a solution that is technically "right"

Just having a solution that is technically "right" does not guarantee that employees will make the necessary changes to their behaviors and work processes. Employee commitment, buy-in, and adoption do not stem from the rightness of the solution, but rather from the employees moving through their own change process. It takes more than the right solution to move employees out of the current state that they know and into the future state they do not know (and sometimes fear).

Jeffrey M. Hiatt & Timothy J. Creasey

Change Management: The People Side of Change, by Jeffrey M. Hiatt & Timothy J. Creasey Prosci Inc. 2012. P.31

employees doing their jobs differently

The results and outcomes of workplace changes are intrinsically and inextricably tied to individual employees doing their jobs differently. A perfectly designed process that no one follows produces no improvement in performance. A perfectly designed technology that no one uses creates no additional value to the organization. Perfectly defined job roles that are not fulfilled by employees deliver no sustained results. Whether in the workplace, in your community or in government, the bridge between a quality solution and benefit realization is individuals embracing and adopting change.

Jeffrey M. Hiatt & Timothy J. Creasey

Change Management: The People Side of Change, by Jeffrey M. Hiatt & Timothy J. Creasey Prosci Inc. 2012. P.1

change happens

In any business environment, change happens.

Let’s rephrase: In any business environment, change should happen. It shows you're committed to the kind of growth and evolution it takes to stay modern, relevant, and competitive.

Countless factors make change inevitable. Think of technological advancements, globalization, cultural shifts, and shifting economies. And since nobody's corporate goals include falling behind or growing stale, embracing change is a must.

But what kind of change are we talking about here? Change can include things like:

• Introducing new software or updating marketing practices
• Updated business processes
• A full-on restructuring
• Leadership changes
• Updated thinking
• Budget constraints
• Shifts in strategy

These all fall under the umbrella of organizational change. If you’re already on board with shaking things up, you’re ahead of the game. And you're not alone.

According to Gartner, 99% of all organizations have undergone a major organizational change in the last three years. But big or small, change doesn't happen naturally. Therefore, effective change requires a clear action plan.

Emily Smith

"7 Organizational Change Management Frameworks That Stick," Remesh Blog. October 10, 2021

the business includes IT

When you use the word “customer,” do you mean an internal customer — someone who works for the same company that you do and who uses the technology IT provides? That’s a mistake, many experts believe. “The most significant thing CIOs get wrong about business-IT alignment is servicing other departments’ ‘internal customers,’ instead of the true business customer needs,” says Phil Pettinato, CTO of Versapay. “The CIO should push to transform processes so the internal stakeholders can create better customer experiences for the primary customer.”

Because, of course, external customers are your company’s customers, and that makes them your customers, too. Thinking of internal users as customers creates a division between business and IT that can undermine your efforts to create alignment. “I don’t believe there’s IT and the business,” says James Anderson, a vice president and analyst at Gartner. “The business includes IT. And your product is not IT, it’s the services enabled by IT that are used for business outcomes.”

Philip Pettinato

"7 hard truths of business-IT alignment," by Minda Zetlin. CIO. October 31, 2022

he doesn’t have a desk

When New York-Presbyterian CIO Daniel Barchi arrives at work in the morning, he doesn’t sit down at his desk. That’s because he doesn’t have a desk — or an office — of his own. “I guide a very, very large team of IT people, but I don’t have one office where I go every day,” he says.

Instead, Barchi may spend the day working in the building that houses the company’s back-office systems. Or he may spend the day in one of its hospitals, meeting with executives or doing a walkthrough. Every day is different, and that’s the point, he says. “You can’t understand the needs of the clinicians unless you are meeting with them.”

Not every CIO can or should give up their own office, he adds. But his choice to do so reflects an inescapable fact: “The technology can work, but unless it works well for users in their environment, it’s not meeting their needs.”

Minda Zetlin

"7 hard truths of business-IT alignment," CIO. October 31, 2022

ask fundamentally different questions

The most powerful use of digital tools is not to cut costs, create efficiencies, or even move faster and with greater agility, but to ask fundamentally different questions. It is through exploring these new possibilities that we can solve complex problems and make more meaningful impacts for customers, employees, and the communities we serve.

Effective Digital Transformation Depends on a Shared Language, by David C. Hay, Thomas C. Redman, C. Lwanga Yonke, and John A. Zachman. Harvard Business Review. December 14, 2021

technical debt

Companies all over the world are embracing digital transformation — the use of new (or already existing) technological capabilities — as the means to better work with their customers, distance themselves from (or keep up with) their competitors, and connect various aspects of their businesses. But to succeed in this endeavor — or even to simply get the most from their current tech — they must rid themselves of a heavy burden: technical debt. Put simply, technical debt occurs when you choose an imperfect short-term solution that will require a more substantial fix later, and includes disparate systems, added software to accommodate them, and added effort to work around them.

Because technical debt is the result of shortcuts — choosing quick fixes over a long-term investment — it causes plenty of problems in the here and now. It adds enormous friction any time people need to coordinate work together across silos. There’s also the ongoing expense to exchange data between systems; the unquantifiable costs associated with being slowed down by your systems, whether you’re in the midst of digital transformation or responding to a competitor’s move; and the price you must eventually pay to redesign and simplify systems. And technical debt and its costs compound over time.

At first blush, executives may dismiss technical debt as the province of their IT departments. That conclusion camouflages the root cause of the issue, however. In truth, technical debt stems from the way the businesses are structured, and how departments develop their own systems and languages for getting their work done.

Effective Digital Transformation Depends on a Shared Language, by David C. Hay, Thomas C. Redman, C. Lwanga Yonke, and John A. Zachman. Harvard Business Review. December 14, 2021

the essence of digital transformation

The essence of digital transformation is to become a data-driven organization, ensuring that key decisions, actions, and processes are strongly influenced by data-driven insights, rather than by human intuition. In other words, you will only transform when you have managed to change how people behave, and how things are done in your organization.

The Essential Components of Digital Transformation by Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic. Harvard Business Review. November 23, 2021

transformational change

The first thing to understand about transformational change is that the external environment -- technology, regulation, competition, the economy -- is forcing change upon your organization. Your organization is a sub-system of a larger system, and it must align its systems to the external world. Sometimes that external environment demands rapid change that may be uncomfortable for everyone.

Lawrence M. Miller

Transformational Change vs. Continuous Improvement, Industry Week. May 14, 2013

bypass the person

My friend Morgan Rank owned an art gallery in East Hampton several years ago. He moved to Italy, living in the quiet countryside there for nearly a decade. We had lost touch and then, at an art event in New York, someone approached me and said, "Morgan is back." I got a phone number and called him. 

Morgan really lived off the grid. No internet. Little telephone usage. When we spoke awhile back, he commented on the digital age he found, in full force, upon his return. "Theses kids with these devices in their hands every minute of the day," he said. "They will never get to know each other the way we did. They will never stare at each other over a candle, jammed into a bottle of Mateus, on a red checkered table cloth in some restaurant..."

A modern cell phone, loaded with contacts of willing fellow players, has a table with a red checkered table cloth ready for you at virtually any time.

We tell ourselves that these devices help us communicate more effectively. What they actually do is allow us to bypass the person lying right next to us, across the room from us or at an airport heading home to us, in order to meet our immediate, even inconvenient, needs. To bypass their moods, their current view of us and their own desires, or lack thereof.

Alec Baldwin

"Anthony Weiner Is a Modern Human Being," Huffington Post. 6/9/2011

aggressive distractions

The most obvious drawback of social media is that they are aggressive distractions. Unlike the virtual fireplace or that nesting pair of red-tailed hawks we have been live-streaming on nytimes.com, Twitter is not just an ambient presence. It demands attention and response. It is the enemy of contemplation. Every time my TweetDeck shoots a new tweet to my desktop, I experience a little dopamine spritz that takes me away from . . . from . . . wait, what was I saying? 

My mistrust of social media is intensified by the ephemeral nature of these communications. They are the epitome of in-one-ear-and-out-the-other, which was my mother’s trope for a failure to connect. 

I’m not even sure these new instruments are genuinely “social.” There is something decidedly faux about the camaraderie of Facebook, something illusory about the connectedness of Twitter. Eavesdrop on a conversation as it surges through the digital crowd, and more often than not it is reductive and redundant. Following an argument among the Twits is like listening to preschoolers quarreling: You did! Did not! Did too! Did not! 

As a kind of masochistic experiment, the other day I tweeted “#TwitterMakesYouStupid. Discuss.” It produced a few flashes of wit (“Give a little credit to our public schools!”); a couple of earnestly obvious points (“Depends who you follow”); some understandable speculation that my account had been hacked by a troll; a message from my wife (“I don’t know if Twitter makes you stupid, but it’s making you late for dinner. Come home!”); and an awful lot of nyah-nyah-nyah (“Um, wrong.” “Nuh-uh!!”). Almost everyone who had anything profound to say in response to my little provocation chose to say it outside Twitter. In an actual discussion, the marshaling of information is cumulative, complication is acknowledged, sometimes persuasion occurs. In a Twitter discussion, opinions and our tolerance for others’ opinions are stunted. Whether or not Twitter makes you stupid, it certainly makes some smart people sound stupid. 

Bill Keller
"The Twitter Trap". New York Times Magazine, 5/18/2011