Classically, an organization operating at, or just above, a level 1 is focused on “keeping the lights on” activities, as well as “putting out fires.” What’s broken rarely gets fixed because no one has the capacity to diagnose the problem (i.e. root cause) and then implement a change. Likewise, the demand for “getting it done” outweighs the need to do it right.

Here are some other indicators of an organization operating between a level 1 and 1.5 maturity level.

• Nothing is tracked well. One former client’s company paid millions of dollars in penalties due to an over-allocation of software licenses because no one in IT was keeping track of the number users during a period of high employee headcount growth.
• Documentation is sketchy. Another client’s organization had loads of initial process/software/configuration documentation but didn’t have the discipline, change control, and quality practices to maintain the knowledge as the environment evolved.
• IT manages noise. My favorite anecdote is about a senior director who held a one-hour operational review meeting EVERY morning with all her senior staff just to understand what happened over the last 23 hours in case her peers or boss called.

Organizations between a level 1 and 1.5 usually have a myriad of problems across multiple dimensions. Assessing these issues can seem overwhelming. In fact, it’s often the hardest thing for an IT organization at this level. But it’s at this point that the pain of managing “noise” is greater than the risk of moving towards the “P” word: PROCESS. Before doing this, however, it’s important to understand the current state: what abilities you have, how committed your management and business partners are to change, and how accountable your IT leaders are for their part in it all.

One way to approach the problem is to use a tool, like a balanced scorecard, to help you think in a simpler, more disciplined, and measurable fashion.

Each of the four standard components of a balanced scorecard have a cause and effect on the other components:

1. Learning and Growth: How much does IT need to invest in its people so they have the skills necessary to perform high quality activities and interactions? And fulfill the outcomes of the services they support?
2. Internal Business Processes: Are IT processes consistent, repeatable, and measureable? Are they delivering/achieving expected outcomes for customers?
3. Customers: What are external customers paying the business for? Where is the business headed? How can IT enable better decision-making? How aligned are IT’s strategic imperatives with the business’ strategic driver?
4. Financial: How can the company generate revenue from the services IT delivers?

So what’s the key to progressing towards a 2+ organization? It’s simplification, measurement, and consistent communications. I know it’s not sexy, but they’re probably not paying you for sexy. It’s not easy either, but the benefits, like freed up capacity and helping your business run more efficiently and effectively, are worth it.

How have you simplified?

The other day, I ran across a great piece by Gartner about improving project success. Its premise was that if you focus on three things—Partnership, Requirements and Resources—you can really increase the probability of a successful project outcome. Wow! . . .something different from The Big Three!! I was easily able to relate requirements and resources back to the big three, but what about partnership? The formal definition of “partnership” (courtesy of my dictionary) was of little use, but when I looked at its synonyms, I found words like alliance, collaboration, connection, relation, and union. And that’s when it hit me. Partnership doesn’t relate to the big three but rather comprises the foundation that enables us to deliver on them. Without true partnership, project realization or the ability to deliver the expected value from the project is unlikely.

This should have been obvious considering the successful projects I’ve participated in and led. It was partnership at all levels that helped drive realization. From various IT organizations to external partners to the client organizations themselves, the most successful (and fun) projects were always built around partnership. In fact, one might argue that partnership was more important than The Big Three because these successful projects weren’t always on-time, on budget or delivered as initially envisioned. Instead, the customers were heavily engaged along the way, were part of the decision making process, were active participants in validating and re-validating the scope, and were integral parts of testing and acceptance. And so, while I very much agree with the Gartner’s assertion, I would add that management of the big three is table stakes in today’s world—the true differentiator on projects is partnership.

Lennon and McCartney wrote the lyric “I’ll get by with a little help from my friends,” and I would propose that they got it right: with a little help from each other (in partnership throughout all aspects of a project) we can greatly improve the chance of success.

What do you think? Do you have any examples of how partnership drove success?