Archives For Business Leadership

So many Strategies, and yet so little Leadership

April 2, 2016 — Leave a comment

Preface: There are many UK Government Strategies, Manifestos, Advisory Boards, etc. and the list keeps growing each day. Here are just a few of the ones being touted by the UK Government at the moment; UK Digital Strategy, Mayor of London’s Data Strategy, GDS Vision for Gov.uk, GDS Principles for Government as a Platform, CO Government Data Programme, GDS Digital Advisory Board, CO Data Steering Group, UK Data Sharing Consultation, GDS Registry Advisory Board, Royal Statistics Society “Data Manifesto”, ONS Strategy post-Bean Review, etc.  You have to ask “what do all of these accomplish in respect to replacing/augmenting authentic leadership?”

Intro: The much ballyhooed UK Digital Strategy is apparently now in tatters. It has now been pushed out until after the BREXIT vote in the Summer, but is an indicator of the greater challenges in Government; A complete lack of competent leadership by the Cabinet Office and the Ministers who have been assigned responsibility for Digital, GDS and Other “transformational” investments. It also bodes disaster for Civil Service mandarins who must manage “the vision” and the budget simultaneously with no top-down leadership or direction.

As I proffer to all my clients whom I coach on Leadership: “You can’t Lead what you don’t Understand”.

Body: A common thread found today in every pronouncement by the UK Government and its Proxies is the role of the Strategy that they have developed, either independently (via consultants) or in consultation with a group of contributors/advisors (all of whom have an agenda seeking fulfillment). Each strategy is heralded as the means to achieve what has previously been unachievable e.g. Transformation; or disruptive in terms of changing the status quo e.g. Digital. According to these pronouncements, “All have been designed for maximum impact with little risk” i.e. Revolutionary. However, most will fail to achieve the desired outcomes which have been promoted to justify the investment or will be terminated altogether due to cost & time overruns, etc. (only to be resurrected later under a different name in many cases) at significant cost to the Treasury (and the taxpayers). Why is this always the case one should ask?

Having been a student of strategy (and its execution) for all of my long career, I find this phenomenon both exhilarating and nauseating at the same time. As you cannot see, I still have the scars of many failed strategies on my back; all of which were a result of bad leadership by my superiors who owned the outcome of the strategy, but were not invested enough to make it a success. In principle, Strategy is only 1% of the overall endeavor, with execution being the remaining 99%. This is the core challenge and the most troubling aspect of what I see so often in Government-Lead Strategies, Manifestos, Advisory Boards, etc. They are big on bluster & hype, but low on energy & commitment by their Leaders to achieving the outcome. One only needs to look at some of the pitchmen aka Leaders who are touting some of these strategies today to see real examples of this first hand.

Strategic Change must be part of every true Leaders portfolio of accountabilities in order for any Organization to grow (at inordinate rates), much less counter competitive threats. However, in politics/government where you have a partnership of the ruling party and the civil service there is always a disconnect, if not outright gulf between what is said and what ultimately is accomplished. To mitigate this risk many governments will engage Consultancies/Systems Integrators to deliver on their promises while they cheerlead from the sidelines and designate Civil Servants to “manage the program” as their proxies. This rarely works out and given the UK Government’s long history of large (and small) programme disasters it seems that few ever learn from these mistakes.

It is worth repeating what I have written many times before in this column; “Leadership must be top-down, hands-on and from those ultimately accountable for both the strategy and its success”. Appointing proxies or hiring contractors as surrogate leaders has never succeeded in the past, and will not in the future. The most important component of Strategic Change is that of the Organization’s Culture itself. An Organization’s Culture is the shadow of its Leaders. It mirrors their Leaders behavior and will support its strategic goals if trust has been sufficiently fostered and they feel engaged (not commanded.

Strategic Leaders must take ownership of all aspects of their strategies and drive their execution to success through both actions and deeds. These Leaders must rise to this challenge no matter what it brings and provide a steady hand through all phases of a Strategy Program, all the while keeping the lights on and wheels turning in the current operating environment. These traits are why I believe that “The mantle of Leadership cannot be learned, it must be earned through blood, sweat, toil & tears”. Most of today’s political leaders (so to speak) have reached their pinnacle of power by dodging accountability while taking glory for the hard work & ideas of others, and are ill equipped to be what I refer to as a Strategic Leader. Their partners in Civil Service, while independent of politics to some degree, are not particularly seasoned Leaders either as the system does not promote risk takers (who might fail) and continues to reward bureaucrats who duck for cover at the first sign of trouble. This creates a true Leadership Conundrum which must be reckoned with in order to succeed.

Leadership is more than a forward-looking vision and a grandiose strategy; it is about delivering on them. Without a crisis to focus on, most Politicians and Civil Servants cannot find it in themselves to rise to be real Leaders. Perhaps that is what many of these strategies need at the moment.

Notes:

1.- This article appeared in an edited form in the April 2016 issue of Information Age (UK) (www.information-age.uk)

2.- The featured image was taken at IBM’s IOD conference in 2012, but is being used in this context to denote how many so-called Leaders appear in public as they hype their strategic leadership capabilities.

 

 

In Business Transformation, Digital Revolution, Governance, Leadership , , , , ,
permalink

2015 Report Card: The Year of Data Leadership

January 13, 2016 — Leave a comment

In January 2015 I wrote in my Information Age column about what I referred to as: “2015 – The Year of Data Leadership” (posted on my blog as well: http://bit.ly/1SCPZVr). I wrote on this topic periodically over the course of 2015 and included updates in my presentations at the PASS – “Business Analytics Conference (June – Santa Clara)” & Information Age’s “Data Leadership 2015 (November – London)”. Now that the year is finally complete and as we enter 2016 with a full head of steam, I would like to share with all of you a Report Card that I developed which “grades” the progress (or not) that was made in respect to executing on the basic elements of my Data Leadership Nexus.

There are three foundational categories which I would grade each Organization on in their pursuit of becoming a Predictive Enterprise.

  1. Leadership Literacy & Acumen in “All things Digital, Data & Analytics” (aka Top-Down Leadership)
  2. Strategic Leverage of the Organization’s Core Competencies in Digital, Data & Analytics.
  3. Empowering a Culture of Analytics & Data-driven Decisioning. (aka Cultural Adoption)

These three fundamental categories of the Data Leadership Nexus working in concert with each other can produce the maximum transformation & subsequent strategic outcomes in the shortest period of time. All require close monitoring and nurturing by the CEO & Board along the entire journey to insure the appropriate effects are fully instantiated.

The Nexus of Top-Down Leadership, Cultural Adoption and the enabling Core Competencies of Digital, Data & Analytics creates a unique strategic framework for becoming a Predictive Enterprise. Adopting the framework provides a path to strategic transformation, but requires each “leg of the stool” to carry its full weight.

Grading the success of any organization’s transformation into a Predictive Enterprise will always be subjective so I am using a scale of 1-5 (1 =Failing Outright, 3=Trying real hard, 5=Tangible Success) to provide some granularity, but not specificity as to actual performance (think of it as a trend).

The 2015 Data Leadership Report Card

  • Top-down Data Leadership by CEO & Board: (Grade=2)
  • Leverage of Core Competencies in Digital, Data & Analytics (Grade=3)
  • Cultural Adoption & Empowerment (Grade=1)

My Grading Rationale is as follows;

  1. CEO’s & Boards are beginning to move in the right direction in terms of their Accountability for “all things digital, data & analytics”, but more importantly that they are core to their strategy and must be integrated in up-front, not bolted on later. All Eight CEO’s featured in my series, “Profiles in Data Leadership” understand this intrinsically and did not have to be “converted” after the fact. There is much progress that needs to be made in respect to moving from a Technical view (delivered by IT) to a strategic view (driven from the top-down)
  2. Most (if not all) Organizations have invested heavily (and will continue to do so it appears) in digital, data & analytics solutions & capabilities, but have not made the transition to using them as Core Competencies. This is due to the continued fixation on specialization and not generalization of these skills. I see these barriers breaking down over time, but they are a disabler to achieving the pervasive (and not selective) use of digital, data & analytics to achieve competitive advantage and strategic outcomes.
  3. Moving the Organization’s Culture from gut-based & hierarchical decision making to data-driven & fully analytics empowered is a long-term journey for everyone, but is nonetheless the linchpin of strategic success. The use of Proxy Leaders and Unicorns (aka Data Scientists) is counter-productive to this effort as it leaves the vast majority of the Organization on the sidelines. Organizational Culture is the shadow of the CEO (and Board) and reflects their actions and demeanor. If you have a CEO & Board who are dedicated to Top-down Data Leadership you will soon have an Organizational Culture that is in lock step with the plan to transform into a Predictive Enterprise.

In 2016 and beyond I see major improvements in all three foundational categories, especially as the experimentation with the fashion statements of Proxy Leaders and Unicorns fails miserably and common sense/strategic approaches become the norm.

I will continue to write on this matter and to provide a 2016 Report Card over the coming year.

Stay tuned!

RL

 

 

 

 

 

In Big Data, Business Analytics, Chief Data Officer, Data Leader, Data Leadership Nexus, Governance, Information Management, Leadership , , , , , , , , , ,
permalink

Data Leadership by Proxy. Still doomed to Fail.

June 15, 2015 — Leave a comment

As I begin my third year as Information Age’s “Resident Thought Leader” (www.information-age.com) I thought that I would recap my 2013 series for them entitled “The Chief Data Officer – Necessary or Not?”.

Part 1: Introduction

The role called “Chief Data Officer” was created during the past five years primarily to address the growing requirements and sensitivities of Regulatory Compliance in Financial Services & Insurance post the crash of 2008.

In each of these sectors, the need for more rigorous Governance & Provenance schemes forced many CIO’s and Chief Risk Officers to define the need for a “Data Czar”; as someone who had ultimately Accountability for insuring that all Regulatory Data was up to standards, available in a timely fashion and representative of a “Single Version of the Truth” in terms of filing veracity. This reactive approach has created a role that typically lives in IT and has neither the leverage, nor the influence to be effective over the long term.

It is my contention that if information-driven enterprises were serious about “treating their Information as an Asset” that they would have taken a business-driven approach and created this role at the C-Suite or Board of Directors level.

At the recent MIT Chief Data Officers conference in Cambridge (MA) there were many presentations and forums featuring current CDO’s. The majority of these folks came from Financial Services and Government with a smattering from other sectors. With little exception, they came to the role with the proviso that they “get the organizations’ Data in order” to meet critical reporting or analytical needs. This narrowly defined focus troubled me as it appeared that organizations were abandoning both their Data Management and Information Governance Teams in favor of a ‘Czar” who reported directly to the CIO or Risk/Compliance executive and could somehow drive different outcomes than the ones they were struggling to achieve already. One would have to ask “Is this a knee jerk response to a crisis of confidence in their data and its veracity or a real executive role with the influence to drive a “Culture of Data & Analysis?”. I seriously doubt the latter.

As a practitioner of Organizational Design I am always asked “Why?” in respect to the creation of any new executive role beyond the status quo. Organizations remain very hierarchical in structure and adding an additional component (or layer) to the well-established hierarchy is strongly resisted. Typically, this resistance is in the form of questions such as; “Why are you diluting my portfolio of responsibilities”, or “Why add another layer of bureaucracy with no real power?”. In respect to the CDO role I am at a loss as to how to answer either. Additionally, it appears that the only community who is strongly advocating for this new role is the Technical one, not Business leaders. All of the noise and posturing regarding the role is coming from technical thought leaders and consulting practitioners and not from the C-Suite or the Board. This is very problematic in terms of gaining momentum or consensus as to the value and scope of this role.

In order to distance oneself from the current hype and rhetoric surrounding the role of the Chief Data Officer you must conduct an objective analysis of the requirement for leadership and advocacy to support the concept of “Information as an Asset”. This core belief and all that goes with it is the foundational element of ‘Why do we need a Chief Data Officer”. In my subsequent writings on this subject I would like to build such an Analysis for the readers to evaluate and to use in their own efforts to support an internal discussion on “How can we manage our Information Assets over their lifecycle to create maximum enterprise value with acceptable risks?”

Part 2: Managing Information as an Asset

In the short time since my last posting there have been a spate of Chief Data Officer advocacy articles appearing across the landscape. All of these seem to want to glorify the role of a “data czar” while ignoring the current roles of Data Governance and Data Management leaders, much less acknowledging the uphill struggle to get Business Leaders to assume their accountabilities & responsibilities for the data that they use every day to support reporting, analysis & decision making. As if a single person acting as “a data czar” could somehow overcome these challenges (or provide a proxy for the lack of business leadership)?

In this installment, I would like to address these issues head-on in hopes that it may curtail some of the knee-jerk support of the CDO as a savior for all things information-related.

The essence of the challenge is this; “How do we get business leaders to accept the fact that “Information is an Asset”, and as with other assets in their enterprises, it must be managed accordingly over its useful lifecycle. Asset management is a well-understood discipline in the vast majority of enterprises today so this should not intrinsically be an obstacle. However, when you evaluate the behavior of these same organizations in respect to how they treat their information resources there is clearly a fundamental lack of appreciation and respect at virtually every level. If information was being managed as an asset we would not see such poor quality data, the use of multiple versions or the truth for decision making or major privacy breaches on such a frequent basis. It is clear to me that Business Leaders are not taking the notion of “Information as an Asset” seriously at all. To let this responsibility be relegated to IT is a disservice to the entire organization. IT has neither the resources, nor political clout to do any more than “facilitate” information management policies handed down from above.

Information Management (IM) consists of two basic categories in most enterprises today; Managing “stuff” (data) and Mitigating risks (regulatory compliance). Legions of IT workers focus on the “stuff”, while a more elite group manages the risks. The latter is typically what we call “Data Governance” (the former being Data Management) and is a relatively recent component with a spotty track record to date. In most enterprises Data Governance is still in an early stage of maturity and struggles to maintain relevance. However, we now see a trend where the Chief Data Officer is being positioned as a manager of these functions as well as the “Liaison with the Business”. This liaison role is meant to foster influence and collaboration with all information-driven areas of the business, while enhancing the delivery of information products and services to them. I have seen this model used in so-called Competency Centers with some success.

The creation of a new role called Chief Data Officer does little, if anything to change organizational behavior in respect to accepting the belief that “Information is an Asset”. Furthermore it obscures the fact that Business Leaders are not assuming their natural accountabilities and responsibilities for managing one of their most critical and leveragable assets; their information. Given the current state of the industry it appears that they would rather have IT identify a “new neck to choke” when things go awry with information resources, if there is a bad regulatory report created or even worse when a privacy breach occurs. This cannot remain the status quo. We cannot continue to create new information-related roles to abstract direct accountabilities for information stewardship from its natural owners; the business.

In my next installment I will focus on “How to create a business-lead culture of Information & Analysis within any enterprise.

Part 3: Creating an Organizational culture that treats Information as an Asset

In our Information-driven world one would expect that Executives on both the Business & Operational side of the house to naturally assume ownership (and stewardship) of this critical asset base. It seems only logical when you look at how the Treasury, Distribution, Real Estate, Fixed Assets and other related functions (which manage the lifecycle of Tangible & Intangible Assets) are located in the Organizational Hierarchy.

However, when it comes to Information (and its underlying Data), this logic appears to be out of alignment in most enterprises across the globe (A few notable exceptions might be information-centric enterprises such as Google, Amazon, Twitter, etc.).

How did we get to this logical disconnect one might ask? In my experience it has been the steady decline in the strategic role of IT, along with the acquiescence of their natural leadership responsibilities by Business Executives whom are still immature in their approaches to exploiting information resources & capabilities. These two trends have created a toxic mix of lack of focus/sensitivity combined with living in a world where “data & information are just stuff” and as such are managed to service & cost levels (by IT).

To break this cycle of behavior you must adapt your culture to treat Information as an Asset. This is accomplished by applying Cultural Adoption Methods from the discipline of Organizational Change Management (OCM). It is in essentially a “Top-Down, Bottoms-Up and Middle-Out” approach where all “influencers and owners” are engaged simultaneously. A new belief is established in everyone that this intangible asset that we call Information must be treated as a precious and extremely valuable one. A recognition must exist that the Organization succeeds or fails in large part on the Quality, Richness & Full Exploitation of its information in regards to all aspects of the business model i.e. Customer, Suppliers/Partners, Research & Development, Competitive Differentiation, Services & Products, Brand Success, Legal Mitigation, etc. Only when the entire Organization realizes and embraces the notion that “Information is our most valuable Asset” and that “Each of us has Personal Stewardship Responsibilities” can you realize the full measure of value that is manifest in your information resources.

I have successfully applied these Cultural Adoption techniques in a number of Organizations going back many years now. While simple in concept it can be very challenging to define an approach for each type of Organization that will be successful. Some early activities to help me size up this challenge include; C-Suite evaluations to define “Champions and Enablers”, The measurement of the psyche of the Organization in respect to “Ability to Adapt” and “Levers for Success” and locating hidden pockets of “Information Exploitation” to identify Change Leaders & Success Mechanisms. These evaluations allow me to size up the scope of the challenge, to define the strategy for success and to layout the integrated plan for success. The only Organizational Design component of this entire activity is the establishment/optimization of the appropriate levels of Governance required for guiding the management & full exploitation of all Information Assets over their useful lifecycle. This governance body is essential to separating Oversight (doing the right things) from Operations (doing things right) a key overall requirement. Nowhere is there a requirement for a “data czar” or “uber executive” accountable & responsible for all Data. This single point of failure approach has no place in any Organization that truly believes (and behaves accordingly) the notion that “Information is an Asset”.

The concept of the Chief Data Officer has been fostered by many within the Technology side of the house and completely ignores the central issue that the Business must assume its natural leadership accountability in managing and optimizing all Information Assets over their natural lifecycle. These responsibilities for Stewardship are lead by the business in partnership with Technology and must be embraced by everyone at a personal level in order to succeed. Only then can any Enterprise claim that they “Treat Information as an Asset”.

A 2014 Follow-on Article: “Why you still don’t need a Chief Data Officer”

For those who have followed my writings on the subject of the Chief Data Officer beginning last summer (2013), you know well that I am no advocate of this role. Having endured one wave of hype after another on this subject and being that I just attended the CDO Summit here in London, I felt that it was time for an update.

What I initially believed was a bit of overzealousness in response to new regulatory statutes (BCBS 239 Pillar II) have now become downright cynical. Every Vendor, IT analyst and CDO Wannabe is out beating the Chief Data Officer drum each day in the belief that if you say something loudly and frequently enough then it becomes the truth. To be clear, there is absolutely no justification whatsoever for a Chief Data Officer, much less the 20+ other “Chief Whatever Officers” currently being advocated.

In terms of facts, this is what a number of recent surveys (Gartner, etc.) tell us;

1.- Most CDO’s have been created out of the wreckage of failed Data Governance programs.

2.- The vast majority of CDOs remain in financial services and are a direct result of a knee jerk response to complying with the BCBS239 “data management” requirement.

3.- Virtually all CDO’s are non-executive, reporting 1-3 Tiers below the C-Suite, usually to the CIO. Few sit on the business side at an appropriate point of leverage and oversight.

4.- The typical job description for a Chief Data Officer reads as follows:

“Wanted: Knight in shining armor sitting upon a white horse. Needs to solve all data-related challenges that the CIO, Risk, Audit, Compliance, Legal, etc. have not been able to do for the past 50+ years. Must be a visionary, highly influential and yet operationally focused. The Chief Data Officer is fully accountable for the veracity and provenance of all Regulatory filings, but will have no operational authority. “

I could go on here, but suffice it to say what is being touted by all as critical to the success of Big Data & Analytics is doomed to fail for a variety of reasons.

First and foremost, the CDO’s remit as described in most cases is in total conflict with established guidelines for effective Governance (OECD “Principles of Corporate Governance”, The Turnbull Report “Internal Control: Guidance for Directors on the Combined Code”, The BIS “Enhancing Corporate Governance in Banking Organizations” and ISACA’s “Control Objectives for Information and related Technology (COBIT)). You simply cannot have one leader responsible for both Governance and Operations. It is a total conflict of interest, which cannot be resolved no matter who sits in the CDO seat.

Second and equally critical, is the requirement for Business Leaders to take accountability for all of their Information & Analytics endeavors and to stop looking for someone else to do it on their behalf. For any organization to become an “Analytics-driven Enterprise” it must be have capable and competent leaders in all levels of the business. These leaders must set the tone and direction for Big Data & Analytics and drive the cultural belief that “Information is one of our most critical assets and we are accountable for its stewardship and exploitation”. IT cannot do this no matter what they call the messenger and if we don’t change this dynamic we will fail as an industry to achieve the potential that Analytics, Big Data and our Legacy data have to offer.

In summary, while many of my peers will criticize with my continued resistance to join the chorus of voices advocating for the role of CDO I cannot endorse a failed strategy when the right one continues to stare us in the face. Success with Big Data & Analytics can only come from top down leadership by the Business side of the organization.

Footnotes:

Organizing for Success. For those experienced in Organizational Dynamics and Corporate Governance the notion of a ‘Chief Whatever Officer” is a hard one to support. While being noble in its cause, these “czar-like” roles are counterproductive to the outcomes desired and fly in the face of governance practices and ultimately create chaos and rancor. If they are absolutely necessitated to help bring focus and critical mass to an emerging focus area then they should be designed to “self-expire” in 18-24 months at the outside. Short-term needs cannot outweigh the long-term stability of the organization and its culture.

Why do Data Governance Programs continue to fail so spectacularly? Recent surveys show that many DG Programs have either failed to meet their stated goals and objectives or have receded into the status quo of the past. The principal reasons are directly attributable to; 1.- Being located in and lead by the IT organization.   2.- Being unique and outside of existing Corporate Governance & Risk Management endeavors and 3.- Lack of or waning sponsorship by Business Leadership. The solution to this challenge is not to re-group and create a “data czar”, but to drive the belief that “Information is an Asset” from the business side where all Assets have traditionally been managed and nurtured.

Finally, a January 2015 column focused on “Making 2015 a Year of Data Leadership”.

As the focus of industry hype moves from Big Data to the Internet of Things we have a unique opportunity to turn our attention to one of the underlying disablers of broad success in using data & analytics to their full potential in any Organization; the lack of Top Down Data Leadership. During the past couple of years we have seen a fever pitch in Organizations’ anointing proxies to the status of superheroes in respect to Data & Analytics Officers. While there have been many such appointments, most are now being scrutinized as the widening gulf between the rhetoric and reality becomes more apparent. This effort to create “Chief Whatever Officers” has been foolhardy in my opinion, as it has completely dodges the need for the Board and CEO to become directly accountable for the Organizations management and exploitation of data and their leverage of analytics across the enterprise to create a “culture of evidence-based decision making”. My aim in 2015 is to change this dynamic.

In 2015, I would like to create much more than awareness of this underlying challenge, but to make actionable its solution in what I am calling “The Year of Data Leadership”. In the Year of Data Leadership I would like every CEO and their Board (Public, Private, NGO, Not-for-Profit, etc.) to accept the fact that they (and Not IT) are fully accountable for “all things data and analytics”. I want them to embrace this accountability and make it core to their Strategies and Operational Plans. I am challenging them to step up to this leadership mantle and provide the Organization with a plan of action to put it on a trajectory to becoming a “Predictive Enterprise” within 5 years (2020). This Decision Making transformation would move them from being gut-based decision (relying on experience and anecdotes) making Organization to one where evidence (facts, decision science and the appropriate amount of intuition) guide all decisions at every level.

This is an ambitious undertaking for even the most agile of Organizations, but a necessary one if the competitive advantages of a Predictive Enterprise are ever going to be realized. To accomplish such a Transformation I strongly recommend approaching it as follows;

1.- Immerse the CEO, Board & Senior Executive Team in a series of Boot camps designed to immediately (and measurably) raise their acumen and competencies in the domains of Decision Science & Analytics, for “you cannot lead what you don’t understand”.

2.- Make Data, Information & Analytics Core Competencies in your strategic and operational endeavors. Make then pervasive and break down silos and centers of excellence to make capabilities mainstream and ubiquitous to all aspects of your operational domain. This will require investment in staff development and in the early stages may require shadowing of staff with outside experts, mentors and coaches.

3.- Manifest Cultural Adoption by all members of the Organization of this new strategic paradigm i.e. Becoming a Predictive Enterprise. Organizational Culture is “the shadow of the CEO, Board and Senior Executive Team”. It is found in every corridor and behind every door across the enterprise and is molded from the Top-down. To begin to change a culture requires Top Down Leadership to changes it behavior and modify all cultural norms and activities. The entire Leadership team must engage with the Organization directly (with support by Change professionals) to lead by example in regards to championing the new direction and its virtues.

This three-pronged approach will produce the maximum results in the shortest period of time and requires close coordination, substantial investment of time and resources to succeed. It is truly transformational and should not be a sub-priority to other Enterprise-wide strategic and operational initiatives.

The Nexus of Top-Down Leadership, Cultural Adoption and the enabling Core Competencies of Data, Information & Analytics creates a unique strategic framework for becoming a Predictive Enterprise. All components are required to work in concert to achieve a true transformational outcome within any Organization who wants to fully exploit data & analytics for competitive advantage.

Going Forward:

In my future writings & presentations I will continue to advocate for what I see as the best approach to achieving the goal of becoming a Predictive Enterprise, one where Data Leadership manifests from the Top-down. I am confident that others will join in this call as the False Gods of Data and Fashion Statements fall by the wayside and a more realistic approach is embraced by all.

I encourage everyone to subscribe & read my monthly column in Information Age as well as to continue to follow this this blog for future updates.

RL

 

 

 

In Big Data, Business Analytics, Chief Data Officer, Governance, Information Governance, Information Management, Leadership , , , , , ,
permalink

Conference & Editorial Calendar – October-November 2014

September 26, 2014 — Leave a comment

October & November will be frantic months of activities with a strong focus on Conferences. Check back often for updates and additions. In most cases I will be Tweeting and Blogging live from each conference;

Conferences:

Association of Change Management Professionals (ACMP): “2014 Change Connect Symposium” – October 1-2 – Microsoft Campus Commons (http://www.acmppnwnetwork.org/?page_id=326)

Digital Analytics Association (DAA): “Monster Analytics Mashup” – October 16th – Microsoft Conference Center (http://www.digitalanalyticsassociation.org/calendar_day.asp?date=10/16/2014&event=260#.VCWfF8LF-yM)

Information Age (UK): “Data Leadership 2014” – October 30th – The Grange Tower Bridge Hotel (London) (http://www.dataleadership.co.uk) :

Keynote: “Embracing The Data Leadership Nexus for Strategic Success”

UK Open Data Initiative: “ODI Summit 2014” – November 2-4 – British Film Institute (London) (http://summit.theodi.org/)

Articles:

IBM Big Data Hub: “The Privacy Corner”. “Discrimination and Other Abuses drive the Need for Ethics in Big Data” (http://ibm.co/1sKmkx0)

Information Age (UK): “Transforming into a Predictive Enterprise” (http://www.information-age.com/technology/information-management/123458506/holy-grail-big-data-becoming-predictive-enterprise)

Information Age (UK): “The State of Open Data” (November 15th (URL to be posted at time of publishing)

IBM Big Data Hub: “The Privacy Corner”. “Have we already lost the Privacy battle?” (November – Date TBD)

The Data Leadership Nexus (Blog):

“Reflections on Data Leadership 2014” (November 4th)

“How to Successfully Execute your Transformational Plan for becoming a Predictive Enterprise” (November 15th)

“The Data Leadership Nexus: (Recap)” (Updates throughout the month) (https://infomgmtexec.me/2014/09/16/recap-the-data-leadership-nexus/)

 

In Big Data, Business Analytics, Business Transformation, DGIQ, Governance, Information Governance, Information Management, Leadership, Privacy , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
permalink

(Recap) “The Data Leadership Nexus”

September 16, 2014 — 3 Comments

The Data Leadership Nexus is a path to success when it comes to realizing the numerous business benefits of Big Data and Advanced Analytics which have been extolled by so many in recent times and yet realized by so few. It is the linchpin of your Strategic Plan for building & sustaining “a culture of analytics” to foster evidence-based decisioning, deeper & broader insights, full knowledge exploitation and optimized strategic performance while making these behaviors pervasive across your entire enterprise. In my mind it is the path to realize everything data-related that we have been working on for more than 50 years now in Management Theory, Decision Science and Information Technology.

By definition: The Data Leadership Nexus is the intersection of; Top-Down Executive Leadership, A fully aligned Organizational Culture and the full exploitation of Data, Information, Analytics to create strategic outcomes, sustainable sources of competitive advantage and enterprise value within every organization that wants to become a Predictive Enterprise.

I define a Predictive Enterprise as: “The use of Predictive Capabilities driven by data, information & analytics to; optimize decision making, facilitate strategic & operational outcomes, mitigate risks and to exploit insights across the entire Enterprise”

The Data Leadership Nexus is comprised of these basic components;

  • Top-Down Leadership (by the Senior Executive Team)
  • Data, Information & Analytics
  • Organizational Culture 

Each component was discussed in detail in previous postings. They can be found using the following links;

#: Overview & Introduction:  https://infomgmtexec.me/2014/08/05/overview-the-data-leadership-nexus/

#: The Motivation behind The Data Leadership Nexus: https://infomgmtexec.me/2014/07/25/data-analytics-leadership-missing-in-action/

#: Top-Down Leadership:   https://infomgmtexec.me/2014/08/11/leadership-requirements-in-the-predictive-enterprise/

#: Organizational Culture: https://infomgmtexec.me/2014/08/28/the-role-of-organizational-culture-in-the-predictive-enterprise/

#: Data, Information & Analytics: https://infomgmtexec.me/2014/09/09/data-information-analytics-as-core-competencies-in-the-predictive-enterprise/

#: Additional Background Material: “Transformational Leadership for Big Data & Analytics Success” (Three-part series): 

  1. https://infomgmtexec.me/2014/06/27/transformational-leadership-for-big-data-analytics-success/
  2. https://infomgmtexec.me/2014/07/11/transformational-leadership-for-big-data-analytics-success-part-2-establishing-top-down-accountability/
  3. https://infomgmtexec.me/2014/07/20/transformational-leadership-for-big-data-analytics-success-part-3-organizational-design-cultural-adoption/

In future postings I will discuss; “How to Build & Successfully Execute your Transformational Plan for becoming a Predictive Enterprise using The Data Leadership Nexus as a Strategic Enabler”. 

In Big Data, Business Analytics, Business Transformation, Information Governance, Information Management, Leadership, Privacy , , , , , , , , ,
permalink

The Role of Organizational Culture in the Predictive Enterprise

August 28, 2014 — 2 Comments

The notion of The Data Leadership Nexus has five basic components;

1.- Top-Down Leadership (by the Senior Executive Team)

2.-4.- Data, Information & Analytics

5.- Organizational Culture 

In this posting entitled,“Organizational Culture” I will discuss one of the most widely mis-understood and under appreciated elements in creating a Predictive Enterprise, that of Organizational Culture and the imperative to change it from being data & analytics illiterate to one where information & analysis is used by everyone to drive each decision and to facilitate every strategic & operational outcome.

The Culture of any Enterprise is based on the long-term strategic direction that the organization has undertaken over the course of its history and the collective experiences along the way. It is shaped daily by the actions and activities of the Leadership Team who have guided this journey. Organizational Culture is the shadow of the Chief Executive Officer (and Senior Executive Team) and is found behind every door and felt down every corridor in the Organization. It is the single thread that ties everyone together within any Organization. Given this, Organizational Culture is the most important component of The Data Leadership Nexus that must be leveraged in order to transform an organization into a true Predictive Enterprise.

As one would expect this Cultural Adoption (transformation) must be driven by the Top-Down Leadership of the CEO and his or her Senior Executive Team. We discussed in my last segment on Top-Down Leadership just how essential it is for the entire Executive Team to “walk the talk” in respect to becoming a Predictive Enterprise. This will manifest from their own competencies and acumen in data & analytics and how they position the use of them in every strategic and operational endeavor that the Organization is involved in. Their Leadership comes from these strengths and their lock-step application of the strategic constructs of;

  • “Information as an Asset”
  • “Evidence-based Decisioning”
  • “Information-driven Risk Management”
  • “Competitive Advantage through Advanced Analytics (everywhere)”

Once Top-Down Leadership has set the tone and direction for the “data & analytics way-forward” by their own personal commitments (via OBM goals) and demonstrated actions, then the Organization must address how to “adapt” the Current State Culture into the Future State model. Many Organizations would tend do apply the traditional Change Management (CM) techniques of; Communications, Training & Readiness Preparation and call it a day. In my experience this will not work by itself. Cultural Adoption is not Change Management!

Cultural Adoption requires Engagement, BootStrapping and Practical Application endeavors to augment traditional CM. It requires the Top-Down Leadership Team to directly Engage with the Organization at all levels. This is not a hierarchical exercise, where “orders from the top” can be cascaded down, but a lateral one where these leaders bring their messages directly to the Front Lines of the Organization,  while personally demonstrating to their own subordinates the commitments that they have made to the successful Transformation into a Predictive Enterprise and all that it portends for success. These Engagement efforts must be genuine and felt by all. The entire Top-Down Leadership team must be in sync working in unison towards the common goal and outcome.

In parallel with Engagement, the Organization must BootStrap everyone’s abilities & understandings as to what becoming a Predictive Enterprise entails and how each of them will play a role regardless of job description. Everyone must be on-board with the plan and approach and be actively participating in the pursuit of the transformational outcome via Training, Mentoring, Coaching & Hands-on Instruction. This will create Cultural Adoption momentum that can be sustained through the continuous application of Engagement and bolstered through the daily Practical Application of data & analytics to every decision and pursuit of operational outcomes.

Practical Application is one of the most critical activities because it intersects with Relevance. For any Culture to Adapt there must be strong Leadership, the attainment of Competencies and Understandings as to the Future State Direction, but also Relevance to them personally. Whether a Mature Enterprise or Start-up each member of the Organization must feel a sense of purpose in order to be an active member of the Culture, much less a contributor to the successful outcome of the transformation strategy. It is essential for all levels of Leadership to empower all members of their Organizational Unit to be contributors to the notion of being a Predictive Enterprise. In most cases this will require a complete re-evaluation of roles and responsibilities such that decision making and insights analytics are core to each Information Workers daily activities.

To become a Predictive Enterprise you need committed Top-Down Leadership and a Culture driven by the pursuit of a common strategy & its goals to then fully exploit your rich Data & Information Assets and Deep Analytics Capabilities. In this posting I have endeavored to provide a thin veneer of the requirements and complexities in adapting your Organizational Culture to become a Predictive Enterprise. It is one of the most significant investments in time, energy and resources but an essential one in becoming a Predictive Enterprise.

In my next installment of The Data Leadership Nexus I will explore for my readers the more familiar areas of Data, Information & Analytics, but from what most will regard as a very different perspective than other Thought Leaders.  Look forward to seeing it soon.

RL

 

 

 

In Big Data, Business Analytics, Business Transformation, Information Governance, Information Management, Leadership , , , , , , , , ,
permalink

Business Analytics and the Mid-Market (Part 4 of 4)- “Choosing your Business Analytics Strategic Partner”

February 21, 2012 — Leave a comment

In conjunction with a webinar that I am participating in on 2/29 ( ZD & IBM – “Get More from your Data: How Business Analytics Gives You a Competitive Advantage”), I am  posting  a series of four blogs entitled “Business Analytics and the Mid-Market“.

(To attend my webinar on 2/29, Register at: http://b2b.ziffdavis.com/webcasts/improve-performance-your-data-business-analytics/?tfso=10480 )

This is Final installment (No. 4).in that series; ”

To recap from my previous 3 postings;

  • Business Analytics (BA) is “the use of data & analysis techniques to understand your business in a a way that facilitates better decision making”. BA is “fact-based decision-making in real-time based upon a 360 degree view of the business. It portends to offer the highest potential for competitive advantage of any strategic enabler (much less tactical or operational) available in the business leaders portfolio today, much less the future.
  • To achieve true Competitive Advantage (CA) one must embrace the notion of Business Analytics  in a holistic fashion in order to create “a pervasive culture of analysis and numerical literacy”. The 5 components of a holistic approach are; People, Processes, Technology, Culture & Data
  • To achieve competitive advantage (via differentiation), much less sustain it, Organizations must make Business Analytics a core competency and foster its deep usage across all domains of the business. Business Analytics must be made pervasive across the organization
  • Critical to the successful creation of Competitive Advantage is the role of the Business Analytics Strategy. It should encompass all domains of your business and support the 5 Pillars (People, Processes, Technology, Culture & Data) of a holistic approach to Business Analytics.
  • A successful Business Analytics Strategy (BAS) is one that is fully-aligned and synergistic with the Organizations’ Long-Term Strategy (3-5 years) and companion Near-Term Strategic Goals & Outcomes (1-2 years).
  • The key to developing your Business Analytics Strategy is to find the entry and inflection points in your strategy’s execution where BA can be embedded and used as either a catalyst or an accelerator for success.
  • The value of having an Analytics Partner (AP) in this process is substantial and in the early stages of any organizations’ journey to Analytics Maturity they can make the difference between success and disappointment, much less outright failure.

“Choosing an Analytics Trusted Advisor to support your BA Strategic Planning Process”

At this point we have established that pervasive Business Analytics (BA) can be a game changer for every Organization. To achieve Competitive Advantage (CA) from Business Analytics you need a well defined Strategy that aligns all BA activities and outcomes with the Business Goals & Objectives (BG&O) defined in both the long-term and near-term strategies & tactics of the Organization. This alignment should be across all major domains of the Business/Organization. Fostering and leveraging synergies found in core information assets into Analytical Focus Areas that benefit the entire organization is the cornerstone of such a Business Analytics Strategy.

Developing a BAS requires collaboration and partnership with an Analytics Trusted Advisor in the vast majority of cases. Most organizations in the Mid-Market do not have the depth of personnel or base of applied experience required to create a comprehensive Business Analytics Strategy internally. Staff efforts are mainly focused on Operational Performance and Innovation Activities and not on strategy endeavors, therefore justifying the need for a Trusted Advisor as being paramount to success. Choosing a BA Trusted Advisor is an early step in your Analytics Journey (AJ) and should be done after a thorough and rigorous interview & selection process. There are many Business Intelligence consultancies who claim to be as good at Business Analytics, but one should be wary of such claims. Although the worlds of Information Management (IM), Business Intelligence (BI) and Business Analytics are merging together at many levels, the expertise required to develop a successful Business Analytics Strategy  is limited to a small community of Consultancies and Suppliers. In most cases you will have to take a long-term view of the partner whom you choose in the context of not only helping you to develop your BA Strategy, but ultimately helping you to acquire & deploy the necessary solutions & capabilities required to insure that the strategic outcomes successfully achieved. The Business Analytics Trusted Advisor will provide support in developing, testing and optimizing early Analytical Models & Data Sets. All of these activities will be complimented with an effective plan & activity set for Change Management & Cultural Adoption for your Organization. A holistic approach to your overall Business Analytics Strategy and its successful execution requires a long-term view of achieving success and the support of Trusted Advisor whom can provide all of these types of services to the levels required.

Choosing your Analytics Trusted Advisor does not need to be an arduous process. It could be as simple as engaging with an existing partner or conducting a quick survey of the leaders in the Business Analytics space who have focus areas on your type of business (Mid-Market) and industry segment (Service Providers, Software/Technology, Retail, etc.). The market leaders will all have consulting teams & solution sets optimized for the specifics of your size & type, as well as having a deep portfolio of  critical enablers for Business Analytics success e.g Strategy Templates, Specific Analytics Solution sets (Customer, Finance, Corporate Performance, etc.), Change Management collateral, Information Governance guidelines, etc. All of these elements will be required over the long haul as you move from Strategy to Execution t0 Outcomes. Additionally, your BA Trusted Advisor will bring an overall discipline to the overall approach by helping you to focus on early quick wins in your Analytics Journey, as you change your culture to being an Analytics-Driven one over time. The depth and maturity of your BA Trusted Advisors appraoch to achieving such outcomes while reducing risk to a manageable level is a Critical Success Factor that every organization should look from in their partner(s).

In the end, each Organization must define the criteria and process for choosing and engaging with an Analytics Trusted Advisor. Going it alone is fraught with risks and should only be advocated if the Organization believes that it has the depth of experience and know-how to achieve Analytics Success on their own. In choosing your Advisor one must look for a leader who has made/demonstrated a commitment to supporting Organizations of your size, ambitions and market focus. Only a handful of Consultancies/Suppliers in the marketplace rise to this level of distinction.

For more information on one such Trusted Advisor in the market (IBM), please check out the following links;

http://www-01.ibm.com/software/analytics/excellence-center/

http://www-935.ibm.com/services/us/gbs/bao/

http://www-935.ibm.com/services/us/gbs/thoughtleadership/ibv-embedding-analytics.html

In Business Analytics , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
permalink