Tag Archive | IT governance

Shadow IT: Déjà Vu All Over Again

20131209 ShadowITDejaVu

I’m a bit surprised with all of the recent discussion and debate about Shadow IT.  For those of you not familiar with the term, Shadow IT refers to software development and data processing activities that occur within business unit organizations without the blessing of the Central IT organization.  The idea of individual business organizations purchasing technology, hiring staff members, and taking on software development to address specific business priorities isn’t a new concept; it’s been around for 30 years.

When it comes to the introduction of technology to address or improve business process, communications, or decision making, Central IT has traditionally not been the starting point.  It’s almost always been the business organization.  Central IT has never been in the position of reengineering business processes or insisting that business users adopt new technologies; that’s always been the role of business management.  Central IT is in the business of automating defined business processes and reducing technology costs (through the use of standard tools, economies-of-scale methods, commodity technologies).   It’s not as though Shadow IT came into existence to usurp the authority or responsibilities of the IT organization.  Shadow IT came into existence to address new, specialized business needs that the Central IT organization was not responsible for addressing.

Here’s a few examples of information technologies that were introduced and managed by Shadow IT organizations to address specialized departmental needs.

  • Word Processing. Possibly the first “end user system” (Wang, IBM DisplayWrite, etc.) This solution was revolutionary in reducing the cost of  documentation
  • The minicomputer.  This technology revolution of the 70’s and 80’s delivered packaged, departmental application systems (DEC, Data General, Prime, etc.)  The most popular were HR, accounting, and manufacturing applications.
  • The personal computer.  Many companies created PC support teams (in Finance) because they required unique skills that didn’t exist within most companies.
  • Email, File Servers, and Ethernet (remember Banyan, Novell, 3com).  These tools worked outside the mainframe OLTP environment and required specialized skills.
  • Data Marts and Data Warehouses.  Unless you purchased a product from IBM, the early products were often purchased and managed by marketing and finance.
  • Business Intelligence tools.  Many companies still manage analytics and report development outside of Central IT.
  • CRM and ERP systems.  While both of these packages required Central IT hardware platforms, the actual application systems are often supported by separate teams positioned within their respective business areas.

The success of Shadow IT is based on their ability to respond to specialized business needs with innovative solutions.  The technologies above were all introduced to address specific departmental needs; they evolved to deliver more generalized capabilities that could be valued by the larger corporate audience.  The larger audience required the technology’s ownership and support to migrate from the Shadow IT organization to Central IT.  Unfortunately, most companies were ill prepared to support the transition of technology between the two different technology teams.

Most Central IT teams bristle at the idea of inheriting a Shadow IT project.  There are significant costs associated with transitioning a project to a different team and a larger user audience.  This is why many Central IT teams push for Shadow IT to adopt their standard tools and methods (or for the outright dissolution of Shadow IT).  Unfortunately applying low-cost, standardized methods to deploy and support a specialized, high-value solution doesn’t work (if it did, it would have been used in the first place).  You can’t expect to solve specialized needs with a one-size-fits-all approach.

A Shadow IT team delivers dozens of specialized solutions to their business user audience; the likelihood that any solution will be deployed to a larger audience is very small.  While it’s certainly feasible to modify the charter, responsibilities, and success metrics of a Centralized IT organization to support both specialized unique and generalized high volume needs, I think there’s a better alternative:  establish a set of methods and practices to address the infrequent transition of Shadow IT projects to Central IT.  Both organizations should be obligated to work with and respond to the needs and responsibilities of the other technology team.

Most companies have multiple organizations with specific roles to address a variety of different activities.  And organizations are expected to cooperate and work together to support the needs of the company.  Why is it unrealistic to have Central IT and Shadow IT organizations with different roles to address the variety of (common and specialized) needs across a company?

Advertisements

Role of an Executive Sponsor

It’s fairly common for companies to assign Executive Sponsors to their large projects.  “Large” typically reflects budget size, the inclusion of cross-functional teams, business impact, and complexity.  The Executive Sponsor isn’t the person running and directing the project on a day-to-day basis; they’re providing oversight and direction.  He monitors project progress and ensures that tactics are carried out to support the project’s goals and objectives.  He has the credibility (and authority) to ensure that the appropriate level of attention and resources are available to the project throughout its entire life.

While there’s nearly universal agreement on the importance of an Executive Sponsor, there seems to be limited discussion about the specifics of the role.  Most remarks seem to dwell on the importance on breaking down barriers, dealing with roadblocks, and effectively reacting to project obstacles.  While these details make for good PowerPoint presentations, project success really requires the sponsor to exhibit a combination of skills beyond negotiation and problem resolution to ensure project success.   Here’s my take on some of the key responsibilities of an Executive Sponsor.

Inspire the Stakeholder Audience

Most executives are exceptional managers that understand the importance of dates and budgets and are successful at leading their staff members towards a common goal.  Because project sponsors don’t typically have direct management authority over the project team, the methods for leadership are different.  The sponsor has to communicate, captivate, and engage with the team members throughout all phases of the project.  And it’s important to remember that the stakeholders aren’t just the individual developers, but the users and their management.  In a world where individuals have to juggle multiple priorities and projects, one sure-fire way to maintain enthusiasm (and participation) is to maintain a high-level of sponsor engagement.

Understand the Project’s Benefits

Because of the compartmentalized structure of most organizations, many executives aren’t aware of the details of their peer organizations. Enterprise-level projects enlist an Executive Sponsor to ensure that the project respects (and delivers) benefits to all stakeholders. It’s fairly common that any significantly sized project will undergo scope change (due to budget challenges, business risks, or execution problems).  Any change will likely affect the project’s deliverables as well as the perceived benefits to the different stakeholders. Detailed knowledge of project benefits is crucial to ensure that any change doesn’t adversely affect the benefits required by the stakeholders.

Know the Project’s Details

Most executives focus on the high-level details of their organization’s projects and delegate the specifics to the individual project manager.  When projects cross organizational boundaries, the executive’s tactics have to change because of the organizational breadth of the stakeholder community. Executive level discussions will likely cover a variety of issues (both high-level and detailed).  It’s important for the Executive Sponsor to be able to discuss the brass tacks with other executives; the lack of this knowledge undermines the sponsor’s credibility and project’s ability to succeed.

Hold All Stakeholders Accountable

While most projects begin with everyone aligned towards a common goal and set of tactics, it’s not uncommon for changes to occur. Most problems occur when one or more stakeholders have to adjust their activities because of an external force (new priorities, resource contention, etc.). What’s critical is that all stakeholders participate in resolving the issue; the project team will either succeed together or fail together. The sponsor won’t solve the problem; they will facilitate the process and hold everyone accountable.

Stay Involved, Long Term

The role of the sponsor isn’t limited to supporting the early stages of a project (funding, development, and deployment); it continues throughout the life of the project.  Because most applications have a lifespan of no less than 7 years, business changes will drive new business requirements that will drive new development.  The sponsor’s role doesn’t diminish with time – it typically expands.

The overall responsibility set of an Executive Sponsor will likely vary across projects. The differences in project scope, company culture, business process, and staff resources across individual projects inevitably affect the role of the Executive Sponsor. What’s important is that the Executive Sponsor provides both strategic and tactical support to ensure a project is successful. An Executive Sponsor is more than the project’s spokesperson; they’re the project CEO that has equity in the project’s outcome and a legitimate responsibility for seeing the project through to success.

Photo “American Alligator Crossing the Road at Canaveral National 
Seashore”courtesy of Photomatt28 (Matthew Paulson) via Flickr 
(Creative Commons license).
%d bloggers like this: