The Secret of Communication

2006-06-06T20:27:00.000Z

It seems to me that the missing ingredient in the dried and cracking glue holding Business and IT functions together within an organisation is Communication. Of course, this is obvious to even the most casual observer but I would like to make a few points.

Let's start in the most obvoius place - jargon. Many see jargon as an infestation or a pox on language, however it is extremely useful when used appropriately. Jargon is a useful shorthand for discussing well understood subjects - in other words, if everyone in the room has the same background and shares the same vision, then jargon can be used to skim over otherwise leaden subjects. It is much easier to talk about "ROI" than it is to discuss the "potential cost savings due to a given fiscal outlay at appropriate cost of capital rates over a given period of time". A warning here is that these 'throwaway' concepts should be spoken of in their proper terms. For instance, ROI is measured as a percentage over a given period ("This project will show a ROI of 20% over 3 years" is correct - "This project has an ROI of 6 months" isn't). A common malapropism from the IT world is to talk about Bandwidth in terms of bits per second. Bandwidth is actually measured in Hertz, whereas bits per second refers to data rate - these are two quite distinct properties of a system, although they are closely related.

The above might seem like pedantry and hair splitting, which of course it is. However, if the verbal short-hand that is jargon is being used in a meeting or discussion, then the implicit verbal long-hand must actually mean something. As with all things, it is just as easy to get something right as it is to get something wrong. And there is nothing worse than sitting through a meeting or presentation with the sneaking suspicion that the speaker has only a very tenuous grasp of their subject, especially when they go to such lengths to misuse terminology and reinforce the audience's perception that they are an idiot.

I suppose that this is the semantic equivalent of knowing that it is never appropriate to fasten the bottom button on a suit jacket - not everyone knows the rules, but those who do will always look down on those who don't . And of course, those who know the rules will always look better. While I'm on the subject, it is also worth remembering that since the invention of central heating it is no longer appropriate to ever wear a waistcoat, however you fasten the buttons.

But back to Communication, and to put to bed the point about jargon. When in the company of like-minded people it is best used sparingly. But of course, we should all try to speak as clearly as possible at all times so, if at all possible it is best avoided all together.

IT and Business

2006-04-13T11:05:00.000Z

Let me start with a truism.

There is a schism in most businesses today neatly separating 'The Business' from 'IT'. As with most splits of this sort, this is not a healthy situation. Schisms are historically borne out of a lack of communication and always lead to friction between the opposing factions. Of course, most schisms could be avoided in the first place if the two opposing sides are brought together and shown that, actually, they are both trying to achieve the same aims. Sadly, once the divisions have become ingrained and even accepted as the norm there is not much for the rest of the world to do apart from diminish the friction and manage any potential conflict.

So, how did the split between IT and Business come to exist in the first place? How have we come to find ourselves in a situation where, in most organisations, IT and Business tend to regard each other in a way normally expected only from moody teenage boys and girls eyeing each other nervously from opposite sides of a hastily constructed dancefloor in a school canteen?

Just like the sulky kids, both IT and Business desperately want something from each other. Business thrives on the productivity gains and competitive advantage that comes with implementing new technologies. IT needs the Business's money, without which there would be no need for technology in the first place. Unfortunately they simply lack the ability to communicate effectively. They each speak a different language. Where the Business sees a project in terms of 'opportunity' and 'efficiency', IT will often see the same thing as an awful lot of hard work. Therefore, when IT talks about security, for instance, or other system alterations it sees as necessary, it is often taken by the Business that obstacles are being put in the way of the project.

Then the politicking starts and each side tries to out-maneuvere the other. Once this takes hold the project is almost always doomed to failure. The original goals of the project are either lost completely or become so compromised that neither side wants to take ownership of it. Without a champion the project becomes a disaster. And here's the final truth - a failed project that required a lot of investment in technology is going to embrass the CEO, annoy the CFO, frustrate the head of sales and leave the rest of the board bemused. The CIO will not survive. The CIO will either be sacked, be forced to resign, or will be left with so little credibility that there will be no major IT projects throughout the rest of their tenure. This, of course, is bad news for IT.