Enterprise Navigator

Let me preface this entry by reminding readers that I'm generally a fan of the current trajectory of the IT Infrastructure Library (ITIL) and what it offers. I have also noted on several occasions that I do not kneel at any one methodology altar. SearchCIO industry writer Linda Tucci has an article out at TechTarget, reporting on proposed updates to the ITIL Version 3 Certification process. I'm not even going to try and regurgitate the specifics, but it did bring to mind the Mother Teresa muse, "We, the unwilling, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have done so much, for so long, with so little, we are now qualified to do anything with nothing." The governing body of ITIL appears willing to do the impossible by certifying the unknowing without a complete curriculum. I guess that makes me ungrateful. Read the article and come back to me.

OK, assuming you are now equally baffled, I have to ask a few basic, albeit rhetorical, questions about the proposed certification scheme, some of the comments quoted in the article, and the underlying motives for the certification process itself.

The first and most obvious question is encompassed by the alternative title for this entry: "Who Left ITIL in Charge of Legitimizing IT Practitioners?" (ISACA?)

That leads into the next question -- for all the IT operations folks out there, aren't you just a bit insulted about being called "cowboys"? Now, in Texas we generally take that term as a compliment rather than a slur, but I know that isn't the case elsewhere. By the way, since ITIL hasn't yet codified exactly what you must do to finally become an honest technician, you are still stuck with continuing to manage your systems as best you can until they can certify you on how to do it properly.

Next, is the proposed certification approach a good thing or a bad thing for furthering adoption of ITIL? My gut reaction (and some quick math about how much time and money it will take to be declared an Expert) is that most will skip formal certification and just continue to implement parts of ITIL informally.

But, then I compare the proposed approach to the similar PMI certification process for becoming a PMP. Certainly there has been no shortage of takers there, but is the discipline of project management as good as it could be today as a result? Perhaps ITIL could draw some corollaries and then carefully reassess its motives for ramping up certification.

When I first joined PMI in the mid-90's, there were about 6800 PMPs in the world, and they were project managers who built bridges and dams and the like. Certification was a big deal, and they were held in high esteem. I think back then certification required blood tests, FBI background checks and some bizarre indoctrination process that involved a candle-lit hall, large paddles and togas.

Today there are well over 100,000 PMPs among almost 300,000 PMI members. PMP certification is evidence of trainability and some basic understanding of the discipline -- it is not proof of competency. As requirements were relaxed and the certification factory ramped up in the interest of growing the organization, the number of PMPs that were "All Hat and No Cattle" also increased. Let me quickly add that I have also known (and hired) many capable and deeply experienced PMPs -- all I am saying is that certification doesn't make that a given. I am under no illusion that my ITIL Foundation certification is evidence of anything more than being informed well enough to understand the general subject matter. Certainly, it is not proof of any functional capability.

An added consideration is that wholesale acceptance of any single point of view can lead to a level of groupthink that stifles objective consideration of emerging innovative approaches that challenge accepted doctrine. Certification is a mechanism for indoctrination into a narrowly defined approach to a broader discipline. Where would we be today with the success rate of technology projects of new ideas like Scrum had been given more honest consideration years ago? Bear in mind that large international governing bodies that control the certification content and process tend to respond to change at a glacial pace, and only then when massive amounts of energy are constantly applied.

So, the real question is, is that the path that ITIL wants to go down? What is the objective of their methodology and associated certification process -- to educate, or to verify capability and expertise? More likely, was the original goal for certification to drive further understanding of ITIL principles, thus adoption, adaptation and use? If that is the case, is "certification" the right term, or service, to offer? Referring back to the article, if someone goes through five days of classroom instruction and passes a section exam, does THAT constitute enough knowledge to manage a service that controls how money flows through a major bank? I suggest that ultimately it is the responsibility of individual organizations to assess and foster technological competency, methods and approaches using whatever standards it deems appropriate for their situation. There is no shortage of regulatory bodies to asses the results.

In the final analysis, OGC is a UK government entity that produced a very good body of work that has been held up as a model for others to use. I'm sure they never set out nor expected their results to have the degree of impact that is has had in the IT industry. But, should they be in the business of defining a singular worldwide approach to IT service management and certification? What should be role of itSMF or similar dot.org in this, compared to for-profit companies that provide the instruction and testing? Given the whole proposed certification scheme as Ms. Tucci reports it, you just have to wonder -- are foxes in the hen house?

As I'm sure you do, I sincerely appreciate something that is well-designed. It strikes a resounding chord deep in my inner engineer. Timeless designs often share simplicity, functionality, robustness, and great value as common traits.

The missus had been asking for a chaise lounge for the pool patio for a while now and her wish is my command.

Eventually.

Last Mother's Day I tried to get by this on the cheap with one of those zero-gravity lawn chairs, a.k.a. the "human mouse trap". It now resides in the garage, inching its way closer to the trash with every passing month. A do-over was in order. A bad chaise lounge is -- well, bad, but I am dumbfounded about why it is that a decent chaise lounge costs as much as a couch.

Surely there must be some middle ground. After some internet searching, my daughter Ali and I came upon the KVARNO. What is a KVARNO, you ask? I'll give you a hint, there should be an umlaut over the "O", but blog limitations preclude that. The other hint is that to actually get one, you must first traverse a torturous maze of thousands of other household products that are cutely labeled with similar vowel-deficient names.

A KVARNO is IKEA-speak for one of their chaise lounges.

Given that we happen to have an IKEA within 5 minutes of "Hell's Half Acre" and that it had a price point I could live with made the KVARNO a distinct possibility, so off we went to the Big Blue Box to reconnoiter. Speaking of design, who at IKEA thought that every time a shopper went into one of their stores that we might *REALLY* appreciate being guided past the entire stinking inventory to go get that one specific thing (in this case, by the check-out lanes)? There should be zero-gravity chairs set up in there to catch all the shoppers trapped like rats, trying desperately to find their way back out again. Eventually they would wear down and look for a place to rest. "Snap!" you would have them. There is a reason for the restaurant in the middle -- I've known first-timers to have been lost for days.

Back to the KVARNO.

Generally, I'm not a huge fan of Scandinavian design -- at least not as an owner. A little too minimalist for my taste, but upon inspection the KVARNO seemed to be just the ticket for Mother's Day. Saturday afternoon found Ali and I assembling the first of two of these in 95 degree heat.

For furniture that "requires some assembly", signs of good design include that there are a minimum of parts that actually must be assembled to begin with (about a dozen), they aren't interchangeable enough to be installed in the wrong way or place, and that things fit together properly. I am proud that my 16 year old girl inherited some mechanical sense from the old man. More than that, I am thankful that all those little wooden slats were already attached to the extruded aluminum frame rails. I am fascinated by the minor design brilliance of the dual-bolt, hex-head stainless steel tension connectors used to attach components like the legs and cross supports at right angles to each other and the frame.

But, the real sign of good design is the end result. The KVARNO is handsome, sturdy, and reasonably comfortable. There are no openings in its aluminum components to invite wasps to take up residence or to fill with rain water. The adjustment plates look like they were Born from Jets. Nothing to rust. This doesn't mean I couldn't wax philosophical on a few improvement ideas here and there, or that I'm ready to cash in my German-engineered Beast for a Saab or Volvo, but all in all, the KVARNO works.

So, by now I'm sure you are thinking I have been blown pretty far off course from navigating the enterprise, but not as far as you think. Whether it is a lounge chair, business process or an application, users appreciate products that are well-designed, easy to use and practical for their intended purpose. Sophistication and complexity certainly has its place, but more often than not the true mark of design excellence is found in the sheer elegance of its functional simplicity. The real beauty of the design of the KVARNO is that it becomes apparent that a great deal of thought and engineering went into it on the front-end to minimize frustration on the back-end (no pun intended). Ultimately, that is what delights the customer.

By the way, hats off to the credited designer of the KVARNO; Mikael Warnhammar, wherever you are.

Let's all do the Happy Friday dance -- heel work and jazz hands!

Mark Morrell has an interesting bit of commentary that was posted Monday on CIO.com, titled, Banish "The Business Side". Now I know that some of you IT folks are probably thinking to yourself, "Yeah, yeah, banish them to Toledo or Waco -- that's what they get for all the crappy requirements docs I get from them". If so, then you too are guilty as charged; the point of his article is that using this term in IT when referring to who's PC you enable is no longer PC.

I concur -- if for no other reason than it's so often vocalized by techies in such a manner that it's meant as an obvious slur; that tell-tale Elvis lip curl that pops up as "The Business Side" is spoken gives it away every time. I would also like to add "Run IT Like a Business" to the roster of derogatory terms as well, for many of the same reasons that Mark points out, plus the fact that it too requires 'Stallone-face' to enunciate.

But, as we learned in debate class, there is always another dimension to any argument, and it takes two to Tango. Just as technology groups should not be inferring that they are somehow quarantined from "the business", the consumer side of the equation should not be abdicating responsibility for their role in technology either; in how they ask for it, control IT costs, consume it, take part in developing it, or how they participate in defining the strategy for it.

Ask any CIO to list the top five critical skill sets or roles that delay getting work out the door, and I'll guarantee you that support from "the business side" is on there. In fact, if you observe closely how someone from sales or HR say's "IT", they make a definite 'gnawing rodent' face as it is uttered. Very derisive.

My point is that both sides are equally guilty of building the wall that exists between IT and "the business" in many organizations, and there are many bricks in it. But at the end of the day, technology is as inherent to enabling general business operations as any other mission critical capacity. Along with sex, money and oxygen, add technology to the list of "Important things you don't think much about unless you aren't getting any".

So, taking a cue from the Rodney King school of business management, "Why can't we all just get along?" Now, everyone -- back to work on building out your integrated process framework -- change your world.

A recent paper by Andy Salunga ("Forrester's Framework for Process-Driven Organizations," dated April 18th), reminded me of a topic that has been on my list to discuss for some time now. In retrospect, I'm shocked I haven't covered it here yet, because I consider it a critically important aspect to successfully navigating your enterprise. Actually, I'm in the middle of a white paper that discusses our framework model, so this posting will serve as a peek under the covers at that as well.

"What, so you are competing with Forrester's referenced work?" Uh, no. They are different frameworks with different purposes. Think soup and sandwich, tea and crumpets, or gin and tonic; I prefer to consider them different yet complementary. Mutually supportive. It remains to be seen if they share that opinion (for what it's worth, Peter O'Neill didn't exactly run away with his hair on fire when he saw it), but I've had a few conversations and exchanges with Andy with regard to BPM and process integration; we are like-minded on a number of topics.

Back to Andy's paper.

Within Mr. Salunga's 15 page report, he covers industry trends, a few brief case studies to illustrate the value being process-oriented, a number of key concepts for success, and a Methods Assessment worksheet. The gist of the Forrester framework is that successful process-driven organizations focus on four dimensions: Technology, Culture and People, Governance and Structure, and Methods. Of course, it's how the elements described under each dimension interact with each other that is the real trick. I haven't seen it offered up to the general public yet, but if you are a Forrester customer, this work is worth your time and consideration.

On to our framework.

So, the Forrester document lays out what I will refer to as an "approach" framework. I am interested in taking that a step or two further by discussing a "functional" framework. What I mean by that is an actual graphical model that serves as an integration platform for pulling many of the elements that Andy discusses together, allowing the organization to visualize their operations and supporting process interdependencies. A structural foundation so that various functional process components can be mapped relative to each other.

We have had such a framework for a few years now. If you have heard me speak or watched one of my Webcasts in the last 18 months, you're probably sick of hearing about it. At the risk of overselling it or being branded a one-trick pony, it has become my opening gambit on just about any topic you can think of. I can subliminally work this puppy into a simple greeting as we pass on the street. It's my personal version of the steak sauce ad; "Yeah, It's That Important". It's my transformation epiphany.

OK, moving on now. But -- it is really important. Trust me.

What started out as a way of keeping mentally occupied while I was waiting for jury duty (almost sat on a murder trial), grew into an integration obsession and eventually resulted in what we refer to as the Planview Integrated Business Process Management Framework. It was born out of necessity, as a mechanism to help customers visualize our product functional scope, give stakeholders a common model to understand their role in the business from their own vantage points, and thus relate to how different processes interact with each other. This model consumed a good amount of my time and energy over several months to fully codify and stabilize, but here we are now, and I have spent the last year and a half working with it and offering it up countless times to many different audiences. No one has been able to break it or refute it so far. The more I think about it and use it, the more convinced I am of the utility and perhaps necessity of such a framework when trying to build an integrated process environment.

The end result is a rectangular 2-D model to make it readily digestible, but the concept started out as a 3-D globe -- your business world, or "ecosystem" as we are prone to describe it. It is a transformation model that reflects how technology interacts with overall organizational strategy; a mechanism to identify the current state and influences upon it, and how core business processes interact to achieve some future state.

At its heart is what I call the "dual fulcrums of business management" -- the interaction of two pervasive trade-off decisions that permeates our business environment -- demand versus capacity and cost versus benefit. Call it 'twisting the cube' on Forrester's four dimensions, but demand, capacity, cost and benefit constitute the keys to the castle. Technology, culture and people, governance and structure, and practically everything else, all exist for the sole purpose of eeking out the maximum results from these four atomic elements of business management.

Once the interrelationships depicted above are understood and combined with the transformation cycle, you have the underlying basis for our framework. All that is left to do from there is to map your enabling process streams and functional components on top of it, and bake at 350 for 45 minutes or until tender. Serve with a hearty helping of supporting detailed steps, marinated in a spicy drill-down vinaigrette.

If you want a deeper explanation of this model and the recipe for it, register for the Webcast, Integrated IT Management with ITIL v3: The Case for Action, Defining a broad IT Management Framework, and watch the first in our three-part ITIL integration Webcast series; the first half of the presentation discusses the framework whether you care about ITIL or not.

OK, from a PMO perspective, assuming IT Service Management isn't (yet) your bag, why do you care? The reason for opening the ITIL integration discussion with the framework is that it is a key mechanism for understanding how ITIL fits within the overall demand/capacity/cost/benefit scheme of things, along-with-all-the-other methodologies you may have in play.

Ah hah! It's all about finding and fixing the overlaps, gaps, disconnects and inconsistencies, my friends.

Besides that, it can help you map how your business applications support those processes, identify major intersections where data travels from one process to the next so you can find choke points or tap into the flow for key metrics. You can also use it to drive assessment of the process components within the framework to check for consistency of maturity, identify weak spots or improvement opportunities. It's a great tool for BPM architects. But wait! There's more! The first 100 callers will also get a lifetime supply of shared operational perspective across different stakeholders and organizations absolutely free!

Back to the title -- I don't care WHO's process framework you use (not that there are a lot to choose from); the important thing is that you HAVE one. Otherwise, you are not going to be able to see the process forest for the trees. Something -- anything -- that allows you to understand and communicate your own organizational ecosystem and the fact that all processes are inputs and outputs to each other.

Anyway, check out the video. I'll let you know when the whitepaper is also available.

We all have this innate sense that tells us when we are being watched — you can literally feel it when someone is looking at you. For instance, sometimes I find myself cruising through a hotel with purposeful stride, when out of the corner of my eye I catch a glimpse of someone I don't expect to be there, so I look closer.

Inevitably, I find this older, graying, short, pudgy dude looking back at me with an air of slight distain on his face, no doubt as a result of being scrutinized by some idiot a bit more closely than is publicly comfortable. About a half-second later I come to realize it is one of those huge wall mirrors. Shortly thereafter, it dawns on me, with a familiar note of surprise, just-who-that-idiot-is.

The reason for continued disbelief over a now routine event is that I certainly don't internalize myself the way the mirror reflects me. Heck, most of the time inside my happy little corner of Walter Mitty-esq self-awareness, I tend to view myself somewhere between that skinny twenty-something on my Harley in Hawaii, to a thirty-something hunka-hunka burnin' love PMO manager (depending on how far gone the bottle of wine is). The most stone-cold sober truth I can internalize is a mid-40's ballet dad (equiv. to soccer mom) -- still well short of the true mark in both years and pounds.

Our species has a coping/blocking mechanism of some kind that allows Ideal Self to peacefully co-exist in some altered state of self-illusion with Actual Self. And, it extends beyond our mere psyche into the physical realm of our senses. For example, besides not "seeing" ourselves, we can't smell our own breath, normal body chemistry, or environmental odors that we are exposed to on a long-term basis. Otherwise we wouldn't have eggs readily available for breakfast. (Wait.)

Speaking of environmental smells, I am told that after a long deployment, a disembarking submarine crew has a distinct and not altogether pleasant bouquet about them that we could not detect. No doubt some heady elixir of stale air, sweat, man feet, ozone and turbine oil that probably isn't going to make the Paul Sebastian men's fragrance list. I bet it's still nowhere near as bad as a chicken farm in August. (Now.)

But I digress…

The point is that it is very difficult for individuals (thus, organizations made up of individuals) to accurately reflect on their true selves as they outwardly appear to others. The good news is this mechanism keeps suicide rates to an acceptable level; the bad news is it keeps organizations from truly understanding their culture, maturity, strengths and issues. I can't even begin to tell you the number of organizations that have self-described their process maturity as very sophisticated, only to find out that their idea of sophistication was employing Excel and Power Point to the limits of their project management capabilities.

The other bad news is that you occasionally get old guys in a bar acting like they are a hunka-hunka burnin' thirty-something love — thank goodness for cougars who think they are still cheerleaders or prom queens, or there would be chaos.

So. Appreciate the insights provided by your 360-degree performance evaluations on a personal level, and take the time on a regular basis to get an objective, outside assessment of your organization. And try to suspend your inner perspectives on both yourself and your operations long enough to find some valuable truth in both of them.