|
The Case for Key Metrics- Why bother? It is your responsibility as a Senior Technology Leader to “tell the IT Story.” You MUST be able to sufficiently explain to the business exactly how they are receiving returns on their technology investment, where there are opportunities for additional return on investment, and savings through technology. I am sure that there is at least one leader reading this that feels that their area is underfunded. If this is actually the case, it is likely that this leader is not sufficiently “telling the IT Story” to influential decision makers in the business. I say this because C-Level and Senior Business Leaders (at least the good ones) are always ready to here a compelling business case that can lead to an increase in the bottom line. Many technology leaders have been unable or unwilling to build a compelling “business case “for additional investment or simple appreciation of the technology efforts. The task of explaining Technology in Business terms can be very daunting- especially for Technology Leaders that have not had any training or have avoided interaction with the business lines. Let me provide you with a common scenario: Traditionally, technology leaders have taken a passive approach to managing their organization. Maybe by no fault of their own, but regardless it is what it is. They simply are told what their budget for the year is and then they manage to that budget. They may provide a half hearted objection based on emotion, but not in business terms. The Leader then compounds this issue of not having a seat at the table by employing a self destructive strategy that consists of counting on complaints from the business regarding the performance/capabilities of technology then “whining or holding the business hostage” for more money. Not once do they attempt to build and present a proactive business case. They wait for the business to take action. This is a very dangerous and divisive approach to leading. It creates a very negative perception that the technology organization is slow to the uptake, inadequate, and not in touch with the needs of the business. The business then engages consultants to “fix” the issue. The perception of value is created by the consultants, but in reality very little value has been added. Further, the technology leader becomes frustrated due to the credibility that the business gives to the consultants. The Technology Leader feels that all the consultants did was produce pretty graphs, reports, and business summaries of what they already know. And there lies the problem. The Technology Leader knows the facts, but has not successfully been able to present the facts in “business speak” thus creating the perceived value and credibility of the consultants. Now I believe that consultants offer very valuable services, but they should not be necessary in this scenario. The consulting dollars can be spent much more efficiently. This scenario would have been easily avoided and consulting dollars could have been spent more wisely if the Technology Leader employed an active strategy of leading. This strategy should consist of the development of key metrics, open communication regarding the key metric performance with the business, and utilizing these metrics when working with the business regarding investments in technology. Developing Key Metrics that are tied to and based on business objectives provides the Technology Leader with the credibility that he needs to sit at the table and present the compelling business case. |