I had a particularly quiet morning today, no pressing deadlines or major problems. Those days are few and far in between, aren’t they? So being the organized neat-freak that I am, I decided to clean out my inbox and archive the inbox folders I was no longer using. I love doing that. I really can do more fun things with my personal time, but that’s for another blog.
So there I was, archiving and removing folders, when I suddenly became aware of a pattern that troubled me. I started writing down the names of the folders I was removing just to make sure I wasn’t being overly pessimistic (a genetic trait). When I was done, I was left mostly with folders for internal departments or external vendors. I realized that most of what I removed were folders for projects that “never went anywhere”. I have a folder on the department’s shared drive called the same thing, I am just waiting for my boss to find that one…

Here’s a sample of what I removed:
-
Business Process Improvement
-
Computerized Maintenance Management System
-
Customer Relationship Management
-
Voyager 2.0 (ideas for major usability enhancements for our ERP until its replacement)
-
Document Imaging
-
Preventing Duplicate Member Records
-
Process Improvement Ideas
-
IT Steering Committee
-
Mentoring
-
Online Program Registration & Membership Sales
-
Regional Training Program
-
Strategic Planning
At first glance, these just look like a list of projects, right? But when I compare them to my new inbox structure, one thing stands out. We have moved from projects that benefit the entire org, to department-based work. That’s not to say that Finance or Marketing don’t have valid technology needs, not at all. But this segregation of projects is troubling. Sure, we’re still doing “work”. But based simply on this folder structure I would argue that our technology investments are not addressing our larger, longer term needs. Do we not need to manage our members’ information anymore? Can we no longer benefit from a centralized document imaging system? The mentoring folder was easy to delete, it only had one email in it, nothing more ever came of that. But what about the regional training program… or Strategic Planning?! Do we not need to be part of that anymore?
I don’t need to think too much about how we got here. To me, it’s obvious. Without a CIO sitting at the senior management table, IT’s role is once again to keep the wheels running. Keep the electricity on, keep email going, fix daily problems. Sure, that’s part of our role. But without being fully engaged (or even present) at the decision making level, the ongoing struggle to align IT with the rest of the org is becoming increasingly obvious. At least to my inbox.
How much longer can we afford to be back in service-only mode before we can switch to value-added mode again? Is a new CIO the answer? I think not. Most people could not take on so much change management on their own (excluding maybe Gandhi and Mother Theresa). It takes the whole village, as they say. But I do believe that change can start at the top. We are currently looking for a new CEO, and I am anxious to see what new leadership will bring. I want to see how they will listen, think, and act… what changes will be in store for us, and how staff and volunteers will be able to participate in the shaping of the next generation of leaders.
I want my strategic planning folder back. And full.
I’m actually a proponent of the CIO role in a charity. It is definitely not a solution, as you point out change doesn’t really start at the top. However, I have yet to see an executive management team that can do the really critical charity functions… revenue (i.e. fundraising), financial management, leadership, communications … and drive the technology stuff to successful conclusions. I really do think the DNA/culture required to lead a charity is not compatible with the DNA/culture that leads to successfully implemented and adopted technology projects.
That CIO role is to take executive priorities and validate them at the grassroots. From there set operational priorities and drive cross functional projects. Centralized document imaging might be nice, but is it a true priority? That CIO role validates the priority and makes sure the project stays on folks radar until it gets done. Without that role, the task falls on someone who is generally not a fit (in terms of skills/culture/outlook) to drive a technology project to a conclusion.
Otherwise, the folder is eventually moves in the things that never went anywhere.
Comment by David Geilhufe — July 24, 2009 @ 1:35 am
David,
Thanks for your comment, you make some really good points. I completely agree with you that a CIO is needed in a charity, absolutely. In regards to the DNA/culture require to lead a charity and technology, I also agree that those are separate skills, and I think that’s what I meant to drive at by saying that a CIO needs to be part of the management team as much as fund raising, operations, human services and community relations (at least those are the functions on our team). That may not have come out too clearly when I compared a CIO to Gandhi…
Thanks for stating that so much better than I did… I need to get better at blogging for more than one and making my points clearer!
Comment by judithsoldyess — July 24, 2009 @ 3:48 am
strategic change management…
Great post. My approach to strategic change management says the quality of the first five percent determines what happens in the rest of the process. This same principle applies to many situations….
Trackback by strategic change management — September 11, 2009 @ 11:51 pm
Thanks for your comment. What do you mean by the first five percent?
Comment by judithsoldyess — September 12, 2009 @ 12:46 am