Thursday, February 21, 2008

Which Perspective, Purpose or Parts

ITIL as a reference model for service management has been around for twenty years. In that time, many firms in Asia and Europe have mastered the concept and even advanced the knowledge and practices. In that same time frame, the culture of innovation that we find in the IT departments in the United States has struggled with the concept of IT as a Service. Is it possible that the personalities identified as natural innovators see the world differently than the personalities identified as natural service providers see the world?

A similar phenomenon has also been identified in an academic survey of the profession of IT project management. When asked to describe what is “managed” by the project manager, some of the teams described the “project” in terms of the product produced; some of the teams described the “project” in terms of the producing process; and a small portion described the “project” in terms of the team and organizational relationships.

Imagine you are in a room filled with one-hundred people. You ask them to describe an object such as an automobile. About twenty-five will tend to describe it in terms of its purpose, what it does and the benefit it provides; a “synthesis” of cause and effect relationships. Because they see things in terms of intangibles, we will call this group the intuitors. About seventy-five will tend to describe it in terms of its parts, what it is made of and resources it consumes; an “analysis” of its components. Because they see things in terms of tangibles, we will call this group the sensors.

For all of these people, the ability to manage and “control” the object comes from their understanding of the object. The twenty-five intuitors are able to “understand” the object in terms of what is “possible”. They perceive the object in terms of the environment it exists in and the potential relationships that can be created. The seventy-five sensors are able to “understand” the object in terms of what is “proven”. They perceive the object in terms of the environment it creates, which is based on its components.

The general population has a blend of both intuitors and sensors. Since business success tends to need balance between both perspectives, the organization that tend to select members based on skill, will find a 25/75 balance. Unfortunately, cultures of a business organization do not evolve that way naturally. They tend to recruit and employ people who think as we do first and skill second.

An organization with a large concentration of sensors will develop a culture of highly literal people with the detailed concrete perspectives This will produce a culture of analysis paralysis; which is always breaking things down to better understand. Eventually this results in the formation of isolated silos and the need to form bureaucracies to regulate the interfaces between the isolated components.

An organization with a large concentration of intuitors will develop a culture of highly imaginative people with the conceptual theoretical perspective. This will produce a culture of experimental synthesis; which is always discovering how organizational structures behave. This results in the formation of an organization of hybrid configurations and dotted line reporting relationships.

Today, some of us identify ITIL from a strategic perspective, associating responsibility for success or failure with the CIO to effectively command and control the IT organization. Others identify ITIL from a tactical perspective, associating responsibility for success or failure with middle management to build an effective organizational structure without silos. Yet others identify ITIL from an operational perspective, associating responsibility for success or failure with the front-line managers responsible for the detailed execution.

The reality of success is that all three perspectives are true and correct. Management science is all about the alignment between the strategic, the tactical and the operational responsibilities. This is the crux of the problem. Not every one studies management sciences, so they do not understand that it should align. Individually, we see things differently and we struggle to rationalize our perspectives. Since we do not know they should align, we fight for what we think, feel, believe and know is right in our mind.

We could use education and training, but the cost perspective blinds us from seeing the value perspective. Therefore, we send a manager to master the subject and return to train the team. We do not consider the fact that the managers’ training will be naturally filtered by a biased perspective. Because we do not understand that individual perspectives represent pieces of a bigger and more accurate picture, we are condemned to spend our career rolling our bolder of biases uphill.

No comments: