Tag Archives: leadership

Leadership, Service Management

What CISOs Already Learned: Service Management’s Language Problem

Leave a comment
Share twitterlinkedinmail

Most boards don’t discuss incidents, changes, requests, SLAs, MTTR, or knowledge articles. Yet many service management leaders continue to present those metrics as though they are inherently meaningful to executives.

Twenty years ago, many security leaders approached executive communication in much the same way. Conversations centered on vulnerabilities, patch compliance, security controls, and other technical topics. Today, successful CISOs are far more likely to discuss business disruption, operational resilience, regulatory exposure, and organizational risk. In fact, Deloitte specifically advises CISOs that “technical metrics don’t resonate in the boardroom” and recommends focusing discussions on business impact and organizational value instead.

Service management is facing a similar challenge.

Service Management’s Language Problem

Contrary to what some might believe, service management doesn’t have a language problem because practitioners are poor communicators. Service management has a language problem because many organizations have confined it to an operational role.

For years, service management has been associated with incidents, requests, changes, service desk operations, and SLA reporting. The result is predictable: service management leaders naturally talk about the things they’ve been asked to manage.

The irony is that service management frameworks have never described service management that narrowly. At its core, service management exists to help customers achieve desired outcomes while creating value through the effective use of services. Services are intended to support business objectives.

Yet many organizations have reduced service management to the efficient execution of IT processes.

When service management doesn’t discuss value

Somewhere along the way, many organizations stopped managing services and started managing tickets. We claim to practice service management, but much of what we actually manage is operational workflow.

The result is a credibility gap. We tell executives that service management is about value, outcomes, and business objectives. Then we present dashboards filled with ticket counts, SLA attainment, backlog volumes, and MTTR. We should not be surprised when executives struggle to connect service management to business value.

This challenge is not new. Chris Barrett has written extensively about bridging ITSM concepts to boardroom value. One of his observations is that IT often arrives at executive and board discussions in a reactive or defensive posture, reporting incidents, outages, project status, and risks rather than discussing value creation. As he put it, for many organizations IT arrives at the board table like an unwelcome house guest.

If service management leaders want executive attention, we should stop asking executives to care about incidents, requests, and SLAs. Instead, we should demonstrate how service management reduces friction, improves productivity, enables organizational agility, strengthens resilience, and helps achieve strategic objectives.

The problem becomes particularly visible when we look at one of service management’s most common measures: the SLA.

The SLA Test

Consider the ubiquitous SLA.

Organizations proudly report SLA attainment percentages as evidence of service quality and value delivery. Yet many of these so-called SLAs are nothing more than configuration settings within an ITSM platform: response targets, resolution timers, escalation thresholds, and workflow triggers.

They measure whether the tool performed as configured. They do not necessarily measure whether the business achieved a meaningful outcome.

A true service level agreement should reflect a business need. It should describe how a service supports patient care, enables transaction processing, facilitates customer onboarding, or supports critical manufacturing operations.

Instead, many organizations report:

  • 95% of Priority 2 incidents resolved within eight hours
  • 98% first-response compliance
  • 99% SLA attainment

An executive’s reasonable response might be, “That’s interesting, but what does that mean for the business?”

And too often, IT struggles to answer.

As I’ve argued previously, many organizations don’t actually have service level agreements. They have ticket processing targets masquerading as service level agreements. In many cases, what is called an SLA is really just an ITSM platform configuration setting.

An SLA that cannot be connected to a business outcome is just a timer.

What CISOs Learned

As cybersecurity matured as a business discipline, successful CISOs recognized a fundamental truth: executives and boards were never going to become interested in cybersecurity simply because security professionals thought it was important. To gain executive attention, security leaders had to demonstrate how cybersecurity affected the organization’s ability to achieve its objectives.

That shift changed the conversation. Discussions that once centered on vulnerabilities, patches, and security controls increasingly focused on business risk, resilience, regulatory exposure, and operational continuity. The lesson from successful CISOs is not that they learned a new vocabulary. The lesson is that they stopped describing technical activities and started describing business consequences.

Lessons for Service Management

Too often, service management conversations begin with incidents, requests, changes, SLAs, ticket volumes, and other operational measures. While those metrics may be important to managing services, they are rarely important to executives in and of themselves. Executives are far more interested in understanding how technology services contribute to employee productivity, customer experience, organizational agility, operational resilience, and strategic success.

Consider how differently the same information can be presented. A report showing that MTTR improved by 15% may be meaningful to IT operations. A discussion explaining that employees regained access to critical business tools more quickly, reducing productivity losses and business disruption, is meaningful to business leaders. The metric hasn’t changed. The context has.

The same principle applies to services themselves. Many IT organizations still define services by the technologies they manage. Business leaders, however, do not invest in technology for technology’s sake. They invest because technology provides the capabilities to enable communication, collaboration, revenue generation, customer engagement, and other business outcomes.

Perhaps the most significant shift is how we think about tickets. Service management professionals often view incidents, requests, and complaints as work that must be processed efficiently. Executives tend to see something different. Every ticket represents friction. It is evidence that something is delaying a transaction, interrupting productivity, creating risk, or preventing someone from achieving a desired outcome.

Seen through that lens, tickets become less about workload and more about understanding barriers to organizational performance.

Ultimately, the most effective service management conversations begin not with an activity but with a business objective. The question should never be, “How many incidents did we resolve?” The more important question is, “What business outcome did our efforts help achieve?”

The conversation must change

For years, service management has measured what matters to IT. The challenge now is to communicate what matters to the business.

The lesson from CISOs isn’t that they abandoned technology conversations. It’s that they stopped leading with them. Successful security leaders learned to connect technical activities to business risk, resilience, and organizational objectives. Service management leaders must make the same shift.

If we want executive attention and support, we must stop asking executives to care about incidents, requests, SLAs, MTTR, and ticket volumes. Instead, we need to show how service management increases productivity, enhances resilience, reduces risk, drives growth, enhances employee and customer experience, and contributes to reaching strategic goals.

The organizations that elevate service management from an operational discipline to a strategic capability will be those whose leaders deliberately connect services to business outcomes and organizational value.

The journey to the executive suite or boardroom does not begin with better dashboards. It begins with a better conversation.

Share twitterlinkedinmail
Leadership, Service Management

If Service Management is about business value, then why don’t we talk about…Business Value?

Share twitterlinkedinmail

Service management has always been about enabling business outcomes, yet many organizations still practice it as a technology management discipline. The question isn’t whether service management understands business value—the question is why organizational leadership, and IT cultures often fail to frame it that way.

Why we don’t understand

There are several reasons why service management is misunderstood—from both IT and non-IT perspectives.

  • It’s an identity problem – Frameworks like ITIL® have emphasized value creation, outcomes, and services for years. Yet in practice, many organizations still experience service management as a collection of operational processes. There’s a gap between the theory and the implementation.
  • The approach to service management adoption – This may have been one of the unintended consequences of widespread framework adoption. Organizations spent years implementing IT operational practices like incident management, change management, service request management, and maybe a few other practices…and stopped. Service management success was measured in terms of IT compliance with these practices and IT-defined performance measures rather than organizational outcomes. The conversation became “Did we follow the process?” instead of “Did the process improve customer outcomes?”

And when that happens, the organization naturally associated service management with bureaucracy instead of value creation.

  • Leadership delegated – or ignored – service management instead of owning it – Many executives view service management as something to delegate to IT rather than as a management discipline that spans the enterprise. Consider how CEOs typically discuss strategic priorities in terms of customer experience, digital transformation, innovation, growth, and operational resilience. Rarely do CEOs discuss service management as a strategic differentiator. Ironically, these strategic priorities depend on the outcomes from good service management to realize strategic success.
  • IT made service management about itself – IT initiated an implementation project without inviting non-IT colleagues to be part of the strategy or design of service management. As a result, many service management implementations are focused only on the work of (some parts of) the IT organization and not on the business of the business.
  • IT reinforces the misconception – Many IT organizations continue to define themselves by technology rather than by the services and business outcomes they enable. Ask an infrastructure team what they do, and you’ll likely hear about managing servers, networks, cloud platforms, and endpoints.

Ask non-IT colleagues what they need, and you’ll hear things like closing sales, shipping products, collaborating with employees, and processing customer orders. Those are entirely different conversations.  Technology should be discussed as an enabler, not the objective.

Why this matters now

I think the rise of AI makes this conversation even more important.

AI can make individual tasks dramatically faster. It can summarize incidents, route requests, answer questions, generate code, and automate workflows. But as I’ve said before, AI cannot compensate for a poorly designed service operating model. If the underlying service is fragmented, the data is inconsistent, ownership is unclear, or processes optimize local efficiency instead of customer outcomes, AI simply accelerates those shortcomings.

Organizations that will benefit most from AI won’t necessarily have the best AI. But they will have the clearest understanding of:

  • the services they provide
  • the outcomes those services are meant to achieve
  • the governance to continually improve them

That’s the domain of mature service management—not as an IT function, but as a business capability.

Imagine a sales organization whose “service” is enabling representatives to close deals. If requests for pricing, CRM access, and contract approvals bounce across siloed teams and misaligned tools, AI chatbots and copilots will only help sales reps get faster (but poor) answers to a broken process. When service management focuses on the end-to-end sales outcome instead, AI can amplify a well-designed service rather than accelerate dysfunction.

It’s about the business

Here’s the deeper issue.

Many organizations still see service management as running services. I think the future of service management is managing the enterprise through services.

That’s a subtle but profound distinction. “Running services” is concerned with system availability, meeting SLAs, and resolving incidents. “Managing the enterprise through services” asks (and provides answers to) the following questions:

  • Are customers accomplishing what they came here to do?
  • Are employees able to deliver value without unnecessary friction?
  • Are our services adapting as customer needs change?
  • Are we creating outcomes that strengthen the business?

The first perspective is operational.

The second is strategic.

The opportunity is there…if we only take it

For me, that’s the opportunity for the profession. Service management doesn’t need to reinvent itself; it needs to reclaim its original purpose; it needs to reframe the conversation. Instead of being known for process governance or just as a service desk, it should be recognized as the discipline that enables organizations to consistently deliver value, improve experiences, and adapt with confidence.

In that framing, here are examples of some of the clearest indicators that service management is succeeding:

  • Employee Experience – Employees spend more time creating value and less time dealing with technology challenges.
  • Customer experience – Customer interactions are easier, which helps drive improved satisfaction.
  • Revenue protection – Effective service management protects existing revenue by minimizing or eliminating the impact of disruptions to customer-facing systems.
  • Time-to-market – New products and services reach customers faster.
  • Strategic Execution – Good service management ensures that technology investments support, deliver, and sustain strategic goals and objectives.

When executives talk about digital transformation, operational resilience, and customer experience, they are already talking about the outcomes of service management—even if they don’t use that language.

It’s time for service management professionals to help leadership reframe the conversation from “IT processes” to “services that deliver strategic business outcomes.”

Share twitterlinkedinmail
Governance, Leadership, Service Management

The Real Reason IT Can’t Keep Up – and What Needs to Change

Share twitterlinkedinmail

When business leaders say they need to “move faster,” they are rarely talking about speed for its own sake. They mean faster time-to-market, faster recovery from disruption, faster answers, and a greater ability to change direction without rebuilding the business around new technology. But IT can’t keep up.

AI has only made the gap more visible. As Newsweek noted in 2026, AI adoption is forcing organizations to compete for the same limited pool of budget, talent, and attention already needed to maintain existing systems. AI is not reducing pressure on IT; it is increasing demand across infrastructure, services, skills, and spending.

The problem is that this pressure is not new. In many organizations, business demand has been growing faster than IT’s ability to respond for years. IT is expected to enable innovation while still carrying the weight of reactive support, operational complexity, and “keeping the lights on” work. As that imbalance grows, speed becomes harder to deliver—even when the intent is there.

IT hasn’t been able to keep up – and if something doesn’t change, it’s only going to get worse.

Symptoms of an IT organization that isn’t keeping up

Those pressures do not show up only in missed deadlines or overloaded teams. They show up in visible patterns across the organization—patterns that signal IT is struggling to keep pace with what the business now requires.

Personal technology outpaces corporate technology – Employees often have access to faster, easier, and more modern tools at home than they do at work. When workplace tools feel outdated or restrictive, people turn to “shadow IT” or “shadow AI” to get work done. While that may improve individual productivity in the short term, it undermines collaboration, consistency, and knowledge sharing across the enterprise.

Policies constrain instead of enable – Good policies explain why the policy exists and provide useful guidance that helps the organization achieve intended outcomes while minimizing unintended consequences. But when policies are not updated to reflect current market conditions, emerging technologies, or new ways of working, they create friction. In those cases, the effort required to comply can outweigh the risk the policy was meant to manage.

IT and business strategy are disjointed – As I’ve discussed previously, many organizations still develop IT strategy separately from business strategy. The result is fragmented initiatives, poor investment decisions, underused technology, and missed opportunities to create value. Research from Grant Thornton found that while 93% of business leaders are investing more in technology, only 27% say their technology is fully aligned with business goals.

IT’s house is not in order – One of the clearest signs that IT is falling behind is the absence of foundational delivery disciplines. IT practices are not aligned to organizational goals, work is managed in isolation from the rest of the enterprise, and business governance over systems and services is weak or missing. Since IT cannot create business value on its own, these gaps make it harder for the organization to move with speed and confidence.

Together, these symptoms make it harder for the enterprise to move quickly, coordinate effectively, and respond confidently to change.

What’s holding IT back?

These symptoms do not happen by accident. They usually point to deeper structural issues in how IT is organized, governed, and connected to the business.

Lack of transparency – IT often lacks a clear, end-to-end understanding of the organization’s value streams. While IT may understand its own internal workflows for systems or application development, it often struggles to see how those systems and applications contribute to broader business value.

Processes without purpose – People in IT are often busy doing work, but the reason behind that work is unclear—or no longer valid. When processes continue without a clear connection to outcomes, they create effort without delivering meaningful value.

IT is not aligned with the enterprise – As I’ve discussed before, IT often lacks a clear understanding of how the enterprise operates and creates value. Instead, IT treats its non-IT colleagues as “customers,” which can create an unnecessary barrier between IT and the rest of the organization.

IT services are not defined – The way people, processes, and technology come together to enable business outcomes is often not clearly defined, documented, or agreed upon between IT and the rest of the organization.

Lack of governance – Business decision rights are often undefined for products and services provided by IT. As a result, ownership of those decisions is frequently ceded—consciously or unconsciously—to IT. In effect, IT ends up making, or being asked to make, business decisions it does not own.

Tool sprawl – A “technology first” approach to business problems often leads to a proliferation of tools. A 2026 report from Auvik found that SaaS sprawl continues to outpace visibility for many IT teams. Sixty percent of organizations report discovering unauthorized SaaS applications at least monthly, reinforcing how difficult it is to maintain an accurate view of what is running across the environment.

If these are some of the forces slowing IT down, the next question is what can help. This is where service management should matter—but only if it evolves beyond a narrow operational focus.

Service management can help – but not the service management found in many organizations

Many organizations have adopted the operational side of service management, but those practices alone have never been enough. The business, technology, and consumer landscape has changed. Organizations need greater velocity, customers expect better experiences, technology environments are more complex, and work happens everywhere. In that context, an operationally oriented, “inside-out” approach to service management falls short.

What organizations need now is service management that supports business outcomes, enables value co-creation, and improves measurable business impact. That means helping the organization pivot safely, respond to market change, adopt emerging technologies with discipline, and manage growing cyber and operational risk.

For IT to shift from reactive work to strategic business enablement, service management must evolve. It should strengthen governance and control, become more responsive and value-driven, and focus on how the organization uses people, processes, and technology together to deliver differentiated outcomes. Here are a few examples (referencing ITIL®[i]practices) of how service management can help.

Portfolio management – Helps the organization work on the right things. It clarifies which products and services should exist, governs them across their lifecycle, and supports decisions about what to fund, improve, or retire.

 Strategy management – Ensures the organization’s desired outcomes are clearly defined, agreed, maintained, and translated into action.

Service design – Focuses on creating modern, scalable, and resilient digital services rather than treating systems and applications as ends in themselves.

Service desk – Becomes the hub for the consumer experience, not just a function that reacts to incidents and requests.

Measurement and reporting – Shifts the conversation from IT activity to enterprise performance, using measures that reflect business results rather than technical effort alone.

Monitoring and event management – Enables earlier detection, automated response, and more predictive operations, reducing the amount of reactive work carried by IT teams.

Continual improvement – Builds the learning loops needed to keep adapting. In a fast-changing environment, improvement cannot be occasional; it must be part of how the organization works.

Start by asking better questions

If IT feels like it is constantly behind, the issue is rarely effort alone. More often, the problem is that demand has outgrown the structures, governance, and operating practices needed to respond safely and effectively. That is why simply asking IT to “move faster” will not solve the problem. Organizations need a more business-connected approach to service management—one that improves visibility, clarifies ownership, strengthens decision-making, and helps turn technology work into business outcomes.

If you want IT to help your organization move faster, start by asking a different set of questions:

  • Do you have clear service ownership?
  • Are decision rights defined?
  • Can you see how technology work connects to business value?
  • Are you reducing reactive work—or just funding more of it?

Service management should help answer those questions. If it is not, this may be the right time to rethink what service management is for and how it should support the business.

[i] ITIL is a registered trademark of the PeopleCert group.

Share twitterlinkedinmail
Leadership, Service Management

Why Enterprise Service Management is the Operating Model Your Organization Needs

Share twitterlinkedinmail

New technologies promise greater speed, increased accuracy, improved productivity, and more efficiency. Many organizations invest in these new technologies to address those challenges and unlock new capabilities.

But in many cases, after significant investments in time, resources, and people, these new technologies don’t deliver those promised results. What happened?

Did internal silos and outdated processes get in the way? Are workflows clumsy, with poor handoffs between departments? Are those workflows even defined? Were the results promised by the new technology internally translated into quantifiable goals, frictionless interactions, and clear accountabilities?

While a technology first approach is often followed for solving business problems, such an approach rarely achieves the intended results. Why? Because the problem is not a technology problem. The problem is often in the organization’s operating model. What if enterprise service management (ESM) is the new operating model?

The challenges of operating models

McKinsey defines an operating model as “a strategic blueprint that defines how a company organizes its people, processes, technology, and governance to deliver value to customers and achieve long-term goals. It acts as the functional bridge, translating a high-level business model (the “what”) into daily actions (the “how”), ensuring efficiency, scalability, and alignment across the organization.”

The fact is that every organization has an operating model. Work is being done somehow, whether it is by design. And design and adoption of the operating model is the problem that ESM adoption could resolve.

But organizations resist changing, much less defining, their operating models – even though organizational leaders agree that they should. Many executives say that their operating model must be rethought, yet over 30% of those executives point at internal resistance as a barrier to redesign.

So, if defining and implementing operating models result in better ways of working within organizations, why do executives get resistance?

  • Fear of the unknown – People fear the unknown and worry about how new roles, workflows, or decision rights will affect them.
  • Internal politics – Concerns over losing control, influence, or decision right results in pushback against defining operating models.
  • Siloed operations have become deeply embedded – In the absence of an operating model, internal teams and departments have locally optimized the work that they are doing without considering the impact on the overall organization.

Introducing technology in the absence of a defined and agreed operating model only exacerbates these issues.

Why ESM is your operating model is ESM

Good ESM helps organizations understand their existing (even if undocumented) operating model. But ESM is not just ITSM extended across the organization. ESM is an organizational capability for holistically delivering business value and outcomes, based upon shared processes, appropriate technology, increased collaboration, and better communication across the organization.

To me, the purpose of an operating model and the purpose of ESM sound the same. Should ESM be your operating model? Should your operating model be ESM?

When organizations commit to defining, implementing, and following an operating model, the result is clarity regarding roles, responsibilities, and decision rights.  Functions align better with business strategy and customer outcomes.

ESM succeeds by empowering people, clarifying responsibilities, and supporting cross functional collaboration to deliver business outcomes.

When organizations commit to good ESM, the result is standardized processes and enhanced visibility regarding how value flows through the organization. This makes it easier to identify problem areas, simplify workflows, and clarify expectations and roles.

When organizations commit to defining and implementing an operating model, that operating model becomes the blueprint for service delivery. Processes facilitate the actions that bring the blueprint to life.

The introduction of new technology changes the enterprise operating model by reshaping how the whole business creates, delivers, and captures value across structure, processes, people, and governance—not just how IT runs.

Good ESM illustrates how technology enables or supports processes and people in delivering business outcomes and value.

Governance is a core enabler of good ESM, by providing the structures needed to effectively govern emergent technologies and distributed processes at an operational level.

An operating model defines how governance happens on a day-to-day basis.

5 Steps toward adopting ESM – and defining your operating model

How can business executives accomplish both defining the operating model and adopting ESM? Here are five steps to getting started:

  • Stop thinking of ESM as “ITSM everywhere”. It’s not. ESM applies service management concepts across the organization to enable a clear understanding of how work and value flows from start to finish – across departments. Many ITSM adoptions are (incorrectly) focused internally on IT.
  • Clarify the technology strategy. When business strategy and technology strategy are developed independently, the result is poor technology decisions and missed business opportunities. For success in the digital economy, the business and technology strategy must be integrated.
  • Understand the current state. Identifying and mapping the current ways that value flows through the organization not only brings transparency and clarity into how work is being done, it also identifies improvement opportunities. It will also highlight the need for operating models and ESM.
  • Think, talk, and act in terms of “PPTG”. The key to success with both ESM and operating models is thinking through PPTG – People, Process, Technology, and Governance. What skills and competencies are needed for organizational success? How should work flow across the organization? What systems and technology are needed? How will decisions be made? Thinking, talking, and acting in terms of PPTG establishes the foundation for success for operating models and ESM.
  • Start with what’s most important – Identify and begin with the critical few end-to-end processes within the organization. This will get the right parts of the organization involved. It also enables a bigger impact on the organization, validates the value of operating models and the use of ESM, builds momentum for continued improvements, and shifts the mindset of business executives from just buying-in (“nice idea”) to commitment (action).

When organizations embrace ESM as their operating model, technology starts working for them – not the other way round – unlocking clarity, alignment, and measurable value.

Share twitterlinkedinmail
Governance, Human Centered Design, Leadership, Service Management

Why Your Organization Gets the IT It Deserves

2 Comments
Share twitterlinkedinmail

“What is the value of IT?”

It’s the question that gets asked over and over. But the question itself is not the problem – it’s a symptom. It distracts from the real issue: the absence of organizational accountability for IT value.

As a result, your organization gets the IT it deserves.

How organizations end up with the IT they deserve

Organizations end up with poor IT when:

  • Technology is viewed as a cost center
  • Leadership fails to modernize or invest
  • Business units and IT operate in silos
  • Digital transformation lacks clarity
  • Governance is weak or outdated
  • The human experience is undervalued

That’s not to say that all of this is the fault of the organization. IT can influence many of these issues by defining a service catalog. A service catalog is the authoritative, business-facing description of IT services—defined in clear, outcome-oriented terms that show how IT enables business value. A service catalog is not a list of technologies or a menu of request forms. It is a structured representation of what the IT organization delivers, why it matters, and how it supports business outcomes.

Without a service catalog, IT becomes invisible – a utility seen as a just a back-office function tasked with fixing technology and keeping systems running, rather than driving value. This mindset allows the business to avoid owning strategic technology decisions, deflecting responsibility for unclear business requirements, shifting priorities, poor planning, or the lack of business strategy alignment. As a result, IT is left to guess or assume what business outcomes the organization is expecting.

On the other hand, when the business and IT work as one team, the question of “IT value” disappears. IT value isn’t a question when:

  • Organizational leadership treats IT as strategic, not tactical
  • Investments (including technology) align with business priorities
  • Workforce readiness is cultivated
  • Innovation and foresight become cultural norms
  • Processes are designed to enable, not constrain
  • Systems are human-centric and intuitive

The key difference in the organization getting the IT it deserves – good or bad – is how business strategy and IT strategy are connected. The service catalog (or lack thereof) is the concrete expression of that connection.

What we have here is a lack of strategic alignment

As Mark Lutchen noted in Managing IT as a Business, technology only delivers benefits when implemented with an understanding that it changes how a company works. Among the principles discussed within his book, Lutchen advised that business and IT strategy must align to ensure that technology drives profits.

But when business strategy and technology strategy are treated separately, then the organization is constrained, if not prevented, from fully leveraging technology for business benefit. This approach results in bad behaviors within the organization, such as

  • IT is expected to align to a business strategy for which it had no input
  • IT is brought in at the last minute to strategic business discussions when it becomes apparent that technology is involved.

McKinsey’s research reinforces this point – without aligning investments to strategic technology trends, organizations chase hype instead of harvesting value. Many companies chase trends without developing internal capacity, resulting in minimal return.

Defining IT services and, subsequently,  a service catalog not only provides a framework to evaluate innovation, but it also represents a mutually agreed understanding between IT and the rest of the business for ensuring that technology investments result in business value.

But the hard truth is that some organizations do not want to change the status quo. Some within organizations would rather bluster about “IT value” rather than taking action to establish and enforce accountability through strategic alignment.

Stop debating IT value, start aligning IT with the business

Defining IT services establishes the critical foundation for answering the question “what is the value of IT?”  Start from the “outside” then work back “inside” the organization to answer the following questions:

  • What is the business of the business?
  • Who are our customers?
  • What do those customers need?
  • Why do those customers come to us?
  • What do those customers expect from us?
  • Who is accountable for ensuring that customers are happy?
  • What combinations of IT and non-IT people, processes, and technology enable us to do that?

The answers to these questions provide the foundation for defining services, and ultimately, a service catalog.

Earn the IT you deserve

Business-IT alignment is one of the strongest predictors of whether technology investments translate into outcomes such as business performance, operational excellence, and competitive advantage. IT cannot create value in isolation – it’s the partnership between IT and the business that unlocks it. A well-defined service catalog demonstrates that both share a common understanding of value, outcomes, and expectations – the foundation of alignment.

Share twitterlinkedinmail
AI and Modernization, Human Centered Design, Leadership

Technology is Easy. Experience is Hard. Here’s How to Get it Right.

Share twitterlinkedinmail

There is a tendency within many organizations to take a “technology first” approach to solve every business challenge. In more cases than not, this approach simply creates more challenges and friction within organizations; it is a very short-sighted view.

Organizations do need technology – without it, organizations cannot compete in the digital economy.

But there is a lot of FOMO in today’s business technology environment, valuing speed over strategy.

The often-ignored aspects of rapid technology implementation

When an organization prioritizes speed of implementing technology, it usually results in some significant issues being ignored. Issues such as:

  • Changes to the organizational operating model. Technology changes the enterprise operating model by reshaping how the whole business creates, delivers, and captures value across structure, processes, people, and governance—not just how IT runs.
  • Impact of change on people. Organizations often underestimate, if not ignore, the impact of technology implementation on the people the technology was intended to help.
  • The weight of technical debt. Unless governance keeps pace with technology introduction, rapid introductions of technology can introduce new technical debt in system architectures, data, and model lifecycle. At the same time, many organizations ignore the impact of existing technical debt from legacy systems, customizations, and integrations.

Experience enablement ensures successful technology implementations

Think about it – in the digital economy, all companies have some level of technology enablement. But this ever-increasing rush to implement technology out of the fear of being left behind will have negative consequences – unless the fundamental challenges noted above are addressed.

But I believe that success with technology implementation depends on a single critical factor – the people that use that technology. This highlights the need for a good human experience, both between organizations and their external stakeholders as well as the stakeholders within those organizations.

I am convinced that the experience – the total end‑to‑end journey and feelings of a person interacting with a company or product –  is the differentiating factor for organizations in the digital economy. But if technology implementations do not enable that differentiating experience, those organizations will not realize their full potential in the digital economy.

Can an organization achieve its strategy, the demand for speed and agility in the marketspace,  and address the need for a good experience for those that interact with technology? The answer is yes – but organizations first must slow down to go fast.

Four Steps to Slow Down and Accelerate Success

How can an organization meet the demands for speed and agility in the market space, yet ensure that technology implementations enable the right experience? It can be done – if organizations first slow down to go fast. Here are the four steps organizations must take to slow down to accelerate success.

  • Digital business strategy – A well-defined digital business strategy is a critical first step for organizations wanting to leverage technology to deliver business outcomes and value. A digital business strategy ensures that the appropriate technologies are identified for achieving those business results.
  • Mapping value streams – A value stream map shows how value flows through an organization – and the systems and technology that enables the flow of value. When organizations understand their value streams, they can identify and address any areas of friction resulting from the use of technology.
  • Define proto personas – Proto personas help organizations understand the goals, needs, and behaviors of the consumers that will be using their products and services.
  • Journey mapping – Whether it’s a customer or an employee, it’s critical to understand the experience of people’s interactions with an organization. Use those proto personas to produce journey maps. Journey maps depict the touchpoints and experiences – and the impact of technology (good or bad) – humans have while interacting with an organization.

Technology without delivering the right experience is a recipe for failure

As I’ve written before, if technology implementations do not enable that differentiating experience, those organizations will be left behind in the digital economy. But admittedly,  organizations taking a “tools first” approach to business challenges is nothing new.

But, delivering that right experience should not be left to chance. A “tools first” approach may address one area of concern but typically will miss other areas of concerns. Different consumers have different expectations of the experience they have with organizations. Implementation of technology without a well thought and integrated business strategy results in wasted time, money, and resources. Such an approach usually results in needless complexity. The different value streams within an organization have different requirements for velocity. Technology solutions must accommodate those requirements.

These are leadership issues, not technology issues. And it takes courage to stand in the face of well-intentioned but misguided demands for rapid technology implementations.

The best way to ensure success in the digital future is to plan for that future. Defining the digital business strategy, mapping value streams, understanding who will be interacting with your organization using proto personas, and journey mapping provides a clear path to success in the digital age.

Share twitterlinkedinmail
Service Management

Fear of collaboration: A silent killer of ESM initiatives

Share twitterlinkedinmail

Is your Enterprise Service Management (ESM) initiative stuck? Does it feel like no one wants to talk about, much less support, ESM?  Do you feel like you’re on an island?  If these questions resonate with you, your ESM initiative may be a victim of a fear of collaboration.

Collaboration is when two or more people work together to achieve a common goal.  Successful collaboration involves sharing responsibilities, supporting each other, and sharing risks. When people collaborate, they invest in the success of each other, and work as a team to overcome challenges to achieve shared goals.

Successful ESM requires collaboration. But to many, being asked to collaborate is intimidating.  It’s uncomfortable.  In some cases, it is counter to the culture of the organization. In other cases, it’s a threat to an individual’s sense of control, self-worth, or identity.

Collaboration can be downright scary.

Why are people afraid of collaboration?

People are often afraid of collaboration for several reasons.  These reasons range from psychological, cultural, and organizational factors – factors that create obstacles to the effective collaboration needed for successful ESM.

This article from Harvard Business Review discusses the “blind spot” many leaders have when asking their teams to collaborate.  Leaders often overlook the experience teams may have when invited to collaborate, such as when asked to divulge information, break down organizational silos, share resources, sacrifice autonomy, or even relinquish responsibilities that define them as a group.  Rather than embrace the opportunities and successes that come with effective collaboration, some teams take on a defensive posture to protect their team identity, legitimacy, and sense of control.

An ESM initiative may encounter other barriers to collaboration. Some people fear appearing incompetent or weak when admitting gaps in their knowledge, especially in high performing organizations. Others are concerned about being indebted to others or having to reciprocate in the future, which can make collaboration feel transactional rather than mutually beneficial.  In workplaces that highly value individual achievement and self-reliance, people may feel pressure to solve problems on their own. Collaboration can be seen as a weakness, discouraging people from reaching out for help or engaging.

Why good ESM is critical to success in the digital economy

Why is having and practicing good ESM so important for organizations now?

Having reliable and responsive technology solutions is critical for business success in the digital economy.  The digital economy moves at digital speeds.  Understanding the organizational value streams – how work and value flow through an organization – is foundational for reliable, repeatable, and trustworthy digital interactions.  Since technology is a critical factor in underpinning and executing organizational value streams, having a mutual understanding of  the outcomes and value the organization wants to achieve is required.  Good ESM enables and embeds that mutual understanding across the organization.

The customer experience will be significantly influenced by the interactions of customers with technologies provided by the organization.  Those interactions must be frictionless, intuitive, and responsive – and in many cases, will not involve a human from the organization.  Good ESM enables organizations to understand and continually improve how the technologies underpinning organizational value streams that face the customer.

Good ESM requires good collaboration

As I’ve stated before, ESM is not “ITSM for the rest of the organization”.  ESM is holistic, organization-wide approach focused on value delivery, collaboration, and continual improvement, rather than just technology deployment. Good ESM is a strategic initiative that requires proper planning, leadership, and a focus on real business outcomes.

The focus of ESM must be on value streams and business outcomes, not implementing tools. Good ESM is achieved by aligning workflows and processes with organizational value streams and regular engagement among colleagues from across the organization to understand priorities and pain points and identify opportunities for improvement.

Good ESM relies on shared processes, increased collaboration, and improved communication across departments. This holistic approach enables organizations to leverage the full talents and competencies of the entire workforce, leading to better outcomes.[i]

Overcoming the fear of collaboration

While there is no “instant fix”  that results in collaboration, there are some significant steps an organization can take to enable and motivate the collaboration required for ESM.

First, an ESM initiative requires executive sponsorship and a champion.  Since good ESM requires a holistic approach, executive sponsorship is critical for helping tear down organizational silos.  Equally as important is having an ESM champion.  The champion not only represents the initiative at the senior levels of the organization but must also convey the vision for ESM.  It must be emotionally compelling.  Logical arguments alone are insufficient to overcome the deep-rooted emotional responses as discussed earlier.

Leaders must talk openly about the importance of psychological safety and make it an explicit team goal.  Leaders should model  inclusive leadership by actively soliciting input, showing vulnerability, and being approachable about mistakes.  Associates have to feel safe to ask questions, experiment, and make mistakes.

The goals, expectations, and roles of the ESM initiative must be clearly communicated from the start. Leaders must define clear, mutual objectives so that everyone is working toward the same outcome.  Regularly schedule check-ins to clarify any misunderstandings and to maintain alignment as the ESM initiative evolves.

Finally, having the right person lead the ESM initiative – and having the right people engaged –  is key. Build an ESM team environment where team members feel safe to voice ideas and concerns without judgment. Encourage empathy and understanding among team members. Celebrate and reward knowledge sharing, but just as importantly, celebrate the learning that comes from failures.

Move toward a collaborative ESM initiative

Here are some suggestions for overcoming collaboration challenges and getting your ESM initiative moving in the right direction.

  • Establish the shared purpose – Why is ESM so important for the future of the organization? In his book, Start with Why, Simon Sinek wrote “people don’t buy what you do; they buy why you do it. And what you do simply proves what you believe.” [ii] Without the strong and compelling “why”, ESM efforts will not return the expected benefits.
  • Have a plan – ESM is not just extending the ITSM tool across the enterprise. ESM must be seen as a business strategy, not just a technology or IT initiative.
  • Make collaboration a personal objective – Start actively listening to others’ ideas and perspectives with empathy. This creates a foundation for trust and respect, which will open the door for more meaningful interactions and collaboration.

Effective service management is a key to success in the digital economy. But the future of service management is not within the IT department, but within the enterprise. Good ESM requires good collaboration across an organization to realize success.

[i] https://www.brighttalk.com/webcast/20429/626830

[ii] Sinek, Simon. Start with Why: How Great Leaders Inspire Everyone to Take Action. New York: Portfolio, 2009

Share twitterlinkedinmail
AI and Modernization, Leadership

Suffering from AI fever? Here’s why the big picture still matters

Share twitterlinkedinmail

Is your organization exhibiting “AI fever”? “Symptoms” include people asking questions like:

  • “How can our organization take advantage of AI-enabled capabilities?”
  • “Where can we leverage AI to automate our workflows?”
  • “How can we use AI to improve efficiency and reduce costs?”
  • “What happens if our competitors beat us to the market with an AI-based solution?”

These are legitimate questions. Effective adoption of AI-capabilities is changing the way that companies work, by driving workflow efficiencies and automation, providing data analysis and insights that weren’t before possible, improving work quality, personalizing experiences, and more.[i]  The market is crowded with solutions, all of which make it seem so simple to fully take advantage of AI capabilities.  It’s easy for organizations to get lured in.

But the potential results from AI adoption don’t excuse organizations from doing the needed critical thinking before making solution decisions. Before jumping on the AI bandwagon, organizations must answer questions like:

  • What problem will AI solve for the organization?
  • Do customers want an AI-based solution, and if so, how should it help them?
  • Is the necessary foundation in place within the organization to benefit from AI adoption?
  • How will AI fit into the “big picture” of the organization?

The big picture must come first

Understanding the big picture must come first before considering any AI solution. Why is having a holistic (or big picture) approach so important, especially with AI adoption?

First, AI adoption can have a significant impact on the entire organization. Many organizations only think of AI as something that will only impact IT or technology, but the impact can be much more than that. AI impacts multiple areas of an organization, and having a holistic approach and strategy ensures that AI initiatives are aligned across all parts of the organization.[ii]

Without taking a holistic approach to AI adoption, organizations risk implementing a point solution within a workstream that is neither sustainable nor enhances organizational efficiency. While there may be local benefits, the actual outcome is that the overall workstream becomes less efficient. Implementing a solution in this way would be like speeding up only the middle of a conveyor belt. While widgets may move along faster on the conveyor belt, the constraints at the beginning and end of the conveyor belt become highlighted and problematic.

Data and ethics are two of the more significant considerations for the effective use of AI. AI needs data – lots of it – and that data must be of high quality and integrity if results are to be trusted and reliable. The use of data also presents ethical considerations, with issues like data privacy, bias, and appropriate use. These factors mean that data quality and data governance are also part of the AI big picture.[iii]

To fully use the capabilities engineered into AI solutions, these solutions typically require training to function effectively. People within an organization must develop skills and competencies to use the solutions. But here’s perhaps an unexpected twist – not only do the people using the solutions require training, but the solution itself requires training as well. These solutions must be trained using the datasets provided by the organization and tailored for organizational-specific tasks and use cases. Having people with the skills and knowledge for data preparation, tuning algorithms, data visualization, and problem-solving are needed for training the AI.

AI adoption challenges

While AI can bring a lot of capabilities to enhance an organization’s performance, it is far from a “magic wand.”   Here are a few challenges organizations are facing with AI adoption.

  • People. Will people feel threatened by AI adoption? Or will they feel enabled? The best AI capabilities are worthless unless they enhance the ability of people to do their work. Effective and comprehensive organizational change management as part of AI adoption is critical.[iv]
  • Good AI will not fix broken processes. Having well-defined processes is the foundational structure for AI adoption. It’s straightforward: bad processes result in poor AI adoption and poor outcomes. Without clearly defined workflows, how can an organization identify valuable use cases or strategically expand AI-enabled capabilities, such as automation, or agentic AI.
  • Missing the skills needed for success. This article from ARM highlights the impact of the lack of in-house AI talent is having on AI adoption. Nearly one-half of leaders feel that the lack of skilled talent is a primary barrier to successful AI implementation.

How to treat AI fever

Do you have that big picture view of your organization? Is your organization prepared to take advantage of the right AI capabilities that elevate organizational performance, efficiency, and capability? Now is the time to get ready. Here are four tips for ensuring a holistic approach to AI adoption.

  • Map your value streams. One of the most significant challenges to adopting and exploiting AI capabilities is that organizations don’t understand their value streams, much less have mapped those value streams. Value stream maps depict the big picture of how work and value flow through an organization. It also identifies where constraints may be within the organization. With this holistic understanding of its value streams, organizations can better figure out if AI solutions will enhance performance…or enhance constraints.
  • Focus on ongoing learning and development. “Training as an event” cannot keep pace with the rapid changes in AI capabilities. The rapid pace of AI enhancements demands a continual learning approach to training and development. Adaptive learning is an educational approach that tailors educational experiences to meet an individual’s unique needs, skills, and learning pace, facilitating a continual learning experience.[v]
  • Invest in your current staff. The best source of knowledge about how work is currently done is the people that are doing the work. This is the exact knowledge that is needed to train AI. Invest in reskilling or upskilling current employees in AI concepts and technologies, enabling them to take on new career opportunities that will emerge with AI adoption.
  • Answer the “why.” Building a business case not only answers how and why AI adoption will address a business challenge, but it also drives the needed commitment from senior management for making it happen.

AI capabilities are evolving at a dizzying pace. Having a holistic or big picture view of the organization is the  best way of ensuring that your organization can take advantage of the right AI solutions at the right time to deliver the right results.

[i] “Artificial Intelligence is changing how companies work”, https://www.deloitte.com/ch/en/Industries/technology/perspectives/artificial-intelligence-Is-changing-how-companies-work.html , retrieved April 2024.

[ii] “Why adopting AI needs a holistic approach”,  https://betanews.com/2025/02/03/why-adopting-ai-needs-a-holistic-approach-qa/ , retrieved April 2024.

[iii] Ibid.

[iv] “Adopting AI-driven Change Management: Key strategies for Organizational Growth”, https://voltagecontrol.com/articles/adopting-ai-driven-change-management-key-strategies-for-organizational-growth/ , retrieved April 2024.

[v] “Understanding Adaptive Learning:  How AI is revolutionizing personalized education”, https://elearningindustry.com/understanding-adaptive-learning-how-ai-is-revolutionizing-personalized-education , retrieved April 2024.

Share twitterlinkedinmail
Leadership, Service Management

Nothing will change. Unless you change.

Share twitterlinkedinmail

A few years ago, I was invited to conduct an ITSM assessment for an organization. While the request itself wasn’t unusual, it was unusual in that I had conducted an ITSM assessment for that same organization a few years prior. The  IT leadership of the organization had not changed over that time, apart from a different person leading their ITSM adoption efforts. But I was intrigued by the prospect of revisiting a past client engagement to learn whether my previous recommendations had had the positive impact that I had determined was possible.

After conducting interviews, examining their ITSM policies and procedures,  reviewing their IT strategy, and evaluating their ITSM performance reports, I was disappointed to find that there had been no substantial change in their ITSM journey from when I first visited.

I confronted the CIO with my findings. During our conversation, he acknowledged that there had not been much progress in their ITSM journey. He went on to ask if I would simply just tell them exactly what they needed to do, based on my “deep” knowledge of his organization.

I was taken aback. It had been a few years since that first assessment. Over the course of the two engagements,  I had spent about a total of 30 days interacting with the organization – hardly what I would consider a qualification for having a “deep knowledge” of the organization.

So, I took a deep breath, looked the CIO in the eye, and told him that – that I felt that 30 days of engagement over a few years doesn’t constitute a “deep” knowledge of the organization. Further, it was not an issue of not knowing what needed to be done – what needed to be done was clearly outlined in both assessment reports. The issue was that no one – including the CIO – wanted to change.

And then I said it.

“Nothing will change unless there is change.”

And with that, our meeting ended. I packed up my laptop,  left the building, drove away….and  subsequently was not invited back.

Everybody wants change. No one wants *to* change.

I see it all the time. People within an organization get enthusiastic about making a change, improving what is currently being done, expanding and enhancing their capabilities, thinking in terms of possibilities. Excitement fills the discussions within the conference rooms. People leave meetings eager to get started.

And then the time comes for the work that needs to be done to make the change….and sadly, things often go kaput.

What happened?

The 3 U’s of failed change

I’m no psychologist, but from everything that I have read, experienced, and observed about failed change, it seems to come down to the basic human instinct of fear of change. In my experience, that fear of change presents itself in one or more of the following symptoms that I call the “three U’s of failed change”.

  • Unknown – Change pulls people out of their personal comfort zones, where they feel safe. According to this article, this uncertainty feels like failure to our brains, and our brains automatically work to prevent us from failing.
  • Unprepared – Many people resist change because they feel unprepared. Provided training doesn’t really prepare people for the change, and as a result, there is a feeling of loss of mastery. Communications aren’t two-way, so there is no opportunity for feedback or to get answers to questions.
  • Unwilling – Even though people know that processes and systems aren’t working as well as they could, people have become comfortable in their interactions with those processes and systems. They “know” where the issues are, and how to make things work despite those issues. Changes to those processes and systems are perceived as a threat to the personal value of the people doing that work.

These are powerful reasons why change fails, but they are not insurmountable.

How can anything change…unless *you* change?

Is change working through your organization? Are you personally going through change? The answer to these questions is likely “yes”. Organizations are continually changing and evolving. As individuals, we are continually evolving as well. Think about it – what is different about your organization today when compared to two years ago? Compared to two months ago? What events or learnings over that time – both from a professional perspective and a personal perspective – have had an influence on you?

Change is constant – in our lives and in our careers. Here are some tips that I have found useful when experiencing change.

  • Educate yourself. Much of the angst around change is the fear of the unknown. To combat that fear, learn all that you can about what is changing. This will help restore any feelings of loss of mastery.
  • Ask questions. Fill in gaps in your understanding about what is changing. Listen for the “why” – the compelling reason change is necessary, and what success will look like after the change. This will help with any feelings of being unprepared.
  • Try it on. While it takes courage to push through the unknown, leaning into the change and exploring possibilities provides a sense of control. Being a pioneer within the change helps overcome feelings of loss of value. Trying on the change also provides you with valuable insights that you can use to make data-driven decisions about your next steps.

Change is a constant – in our organizations, in our jobs, and in our personal lives. Don’t let change paralyze you – take control. Educating yourself, asking questions, and trying on the change gives the you power and control you need to successfully push through the unknowns associated with change.

 

Share twitterlinkedinmail
Service Management

The Curious Case of the Missing IT Strategy

Share twitterlinkedinmail

IT organizations often get stuck in a vicious cycle of never-ending work. IT implements solution after solution, fixes one problem after another, and no matter how many times they do it, those solutions and fixes never seem to stick. IT often finds itself just trying to keep up with what appears to be a constantly changing business. IT is often seen as the anchor slowing business down and has earned a reputation of being the slowest path toward technology implementation.  And when budget times come around, IT never seems to manage to get its fair share. 

These are signs that an IT organization is missing strategy.  This is a massive problem for both IT and the organizations that IT works within. Why are so many IT organizations missing a strategy?  What can be done to establish a viable IT strategy?

One thing that is certain – the strategy can’t just be “do”.

The Missing IT Strategy

Of course, no leader intentionally avoids developing strategy. It’s usually a consequence of a number of factors. However, in the case of the missing IT strategy, the CIO has to establish a business-technology (not technology alone) strategy, talk and share that strategy with other leaders, incorporate and underpin the larger business strategy, and drive the IT organization forward following that strategy. If a CIO spends too much of their time doing or supervising the day-to-day work within an IT organization instead of delegating, she won’t have the time (or energy) to be strategic. If a CIO has to spend more time supervising the daily activities of IT than ensuring business outcomes and value, that’s usually an indicator of a missing IT strategy. 

The second indicator of a missing IT strategy is the lack of true service management. Why? Because if the service management foundation is not strong or well executed, IT can never be strategic. If IT ignores:

  • Defining services in terms of business value and outcomes
  • Creating workflows that are based on services, not technologies or organization charts
  • Publishing performance reports that are relevant to and meaningful for the business 

then IT is setting itself up for failure.  Many organizations look at service management as just something that a service desk does.  But good service management provides the capability of relating technology investments to business outcomes.  This makes good service management a critical part of the foundation of IT. Having a solid foundation is what keeps IT relevant, reliable, and able to scale to meet business needs. WIthout good service management, IT will waste a lot of time just trying to keep up with service requests and putting out fires instead of enabling the realization of business strategy.  

Finally, the third indicator of a missing IT strategy is a “one thing at a time” mentality. To stay on track, IT organizations often choose to focus on just one initiative at a time. This might help your team feel less overwhelmed, but it often comes with the cost of missing a holistic view of the organization. The ability to see the birds eye view of how the organization relies on technology to create better outcomes for end users and customers is one of the most important skills for an IT leader.  Having this big picture view enables the IT leader to be even more strategic.  

Why does IT need a strategy?

IT operating as only a support team is no longer an option for any business. The speed of business has increased significantly over the last decade, due in a large part to the introduction of new technologies, such as automation, mobile computing, cloud-based services and machine learning. IT has to be the driver and enabler of technology. Whether it’s realized or not, technology has become “baked into” every aspect of the organization. 

The question is “has IT become ‘baked in’ as well?”  Without a well-defined IT strategy, the answer to this question is usually “no”.   

Defining, socializing, and executing a strategy strengthens IT’s role within an organization. It’s what separates the IT organizations that are treated as order takers from the IT organizations that are treated as valued partners. 

How to solve the case of the missing IT strategy

Here are three things that IT leaders can do to solve the case of the missing IT strategy.

What is the business strategy?  How can technology enable realization of business strategy? To shift from a “support only” team to a strategic asset, IT first has to understand the goals and objectives of the overall organization – and how technology can be used to enable realization of those goals and objectives. IT’s strategy must be tied to these business goals and objectives. IT leaders have to take a step back from the inner workings, day-to-day activities of IT and look at the bigger picture of the organization. 

Elevate to real service management, not just some arbitrarily selected processes.  Once IT understands the role of technology in achieving business strategy, IT must then elevate its approach to service management.  Service management is more than just fulfilling requests and resolving outages. An effective approach for elevating service management is to identify and map the value streams of an organization, then identifying how technology underpins those value streams.  Value streams help identify the products and services that IT must deliver. This exercise not only lays out what service management must enable and deliver for the organization, it is also a great way to align what IT is doing to the overall needs of the business. 

Report IT performance in business terms. Once you’ve elevated your service management and understand the goals and objectives of the company, then you’ll be able to produce and publish performance reports that reflect how IT contributions enabled achievement of business goals and objectives.  Having this capability is significant for a number of reasons.  First, it demonstrates that IT truly understands what is important to the organization.  Secondly, it provides the ability to evaluate if IT strategy is meeting business needs.  And lastly, it begins to change the perception of IT as just being a “support team” to a strategic asset.

Thinking and working strategically is transformative for an IT organization. After you’ve seen how IT integrates with the rest of the organization, you won’t be able to go back to working only in a ‘support’ role.  By defining and executing an IT strategy , your entire business will become stronger.  

Need help developing an IT strategy that is aligned with your business objectives?  Let Tedder Consulting help!  Tedder Consulting will first visit your organization to understand your business, goals, and current IT situation.  Tedder Consulting will then conduct an analysis of your IT services and practices to determine how they are operating. Finally, we deliver a plan for aligning your technology strategy to your business goals.  For more information, contact Tedder Consulting today.

Share twitterlinkedinmail