First, using the 80/20 principle, think about which projects are critical, must-haves, and core to your mission (about 20% of the whole array), and set aside those that are discretionary or not vital. During this exercise, projects that should be eliminated altogether should be obvious. (Be ruthless.) Of the mission-critical projects, decide which should proceed and which should be deferred based on urgency and capacity. Considerations during your deliberations should include:

• The organization’s ability to undertake the project:
  • Do you have enough funding and staff?
  • Is there a learning curve?
  • What will on-boarding require?
• Data derived from the success or failure of other projects
• Timing and competition with other critical projects, especially for key SMEs and Management attention and cycles
• How projects may be interrelated and dependent on each other
• New technology and business process changes

Second, having decided which projects should proceed, it is time to collaborate with the entire range of managers, from line managers to senior managers, to prioritize them. Each will contribute something to the debate, and it is better to debate now than waste valuable resources (time, money, and people) later. Line managers will have first-hand knowledge of processes and capacity; middle management will have a better view of the interplay and inter-relationships between departments and activities, and top management will possess the long view that encompasses the overall organization direction and strategy. And obviously, inviting greater participation overall means greater cooperation and commitment.

Third, once your projects have been prioritized, it is time to figure out who will be doing what. Streamlining your projects down to the vital few has the added benefit of not stretching the capacity you have, but concentrating it where it is needed most. Here I would offer a special caution: it is very important that you are realistic about day-to-day operations and the support resources necessary to Keep The Lights On. Too often organizations under-estimate this aspect and/or think of KTLO resources as discretionary. They are not. Borrowing resources from KTLO operations results in “robbing Peter to pay Paul,” and effectively lowers service levels and stresses organizational capacity. Perhaps even more harmful, it underscores the notion that KTLO work is of less importance or less glamorous, damaging morale and trust.

Peter F. Drucker wrote, Management is doing things right; Leadership is doing the right things. Getting your portfolio into shape by winnowing out projects of questionable value and tabling those that can wait will go a long way to making the choice clear.

First, inventory ALL projects and activities that require any kind of IT resources, making sure to include non-obvious ones like SMEs and user training time. According to Gartner, 60% of IT’s budget is spent on operational, “keep the light on” activities, so it is important that these are included to ensure correct allocation of project resources. Projects that pull resources from core operations can create business risk.

Second, decide who will comprise a governance committee, i.e., who will make decisions concerning the portfolio. This should be a mix of IT and business leaders with the authority to make decisions for the organization. The governance committee will determine which projects should continue, which should be delayed, and which should be terminated. These decisions will be made based on determining which projects have the potential to create the most value for the company. Each project in the portfolio should align with business goals and be ranked on the strength of its business case outlining benefits, costs and risk. Keep this simple, but also be on the lookout for project interdependencies. You certainly don’t want a critical project bungled because it relied on deliverables from another project that was killed or delayed.

The importance of strong governance in the portfolio process cannot be overstated. Projects that are nice but not essential drain away resources that could be used more productively. Focus on cutting unnecessary demand and don’t start new projects until you know for certain that existing projects can be completed and meet expected deliverables. This won’t be easy. Every project is “owned” by someone who thinks it is the most important project in the portfolio, so it is essential to let the business case data drive the decision, and not emotions or politics. We can all relate. This time of year I can see myself riding around on a John Deere with 4-wheel steering, a zero turn radius, and a 48-inch mowing deck. Grass cutting would be so much easier (okay, and a little fun). But, with financial resources being what they are, I can’t make the case for its purchase because it will not really provide any material benefit. It’s just a “nice to have.” So, back to my 21” push mower. Sorry, John Deere dealer.

Half the year is gone. As you look at how you will finish out the year and also prepare for next year’s portfolio of projects, the summer months are a great time to review your project portfolio and get the pruning shears out. Since 80% of the benefit usually comes from 20% of the projects, in portfolio management, less is always more.

Now the truth is if you start with a structural reorganization, it’s like going on a crash diet. Everybody knows the naughty non-foods you can cut out, just like everybody knows which low-performers could be eliminated or how work could be shuffled around to immediate effect. So you lose a few pounds by cutting out “empty calories” and get rid of some of the obvious encumbrances at work—a quick fix that’s very gratifying. But what happens after that? Usually all the weight comes right back (and then some) and the reorganization doesn’t really change a thing—everything reverts to the way it was. Why? Because the underlying behaviors are still the same.

A diet that relies on simply cutting calories is bound to plateau or fail because there’s considerably more to maintaining a healthy weight and body that includes exercise, eating complex carbohydrates, drinking plenty of water and getting plenty of rest. It is a lifestyle change. Likewise, restructuring an organization is much more complex than focusing solely on getting rid of problematic players or reshuffling the team. The key to sustainable organizational change is to look at the organization holistically and to define the operating model and its various components: roles, processes, governance, sourcing, services, and then structure, and how these are interconnected and measured. Are the right people in the right roles? Are there processes that could be simplified, platforms that could be shared? What does the Business want from you in terms of capabilities and services? What are your differentiating (core) activities that would be at risk if anyone else performed them? What core activities do you monitor and measure?

Whenever we have a client who wants to start with a structural reorganization, we encourage them first to map their capabilities to their services and then to identify those services that are differentiating (core) that would be at risk if someone else (i.e., a contractor or vendor) performed them. Once you know what is core and what is non-core, then you can begin to understand where staff spends most of their time. What we often see is that the majority of the organization is bogged down supporting non-core activities, e.g., enhancement, maintenance, and support. They are held hostage to these activities because they are the only ones who know how the processes work and their managers have come to rely on them. Usually people inherit processes and, as a consequence, documentation is scant or non-existent. This lack of documentation is another reason resources remain where they are rather than shift to new core activities/services.

Changing structure won’t change the fact that the most of the organization is performing non-core work instead of focusing on perfecting the services that are core to IT and your company. Evaluating what’s core and non-core is often the best way to demonstrate why changing the structure or moving the parts isn’t the answer.

Has your organization ever attempted a reorg before understanding the underlying issues? How did it turn out?

Two weeks ago, my team and I reached out to our network of past and present clients and colleagues with an update on what TransAccel has been up to. We received so many kind responses with great feedback on our website and more. But we also heard one question consistently: Can you help me better understand what you do?

I’d like to use this blog to tackle that question head on, and I’m hoping that you’ll give me feedback on whether or not my answer makes sense to you. I’m truly looking for candor, advice and constructive criticism. So here it goes…

TransAccel Group is, first and foremost, a management consulting firm. We help organizations improve their performance by analyzing existing organizational problems and developing plans for improvement.

Today, every business change has an information systems component. So we focus our efforts on Information Technology (IT) organizations because of our firm belief that a company can only progress as fast as its IT systems and organizational capability allow.

Our ultimate goal is to help IT mature: develop, grow, and become more efficient and effective. An IT organization with mature capabilities can better support change while one with immature capabilities can and will hinder it.

Since maturing an organization requires extra hands, we also provide the thinkers and doers to help with implementation…what we refer to as the “capacity for change” hence the name of our blog.

What we don’t do is build and implement technology solutions…although we could if you asked nicely.

While we have a list of services that we’re working on defining in more detail, our approach varies by organization and situation.

Now I’m looking for a few brave souls who will tell me they still don’t get it…

Over the next few months members of my team and I will be writing about:

• IT Maturity
• Capacity for Change
• Operational Effectiveness
• Measurement and Metrics
• Governance
• Portfolio Management
• Change Management
• Leadership and Organization Development
• Vendor/Service management
• Communities of Practices
• Innovation (my personal favorite)

Where to start? For me it all begins with a good understanding of who you are, where you are, and where you would like to be. And, just as an annual physical exam uncovers potential health issues, we insist on a “IT Health Check” too. After all, how can we know what remedial measures to take without an initial assessment?

Now, it seems pretty obvious that getting an annual check-up is smart and generally contributes to better health, right? Well, how many IT organizations put off a yearly exam and try to self diagnose? Worse yet, how many IT organizations have never even had an exam—you know, an independent review of how they operate? Interestingly, when we do a “Health Check,” we find that most IT organizations today are similar in two respects.

First—and to the seeming surprise of Business—IT is made up of human beings who have the same issues as everyone else: lack of trust, fear of conflict, lack of commitment, avoidance of accountability, inattention to detail, and indifference towards results. Having been in the business some 30 years I can tell you without question that these “soft” skills are just as important as “tech” skills to the success of IT initiatives and operational effectiveness.

Second, today IT stands poised at a crossroad. On the one side are the Business demands: compliance with internal and external regulations, security of information and assets, maintenance of IT architectural integrity and stability, and the delivery of innovative technology. On the other side are the obstacles to fulfillment: a rapidly changing workforce, a lack of leadership expertise, budgetary restraints, the shifting of non-core activities to external resourcing partners, and the fact that every department can make individual hardware and software decisions. The resulting tension and stress on IT cannot be overstated.

Considering these problems along with the scant resources spent on infrastructure, i.e., leadership and management training and development (that soft skills stuff I mentioned earlier), it is no surprise to me that most IT organizations are running full bore and still unable to meet the myriad Business objectives. We refer to this phenomenon as “no capacity to change,” and it is this very inability that is misconstrued as a lackluster attitude toward innovation, the very “innovation” that is supposed to save our beleaguered economy.

The challenges facing IT are complex; I won’t deny that. But they are not insurmountable. And, because this is my first blog, I feel compelled to tell you how deeply committed I am to helping IT employees and organizations work differently and maturely so that every individual and organization as a whole can deliver its very best. I want to give them the tools to work in new ways that are uplifting and rewarding. But most of all, I am determined to help IT gain the capacity to change and to attain its rightful place at the center of business driving innovation. By the way, this is what our consulting firm is all about.

Please check in from time to time. I’ll be here sharing my thoughts and specific ideas about specific issues—it would be great to hear from you too. For now, my parting thought is this: Get checked-out sooner rather than later so that you and your organization can begin to focus on innovation. After all, we have an economy to save.