Category: Building High Performance Teams

Building a Technology Team in an Era of Talent Scarcity

    Jim D

The technology labor force in the US has been in full employment (4% or less) for 22 of the past 30 years, and has been below 2% unemployment the last 3 years. With US GDP growth now above 3%, the overall labor market has become very tight, and for technology professionals even more so. This tight technology labor market fin the US is also reflected in much of Europe and parts of Asia. In Copenhagen, one of the key locations we source talent for Danske Bank, it has been estimated there are as many as 30,000 unfilled tech jobs in the greater Copenhagen area alone. Without an adequate supply of new skilled workers — not just technology, but many types of skilled workers — we are seeing companies lower their forecasts for growth. This has also reduced productivity and wages gains in many countries with lower levels of available skilled workers. From aircraft workers in Canada to skilled manufacturing workers in Germany to construction workers in the US, the talent deficit has broaden and deepened across many sectors and in many geographies. And this talent shortage will be with us for a while. Even if the economy cools off in the next few years, the large number of retiring baby boomers will make it difficult to replace all of the required skilled workers employed today with new graduates. And in IT, the shortage appears to be particularly acute.

So how should the technology leaders approach building or maintaining their teams in such a tight labor market? Nearly every organization that has a good reputation in the market will be recruited heavily, so even if you have the talent now, it will be difficult to hold on to all of your staff. Thus, you must plan to not only be able to fill your additions, but must counter the likely attrition that will also occur.

The only sustainable way to achieve this is to build your team. If you try to buy your team, where you go out to the market repeatedly to recruit both senior and mid-level talent, it will be expensive. And even with the best recruiting process you will have misses. When you recruit senior talent, based on the top grading assessment, it can result in 1 in 4 duds. And these are expensive misses, as the senior mis-hires result in further mis-hires or greater attrition in their division, or poor subsequent technical decisions. It is far better to be highly selective on which positions to recruit external, and where necessary, try to leverage talent that has been previously successful in similar situations in their career, and utilize a filtering process like topgrading. Thus, good leaders should minimize the buying of talent – use external recruiting only for critical position or skill gaps – and focus your efforts on recruiting outstanding junior talent and then building and growing your team.

To build a high performance technology team takes time and disciplined effort by the entire leadership team. You must start from the ground up. Presumably, you have located your primary technology sites where there are good technical universities nearby. The local universities are where you start your pipeline of talent. Your senior managers and recruiting team should be fully engaged with the local universities: sponsoring programs or projects, providing seminars, and just being active and providing a link to your firm. More importantly, invest in a student worker or intern program that is both wide and meaningful. Bring onboard students to your firm to do real and meaningful work that enables them to contribute and grow as well as to understand the technology work done at your firm. If you provide these opportunities and ensure active and effective interaction between the students and your senior engineers and managers, then the students will gain valuable skills and insights and become positive supporters of your employer reputation. When it comes time for recruiting the graduates, all of them will be much more familiar with your firm and what it offers, and those that were student workers will likely be highly inclined to join your team. And even better, you will know from experience which students are the best fit for your team.

In addition to building the pipeline of junior talent from the local universities, you must filter and develop the talent on your current team. To bring structure and clarity to staff development, I strongly recommend defining and implementing a career path program. A career path program maps the skills and competencies for each job position within a job family across your technology organization. From network engineering to project management to business analysis to software development, each job family is defined from its junior levels to its most senior levels, showing the additional skills, experience, and competencies required at each level. Further, certifications or demonstrated levels of excellence are noted for positions. Typical career paths are mapped through these job positions to show what an individual can both expect and accomplish in their career. This clarity enables your staff to understand what their next steps are, as well as to emphasize the importance of the development and acquiring of new skills and capabilities. And while a career path program requires an upfront investment in its definition, it pays back dividends in terms of employee satisfaction and improved staff development. Once you have the competencies, skills, or certifications defined, then you must work with local universities, training contractors and your senior staff to provide the content and curriculum in accessible formats so your team can drive their own development. And you must provide the budget and encouragement for your staff to take the initiative and accelerate their professional development.

With the foundational elements of a pipeline and staff development in place, you will have plentiful rising and ready junior staff. But, they must be able to step into their next spot up. To enable a free flow, mid-level positions must be vacated due to growth and promotion. If you have not ensured that the vast majority of the positions on your team are growth positions, that is requiring your staff to develop and have the potential for the next level, then those positions can become ‘blockers’. Having a large number of ‘blockers’ (staff that perform adequately but are not capable of moving to the next level) results in a stagnated and frustrated junior pool of talent underneath. This ready pool of talent will leave your organization if they do not see adequate opportunity when they acquire valuable additional skills that can get them to the next level in the market. This is often a major flaw in legacy organizations, which have maintained too many personnel who have key knowledge but not strong skills or potential. Your leaders must identify such situations and either encourage the blockers to become higher performing, or remove them. If you are not sure how best to carry out this ‘pruning’ or improvement – read the best practice page to gain the methods. I strongly recommend there should be ‘no escalators, only stairs’ in your organization. That is to say, one must work and gain skills and competencies to move up in the organization (i.e., take the stairs) and just because someone has been in the organization for an extended period of time, one is not promoted based on length of service (i.e., there are no escalators) but instead only on merit and capability. Rewarding staff development and performance with opportunity and promotion will further encourage your team to take their development responsibility seriously and build their capabilities.

This ‘build’ approach should be used at each of your strategic locations for your IT staff — and you should leverage the overall Global Team approach explained here on our reference page for the entire IT organization.

Given the current environment, it is likely that some of your best engineers or leaders will gain opportunities elsewhere. This is to be expected, especially if you have a reputation for being a strong technology shop. Of course, you should work where possible to minimize such losses, but you will still have losses. So it is better to prepare for such attrition, by developing a strong bench that is ready to step in or step up, into the newly vacant positions. Each of your leaders should understand the development of a bench for the key positions in their organization is a critical and ongoing responsibility. With a strong pipeline and development program in place, you will have a good flow of up and coming talent that can then step into these roles and allow your shop to keep humming. In sum, in a tight labor market, the best technology leaders build their teams with strong pipelines to enable them to obtain enough talent to get the work done, to have the mid and senior expertise to do key technology work and apply best practices, and to have a bench ready to step up when there is attrition.

What experience have you had as a leader with building teams? What has worked best, build or buy?

Best, Jim Ditmore

IT Resolutions for 2015

    Jim D

While there is still one bowl game left to be played and confetti to clean up, 2014 is now done and leaves a mixed IT legacy.  After 2013’s issues with the NSA leaks, the Healthcare.gov mishaps, and the 40 million credit identities stolen from Target, 2014 did not turn out much better on security and availability. Home Depot, eBay, JPMC all had major incidents in the ‘year of the hacks‘. Add to that the celebrity photo leaks from the Apple hacks. Add to that of course the Sony uber-hack and their playstation service failure at Christmas. All in all, 2014 was quite a dismal year for IT security. On the positive side, we saw continued advances in smart technology, from phones to cars. Robots and drones are seeing major reductions in price while leapfrogging in usability and capability. So, technology’s potential seems brighter than ever, yet we still underachieve in our ability to prevent its mis-use. Now 2015 is upon us and I have compiled some IT resolutions that should contribute to greater success for IT shops in the coming year!

The first IT resolution is …. security, security, security. While corporate IT security has improved in the past several years, we are still well behind the hackers. The many breaches of 2014 demonstrate these shortcomings. Security is one of the fastest growing portions of IT (the number 2 focus item behind data analytics), but much more needs to be done though most of the crucial work is just basic, diligent execution of proper security practices. Many of the breaches took advantage of well-known vulnerabilities either at the company breached or one of its suppliers. For example, lack of current server patching was a frequent primary root cause on hacks in 2014.  And given the major economic hits of the Sony and Target breaches, these events are no longer speed bumps but instead threaten a company’s reputation and viability. Make the case now to your senior business management to double down your information security investment and not show up on the 2015 list of hacks. Not sure where to start?  Here’s a good checklist on security best practices that is still current and if fully applied would have prevented the majority of the public breaches in 2014.

Next is to explore and begin to leverage real-time decisioning. It’s more than big data — it is where you use all the information about the customer and trends to make the best decision for them (and your company) while they are transacting. It is taking the logic for ‘recommendations of what other people bought’ and applying data analytics to many kinds of business rules and choices. For example, use all the data and hidden patterns to better and more easily qualify a customer for a home loan — rather than asking them for a surfeit of documents and proofs. And offer them optimal pricing on the loan most suited for them — again determined by the data analytics. In the end, business policies will move from being almost static where changes occurs slowly, to where business policies are determined in real-time, by the data patterns. It is critical in almost every industry to understand and begin mastery of this technology.

Be on the front edge of the flash revolution in the enterprise. 2015 will be the year of flash. Already many IT shops are using hybrid flash disk technologies. With the many offerings on the market and 2nd generation releases by mainstream storage vendors like EMC, IT shops should look to leverage flash for their most performance-bound workloads. The performance improvements with flash can be remarkable. And the 90% savings on environmentals in your data center is icing on the cake. Flash, factoring in de-duplication, is comparable in cost to disk storage today. By late 2015, it could be significantly less.

If you haven’t already, go mobile, from the ground up. Mobile is the primary way most consumers interface with companies today. And with better phones and data networks, this will only increase. But don’t rely on a ‘mobilized’ version of your internet site. Make sure you tuning your customer interface for their mode of interaction. Nothing is more cumbersome to a consumer than trying to enter data from a phone into an internet form designed for PC. Yes, its doable, but nowhere near the experience you can deliver with a native app. Go mobile, go native.

Bring new talent into the IT labor force. By 2020, the Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates there will be another 1.4 million IT jobs in the US — and not nearly enough computer science graduates to fill them. Companies big and small should be looking to hire both new graduates in the field AND encourage more to look to computers for their career. In the 1970s and 1980s, before there were formal computer science programs at universities, many outstanding computer scientists received their degrees in music, biology, languages, or teaching. We need another wave of converts for us to have the skilled teams required for the demands of the next decade. As IT leaders, let’s make sure we contribute to our field and help bring along the next generation.

What are your 2015 IT resolutions? Let us know what should be on the list!

Best, and have a great New Year!

Jim

 

Moving from Offshoring to Global Service Centers II

    Jim D

As we covered in our first post on this topic, since the mid-90s, companies have used offshoring to achieve cost and capacity advantages in IT. Offshoring was a favored option to address Y2K issues and has continued to expand at a steady rate throughout the past twenty years. But many companies still approach offshoring as  ‘out-tasking’ and fail to leverage the many advantages of a truly global and high performance work force.

With out-tasking, companies take a limited set of functions or ‘tasks’ and move these to the offshore team. They often achieve initial economic advantage through labor arbitrage and perhaps some improvement in quality as the tasks are documented and  standardized in order to make it easier to transition the work to the new location. This constitutes the first level of a global team: offshore service provider. But larger benefits around are often lost and only select organizations have matured the model to its highest performance level as ‘global service centers’.

So, how do you achieve high performance global service centers instead of suboptimal offshore service providers? As discussed previously, you must establish the right ‘global footprint’ for your organization. Here we will cover the second half of getting to global service centers:  implementing a ‘global team’ model. Combined with the right footprint, you will be able to achieve global service centers and enable competitive advantage.

Global team elements include:

  • consistent global goals and vision across global sites with commensurate rewards and recognition by site
  • a matrix team structure that enables both integrated processes and local and global leadership and controls
  • clarity on roles based on functional responsibility and strategic competence rather than geographic location
  • the opportunity for growth globally from a junior position to a senior leader
  • close partnership with local universities and key suppliers at each strategic location

To understand the variation in performance for the different structures, first consider the effectiveness of your entire team – across the globe – on several dimensions:

  • level of competence (skill, experience)
  • productivity, ability to improve current work
  • ownership and engagement
  • customization and innovation contributions
  • source of future leaders

For an offshore service provider, where work has been out-tasked to a particular site, the team can provide similar or in some cases, better levels of competence. Because of the lower cost in the offshore location, if there is adequate skilled labour, the offshore service provider can more easily acquire such skill and experience within a given budget. A recognizable global brand helps with this talent acquisition. But since only tasks are sent to the center, productivity and continuous improvement can only be applied to the portions of the process within the center. Requirements, design, and other early stage activities are often left primarily to the ‘home office’ with little ability for the offshore center to influence. Further, the process standards and ownership typically remain at home office as well, even though most implementation may be done at the offshore service provider. This creates a further gap where implications of new standards or home office process ‘improvements’ must be borne by the offshore service provider even if the theory does not work well in actual practice. And since implementation and customer interfaces are often limited as well, the offshore service provider receives little real feedback, furthering constraining the improvement cycle.

For the offshore service provider,  the ability to improve processes and productivity is limited to local optimization only, and capabilities are often at the whims of poor decisions from a distant home office. More comprehensive productivity and process improvements can be achieved by devolving competency authority to the primary team executing the work. So, if most testing is done in India, then the testing process ownership and testing best practices responsibility should reside in India. By shifting process ownership closer to the primary team, there will be a natural interchange and flow of ideas and feedback that will result in better improvements, better ownership of the process, and better results. The process can and should still be consistent globally, the primary competency ownership just resides at its primary practice location.  This will result in a highly competent team striving to be among the best in the world. Even better, the best test administrators can now aspire to become test best practice experts and see a longer career path at the offshore location. Their productivity and knowledge levels will improve significantly. These improvements will reduce attrition and increase employee engagement in the test team, not just in India but globally. In essence, by moving from proper task placement to proper competency placement, you enable both the offshore site and the home sites to perform better on both team skill and experience, as well as team productivity and process improvement.

Proper competency placement begins the movement of your sites from offshore service providers to global service excellence. Couple competency placement with transparent reporting on the key metrics for the selected competencies (e.g., all test teams, across the globe, should report based on best in class operational metrics) and drive improvement cycles (local and global) based on findings from the metrics. Full execution of these three adjustments will enable you to achieve sustained productivity improvements of 10 to 30% and lower attrition rates (of your best staff) by  20 to 40%.

It is important to understand that pairing competency leadership with primary execution is required in IT disciplines much more so than other fields due to the rapid fluidity and advance of technology practices, the frequent need to engage multiple levels of the same expertise to resource and complete projects, and the ambiguity and lack of clear industry standards in many IT engineering areas. In many other industries (manufacturing, chemicals, petroleum), stratification between engineering design and implementation is far more rigorous and possible given the standardization of roles and slower pace of change. Thus, organizations can operate far closer to optimum even with task offshoring that is just not possible in the IT space over any sustained time frame.

To move beyond global competency excellence, the structures around functions (the entire processes, teams and leadership that deliver a service) must be optimized and aligned. First and foremost, goals and agenda must be set consistently across the globe for all sites. There can be no sub agendas where offshore sites focus only on meeting there SLAs or capturing a profit, instead the goals must be the appropriate IT goals globally. (Obviously, for tax implications, certain revenue and profit overheads will be achieved but that is an administrative process not an IT goal. )

Functional optimization is achieved by integrating the functional management across the globe where it becomes the primary management structure. Site and resource leadership is secondary to the functional management structure. It is important to maintain such site leadership to meet regulatory and corporate requirements as well as provide local guidance, but the goals, plans, initiatives, and even day-to-day activities flow through a natural functional leadership structure. There is of course a matrix management approach where often the direct line for reporting and legal purposes is the site management, but the core work is directed via the functional leadership. Most large international companies have mastered this matrix management approach and staff and management understand how to properly work within such a setup.

It is worth noting that within any large services corporation ‘functional’ management will reign supreme over ‘site’ management. For example, in a debate deciding what are the critical projects to be tackled by the IT development team, it is the functional leaders working closely with the global business units that will define the priorities and make the decisions. And if the organization has a site-led offshore development shop, they will find out about the resources required long after the decisions are made (and be required to simply fulfill the task). Site management is simply viewed as not having worthy knowledge or authority to participate in any major debate. Thus if you have you offshore centers singularly aligned to site leadership all the way up the corporate chain, the ability to influence or participate in corporate decisions is minimal. However, if you have matrixed the structure to include a primary functional reporting mechanism, then the offshore team will have some level of representation. This increases particularly as manager and senior managers populate the offshore site and are enable functional control back into home offices or other sites. Thus the testing team, as discussed earlier, if it is primarily located in India, would have not just responsibility for the competency and process direction and goals but also would have the global test senior leader at its site who would have test teams back at the home office and other sites. This structure enables functional guidance and leadership from a position of strength. Now, priorities, goals, initiatives, functional direction can flow smoothly from around the globe to best inform the functional direction. Staff in offshore locations now feel committed to the function resulting in far more energy and innovation arising from these sites. The corporation now benefits from having a much broader pool of strong candidates for leadership positions. And not just more diverse candidates, but candidates who understand a global operating model and comfortable reaching across time zones and cultures. Just what is needed to compete globally in the business. The chart below represents this transition from task to competency to function optimization.

Global Team ProgressionIf you combine the functional optimization with a highly competitive site structure, you can typically organize key function in 2 or 3 locations where global functional leadership will reside. This then adds time of day and business continuity advantages. By having the same function at a minimum of two sites, then even if one site is down the other can operate. Or IT work can be started at one site and handed off at the end of the day at the next site that is just beginning their day (in fact most world class IT command centers operate this way). Thus no one ever works the night shift. And time to market can be greatly improved by leveraging such time advantages.

While it is understandably complex that you are optimizing across many variables (site location, contractor and skill mix, location cost, functional placement, competency placement, talent and skill availability), IT teams that can achieve a global team model and put in place global service centers reap substantial benefits in cost, quality, innovation, and time to market.

To properly weigh these factors I recommend a workforce plan approach where each each function or sub function maps out their staff and leaders across site, contractor/staff mix, and seniority mix. Lay out the target to optimize across all key variables (cost, capability, quality, business continuity and so on) and then construct a quarterly trajectory of the function composition from current state until it can achieve the target. Balance for critical mass, leadership, and likely talent sources. Now you have the draft plan of what moves and transactions must be made to meet your target. Every staff transaction (hires, rotations, training, layoffs, etc) going forward should be weighed against whether it meshes with the workforce plan trajectory or not. Substantial progress to an optimized global team can then be made by leveraging a rising tide of accumulated transactions executed in a strategic manner. These plans must be accompanied or even introduced by an overall vision of the global team and reinforcement of the goals and principles required to enable such an operating model. But once laid, you and your organization can expect to achieve far better capabilities and results than just dispersing tasks and activities around the world.

In today’s global competition, this global team approach is absolutely key for competitive advantage and essential for competitive parity if you are or aspire to be a top international company. It would be great to hear of your perspectives and any feedback on how you or your company been either successful (or unsuccessful) at achieving a global team.

I will add a subsequent reference page with Workforce Plan templates that can be leveraged by teams wishing to start this journey.

Best, Jim Ditmore

Moving from Offshoring to Global Shared Service Centers

    Jim D
My apologies for the delay in my post. It has been a busy few months and it has taken an extended time since there is quite a bit I wish to cover in the global shared service center model. Since my NCAA bracket has completely tanked, I am out of excuses to not complete the writing, so here is the first post with at least one to follow. 

Since the mid-90s, companies have used offshoring to achieve cost and capacity advantages in IT. Offshoring was a favored option to address Y2K issues and has continued to expand at a steady rate throughout the past twenty years. But many companies still approach offshoring as  ‘out-tasking’ and fail to leverage the many advantages of a truly global and high performance work force.

With out-tasking, companies take a limited set of functions or ‘tasks’ and move these to the offshore team. They often achieve initial economic advantage through labor arbitrage and perhaps some improvement in quality as the tasks are documented and  standardized in order to make it easier to transition the work to the new location. This constitutes the first level of a global team: offshore service provider. But larger benefits around are often lost and typically include:

  • further ongoing process improvement,
  • better time to market,
  • wider service times or ‘follow the sun’,
  • and leverage of critical innovation or leadership capabilities of the offshore team.

In fact, the work often stagnates at whatever state it was in when it was transitioned with little impetus for further improvement. And because lower level tasks are often the work that is shifted offshore and higher level design work remains in the home country, key decisions on design or direction can often take an extended period – actually lengthening time to market. In fact, design or direction decisions often become arbitrary or disconnected because the groups – one in home office, the other in the offshore location – retain significant divides (time of day, perspective, knowledge of the work, understanding of the corporate strategy, etc). At its extreme, the home office becomes the ivory tower and the offshore teams become serf task executors and administrators. Ownership, engagement, initiative and improvement energies are usually lost in these arrangements. And it can be further exacerbated by having contractors at the offshore location, who have a commercial interest in maintaining the status quo (and thus revenue) and who are viewed as with less regard by the home country staff. Any changes required are used to increase contractor revenues and margins. These shortcomings erase many of the economic advantages of offshoring over time and further impact the competitiveness of the company in areas such as agility, quality, and leadership development.

A far better way to approach your workforce is to leverage a ‘global footprint and a global team’. And this approach is absolutely key for competitive advantage and essential for competitive parity if you are an international company. There are multiple elements of the ‘global footprint and team’ approach, that when effectively orchestrated by IT leadership, can achieve far better results than any other structure. By leveraging high performance global approach, you can move from an offshore service provider to a shared service excellence center and, ultimately to a global service leadership center.

The key elements of a global team approach can be grouped into two areas: high performance global footprint and high performance team. The global footprint elements are:

  • well-selected strategic sites, each with adequate critical mass, strong labor pools and higher education sources
  • proper positioning to meet time-of-day and improved skill and cost mix
  • knowledge and leverage of distinct regional advantages to obtain better customer interface, diverse inputs and designs, or unique skills
  • proper consolidation and segmentation of functions across sites to achieve optimum cost and capability mixes

Global team elements include:

  • consistent global goals and vision across global sites with commensurate rewards and recognition by site
  • a team structure that enables both integrated processes and local and global controls
  • the opportunity for growth globally from a junior position to a senior leader
  • close partnership with local universities and key suppliers at each strategic location
  • opportunity for leadership at all locations

Let’s tackle global footprint today and in a follow on post I will cover global team. First and foremost is selecting the right sites for your company. Your current staff total size and locations will obviously factor heavily into your ultimate site mix. Assess your current sites using the following criteria:

  • Do they have critical mass (typically at least 300 engineers or operations personnel, preferably 500+) that will make the site efficient, productive and enable staff growth?
  • Is the site located where IT talent can be easily sourced? Are there good universities nearby to partner with? Is there a reasonable Are there business units co-located or customers nearby?
  • Is the site in a low, medium, or high cost location?
  • What is the shift (time zone) of the location?

Once you have classified your current sites with these criteria, you can then assess the gaps. Do you have sites in low-cost locations with strong engineering talent (e.g. India, Eastern Europe)? Do you have medium cost locations (e.g., Ireland or 2nd tier cities in the US midwest)? Do you have too many small sites (e.g., under 100 personnel)? Do you have sites close to key business units or customers? Are no sites located in 3rd shift zones? Remember that your sites are more about the cities they are located in than the countries. A second tier city in India or a first or second tier city in Eastern Europe can often be your best site location because of improved talent acquisition and lower attrition than 1st tier locations in your country or in India.

It is often best to locate your service center where there are strong engineering and business universities nearby that will provide an influx of entry level staff eager to learn and develop. Given staff will be the primary cost factor in your service, ensure you locate in lower cost areas that have good language skills, access to the engineering universities, and appropriate time zones. For example, if you are in Europe, you should look to have one or two consolidated sites located just outside 2nd tier cities with strong universities. For example, do not locate in Paris or London, instead base your service desk either in or just outside Manchester or Budapest or Vilnius. This will enable you to tap into a lower cost yet high quality labor market that also is likely to provide more part-time workers that will help you solve peak call periods. You can use a similar approach in the US or Asia.

A highly competitive site structure enables you to meet a global optimal cost and capability mix as well. At the most mature global teams in very large companies, we drove for a 20/40/40 cost mix (20% high cost, 40% medium and 40% low cost) where each site is in a strong engineering location. Where possible, we also co-located with key business units. Drive to the optimal mix by selecting 3, 4, or 5 strategic sites that meet the mix target and that will also give you the greatest spread of shift coverage.  Once you have located your sites correctly, you must then of course drive to have effective recruiting, training, and management of the site to achieve outstanding service. Remember also that you must properly consolidate functions to these strategic sites.  Your key functions must be consolidated to 2 or 3 of the sites – you cannot run a successful function where there are multiple small units scattered around your corporate footprint. You will be unable to invest in the needed technology and provide an adequate career path to attract the right staff if it is highly dispersed.

You can easily construct a matrix and assess your current sites against these criteria. Remember these sites are likely the most important investments your company will make. If you have poor portfolio of sites, with inadequate labor resources or effective talent pipelines or other issues, it will impact your company’s ability to attract and retain it’s most important asset to achieve competitive success. It may take substantial investment and an extended period of time, but achieving an optimal global site and global team will provide lasting competitive advantage.

I will cover the global team aspects in my next post along with the key factors in moving from a offshore service provider to shared service excellence to shared service leadership.

It would be great to hear of your perspectives and any feedback on how you or your company been either successful (or unsuccessful) at achieving a global team.

Best, Jim Ditmore

Using Organizational Best Practices to Handle Cloud and New Technologies

    Jim D

I have extended and updated this post which was first published in InformationWeek in March, 2013. I think it is a very salient and pragmatic organizational method for IT success. I look forward to your feedback! Best, Jim

IT organizations are challenged to keep up with the latest wave of cloud, mobile and big data technologies, which are outside the traditional areas of staff expertise. Some industry pundits recommend bringing on more technology “generalists,” since cloud services in particular can call on multiple areas of expertise (storage, server, networking). Or they recommend employing IT “service managers” to bundle up infrastructure components and provide service offerings.

But such organizational changes can reduce your team’s expertise and accountability and make it more difficult to deliver services. So how do you grow your organization’s expertise to handle new technologies? At the same time, how do you organize to deliver business demands for more product innovation and faster delivery yet still ensure efficiency, high quality and security?

Rather than acquire generalists and add another layer of cost and decision making to your infrastructure team, consider the following:

Cloud computing. Assign architects or lead engineers to focus on software-as-a-service and infrastructure-as-a-service, ensuring that you have robust estimating and costing models and solid implementation and operational templates. Establish a cloud roadmap that leverages SaaS and IaaS, ensuring that you don’t overreach and end up balkanizing your data center.

For appliances and private cloud, given their multiple component technologies, let your best component engineers learn adjacent fields. Build multi-disciplinary teams to design and implement these offerings. Above all, though, don’t water down the engineering capacity of your team by selecting generalists who lack depth in a component field. For decades, IT has built complex systems with multiple components by leveraging multi-faceted teams of experts, and cloud is no different.

Where to use ‘service managers’. A frequent flaw in organizations is to employ ‘service managers’ who group multiple infrastructure components (e.g. storage, servers, data centers, etc) into a ‘product’ (e.g. ‘hosting service’) and provide direction and interface for this product. This is an entirely artificial layer that then removes accountability from the component teams and often makes poor ‘product’ decision because of limited knowledge and depth. In the end IT does not deliver ‘hosting services’; IT delivers systems that meet business functions (e.g., for banking, teller or branch functions, ATMs; or for insurance, claims reporting or policy quote or issue). These business functions are the true IT services and are where you should apply a service manager role. Here, a service manager can ensure end-to-end integration and quality, drive better overall transaction performance and reliability, and provide deep expertise on system connections and SLAs and business needs back across the application and infrastructure component teams. And because it is directly attached to the business functions to be done, it will yield high value. These service managers will be invaluable for both new development and enhancement work as well as assisting during production issues.

Mobile. If mobile isn’t already the most critical interface for your company, it will be in three to five years. So don’t treat mobile as an afterthought, to be adapted from traditional interfaces. And don’t outsource this capability, as mobile will be pervasive in everything you build.

Build a mobile competency center that includes development, user experience and standards expertise. Then fan out that expertise to all of your development teams, while maintaining the core mobile group to assist with the most difficult efforts. And of course, continue with a central architecture and control of the overall user experience. A consistent mobile look, feel and flow is essentially your company’s brand, invaluable in interacting with customers.

Big data. There are two key aspects of this technology wave: the data (and traditional analytic uses) and real-time data “decisioning,” similar to IBM’s Watson. You can handle the data analytics as an extension of your traditional data warehousing (though on steroids). However, real-time decisioning has the potential to dramatically alter how your organization specifies and encodes business rules.

Consider the possibility that 30% to 50% of all business logic traditionally encoded in 3 or 4 generation programming languages instead becomes decisioned in real time. This capability will require new development and business analyst skills. For now, cultivate a central team with these skills. As you pilot and determine how to more broadly leverage real-time data decisioning, decide how to seed your broader development teams with these capabilities. In the longer run, I believe it will be critical to have these skills as an inherent portion of each development team.

Competing Demands. Overall, IT organizations must meet several competing demands: Work with business partners to deliver competitive advantage; do so quickly in order to respond to (and anticipate) market demands; and provide efficient, consistent quality while protecting the company’s intellectual property, data and customers. In essence, there are business and market drivers that value speed, business knowledge and closeness at a reasonable cost and risk drivers that value efficiency, quality, security and consistency.

Therefore, we must design an IT organization and systems approach that meets both sets of drivers and accommodates business organizational change. As opposed to organizing around one set of drivers or the other, the best solution is to organize IT as a hybrid organization to deliver both sets of capabilities.

Typically, the functions that should be consolidated and organized centrally to deliver scale, efficiency and quality are infrastructure (especially networks, data centers, servers and storage), IT operations, information security, service desks and anything else that should be run as a utility for the company. The functions to be aligned and organized along business lines to promote agility and innovation are application development (including Web and mature mobile development), data marts and business intelligence.

Some functions, such as database, middleware, testing and project management, can be organized in either mode. But if they aren’t centralized, they’ll require a council to ensure consistent processes, tools, measures and templates.

For services becoming a commodity, or where there’s a critical advantage to having one solution (e.g., one view of the customer for the entire company), it’s best to have a single team or utility that’s responsible (along with a corresponding single senior business sponsor). Where you’re looking to improve speed to market or market knowledge, organize into smaller IT teams closer to the business. The diagram below gives a graphical view of the hybrid organization.

The IT Hybrid Model diagram
With this approach, your IT shop will be able to deliver the best of both worlds. And you can then weave in the new skills and teams required to deliver the latest technologies such as cloud and mobile. You can read more about this hybrid model in our best practice reference page.

Which IT organizational approaches or variations have you seen work best? How are you accommodating new technologies and skills within your teams? Please weigh in with a comment below.

Best, Jim Ditmore

Both Sides of the Staffing Coin: Building a High Performance Team -and- Building a Great IT Career

    Jim D

I find it remarkable that despite the slow recovery the IT job market remains very tight. This poses significant hurdles for IT managers looking to add talent. In the post below, I cover how to build a great team and team into good seams of talent.  I think this will be a significant issue for IT managers for the next three to four years – finding and growing talent to enable them to build high performance teams.

And for IT staffers, I have mapped out seasoned advice on how to build your capabilities and experience to enable you to have a great career in IT. Improving IT staff skills and capabilities is of keen interest not to just the staff, but also to IT management so that their team is much more productive and capable. And on a final note, I would suggest that anyone who is in the IT field should consider reaching out to high schoolers and college students and encourage them to consider a career in IT. Currently, in the US, there are fewer IT graduates each year than IT jobs that open. And this gap is expected to widen in the coming years. So IT will continue to be a good field for employees, and IT leaders will need to encourage others to join in so we can meet the expected staffing needs.

Please do check out both sides of the coin, and I look forward to your perspectives. Note that I did publish variants on these posts in InformationWeek over the past few months.

Best, Jim Ditmore

Building a High Performance Team Despite 4% IT Unemployment

Despite a national unemployment rate of more than 8%,  the overall IT unemployment rate is at a much lower 4% or less. Further, the unemployment rates for IT specialties such as networking, IT security or data base are even lower — at 1% or less. This makes finding capable IT staff difficult and is compounded because IT professionals are less likely to take new opportunities (turnover rates are much less than average over the past 10 years).  Unfortunately these tough IT staffing conditions are likely to continue and perhaps be exacerbated if the recovery actually picks up pace. With such a tight IT job market, how do you build or sustain your high performance IT team?

I recommend several tactics to incorporate into your current staffing approach that should allow you to improve your current team and acquire the additional talent needed for your business to compete. Let’s focus first on acquiring talent. In a tight market you must always be present to enable you to acquire the talent when they first consider looking for a position. You must move to a ‘persistent’ recruiting mode. If your group is still only opening positions after someone leaves or after a clear funding approval is granted, you are late to the game. Given the extended recruiting times, you will likely not acquire the staff in time to meet your needs. Nor will you consistently be on the market when candidates are seeking employment. Look instead to do ‘pipeline recruiting’. That is, for those common positions that you know you will need over the next 12 months, set up an enduring position, and have your HR team persistently recruit for these ‘pipeline positions’. Good examples would be Java or mobile developers, project managers, network engineers, etc. Constantly recruit, interview and when you find an ‘A’ caliber candidate, hire them — whether you have the exact position open or not. You can be certain that you will need the talent, so hire them and put them on the next appropriate project to be worked on from your demand list. Not only will you now have talent sourced and available when you need it because you are always out in the market, you will develop a reputation as a place where talent is sought and you will have an edge when those ‘A’ players who seldom look for work in the market, decide to seek a new opportunity.

Another key tactic is to extend the pipeline recruiting to interns and graduates. Too many firms only look for experienced candidates and neglect this source. In many companies, graduates can be a key long term source of their best senior engineers.  Moreover, they can often contribute much more than most managers give them credit, especially if you have good onboarding programs and robust training and education offerings for your staff. I have seen uplifting results for legacy teams when they have brought on bright, enthusiastic talent and combined it with their experienced engineers — everyone’s performance often lifts. They will bring energy to your shop and we will have the added dividend of increasing the pool of available,  experienced talent. And while it will take 7 to 15 years for them to become the senior engineers and leaders of tomorrow, they will be at your company, not at someone else’s (if you don’t start, you will never have them).

The investment in robust training and education for graduates should pay off also for your current staff and potential hires. Your current staff, by leveraging training, can improve their skills and productivity. And for potential hires, an attractive attribute of a new company is a strong training program and focus on staff development. These are wise investments as they will pay back in higher productivity and engagement, and greater retention and attraction of staff. You should couple the training program with clearly defined job positions and career paths. These should spell out for your team what the competencies and capabilities of both their current position as well as what is needed to move to the next step in their career. Their ability to progress with clarity will be a key advantage in your staff’s growth and retention as well as attracting new team members. And in a tight job market, this will let your company stand out in the crowd.

Another tactic to apply is to leverage additional locations to acquire talent. If you limit yourself to one or a few metropolitan areas, you are limiting the potential IT population you are drawing from. Often, you can use additional locations to tap entirely new sources of talent at potentially lower costs than your traditional locations. Given the lower mobility of today’s candidates, it may effective to open a location in the midwest, in rustbelt cities with good universities or cities such as Charlotte or Richmond. Such 2nd tier cities can harbor surprisingly strong IT populations that have lower costs and better retention than 1st tier locations like California or Boston or New York. The same is true of Europe and India. Your costs are likely to be 20 to 40% less than headline locations, with attrition rates perhaps 1/3 less.

And you can go farther afield as well. Nearshore and offshore locations from Ireland to Eastern Europe to India should be considered. Though again, it is worth avoiding the headline locations and going to places like Lithuania or Romania, or 2nd tier cities in India or Poland. You should look to tap the global IT workforce and gain advantage through diverse talent, ability to work longer through a ‘follow the sun’ approach, and optimized costs and capacity. Wherever you go though, you will need to enable an effective distributed workforce. This requires a minimum critical mass in each site, proper allocation of activities in a holistic manner, robust audio and video conferencing capabilities, and effective collaboration and configuration management tools. If done well, a global workforce can deliver more at lower costs and with better skills and time to market. For large companies, such a workforce is really a mandatory requirement to achieve competitive IT capabilities. And to some degree, you could say IT resources are like oil, you go wherever in the world you can to find and acquire them.

Don’t forget to review your recruiting approach as well. Maintain high standards and ensure you select the right candidates through using effective interviewing and evaluation techniques.  Apply a metrics-based improvement approach to your recruiting process. What is the candidate yield on each recruiting method? Where are your best candidates coming from? Invest more in recruiting approaches that yield good numbers of strong candidates. One set of observations from many years of analyzing recruiting results: your best source of strong candidates is usually referrals and weak returns typically come from search firms and broad sweep advertising. Building a good reputation in the marketplace to attract strong candidates takes time, persistence, and most important, an engaging and rewarding work environment.

With those investments, you will be able to recruit, build and sustain a high performance team even in the tightest of markets. While I know this is a bit like revealing your favorite fishing spot, what other techniques have you been able to apply successfully?

Best, Jim Ditmore

 

 

Riding with the Technology Peloton

    Jim D

One of the most important decisions that technology leaders make is when to strike out and leverage new and unique technologies for competitive advantage and when to stay with the rest of the industry and stay on a common technology platform. Nearly every project and component contains a micro decision of the custom versus common path. And while it is often easy to have great confidence in our ability and capacity to build and integrate new technologies, the path of striking out on new technologies ahead of the crowd is often much harder and has less payback than we realize.  In fact, I would suggest that the payback is similar to what occurs during cycling’s Tour de France: many, many riders strike out in small groups to beat the majority of cyclists (or peloton), only to be subsequently caught by the peloton but with enormous energy expended, fall further behind the pack.

In the peloton, everyone is doing some of the work. The leaders of the peloton take on the most wind resistance but rotate with others in pack so that work is balanced. In this way the peloton can move as quickly as any cyclist can individually but at 20 or 30% less energy due to much less wind resistance. Thus, with energy conserved, later in the race, the peloton can move much faster than individual cyclists. Similarly, in developing a new technology or advancing an existing technology, with enough industry mass and customers (a peloton), the technology can be advanced as quickly or more than quickly than an individual firm or small group and at much less individual cost. Striking out on your own to develop highly customized capabilities (or in concert with a vendor) could leave you with a high cost capability that provides a brief competitive lead only to be quickly passed up by the technology mainstream or peloton.

If you have ever watched one of the stages of the Tour de France, what can be most thrilling is to see a small breakaway group of riders trying to build or preserve their lead over the peloton. As the race progresses closer to the finish, the peloton relentlessly (usually) reels in and then passes the early leaders because of its far greater efficiency. Of course, those riders who time it correctly and have the capacity and determination to maintain their lead can reap huge time gains to their advantage.

Similarly, I think, in technology and business, you need to choose your breakaways wisely. You must identify where you can reap gains commensurate with the potential costs. For example, breaking away on commodity infrastructure technology is typically not wise. Plowing ahead and being the first to incorporate the latest in infrastructure or cloud or data center technology where there is little competitive advantage is not where you should invest your energy (unless that is your business). Instead, your focus should be on those areas where an early lead can be driven to business advantage and then sustained. Getting closer to your customer, being able to better cross-sell to them, significantly improving cycle time or quality or usability or convenience, or being first to market with a new product — these are all things that will win in the marketplace and customers will value. That is where you should make your breakaway. And when you do look to customize or lead the pack, understand that it will require extra effort and investment and be prepared to make and sustain it.

And while I caution selecting the breakaway course, particular in this technology environment where industry change is on an accelerated cycle already, I also caution against being in the back of the peloton. There, just as in the Tour de France when you are lagging and in the back, it is too easy to be dropped by the group. And once you drop from the peloton, you must now work on your own to work even harder just to get back in with the peloton. Similarly, once an IT shop falls significantly behind the advance of technology, and loses pace with its peers, further consequence incur. It becomes harder to recruit and retain talent because the technology is dated and the reputation is stodgy. Extra engineering and repair work must be done to patch older systems that don’t work well with newer components.  And extra investment must be justified with the business to ‘catch’ technology back up. So you must keep the pace with the peloton, and even better be a leader among your peers in technology areas of potential competitive advantage. That way, when you do see a breakaway opportunity for competitive advantage you are positioned to make it.

The number of breakaways you can do of course depends on the size of your shop and the intensity of IT investment in your industry. The larger you are, and the greater the investment, the more breakaways you can afford. But make sure they are truly competitive investments with strong potential to yield benefits. Otherwise you are far better off ensuring you stay at the front of the peloton leveraging best-in-class practices and common but leading technology approaches. Or as an outstanding CEO that I worked for once said ‘There should be no hobbies’. Having a cool lab environment without rigorous business purpose and ongoing returns (plenty of failures are fine as long as there are successful projects as well) is a breakaway with no purpose.

I am sure there are some experienced cyclists among our readers — how does this resonate? What ‘breakaways’ worked for you or your company? Which ones got reeled in by the industry peloton?

I look forward to hearing from you.

Best, Jim Ditmore

 

 

Outsourcing and Out-tasking Best Practices

    Jim D

I recently published this post first at InformationWeek and it generated quite a few comments, both published and several sent directly via e-mail.  I would note that a strong theme is the frustration of talented staff dealing with senior leadership that does not understand how IT works well or do not appear to be focused on the long term interests of the company. It is a key responsibility of leadership to ensure they keep these interests at the core of their approach, especially when executing complex efforts like outsourcing or offshoring so that they do achieve benefits and do not harm their company. I think the national debate that is occurring at this time as well with Romney and Obama only serves to show how complex executing these efforts are. As part of a team, we were able to adjust and resolve effectively many different situations and I have extracted much of that knowledge here. If you are looking to outsource or are dealing with an inherited situation, this post should assist you in improving your approach and execution.

While the general trend of more IT outsourcing but via smaller, more focused deals continues, it remains an area that is difficult for IT management to navigate successfully.  In my experience, every large shop that I have turned around had significant problems caused or made worse by the outsourcing arrangement, particularly large deals. While understanding that these shops performed poorly for primarily other reasons (leadership, process failures, talent issues), achieving better performance in these situations required substantial revamp or reversal of the outsourcing arrangements. And various industries continue to be littered with examples of failed outsourcing, many with leading outsource firms (IBM, Accenture, etc) and reputable clients. While formal statistics are hard to come by (in part because companies are loathe to report failure publicly), my estimate is that at least 25% and possibly more than 50% fail or perform very poorly. Why do the failures occur? And what should you do when engaging in outsourcing to improve the probability of success?

Much of the success – or failure – depends on what you choose to outsource followed by effectively managing the vendor and service. You should be highly selective on both the extent and the activities you chose for outsourcing. A frequent mistake is the assumption that any activity that is not ‘core’ to a company can and should be outsourced to enable focus on the ‘core’ competencies. I think this perspective originates from principles first proposed in The Discipline of Market Leaders by Michael Treacy and Fred Wisrsema. In essence, Treacy and Wisrsema state that companies that are market leaders do not try to be all things to all customers. Instead, market leaders recognize their competency either in product and innovation leadership, customer service and intimacy, or operational excellence. Good corporate examples of each would be 3M for product, Nordstrom for service, and FedEx for operational excellence. Thus business strategy should not attempt to excel at all three areas but instead to leverage an area of strength and extend it further while maintaining acceptable performance elsewhere. And by focusing on corporate competency, the company can improve market position and success. But generally IT is absolutely critical to improving customer knowledge intimacy and thus customer service. Similarly, achieving outstanding operational competency requires highly reliable and effective IT systems backing your operational processes.  And even in product innovation, IT plays a larger and large role as products become more digital and smarter.

Because of this intrinsic linkage to company products and services, IT is not like a security guard force, nor like legal staff — two areas that are commonly fully or highly outsourced (and generally, quite successfully). And by outsourcing intrinsic capabilities, companies put their core competency at risk. In a recent University of Utah business school article, the authors found significantly higher rates of failure of firms who had outsourced. They concluded that  “companies need to retain adequate control over specialized components that differentiate their products or have unique interdependencies, or they are more likely to fail to survive.” My IT best practice rule is ‘ You must control your critical IP (intellectual property)’. If you use an outsourcer to develop and deliver the key features or services that differentiate your products and define your company’s success, then you likely have someone doing the work with different goals and interests than you, that can typically easily turn around and sell advances to your competitors. Why would you turn over your company’s fate to someone else? Be wary of approaches that recommend outsourcing because IT is not a ‘core’ competency when with every year that passes, there is greater IT content in products in nearly every industry. Chose instead to outsource those activities where you do not have scale (or cost advantage), or capacity or competence, but ensure that you either retain or build the key design, integration, and management capabilities in-house.

Another frequent reason for outsourcing is to achieve cost savings. And while most small and mid-sized companies do not have the scale to achieve cost parity with a large outsourcer, nearly all large companies, and many mid-sized do have the scale.  Further, nearly every outsourcing deal that I have reversed in the past 20 years yielded savings of at least 30% and often much more. Cost savings can only be accomplished by an outsourcer for a large firm for a broad set of services if the current shop is a mediocre shop. If you have a well-run shop, your all-in costs will be similar to the better outsource firms’ costs. If you are world-class, you can beat the outsourcer by 20-40%.

Even more, the outsourcer’s cost difference typically degrades over time. Note that the goals of the outsourcer are to increase revenue and margin (or increase your costs and spend less resources doing your work). Invariably, the outsourcer will find ways to charge you more, usually for changes to services and minimize work being done. And previously, when you had used your ‘run’ resources to complete minor fixes and upgrades, you could find you are charged for those very same resources for such efforts once outsourced. I have often seen that ‘run’ functions will be hollowed out and minimized and the customer will pay a premium for every change or increase in volume. And while the usual response to such a situation is that the customer can put terms in the contract to avoid this, I have yet to see such terms that ensure the outsourcer works in your best interest to do the ‘right’ thing throughout the life of the contract. One interesting example that I reversed a few years back was an outsourced desktop provisioning and field support function for a major bank (a $55M/year contract). When an initial (surprise) review of the function was done, there were warehouses full of both obsolete equipment that should have been disposed and new equipment that should have been deployed. Why? Because the outsourcer was paid to maintain all equipment whether in use in the offices or in a warehouse, and they had full control of the logisitics function (here, the critical IP). So, they had ordered up their own revenue in effect. Further, the service had degraded over the years as the initial workforce had been hollowed out and replaced with less qualified individuals. The solution? We immediately in-sourced back the logistics function to a rebuilt in-house team with cost and quality goals established. Then we split the field support geography and conducted a competitive auction to select two firms to handle the work. Every six months each firm’s performance would be evaluated for quality, timeliness and cost and the higher performing firm would gain further territory. The lower performing firm would lose territory or be at risk of replacement. And we maintained a small but important pool of field support experts to ensure training and capabilities were kept up to par and service routines were updated and chronic issues resolved. The end result was far better quality and service, and the cost of the services were slashed by over 40% (from $55M/year to less than $30M/year). And these results — better quality at lower costs — from effective management of the functions and having key IP and staff in-house are the typical results achieved with similar actions across a wide range of services, organizations and locales.

When I was at BankOne, working under Jamie Dimon and his COO Austin Adams, they provided the support for us to tackle bringing back in what had been the largest outsourcing deal ever consummated at its time in 1998. Three years after the outsource had started, it had become a millstone around BankOne’s neck. Costs had been going up every year, quality continued to erode to where systems availability and customer complaints became worst in the industry. In sum, it was a burning platform. In 2001 we cut the deal short (it was scheduled to run another 4 years). In the next 18 months, after hiring 2200 infrastructure staff (via best practice talent acquisition), revamping the processes and infrastructure, we reduced defects (and downtime) to 1/20th of the levels in 2001 and reduced our ongoing expenses by over $200M per year. This supported significantly the bank’s turnaround and enabled the merger with JP Morgan a few years later.  As for having in-house staff do critical work, Jamie Dimon said it best with ‘Who do you want doing your key work? Patriots or mercenaries?’

Delivering comparable cost to an outsourcer is not that difficult for mid to large IT shops. Note that the outsourcer must include a 20% margin in their long term costs (though they may opt to reduce profits in the first year or two of the contract) as well as an account team’s costs. And, if in Europe, they must add 15 to 20% VAT. Further, they will typically avoid making the small investments required for continuous improvement over time. Thus, three to five years out, nearly all outsourcing arrangements cost 25% to 50% more than a well-run in-house service (that will have the further benefit of higher quality). You should set the bar that your in-house services can deliver comparable or better value than typical out-sourced alternatives. But ensure you have the leadership in place and provide the support for them to reach such a capability.

But like any tool or management approach, used properly and in the right circumstances, outsourcing is a benefit to the company. As a leader you cannot focus on all company priorities at once, nor would you have the staff even if you could, to deliver. And in some areas such as field support there are natural economies of scale that benefit a third party doing the same work for many companies. So consider outsourcing in these areas but the extent of the outsource carefully. Ensure that you still retain critical IP and control. Or use it to augment and increase your capacity, or where you can leverage best-in-class specialized services to your company’s benefit. Then, once selected and effectively negotiated, manage the outsourcing vendor effectively. Since effective management of large deals is complex and nearly impossible, it is far better to do small outsourcing deals or selective out-tasking. The management of the outsourcing should be handled like any significant in-house function, where SLAs are established and proper operational metrics are gathered, performance is regularly reviewed with management and actions are noted and tracked to address issues or improve service. Properly constructed contracts that accommodate potential failure are key if things do not go well. Senior management should jointly review the service every 3 to 6 months, and consequences must be in place for performance (good or bad).

Well-selected and managed outsourcing will then complement your in-house team with more traditional approaches that leverage contractors for peak workloads or projects or the modern alternative to use cloud services and out-task some functions and applications. With these best practices in place and with a selective hand, your IT shop and company can benefit from outsourcing and avoid the failures.

What experiences have you had with outsourcing? Do you see improvement in how companies leverage such services? I look forward to your comments.

Best, Jim Ditmore

 

 

 

Key Steps to a High Performance Team: Coaching and Development

    Jim D

Today I revisit a core topic of Recipes for IT: High Performance IT Teams. This post is the last of six on how to build and sustain High Performance Teams. I think the aspiration of building a high performing team is a lofty, worthwhile, and achievable vision. If you have ever participated in a high performance team at the top of their game, in other words a championship team, then you know the level of professional reward and sense of accomplishment that accompanies such membership. I have been fortunate enough to have been part of several such teams and it was a remarkable experience, especially in terms of what was accomplished. And for most companies that rely significantly on IT, if their IT team is a high performing team, it can make a very large difference in their products, their customer experience, and their bottom line. I hope you find the material and this last post on the topic to be both enlightening and actionable.  Best, Jim

Coaching and Developing High Performance Teams: As I have mentioned previously, I have a positive outlook on the competence of today’s managers and leaders. I see more material and approaches available for managers than ever before and more effort and study applied by the managers as well. Much of the material though is either a very narrow spectrum or a single technique which does not address the full spectrum of practices and knowledge that must be brought to bear to build and sustain a high performance IT team. So,  I have assembled a set of practices that I have leveraged or I have seen peers or other senior IT leaders use to build high performance IT teams in this series of posts to enable managers to have a broad source of practice at their disposal. Senior IT leaders, with his or her senior management team, can use these practices to build a high performing team, in the following steps:

Today’s post covers how to coach and develop to sustain your high performance team.  The previous steps are prior posts and I have further constructed reference pages with links above.

If you do exceedingly well, then your organization will become a net exporter of talent. In fact, you should set this as a personal goal where your organization earns a reputation for having talent that can make a difference elsewhere in the corporation or entity.

Sustaining such a team at its peak performance requires the following ongoing ingredients:

  • a compelling organizational vision
  • a positive results-oriented culture that leverages data-based decisioning and rewards quality results
  • a corresponding set of individual expectations and goals
  • a thoughtful and well-matched development plan for each of your staff
  • and challenging assignments and experiences coupled with thoughtful immediate coaching

We have already covered previously how to define a compelling vision but understand that it will be necessary to evolve your vision as you reach the initial goals. Your goals should not move beyond reach or beyond reason, instead they should become more multidimensional in terms of your contributions to the corporate vision. For example, if you have reached your initial service and availability goals, then you should look to improve your transaction performance or the batch cycle time. Or you should move to top quartile or better in online rankings for your industry (such as those produced by Gomez). If you have met your overall budget and cost goals, you should look to improve your unit costs and map out a trajectory to achieve first quartile unit cost in 12 to 24 months. If you have achieved your project delivery goals you should look to improve your time to market and enhance the business capability through greater partnering with the business and delivering innovation. These are all appropriate evolutions that will enable you to contribute more to the corporate goals and enable your team to drive to a higher level of performance.

It is also important that you maintain the open culture based on merit and quality results as well. Assuming you have been able to attract the right talent on your team, you should now look for them to grow through increased responsibility. Part of that comes not just from them performing their roles but also by them not being overburdened with your direction. As your team matures and improves in capability, your profile as a leader should become less directional and more of a coach.  For insight into your own profile, I recommend you read this post on PDI as well as the material by Jim Collins on a Level 5 leader. Encourage your team to do the underlying analysis and map out recommended directions. This will enable them to take on more responsibility and become better leaders. Look to guide and correct as needed, but they will become better leaders through the experience. Remember that enabling an environment where mistakes can be made, lessons learned, and quality and innovation and initiative are prized means you will get a staff that behaves and performs in that manner.

To enable each individual to achieve their potential does require a specific and well-thought development plan. Fundamentally, this development plan must be based on an robust job profiles or descriptions set within and overall career framework. It is important for an IT organization that these job profiles map out the competencies, experience and credentials that staff should attain in order to progress. Further, each job profile should be set out in logical steps or a ladder so that your staff can understand how their career can progress. And there should be the opportunity to progress  I will be providing a sample template of such a framework later this week. Once you have a robust job profile coupled with effectively cascaded goals, you can now map out the proper development areas for your staff. I recommend that you invest in the time to do it well. Focus on the key areas of development and provide constructive, specific examples from which one can understand and learn. It would be even better if these examples were also situations where you have provided immediate feedback or observation. Unfortunately, many managers fail to assess appropriately the importance of writing good performance reviews and development plans. They either fail set out thoughtful goals, or they provide only general feedback or criticism. Remember to leverage the talent assessment work done in your ‘prune and improve stage. Recall there are generally three types of staff that need different coaching and guidance: those that are top performers that you will need to further develop and challenge; the ‘well-placed experts’ and solid performers that will need support and attention and will execute reliably; and those whose performance and potential is lacking and who must step up to continue in their role. With these three groupings identified, ensure you lay out crisp plans for all three groups and execute against them.

If this is an area where you would like to improve, I do recommend leveraging the book FYI: For Your Improvement. It is a seminal work on the 65 professional competencies and provides good descriptions and examples of each competency (or a weakness) as well as thoughtful suggestions and coaching on how to improve that particular competency. It can be a very good assist to writing effective reviews and improving your coaching.

The most critical part to any development is enabling your team to take on new assignments and responsibilities. These can occur based on new corporate initiatives, additional scope or responsibilities or through rotational assignments. One tendency, particularly prevalent in large organizations, is to ‘pigeonhole’ current talent into the work they have done previously. If you have someone that you have ranked as having potential and who is a good performer, I would suggest that with the right coaching and investment in training, they are likely to be successful in different roles. As a good performer, they would have already mastered the culture, relationships and potentially the business knowledge, and thus, adding technical or different skills may not be that large. Obviously, there will be situations where someone who excels in operational roles does not do well in planning or strategy roles, but I recommend pressing boundary here more than not.

So, look to provide new experiences and opportunities so your staff can grow, and be close by to provide coaching, correction and support so you can increase their likelihood of success. But if it is not a fit, again, does not force them to endure, adjust their role back to a sweet spot of their capabilities quickly if needed.

With these measures in place, you will generate a strong team and begin to export your talent (as they are sought out and also encouraged to take on new opportunities outside your organization). With this release of talent, along with normal attrition, you will need to build a bench that extends through the lowest levels in your organization so you can fill the vacancies that then occur. By bringing in graduates and junior staff, you can train and develop them to take on the mid-level positions who can then be trained and developed for the senior level positions. This natural flow, if done well, will then minimize the amount of senior staff you must recruit and bring onboard. Understand though that until you have this bench built, when you are first starting out and have inadequate talent, you can only work your way out of the issue by recruiting the right new talent at all levels. If done well, this should become a reinforcing, virtuous cycle and you can reduce external senior recruitment. Then you will know have built and are able to sustain a championship team.

What techniques would you add or change in the development or coaching process? How do you see this fitting into building championship teams?

Best, Jim Ditmore

Key Steps to Building a High Performance Team: Prune and Improve

    Jim D

Today I revisit a core topic of Recipes for IT: High Performance IT Teams. Before I provide background on this series of posts, I thought it was about time for a quick blog update. Recipes for IT continues to attract new readers and has a substantial ongoing readership. It is quite heartening to see the level of interest and I really appreciate your visits and comment. I will strive to regularly add thoughtful and relevant material for IT leaders and hope that you continue to find the site useful. I do recommend for new readers that you check out the introduction page and the various topic areas as you should find useful material of strong depth and actionability that can help you be more successful. This site also continues to do well in Google page rankings on a number of topic areas, particularly service desk queries and IT metrics and reporting. If there are topics you would like me to tackle, please do not hesitate to send me a comment.

Now back to some background on Building High Performance Teams. This post is now the fifth on this topic and there will be one further post to complete the steps of building a high performance team. I hope you find the material to be both enlightening and actionable. One key for IT leaders is that you consider the tasks required to build a HP team as some of your most important activities. At nearly every poor performing organization that I have been responsible for turning around, I have found that many times, the primary reason for inadequate talent and poor performing teams is inadequate manager attention and focus on these activities. So, work hard to make the time, even though you would much rather be doing other activities. And now for the post. Best, Jim

Building High Performance Teams: As I have mentioned previously, I have a positive outlook on the competence of today’s managers and leaders. I see more material and approaches available for managers than ever before and more effort and study applied by the managers as well. Much of the material though is either a very narrow spectrum or a single technique which does not address the full spectrum of practices and knowledge that must be brought to bear to build and sustain a high performance IT team. So,  I have assembled a set of practices that I have leveraged or I have seen peers or other senior IT leaders use to build high performance IT teams in this series of posts to enable managers to have a broad source of practice at their disposal.

Senior IT leaders, with his or her senior management team, can use these practices to build a high performing team, in the following steps:

Today’s post covers how to prune and improve as required. The previous steps are prior posts and I have further constructed reference pages with links above on the first four steps.  Subsequent posts will cover the last steps as well as a summary.

I think the aspiration of building a high performing team is a lofty, worthwhile, and achievable vision. If you have ever participated in a high performance team at the top of their game, in other words: a championship team, then you know the level of professional reward and sense of accomplishment that accompanies such membership. And for most companies that rely significantly on IT, if their IT team is a high performing team, it can make a very large difference in their products, their customer experience, and their bottom line. Building such a championship team is not only about attracting or retaining top talent, it is also necessarily about identifying those team members who do not have the capabilities, behaviors, or performance to remain part of the team and addressing their future role constructively but firmly.

Let’s first revisit some key truths that underly how to build a high performance team:

– top performing engineers, typically paid similar to their mediocre peers are not 10% better but 2x to 10x better

– having primarily senior engineers and not a good mix of interns, graduates, junior and mid and senior level engineers will result in stagnation and overpaid senior engineers doing low level work

– having a dozen small sites with little interaction is far less synergistic and productive than having a few strategic sites with critical mass

– relying on contractors to do most of the critical or transformational work is a huge penalty to retain or grow top engineers

– line and mid-level managers must be very good people managers, not great engineers, otherwise you are likely have difficulty retaining good talent and you will not develop your talent

– engineers do not want to work in an expensive in-city location like the financial district of London (that is for investment bankers)

– enabling an environment where mistakes can be made, lessons learned, and quality and innovation and initiative are prized means you will get a staff that behaves and performs like that.

With these truths in mind, (and these are the same ones you used to set about building the team), having executed the first four steps, you should have adequate capacity to begin thoughtful pruning and improvement of your organization. While there are circumstances when a poor performing manager or senior engineer causes so many issues that it is a benefit to remove them, in many cases you must have adequate resource capacity to meet demands so that once you begin pruning your team is not overtaxed and penalized as a result.

Pruning should begin at the top and work down from there. Start with your directs and the next level below. Consider the span of control of your organization and the number of levels. High performing organizations are generally flatter with greater spans of control. In considering your team, I recommend leveraging a talent calibration approach of either the typical 9 box or a top-grading variant. The key to calibration is to essentially formulate three sets of results: those on your staff that are top performers that you will need to further develop and challenge; the ‘well-placed experts’ and solid performers that will need support and attention but will execute reliably; and those whose performance and potential is lacking and who must step up to continue in their role. With these three groupings of your management team identified, ensure you lay out crisp plans for all three groups and execute against them. (Remember, it will be very difficult for you to subsequently demand of your line managers that they address their staff issues if you have not shown a capability to execute such accountability with your team.)

One area to particularly focus on is time-boxing the development plans for poor performers. As these are senior managers the time to address performance issues should be shorter not longer. I recommend you start the development plan with a succinct, clear conversation on high expectations and shortcoming of their performance with examples where possible. You should provide a writeup covering this discussion at the end of the discussion. Jointly layout key deliverables, milestones, expected behavior changes and results with the affected leader. Be open to the possibility that the employee may know they are in over their head and may be looking for an alternative. While not advocating moving problem performers around, there may be a role within the company or elsewhere outside the company that is a much better fit. Look to assist with such a transition if beneficial for the company and the employee. If the employee insists this is the role they want and they are willing to step up and adjust, then you should provide support under a tight timeline for them to achieve it. Monitor the plan regularly with HR. If you follow up diligently it will become evident quite quickly that the employee can muster to the new level or not. Generally, in my experience, a surprisingly large percentage of poor performing employees will drop out of their own accord once you have provided clear expectations and no escape routes other than the hard work to get there — assuming of course that there is a modest but respectable exit plan for them. It is also key to treat the employee with respect and fairness throughout the process and focus on the results and outcomes.

Equally though, I have more than a handful of senior leaders and managers who have expressed surprise when confronted with poor performance as no one had communicated clearly and firmly their performance issues previously. Once understood and once the higher goals and expectations were known, many of these individuals (and others as well), definitively stepped up and improved significantly. Thus, until you communicate the higher goals and expectations clearly AND communicate where they must improve (constructively, with specifics) the likelihood of improvement is minimal. So, allocate the time to hold the tough but fair conversations and provide this information. Once the conversations are held, over the next 2 to 3 months you should take action based on the results. Either poor performing managers will be exited (or moved to a role much more befitting) or poor performers will become good performers.  One of the interesting results from such actions is that the remaining team, upon seeing poor performers exited, will view the results positively. In fact, I have experienced some very strong reactions from other team members who now felt a dead weight was off of their shoulders as they no longer had to make up for the defects and negative performance of the just exited team member. Further, I have received multiple (back-handed) compliments along the lines of ‘Wow, we are glad management finally figured out what to do and took action!’ . So do not be persuaded that the team will view performance actions solely in a negative light.

Once you have initiated the performance management process and you are well in the process of pruning your team, you can work with your managers and HR department to address areas lower in the organization. Remember it is key to first set expectations and goals that cascade and match your overall goals. Then ensure you hold managers and senior engineers to a higher bar than the mid and junior staff. For senior staff, you are not looking just for technical competence but also they must meet the standard for such behaviors as problem solving/solution orientation, teamwork, initiative and drive, and quality and focus on doing things right. And they should exhibit the right leadership and communication skills.

Driving such pruning and development work through your organization is important but also a delicate task. Generally, with little exception, management in a IT organization can improve how they handle performance management. Because most of the managers are engineers, their ability to interact firmly with another person in a highly constructive manner is typically under-developed. Thus, some managers may not be up to this pruning task or their calibration of talent could be well off the mark. So, leverage your HR resources to guide management and personally check in to ensure proper calibration of talent by your lower level managers. Provide classes and interactive session on how to do coaching and provide feedback to employees. Even better, insist that performance reviews and development plans must be read and signed off by the manager’s manager before being given to improve their quality. This a key element to focus on because a poorly executed resource improvement plan could backfire. Remember that the line manager’s interaction with an employee is the largest factor in undesired attrition and employee engagement. Of course, these is all the more reason to replace poor performing managers with good leaders, but do so effectively and firmly. Use the workforce plans that you developed in the Build step to ensure your pruning and development also helps you move toward your strategic site goals, contractor/staff mix targets, and junior/mid/senior profiles.

Pruning and improvement is the tough but necessary step in building a high performance team. If done well, pruning and improvement will provide additional substantial lift to the team and more importantly, enable ongoing sustainment. It requires discipline and focus to execute the steps we would all prefer to avoid, but are necessary for reaching the final high performance stages.

What has been your experience either as a leader or participant in such efforts? What have you seen go very well? or terribly wrong? I look forward to your perspective.

Best, Jim Ditmore