workforce
retention.
Can the company measure what it does? While mediocre companies
may be content to push poor-quality products out the door and do not manage
based on quantitative data, others are implementing IT measurement programs as a
necessary step in business success. Successful IT measurement programs correlate
the organization's strategic objectives to strategic measurements and internal
process measures. The leader must not only establish and communicate the vision,
but must also understand how that vision will be implemented and measured.
Today's business leaders demand predictable results and measurable progress
through both strategic and internal process measures.
Stephen had some
significant measurement problems. First, his engineering team could not tell him
how much time or money it needed to develop a new product. Second, his sales and
marketing staff was unable to predict product sales. Because he lacked sales or
cost data for his products, he was unsure how to prioritize his product
development investments. It soon became evident to Stephen that he did not have
a quantitative understanding of his business process—all this despite the fact
he had access to volumes of data every day. Still, that data proved useless in
helping him track his strategic objectives.
Studies indicate that within
the next three years, 33 percent of all business organizations will have some
formal measurement program, and by the year 2005, performance measurement and
value management will be a foundation of IT performance within businesses and
strategic partnerships.
At the present time, fewer than 20 percent of
current measurement programs actually meet objectives. Stephen's measurement
program was headed in the same direction until he took corrective action. Here
are the results:
- Managers at all levels can actually measure what they need to track and
control the business.
- Managers, especially senior managers responsible for strategy, know that
subordinates and workers have a clear understanding of the strategy and its
associated measurements.
- Management measures what is actually happening in the business. Unless
management understands the internal processes, the measurements will not show
how the business actually works. As they see the data reflect reality,
management and workers trust and rely on the data for decision making.
- One often-overlooked critical factor is the need to tie strategic measures
to the relevant internal process measures.
As Stephen continues to
apply the key success factors, his organization is changing. Thanks to an
integrated, strategy-driven approach, Stephen now knows how internal processes
affect company strategic objectives. In addition, all employees know how and why
their work is measured and how their work affects each strategic objective.
Everyone knows how the strategic objectives themselves are measured. All levels
of management understand their roles in managing internal processes, customers,
financials, and innovation—and they understand how to measure their
organizations from each perspective.
Companies that implement successful
measurement programs have employees who understand what they should do, how
their work applies to company objectives, and how they can help improve the
bottom line. They have a blueprint. Identifying and measuring strategic
objectives, establishing and aligning internal processes, and establishing
rational measurements are all hard work. The effort is wasted, however, without
equal attention to change management.
TechRepublic and Auerbach Publications |
This article first appeared in the Fall 2000 issue of
Information Strategy: The Executive's Journal. It appears here
under agreement with Auerbach Publications. For information on subscribing
to this journal or to see a list of previously published topics, click here. To find out about other Auerbach
publications, click here. |
Is
the company managing change?
Change creates fear. In most companies,
change affects company culture, so fear is widespread. A key factor is the clear
action management takes to eliminate fear. Successful change programs
acknowledge fear and take early, intensive action to reduce or eliminate it.
Success also breeds success. Once everyone sees measurable improvement, culture
change accelerates. (With the right measurements, everyone will see the
improvement.)
As soon as Stephen's first reengineering team started its
work, fear became an issue. One employee described the situation this way: "Now
that management has announced the reengineering team, work has slowed to a crawl
while we wait to see what happens. People who've been through this before are
speculating about the 'separation packages' that'll be offered. Most everyone I
know is lobbying their manager to be on the layoff list." To many employees,
strategic objectives are abstract concepts that do not affect their day-to-day
work. In this case, the reengineering team failed to go beyond its superficial
understanding of internal processes. Employees and lower-level managers were not
involved. Because the team did not involve all necessary parts of the
organization, it did not perceive all the cultural change issues and fear.
Resistance built up undetected.
Stephen and the reengineering team could
not understand why change was moving so slowly. Wasn't everyone on board? As the
change effort began to stagnate and even run in reverse, Stephen wondered what
had gone wrong. Here is what Stephen discovered about management's role in
culture change and change management:
- Focus on getting all the facts about how it does business. Without
succumbing to "analysis paralysis," management has to commit to getting all
the facts before acting.
- Make the strategic intent of the change visible to everyone. The focus
must be on changing internal processes, not punishing people.
- Involve all levels of the organization; do not just provide occasional
status reports or exhortations.
- Commit to a culture of continuing process improvement as a way of doing
business.
- Understand internal processes before predicting the effects of process and
cultural changes.
- Pay special attention to the culture, change management, and fear within
the organization.
Stephen implemented an integrated approach based on
these key factors. Because employees are involved in the effort to establish,
document, and analyze the processes, they can see what is happening and why.
Because they helped establish the connections among strategic objectives and
internal processes, employees know how their work helps achieve company
objectives. This involvement helps drive fear out of the organization, improves
buy-in, and focuses employees on production, not cynical
speculation.
"Rumors are always much worse than the reality or the
outcome," said Meinke. "If there is a climate of honesty, then the fear does not
get out of control. There may be painful things that are happening within the
company, but people can deal with that if they are aware of what will change and
have some information about when the change will take place."
Experience change successfully
Too often, companies
like Stephen's approach the problem from only one perspective. It is not enough
to implement only value disciplines, balanced scorecards, process improvement,
or measurement—they are all key aspects of an integrated management approach. By
using an integrated approach, organizations drive out fear and focus employees
on their contributions (not their speculations about the future). Management
needs to work with employee teams at all levels to understand and improve
existing processes, instead of merely identifying staff cuts. Then, processes
and employees align with strategic objectives.
Management can take the
first steps toward aligning IT process management with the company's strategy by
following these guidelines:
- Orient key people within the organization to the objectives and understand
the issues from their perspectives.
- Document current processes so they can be analyzed systematically and
connected to organizational strategy.
- Work with the key people to gain buy-in to the change.
- Convince employees that the change is feasible and will help the business.
- Define the new processes and related measurements of effectiveness.
- Document a plan for implementing the new processes.
- Manage and track the implementation as if it were the most important
project in the company—it probably is.
Effective process management
requires strategic focus and commitment from all levels. The process starts at
the executive level and moves throughout the organization, gaining everyone's
buy-in to ensure that the organization has a solid strategic foundation. If the
leadership commits to process-based management and data-driven decision making,
the organization can move forward without fear.
When approaches such as
these are implemented throughout the company, employees no longer talk about "11
managers in three years" or "six-year requirement processes." Instead, they talk
about real change and real progress toward business objectives.
Ann R. Roberts and John M. Smith are managing consultants for
Noumena Consulting Group, Inc., located in Beavercreek, OH. Noumena Consulting
Group helps businesses worldwide take control of IT projects through predictable
project and process management.
TechRepublic and Auerbach Publications |
This article first appeared in the Fall 2000 issue of
Information Strategy: The Executive's Journal. It appears here
under agreement with Auerbach Publications. For information on subscribing
to this journal or to see a list of previously published topics, click here. To find out about other Auerbach
publications, click here. |
Copyright © 1999-2000 TechRepublic, Inc.
Visit us at http://www.techrepublic.com/