In many ways this has been my point when I say that as an ITSM Professional, I need to view myself as the subject matter expert when it comes to proposing solutions to solve real-world business problems to my businesses.  That is when the true business value performed by the ITSM Professional comes into play.  If you are in-tune with the business you are supporting, then why not be the technology specialist who is in a unique position to discover technology solutions to real business challenges?

I think the team at Box.net have raised the bar with Application Development and Release concepts.  It is not just the “Wow” factor of a new toy, but more about what can this new device or application do to enhance or enable my business.  Box.net nailed it with this one.

In 2003, I was asked to move back into my old support team to head up the group as my old Manager had decided to resign. During my absence the team had grown substantially and morale was less than desireable.  The business was growing, as was the demands placed on the team. Having cut my teeth in this environment I was very familiar with the pressures of ensuring that the business was executing on all cylinders, with as much up-time as possible 24×7. This had, and was once again, taking its toll on even the senior support analysts on the team. One of the first things I did when returning to the team was to have one-on-one sessions with each and every one of the 20 team members to determine not just what they were working on, but more importantly where their heads were at.

This was something that seemed the logical thing to do as a mid-level manager of a support team, which I likened to managing troops under my charge during my 8 years in the Marine Corps. I began every session with one simple question which guided the discussion from that point forward. It may seem like a strange question, but one vital to ask anyone in a support role:

Why are you here?

Profound in its simplicity, I was set back by the general response across the team. Most of the responses began with”I support X application,” “I peform monitoring on X systems” or “I respond to user calls about broken hardware.” In every case, in my mind these were all wrong answers. Of course these are the functions they perform while on the clock, but as to why they were there, I wanted to hear things like “To make sure the users can do their jobs,” “Make sure we can deliver to clients,” anything of that vein would have been more than welcome, but it was not what I was hearing. I asked myself why these individuals had lost touch with the basic business deliverables of not only IT, but that of the company as a whole.

To me this is often an oversight of Management lost in administrative responsibilities more driven towards demonstrating delivery to leadership instead of establishing a culture of understanding as to an individuals up-stream contribution to the business strategy and bottom-line. Without that perception of self-worth any individual will quickly loose sight. As a result, you will not get the level of individual performance by a person in technology who is clear on their purpose and contribution to the corporate mission. Take someone in Sales for example, they are very clear on their goals, deliverables, contributions and value to the business. Their approach every day is to bring in new business to raise the bottom line as well as gain a commission, if that is the value structure in place. In technology, this frontline value structure doesn’t always exist to drive awareness of their contribution. For this reason, it is vital that managers keep as part of their responsibility matrix, the importance of communicating the team’s contribution to the overall business delivery model to its clients and how that helps the business be more successful in relation to other competitors.

Reach out to the buisness and try to get your hands on the annual report information. That information is not only critical for you to understand, but ot use as a motivational tool to get everyone aligned with the business drivers. We used to love hearing this type of information and where our company sat in the market against our competitors. It became a subconsious driver to feel like we were truly part of the team. Not the IT team, but the corporate team, as a result we pushed that much harder to give the business the tools it needed to help the company compete with its competitors.

As managers, it is easy to get wrapped up in the metrics and numbers in delivering technology. Just never lose sight on the PEOPLE who deliver that technology and helping them feel as a vital part of the business, not just a tool used by the business.

In my own experience I have heard rumblings within an organization of many staffers viewing ITIL as leadership’s attempt at trying out the latest “buzz-word” framework or attempting to force it down the throats of the IT staff who have seen these types of initiatives fail in the past. In these types of environments, the US vs. THEM mentality combined with a lack of understanding by the organization as a whole form a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy of failure.

Why is it then, that in other industries, membership into these organizations is accepted if not required. Auditors, CPAs, Lawyers, Doctors and the list could go on. But in Technology there is still the legacy belief in many organizations, more prevalent in the larger ones, that the in-house experience and knowledge pool can achieve anything that will improve the organization as a whole. After all, who knows the organization better, right? Wrong.

The problem is that as with or any organic entity which grows or evolves, it brings with it naturally that which it has learned before. If that base of knowledge is mis-management, inefficiency and disfunction, then it will only become compounded as it grows. I call it my IT Evolutionary Theory. IT spawns out of an immediate need to conduct business, to that which grows quickly as work arounds are put in place to give the appearance of functionality. Then there is the survival mode where you begin to see the failures in technology due to a lack of awareness early on to put in place structured process designed for growth. You have now entered what I affectionately refer to as the “Wild-West.” Any and everything goes in keeping the business up and running.

It is usually at this point where the business tolerance for failure reaches its limits. IT leadership is given the ultimatum to fix it, or be gone. In comes the interest Industry Frameworks! Often viewed as the silver bullet to make everything better again based on white papers, magazines or some presentation seen by senior leadership. However, as previously mentioned the organization at this point is so rooted in a culture of disorganization and inefficiency that finding anyone who actually understands how to begin to dig out of the mess is near to impossible. Leaderships answer? QUEUE THE CONSULTANTS!

Now, rewinding things a bit. What if, early on in the evolutionary chain, IT management encouraged membership in industry organizations like HDI or the ITSMf? Better yet, what if these companies spent the relatively minimal amount of funding to become corporate members, allowing staff to attended regular meetings and annual conferences? The upside is not often analyzed from the top down. What these individuals get from networking while attending monthly meetings, conferences, seminars and training events brings back into the organization a wealth of knowledge BEFORE things get too far gone. Proactive involvement from the ground up begins to take place, the culture itself evolves, far eclipsing anything a consultant can bring to the table during the “zero hour” knee-jerk make-or-break point. This is where a relatively minor investment over time in the very fabric of an organization can save a large investment to un-fluck a cluster.

Like any knowledge base, there is wealth in the sheer numbers of individuals who contribute content to it. These Industry forums are a gold-mine of information, experience and reassurance to any organization looking to improve or enhance their overall IT operation. So, note to Technology leadership… continue to provide relevant training, but more importantly, encourage and support organizational membership in external industry organizations and events. The return on THAT investment goes much farther than believing that you can manage evolution in a bubble. In most cases you already employ those “consultants” you need as you evolve. Give them the opportunity to champion growth and stability through supporting them. Who knows, they may just surprise you and save you a lot of pain and revenue in the long run.

Having said that, it is also one of many roles which requires soft-skills in dealing with core technologists, leadership on both the IT and Business side, I would probably not be employed if I didn’t learn to interact and maneuver around the politics and personalities at all levels, in getting anything done in IT.  So to say there is a back-lash or that I am a weenie for possessing soft-skills is somewhat an oversight as to how Technology needs to function in the modern business environment regardless of industry.

In short; all roles in Technology play their part in delivering on a business strategy.  If we are failing in anything it is not ensuring that technologists “core” or otherwise do not think of themselves as better than any other technologist and that each requires different skills to serve a higher purpose.  The cog in the machine if you will.  Maybe then we can begin to leverage these different skill-sets instead of further instigating a “who’s better than who” battle in IT. This is no longer the 1980′s.

To compare a “Core” technologist to that of a general technologist will always garner the contempt between various IT fields.  My background is in support for example.  I love technology and make every attempt to learn about the technology behind the products I have supported.  Now, further on in my career as an Incident, Problem and Crisis Manager,  I have to know about all areas of the products and services that IT delivers to the Business, including the likes of Storage, Database, Applications and Networking/Voice.  I am not a specialist any any of these core technologies, but I am a GEEK for driving to understand them and how they work together to enhance our deliveries to the business.

Having said that, it is also one of many roles which requires soft-skills in dealing with core technologists, leadership on both the IT and Business side, I would probably not be employed if I didn’t learn to interact and maneuver around the politics and personalities at all levels, in getting anything done in IT.  So to say there is a back-lash or that I am a weenie for possessing soft-skills is somewhat an oversight as to how Technology needs to function in the modern business environment regardless of industry.

In short; all roles in Technology play their part in delivering on a business strategy.  If we are failing in anything it is not ensuring that technologists “core” or otherwise do not think of themselves as better than any other technologist and that each requires different skills to serve a higher purpose.  The cog in the machine if you will.  Maybe then we can begin to leverage these different skill-sets instead of further instigating a “who’s better than who” battle in IT.  This is no longer the 1980′s.

When it comes to barriers in adopting ITIL as a means of managing a technology operation efficiently, it is often said that obtaining buy in from leadership is a “must have” or the “key to success.” I want to dive into that for a second with some possibly outlandish observations.

In most organizations there are usually three different layers or tiers within a technology organization; Leadership/Upper-management, Middle Management and the Operational layer. Like almost anything with three layers, the outer layers are usually firm and designed to absorb what comes at them from the outside. For leadership/upper-management their role is pretty clear. Deal with the business, budget and branding of technology. On the opposite end of the spectrum you have the day-to-day operational teams. These are the lower echelon of the organization who have developed a clear understanding of their role as well; the Business, Bullets and Bullsh*t.

When it comes to any change in the way any organization operates, it is usually mandated by the top layer, and implemented at the lower layer. Where it is driven from, in any successful implementation of not just ITIL but any mission, should be at that middle layer. It is at this layer where I believe success or failure lives and I don’t make this comment lightly.

Having spent 8 years in the U.S. Marine Corps and a Sergeant, I can tell you first hand that the success or failure of any unit’s mission lies squarely on the shoulders of its Non-Commissioned Officer Corps. That Middle Management layer of the Military, also referred to as “the back-bone” – The Sergeants, Staff-Sergeants and Petty-Officers, is where true change is managed and effected. It is where the Orders or Goals are received, interpreted, planned for and executed.

Now I am not suggesting that every business middle management layer operate like the Military. What I am saying, is that without middle-management buy-in and acceptance, any implementation of ITIL or any other endeavor will generally fail. Often what we see is Leadership or Upper Management attends a conference about ITIL or some other framework, becomes sold on the talking points, returns with the mission to have those benefits within their own organizations. They are essentially setting the goals of the organization. In most cases, not how to achieve the goals, just that this new destination is where they want the organization to be leaving it up to middle management to sort out the delivery.

At this point is where the fear of change begins to kick in. I have been astounded to enter into organizations where many within the middle management layer had risen through the ranks in an organization where small scale process had organically grown to a point that could no longer sustain the scale of business growth. Changing the only method of operations known, strikes fear into many. Diving into a new way of thinking or operating does not alway spark the passion and drive needed to move a organization into a new way of thinking. So what happens? Not a whole lot. There may be a few Overview sessions or training courses put in place, but in terms of mapping out a strategy, plan and then delivering on it proactively, there isn’t the push needed. The leadership needed is stonewalled by the fear of change.

Interestingly enough, it is the operational layer that after a couple of these training or overview sessions sees the benefit of adopting a new way of operating, even if it means a certain amount of pain to get to a place where fewer things break, service is delivered faster and their daily lives move from fighting fires and being door-stops to being more proactive in finding solutions to not only make their own lives easier, but also contribute to moving the organization forward.

If you do not address the resistance of adoption at that middle management layer, you will end up with a dysfunctional and sometimes hostile environment of change. Deadlines to leadership are not management, then at the last minute it becomes another exercise in jumping through hoops at the operational layer which breeds contempt and a lack of respect for what appears to be mis-management of the organization as a whole. In-turn there is a drop in morale and, well everyone loads into the hand-basket for the trip to hell.

The self-fulfilling prophecy of failure is the responsibility of middle management. To be fair, I am not referring to all individuals in middle management, you do have your champions. The problem is, these individuals are not always put into a position to drive the movement forward. These are the believers, the visionaries, the ones who “get it.” Empowering them is the key. Placing them in positions that are either directly backed by leadership with authority or given the illusion of authority will go a long way to silence the resistors in the organization.

I have to admit that I have little tolerance for those who choose to be part of the problem rather than part of the solution; call it the Sergeant in me. On the up-side however, in my position to implement two key ITIL processes I have developed the unique ability to remain ‘at-ease’ when I hear “Yea we know it is supposed to be like that and we will get there, just not now because it has never been done that way.” Back in the day, those would have been words which called for an immediate blanket party to sort the situation out. Ooh Rah!

So my advice is this for anyone in a leadership/Upper-management position thinking about implementing ITIL or any other change that results in a significant thought process shift for the organization; Find your motivators, your proactive, open-minded individuals up front. Develop a program outside of any specific department or team, empower them, supply them with the tools and training necessary to succeed, communicate your support for them to the Organization then turn them loose and get out the way. You may be surprised how much can get done.