As you know, I meet with a lot of customers. Most of the time, we talk about the growing importance of information, and the new role IT will have to play in the future. Or we talk about technology: EMC's and others.
But once in a while, we get into the very important (yet sensitive) topic of the IT organization itself -- what should it look like going forward?
And I have seen a noticable and inescapable trend towards what I've come to call "thin IT organizations".
The IT Organizational Explosion
As the use of information and technology has virtually exploded over the last twenty or so years, I've seen more than a few IT organizations swell their ranks with more and more people.
Yes, they'd use outsourcers and consultants selectively -- but the major trend was "hire more people" whenever a major project or new requirement came up.
As a result, they now have many hundreds to many thousands of people employed directly in corporate IT. There are org charts and mission statements that take hours to explain. Any new initiative seems bound up in getting dozens of groups and hundreds of individuals to participate.
And I think that won't be the most healthy thing going forward.
My (Limited) Organizational Experience
Occasionally in my career, I have inherited existing organizations. I didn't know how they got the way that they were, but I knew it was my job to improve the matter.
As I interview people in the new organization, I usually get lots of feedback of what's working well, and what's not working well. And I typically hear that "we need more people" as there is far too much work to do and not enough is getting done.
I'll ask them if they're getting others in the company to help. Or, are we using outside skills to the maximum effect?
Are we focusing on the right things, or just trying to cover an ever-expanding waterfront?
Often I'll find that their default answer is simply "hire more people". Or, if budget is an issue (and it always is), the proposal is that we'll just "hire cheaper people."
<cringe>
I consider a full-time hire one of the most precious assets in a large organization. Yes, it's economically expensive, but -- on a human level -- you're making a serious commitment to someone's career and long-term development. And I take that commitment very seriously. I wish more people felt the same way.
How would you like to be hired into an organization that didn't take that commitment seriously?
And, if that long-term, full-time hire you've committed to ultimately ends up dissatisfied, or a habitual poor performer, or (worse) corrosive in the workplace, well -- that's not a good situation for anyone, is it?
I think a senior manager owes their company -- and their people -- an efficient organizational model where the work gets done and everyone is happy.
Large Organizations Aren't Inherently Better Organizations
I occasionally meet dissatisfied IT people in my travels.
Somewhere along the line, the joy of their chosen profession has left them. They have become bitter and cynical towards their co-workers, towards vendors, towards their management, and sometimes towards the entire IT profession.
This cannot be good at any level -- not good for the individual, and certainly not good for the organizations they serve.
Would it not be better to have a smaller team of highly motivated (and rewarded) individuals, than a larger organization of less motivated (and rewarded) individuals?
Characteristics of Thin IT Organizations
I will occasionally meet IT organizations that are "thin".
There is a small team of direct employees who are very senior and very skilled practitioners of either architecture, program management or working with business units. They are flexible, adaptable and very team-oriented. And usually they are smart as hell.
When I meet with them, they are engaged, motivated and passionate about what they are doing. They are very good at what they do. I do not know specifics, but they seem to be well-rewarded for their unique talents.
They routinely exhibit what I consider the very best of the IT profession.
It is important to note that in this model, there are not many direct employees in proportion to the entire IT workforce. Instead, there is wide and proficient use of contractors, consultants and factored outsourcing.
These non-employees too are engaged, motivated and passionate about what they are doing. They are seen as trusted partners by the IT organization that is employing them. Their opinions and expertise are sought out and acted upon. I can only imagine that they too are well-rewarded for their unique talents.
They too exhibit what I consider the very best of the IT profession.
I have had a few friends in IT who were very unhappy working within large IT organizations and left to join either consultancies or contractor shops. The adjustment was difficult for them, but they all would say that it was a good move, and they're happier than they were.
Looks like a win-win to me -- everyone's happier, more productive and better rewarded.
Thin IT Organizations Seem Happier and More Productive
At least, that's what I see.
Within the first 10 minutes of meeting with a customer, I can usually figure out whether they're built on "thin" principles or not. The level of the discussion is entirely different. The willingness to engage with a vendor deeply and directly is very evident.
Best of all, they're excited about what they're doing.
Other IT organizations seem to bring a certain weariness, defeatism and cynicism to the table. They don't seem to trust senior management, they don't trust vendors, and sometimes they don't trust each other.
And sometimes I think they're just trying to escape with their skin intact.
During a single day when I meet two or three different customers, the differences can be very stark indeed.
Does Senior IT Management Get It?
I don't know. But if they do, I also think they're shy talking about it for all the right reasons. And that can hamper progress.
Sometimes, when we're discussing factored outsourcing, there seems to be a strong people thread in the discussion, although it's presented in terms of better services for less money.
I've heard some customers describe their ideal state as a "virtual IT organization" -- a small, knowledgeable and experienced core, surrounded with the best the industry has to offer in specialized talents from consultants, contractors and outsourcers.
But they're usually very quiet about their thinking.
I think it's hard to move ahead on transforming entire organizations unless the intent is communicated explicitly. The best leaders (IT or otherwise) make clear public statements about "here's what we're going to look like in the future, and why".
Yes, there's a lot of turmoil and anxiety during the process, but people know what to expect, and that's good.
EMC's Limited Experience
Let's take a simple EMC example.
- You can buy products from us.
- You can buy people from us to install them for you.
- You can buy services from us to figure out what you might need before actually buying products.
- Or you can ask us to run a part of your IT business (e.g. storage, backup, etc.) from you.
Generally speaking, the people who engage with us around #3 and #4 seem generally better off than #1 or #2. I think they've learned to successfully counteract the DIY gene we all seem to have.
Now, if you're the cynical type, you'd only consider #1 or maybe #2.
So, Here's An Opportunity For The Consulting Organizations
I know that Accenture, Gartner, et. al. are always looking for a new angle in offering services to IT organizations. It's what they do, and do well.
Hey guys, how about offering up a discussion on "Thin IT Organizations" -- what are they, why are they better, how do you know when you have one, and -- most importantly -- how do you slim down?
Virtual IT infrastructures are all the rage these days -- why not virtual IT organizations?
Comments