In Chapter 2, we briefly looked at some of the characteristics that enterprises striving for higher Business–Technology alignment (BITA) need to possess and display. The question, however, is how you as an enterprise stack up on the BITA scale. While BITA is not a purely numeric entity—much like your quality or customer-centricity attribute—it is possible to get a fair idea of your BITA level through a simple tool that I am now introducing. Of course, the ultimate evidence of a strong BITA is the success you achieve in the digital marketplace through the joint efforts of Business and Technology. Nonetheless, some preparatory guidance in determining your BITA level as well as gaps may prove helpful in focusing on the right attributes for capitalizing on the digital opportunity around you.
It is essential to go into the individual components of BITA to ascertain where to put your emphasis for better alignment between Business and Technology. In this chapter, we will introduce the seven dimensions of BITA and a way to measure how you stack up on each dimension. As with any tool, the composition of the users and the integrity with which responses are provided will be critical factors in determining the accuracy of results.
The Seven Dimensions for BITA
We noted in the previous chapter that Business–Technology alignment is rated among the most important success factors for a digital enterprise. Ascertaining your position on the BITA scale will help assess your success chances in the world of digital business and allow you to focus on the right attributes for enhancing your prospects. The BITA calculator introduced here helps you do precisely this, by simply evaluating your responses to a set of statements.
In a trial run of the BITA calculator, I found that people equate BITA very tightly to the overall digital transformation status of the enterprise. While this may well turn out to be true in many cases, it is important to remember that BITA is only one, albeit significant, attribute of a successful digital enterprise among several others. BITA is the ideal starting point of the inevitable journey you must embark upon to digitally transform your enterprise.
Business–IT alignment refers to aligning at seven different levels, or dimensions. Before we move to the tool-based assessment of BITA Index, let us briefly study each of its dimensions. The term “dimension” is used here to define each critical factor that matters in the attainment of BITA. It is important to note that just like our spatial dimensions (Length, Breadth, Height), these are all equally required for creating a solid, durable model. Figure 6.1 shows the seven dimensions of BITA, which are applicable across various industries and business segments, enabling uniform benchmarking.
Figure 6.1 The seven dimensions of Business–IT alignment
Each of the dimensions is the subject of detailed treatment in the next book in this series, Mastering the 7 Dimensions of Business–Technology Alignment.1 However, a quick primer and some pointers (features that give evidence of the dimension being ingrained in the organization) of the individual dimensions are being included here for quick and ready reference.
Cultural Alignment
Cultural alignment implies that the people in Business and Technology consciously, consistently, and collectively live by the same set of values, principles, norms, and code of conduct, frequently emanating from the organization’s belief system, in their actions, words, and behavior. Some pointers:
- Well-articulated belief system
- Shared vision, driven from the top
- Result orientation (focus on the outcome)
- Drive for excellence
- Customer centricity
- Transparency and openness
- Continuous learning and development
- Intolerance of mediocrity
Example 6.1
A diversified and well-established family business was known for the sharp division between its top management and the rest of the organization. There were separate elevators, floors, cafeterias, and even restrooms for the top brass. Disdain and contempt were the norm. The pay was good and jobs scarce, so no one thought about things like employee morale. When this company decided, or rather was compelled, to go digital, it hired expensive consultants and kept aside a fat budget for technology acquisition. However, it faced two problems. One, they had to work with partners and contractors who expected courtesy and indiscrimination. Two, they had to hire young folks with a different work ethos and outlook. Neither could blend in with the company’s culture. The management went through some behavioral programs to learn the new ropes. However, years of pomposity cannot be washed off quickly. They could not rally the team behind a shared digital vision, nor usher in a culture of alignment, both prerequisites to successful digital transformation. The management’s arrogance often flashed through the pretense. Within months, their new joiners left the company, and it lost the reputation it had built over years. Soon they had no one left to carry the digital torch. The group that had thrived for half a century faded away in less than two years, only due to its inability to adjust to the new cultural climate.
Culture is what defines the company, and it’s not invisible. Even if an outcome is positive, culture (behavior) can negate it. Culture emanates from a shared belief system, reinforced by the management in words and action at every opportunity.
Strategic Alignment
Strategic alignment is about Business and Technology deriving their goals and plans from a shared mission, which is to make the business successful. Some pointers:
- Understanding of business strategy at all levels of the organization
- IT Architecture and technology roadmap alignment with business strategy
- Correspondence between Technology KRAs and Business strategy
- Flexibility to respond to market changes
- Shared mission and vision for the company
- Technology readiness to support the future needs of the business
Creating the right business strategy is almost certainly the most impactful aspect of running a business. A strategy that is incongruent with your core competency could be an open invitation to disaster. It is vital that the business strategy is communicated clearly to all constituents, including Technology teams. The technology strategy must evolve from the business strategy.
Example 6.2
It is quite common to build a strategy around adjacencies, like finding new products for existing markets or finding new markets for existing products. Nothing wrong with that, but it requires a lot of preparatory work at all levels. If done hastily, it could spell disaster for even your existing line of business. A telecom services company bet big on its foray into software development services, banking on its reputation (as a telco) to attract exceptional talent, and on its relationships with OEMs to attract business for its new venture. Even with all the investment in getting people on-boarded, setting up facilities, and so on, the venture never really took off. Instead of relying on a strategic fit, the group had entered the venture on the assumption of quid pro quo deals with telecom OEMs. The core competence required for this venture was quite different from the proven skills it had in its mainstream telco business. To top that, there were established players who could do software development jobs better and cheaper. The company lost money and goodwill, which made survival difficult. Apparently, the business strategy here was out of sync with the core competence and brand positioning. On perhaps a smaller scale, this is what happens when the technology roadmap does not support our business plan. Incidentally, the above company later revamped its mission and strategy to reinvent itself as a developer of software products for telecom service providers globally—a field much better aligned to its parent core competence—and achieved a turnaround to become a prime acquisition target of its larger competitors. The lesson here is that it may never be too late in the journey to invest in aligning your business strategy and the technology roadmap, even if you have suffered some knocks en route.
Structural Alignment
Structural alignment is the attainment of synergy in the organization and responsibilities of Business and IT teams, that lead them to think, build, and operate together for achieving their shared mission. Some pointers:
- Business-led IT organization
- Core competence defined and built
- Clear roles and responsibilities
- Unambiguous interfaces between Business and Technology
- Think, build, and operate together
- Skills aligned with business direction
- Flexibility to adapt technology skills to changing business needs
Structural alignment has a lot to do with collaborative interworking leading to Business and Technology complementing each other effectively and always. It is not only about creating congruent organization structures and reporting paths but, as we often observe in team sports, building synergy and solidarity leading to greater strength. Its absence achieves the opposite, as this example illustrates.
Example 6.3
As engineering director at my company’s delivery center in Bangalore, India, I once submitted a proposal in response to a customer inquiry from Texas in the United States. In a few weeks, I learned that our proposal had been accepted and that the customer had invited our company for the technical round. I traveled all the way from Bangalore to Dallas, fully prepared to present our technical proposal and to answer all potential questions that may come from the customer on our approach and methodology. When the questions started after the presentation, however, I was in for a surprise. These questions were not directed at my colleagues or me. Instead, these were directed at the customer’s own Technology team from their Business folks! The questions were about their (the customer’s) current technology capability, the share of ownership between Business and Technology, business benefits of the project, budgetary approvals for the project, staff availability for managing the project, and the like. Obviously, the two functions rarely met and had no common interfaces. It almost became a scuffle between the customer’s internal teams. We were simply mute, and somewhat embarrassed, spectators. The most surprising part was that this proposed project, for which we had submitted our partnering bid to this company, was to develop a solution for this company’s biggest global customer! How would this company meet the expectations of its customer in the face of such apparent misalignment between its own Business and Technology arms? As it turned out, it didn’t have to, as the end-customer scrapped the project which I strongly suspect was due to lack of a cohesive response from its existing supplier. You will probably find several such examples around you, without having to traverse the globe!
Process (or Procedural) Alignment
Procedural alignment is the synchronization between Business and Technology on the enterprise processes, tools, and methods with a view to achieving shared outcomes while avoiding conflicting, uncoordinated activities. Some pointers:
- Simple, flexible, adaptable processes
- Customer-centric business processes
- Tools adoption (automation)
- Focus on continuous improvement
- Change management
- Process innovation
- Instinctual connect
Process alignment is about assuring that the technology delivery and operations processes in the organization stay tuned to the changing needs of the business. The processes must align with the business and not the other way. Nothing blunts your edge more than processes that remain static in a dynamic business world. This is also evidence of poor change management. It is particularly true of automated processes which are considered the holy grail in many companies and trump customer experience. Here’s an example of how some inflexible processes may cost the business.
Example 6.4
Late one night, I arrived at the hotel I routinely stay in during my frequent business trips to a city in India. I was a proud owner of this hotel chain’s loyalty card. As always, I had a room reservation, and my secretary had duly printed out the reservation confirmation page, which I was carrying. I was shocked, therefore, when the gent at the front desk, after welcoming me back with a cheery smile, informed me that I had no reservation. I protested this and showed him the confirmation sheet. The manager was summoned, and investigations started while I was asked to wait in the lobby. After a seemingly interminable period, the manager came to me, having the triumphant expression of a man who has just solved a big mystery. It turned out there was a group of four other executives from my company scheduled to check in that evening, and a few hours ago they had canceled their booking. Their system, which was designed to put all guests from a company in one bracket, automatically changed my Confirmed status to “Wait-list: PAX Advice pending” as per some apparently goofy logic and sent an auto intimation to the booking agent (after office hours apparently). The hotel manager meanwhile was visibly relieved as it was a big problem off his chest. After all, it was a process issue, not his doing. Where in the world does one question an auto process? No, he said, I couldn’t be confirmed as there were no longer any rooms available that night, due to that IT expo happening in the city! It was now midnight. I managed something elsewhere at a rate beyond my approved limit, feeling very disgruntled at the treatment. I made sure that no one from my organization ever used this hotel again. I do hope my experience triggered a change in that hotel’s process though I am not going back to find out! Process automation is well and good but cannot substitute the application of common sense!
Intellectual Alignment
Intellectual alignment refers to Business and Technology being on the same intellectual plane to drive technological innovation without fear of failure for the realization of their shared transformation goals. Some pointers:
- Spirit of innovation—Incentivizing ideas and daring to try
- Exploiting new technology for competitive advantage
- Tracking new trends and piloting their adoption for business advantage
- Differentiated products and services
- Customer feedback-driven tech innovation
- Future readiness of IT architecture and capabilities
Intellectual alignment occurs when Business and Technology have the consensus, conviction, and empowerment to apply innovation for the enhancement of business value. It goes beyond demonstrating technical competence, to breaking the confines of established practices and daring to be different. Kodak’s inability to recognize the market potential of digital photography, which it invented, is a well-known and classic example of intellectual misalignment leading to a great company’s downfall.
Example 6.5
Kodak moments may be more common than you think.9 In 1995, Alta Vista launched the first Internet Search but ended up setting the stage for Google, dying a rather slow and unceremonious death. BlackBerry devices were the first smartphones for many users, able to connect to the Internet, send and receive e-mail, and chat with one another over the company’s BlackBerry Messenger, or BBM, service. And they were everywhere. However, it stuck too long with its proprietary design, yielding to full touchscreen phones like the iPhone. Apple’s digital newspaper, The Daily, failed in the first two years despite great graphics and embedded video, due to an unsustainable business model. AOL, the first Internet service provider in the United States and the first with an Instant Messenger service, lost an excellent opportunity to lead the social networking revolution to smaller but smarter players. The Palm Pilot was the first mainstream digital hand-held (1997) to capture public imagination, but in spite of selling over a million units in its first year, and pioneering mobile computing, it never made it as a smartphone. There are many other tragic stories like these—Netscape, Segway, and Napster being a few others. All the above were great innovations but were not backed by a strong enough conviction (backbone) that they could make it as leaders. Innovation takes a lot more than ingenuity.
Functional Alignment
Functional alignment between Business and Technology is the overcoming of functional barriers (silos) to harmonize the priorities that drive their decisions, measurements, and actions. Some pointers:
- Measurement of business value of IT
- Collaborative prospecting, presales, fulfillment, and delivery
- Business-led IT funding
- Business-outcome driven IT delivery and operations
- Quick time to market
- Success of digital initiatives (like marketing campaigns)
Functional alignment leads to business-outcome-based IT, which we touched upon in Chapter 2 with examples from a few sectors. The simple example below goes to demonstrate how unwise it is to base the function’s measurement system on a set of attributes that have almost no bearing on business results.
Example 6.6
John D* was the head of the customer support operations for an independent business unit that produced peripherals, mainly printers, for computer systems. John’s internal stakeholders were clearly interested in metrics that provided useful information for them to act upon. For example, the Factory wanted to know the number and nature of defective arrivals which they could use to crank up the QA processes. The Business wanted to know about the life expectancy of the print head or cartridge so that they could plan their consumables sales accordingly. They would have also liked some benchmark data on usage trends and the customers’ overall satisfaction with the product. However, what John’s team did regularly present to the Business (and Factory) was data on the total backlog of complaints in Sev 1/2/3, average response and turnaround time for complaints, number of calls handled per engineer (productivity), and so on. Only after this had been going on for a couple of years, someone finally broke through the silos to say that it was serving no practical purpose to anyone outside John’s team. John’s priorities were evidently mismatched with those of the stakeholders. Had he indeed ascertained and acted on the needs and preferences of the business and focused on the outcome instead of internal attributes, the company would easily have a higher competitive ranking. As it were, they finished fifth among six players! This example is a wake-up call to IT organizations that are inward focused as opposed to outcome-oriented. Any amount of introspection in hindsight is futile – reevaluate your measurement systems today and tune them to the business priorities.
* Not his real name, of course.
Tactical Alignment
Tactical alignment refers to step-locking for executing on the joint strategy through a supportive service, operations, and delivery infrastructure designed to ensure an outstanding customer experience consistently. Some pointers:
- Collaborative project delivery and execution
- Supportive Technology infrastructure (e.g., digital platform)
- Shared ownership of customer experience through the lifecycle
- Excellence in technology operations and services
For much of their histories, Business and Technology have followed diverse tactical paths. The convergence, if any, ended with the overlap of certain items of strategy but as far as tactics were concerned, it was each to his own. The advent of the digital era has changed that. You cannot, for example, launch an app-based product strategy (say a taxi service) without Business and Technology intricately collaborating at every step of the development and operations. Tactical alignment implies that Business and IT are complementing each other in the execution of their digital strategy for delivering a superior experience to their customer throughout the lifecycle.
Example 6.7
A telecom operator was banking on an innovative product that marketing research had shown would be hugely impactful in consolidating its lead. The CIO was steering the development project. One evening, while in a hotel room, the CIO was startled to see his company’s ad on the TV announcing the availability of the product to the market two weeks earlier than the scheduled date! Though this was the original launch date, it had been extended in the project plan due to some new requirements that had come in later, and IT team was very sure that the revised plan had been conveyed to marketing. Anyhow, there was no choice now but to bring the product to the market on the publicly announced date, and they did. However, this entailed shortcuts in user testing, insufficient time for a pilot run, and an inability to provide enough training to teams handling complaints, customer inquiries, and so on. Even the channel partners were not fully ready to handle this product. Obviously, the business and the project teams were moving in an uncoordinated way. Owing to this lack of alignment between Business and Technology through the development phase, the company faced a lot of turbulence in the early days. It took them a great deal of effort and cost to stabilize the product, and they probably lost some credibility in the market. Evidently, an unwavering tactical alliance that always keeps Business and Technology on the same page on market commitments has no substitute, particularly in this digital era.
About the BITA Calculator
The BITA calculator is a simple assessment tool for estimating your BITA score. It consists of a list of statements, each of which can be responded with a Y if true, else left blank. These statements are designed to estimate your scores with respect to the seven dimensions of BITA and calculate your overall BITA Index. The statements are scattered, i.e., not bunched into dimensions, to avoid extempore responses. Each statement tests your alignment to a dimension, though some statements may map to more than one dimension. It is a first attempt at creating a measuring tool of this kind, and I do concede that there is room for making it more situational, precise, and entertaining. (Updates can be downloaded from www.alignedtowin.com) The tool is intended to mark your bearings on your BITA journey and set you in the right direction toward your goal. You can, of course, modify the tool by inserting more statements, deleting or editing some statements, and creating different versions, as you advance on your journey. You can also set your own benchmarks on what constitutes a low or a high score and use these for tracking trends over time.
Method
- Appoint a tool administrator (TA).
- The TA will load the statements on an excel file and distribute this among selected respondents.
- If number of respondents is few (<5), photocopied paper questionnaire can also be used.
- You can also download the excel version of the tool from AlignedToWin.Com
- The TA will guide the respondents as necessary in completing the feedback.
- The respondents respond with clear Y (yes) or blank (no) to each statement and submit this back to the TA.
- For each Y, the TA will enter a 1 in the respondent’s score sheet against the statement number, under the appropriate dimension using the check sheet (scoring guide) for reference. (Figure 6.2)
- Finally, the TA will add up the 1s under each dimension and compute the dimension-wise and overall BITA score for each respondent.
- The composite score of multiple respondents is the average of all responses against each dimension. It is a good practice to report scores for Business, IT, and Enterprise level separately.
As we go through this chapter, this process will be further crystallized. For best results, I suggest you run the test with senior members of both Business and Technology organizations. Initially, this exercise is recommended to be conducted bi-yearly, and once your benchmark index is reached, you may reduce the frequency to once a year. The set of participants may be different in each run.
For tabulating the score, take a blank score sheet (provided in this chapter) for each respondent and keep it alongside the check sheet (which is also provided). The check sheet is a reference table, which is the key to map a statement to a dimension. The check sheet is not shown to the respondents and is available with the TA only. For each statement that is responded with a Y, the scorer (typically the TA) puts a 1 in the score sheet under the corresponding dimension. If the response is not Y, nothing is scored for that statement. In the example shown in Figure 6.2, the response is Y against statements 2 and 3. According to the check sheet, these statements correspond to intellect and strategy dimensions, respectively. A “1” (one) is thus entered in the relevant rows/columns of the score sheet, as shown. This is helpful as an illustration, but oversimplistic. We will look at a more realistic BITA computation later in this chapter. We contended earlier that Business and IT must think, build, and operate together for real and sustained alignment that leads to long-term business value. Accordingly, we have split the statements into three sets, clustered under the Think, Build, and Operate (TBO) headings, though this is optional. Your responses to these statements will therefore also enable you to ascertain if you need to ramp up your efforts on any of the TBO axes.
Figure 6.2 BITA scoring process
It is recommended to get the CIO, solution architects, IT delivery and operations managers, chief marketing officer (CMO), product manager, customer service head, and account managers on-boarded for this. You may like to have a dedicated workshop on BITA with the group of chosen participants, and as part of this workshop, this tool can be run to determine your BITA index. As a progressive enterprise, the modality of conducting the assessment is a matter of your preference. Organizations that have a clear view of where they stand on their BITA journey have a far better chance of succeeding in their digital mission.
Let us get started. Keep about 30 minutes for completing each of the three lists (T, B, O). Use the first response that comes to your mind after you read the statement. Do not pause to reflect or overthink. I have found that instinctive responses generally lead to more accurate results.
Some statements are designed to be subjective so that individual opinions from folks at different levels may be factored in the BITA score. It is important that the respondents are reasonably familiar with the company’s Business and Technology landscape. In an organization that is aspiring to lead in the digital economy, all the team members of both Business and Technology organizations should have at least a general awareness of their shared beliefs, strategy, tactics, and so on, on which the statements are based. Thus, if you happen to be not sure of the truth of a statement, you are advised to respond with N (or blank). For example, you are expected to know—whether you are from Business or IT organization—if the company’s “Long-term business strategy is the basis of IT roadmap and architecture.” If you do not have a clue about this, then consider N (blank) for this statement. Even if at some level this statement is true, from your perspective it is not. But most statements, hopefully, will not cause such dilemmas.
The list is by no means a comprehensive one for each dimension. For example, the statements mapping to tactics should not be taken to be a complete list of all that is required for tactical alignment. However, it should point you to the dimensions that you need to prioritize to improve your overall BITA index. In more advanced versions, the statements may be tailored as per the organization’s maturity, assigned weights according to its needs and priorities, and have graded responses on say, a 1–5 scale rather than a simple 1 or 0.
Some of the statements may appear complex, especially if you are from an organization where Business and Technology do interwork but are not strongly aligned. This is by design, as BITA is also about Business and Technology having an in-depth understanding of issues affecting themselves and each other. Further, not everyone using the tool is expected to be at the same level, which necessitates a heterogeneous mix.
Note: A few times you will come across statements like, “As a Business (IT) person, I understand the IT (Business) organization structure.” This implies if you are a Business person you understand the IT organization structure, or vice versa.
List 1: Think: Plan—Strategy, Roadmap | Design—Innovation, Improvement | Share—Knowledge, Ideas, Culture | Measure—Trends, Analysis
Table 6.1 Think
List 2: Build: Collaborate—Governance, Teamwork | Construct—Process, Organization | Deliver—Projects, Solutions | Deploy—Technology, Best practices | Optimize—Time, Cost, Quality
Table 6.2 Build
|
S.No. |
Statement |
Response |
|
44 |
I (or anyone I know) do not feel micromanaged or controlled by the supervisor. |
|
|
45 |
In our company, we are free to take customer problems to management without fear, and express dissent with management on issues impacting our customers. |
|
|
46 |
Business and IT celebrate their wins together in our company. |
|
|
47 |
As a Business (IT) person, I understand the IT (Business) organization. I can explain it to a customer if needed. |
|
|
48 |
We have Business Analysts (or equivalent) in our company as the single-point interface between Business and IT. |
|
|
49 |
My performance goals and KRAs are dependent on the Business achieving its mission. That is, if the Business fails, I fail, irrespective of whether I am from the Business or IT team. |
|
|
50 |
Outcome-based IT is a well-entrenched concept in my organization. For example, “Boosting customer engagement via Digital Channels” could equally be a goal for IT as well as Business. |
|
|
51 |
The decision to bid for a contract is made jointly by Business and IT (except in case of “standard” offers). |
|
|
52 |
Our IT strategy and status are part of the agenda of our company’s seniormost leadership team meetings. |
|
|
53 |
We have systems to identify unexpected gaps between Business and IT strategies due to market dynamics and make timely course corrections. |
|
|
54 |
We hold a customer meet at least once a year with our key customers and partners, which is attended by leaders from both Business and IT. |
|
|
55 |
The processes in our organization, at least those that I am familiar with, are designed to make it easy for people to get things done. |
|
|
56 |
IT team members routinely participate in sales/marketing conferences in our company. |
|
|
57 |
We are able to respond quickly to business needs because our process workflow, particularly for IT requests, is designed to be fast and quick, with minimum approvals. |
|
|
58 |
Business teams share the updated plans and progress with designated members of the IT team (e.g., BA) every month in our organization. |
|
|
59 |
Our IT organization is quick to align its skills and structure with the changing needs of the business. |
|
|
60 |
I believe that our IT is spending more time and money on “Change the Business” (transformation and new initiatives) than on “Run the Business” (routine operations, upkeep, keeping the light bulbs on). |
|
|
61 |
We have launched products or services in the market based on at least one of these—Internet of Things (IoT), Cloud, Mobility (apps), Big Data. |
|
|
62 |
Our IT processes are well documented and available on a public folder (or intranet), accessible to both Business and IT. |
|
|
63 |
For some IT/Technology positions, it is common in our company for business leaders to interview (IT) candidates. |
|
|
64 |
We have a new product introduction process clearly outlined which requires Business and IT to work together on a new market offering from its inception to launch. |
|
|
65 |
Our marketing campaign relies on customer data managed by IT. A formal process exists for Business and IT to jointly assure the integrity of customer data. |
|
|
66 |
Our change management process for delivering IT products and customizations (change requests) is agreed with Business. |
|
|
67 |
The User Acceptance Testing of IT deliverables is conducted exclusively by the Business (without IT intervention). |
|
|
68 |
I count our ability to launch new business services on time as one of our organizational strengths. |
|
|
69 |
Our IT development follows the iterative (agile) model to incorporate changing business requirements without hampering our time-to-market for new offerings. |
|
|
70 |
Business and Technology teams meet frequently and regularly (say every week) specifically to discuss pending and escalated customer issues. |
|
|
71 |
Business and IT together review (steer) critical or transformational IT projects through senior-level involvement (governance). |
|
|
In our company customer needs drive the proactive adoption of new trends like ecommerce platform, cloud-based offerings, BDA, etc. I can cite examples. |
|
|
|
73 |
Finalizing the specifications and design for new IT development is accomplished collaboratively with inputs and agreement from both Business and IT. |
|
|
74 |
We lay strong emphasis on information security. However, our security stance is not an impediment to smooth business conduct. |
|
|
75 |
Business and IT commonly work together in preparing the response to a Request for Proposal (RFP). |
|
|
76 |
We have invested in tools to gauge our customers’ sentiments through social media and use this to calibrate our response to customers. |
|
List-3: Operate: Execute—Sell, Service, Install | Monitor—Process, Performance, Cost | Control—Assets, Policies | Support—Customer experience, enterprise productivity, data privacy, and security
Table 6.3 Operate
|
S.No |
Statement |
Response |
|
77 |
We promote and encourage BYOD in our organization. |
|
|
78 |
The quality of the business outcome (like customer experience, revenue growth, speed-to-market) is a measure of IT performance too in our company. |
|
|
79 |
More often than not, I talk to the person who sits on the same floor as me, than send them an e-mail. |
|
|
80 |
If my business card described me as a Customer Satisfier instead of my present title, it would do full justice to my role. By customer here, I mean the end, or external, customer. |
|
|
81 |
Our ability to offer personalized customer solutions based on the use of advanced technologies like Big data is an undisputed success factor for the company. |
|
|
82 |
Business and IT regularly review the customer service data (like response time to complaints, escalated problems) as a reliable indicator of customer’s overall perception about us. |
|
|
83 |
Business and technology teams routinely participate together in meetings with technology partners/vendors in our company. |
|
|
84 |
The Business owns the IT budget as it has a direct impact on the P&L. Therefore, Business and IT jointly decide on business case for IT expenditure. |
|
|
85 |
Business and IT are jointly engaged in innovation and transformation in methods of doing business, e.g., proposals, offers, campaigns, bills and receipts, upsells. |
|
|
86 |
Participation of the relevant team members from the IT organization in business conferences is a routine matter in our company. |
|
|
87 |
Our IT team members often visit our dealers/field-offices to assess the market pulse and experiences of local staff in working with our IT systems. |
|
|
88 |
We track Business Value of IT focusing on business outcomes influenced by IT (like Customer Experience, Revenue/Upsells, Cost-Savings). |
|
|
89 |
Business and IT periodically meet to discuss the feasibility of current IT services—e.g., applications that can be retired, merged, consolidated, enhanced, or upgraded. |
|
|
90 |
My company has the IT tools and expertise to gather and act upon market intelligence and voice-of-customer in a consistent and timely manner. |
|
|
91 |
I am part of, or am aware of, the regular forums in which expenditure on IT infrastructure and services (capex and opex) is reported by IT to Business. |
|
|
92 |
I have the right tools, connectivity, and devices to access the data I require for making decisions that impact my internal and external customers. |
|
|
93 |
A mechanism exists in our company to get customer feedback on quality of our service/product and use this to improve the quality. |
|
|
94 |
IT in our company is not considered too “narrow” or “maintenance-centric” to influence business. |
|
|
95 |
As a Business (IT) person, I know exactly whom to go to if I have an IT (Business) problem. |
|
|
96 |
Our IT systems undergo annual refresh cycles and system upgrades and capacity dimensioning in consultation with Business to keep pace with the changing business requirements. |
|
|
97 |
We have regular (scheduled) forums for presentation by IT to Business on customer operations and delivery performance and trends. |
|
|
98 |
In our company, both Business and IT are in the front-end delivering customer proposals, solutions, service. IT is not a backend function. |
|
|
99 |
We do not launch a new product or service until we have built the capability in IT to fully support it in the market. |
|
|
100 |
Once Business and IT have agreed on a plan, I would not hesitate to announce it publicly, including to customers. I have confidence in IT’s ability to deliver on their promise. |
|
|
101 |
At least once in six months, IT updates business on the capacity of the IT infrastructure (like servers, storage, bandwidth) to support business needs and decide jointly on next steps. |
|
|
102 |
We have an agreed business continuity plan to keep our essential services working in the event of a calamity that shuts down our core IT systems. |
|
|
103 |
Customers and business folks can access our customer complaints tracking tool without IT intervention. |
|
|
104 |
After the resolution of severe customer complaints, IT team provides a root cause analysis report to Business team. |
|
|
105 |
Our Change Management Process sets clear roles and responsibilities for Business and IT in various stages of the delivery cycle. I understand the process clearly. |
|
Table 6.4 Score sheet List-1 [Think]
|
Statement Number |
Culture |
Strategy |
Structure |
Process |
Intellect |
Function |
Tactics |
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
18 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
19 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
21 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
22 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
23 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
24 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
25 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
26 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
27 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
28 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
29 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
30 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
31 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
32 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
33 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
34 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
35 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
36 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
37 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
38 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
39 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
40 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
41 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
42 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
43 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TOTAL |
Table 6.5 Score sheet List-2 [Build]
|
Statement Number |
Cul-ture |
Strategy |
Structure |
Pro-cess |
Intellect |
Function |
Tactics |
|
44 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
45 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
46 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
47 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
48 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
49 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
50 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
51 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
52 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
53 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
54 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
55 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
56 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
57 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
58 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
59 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
60 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
61 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
62 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
63 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
64 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
65 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
66 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
67 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
68 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
69 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
70 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
71 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
72 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
73 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
74 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
75 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
76 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TOTAL |
Table 6.6 Score Sheet List 3 [Operate]
|
Statement Number |
Cul-ture |
Strategy |
Structure |
Pro-cess |
Intellect |
Function |
Tactics |
|
77 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
78 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
79 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
80 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
81 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
82 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
83 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
84 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
85 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
86 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
87 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
88 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
89 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
90 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
91 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
92 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
93 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
94 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
95 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
96 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
97 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
98 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
99 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
100 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
101 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
102 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
103 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
104 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
105 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TOTAL |
|
GRAND TOTAL |
Culture |
Strategy |
Structure |
Process |
Intellect |
Function |
Tactics |
Table 6.7 Check sheet
|
THINK |
BUILD |
OPERATE |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
St |
C |
Sy |
Se |
P |
I |
F |
T |
St |
C |
Sy |
Se |
P |
I |
F |
T |
St |
C |
Sy |
Se |
P |
I |
F |
T |
||
|
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
44 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
77 |
1 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
||
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
45 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
78 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
1 |
|
||
|
3 |
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
46 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
79 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
4 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
1 |
|
47 |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
80 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
5 |
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
48 |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
81 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
1 |
||
|
6 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
49 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
82 |
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
1 |
||
|
7 |
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
50 |
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
83 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
||
|
8 |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
51 |
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
84 |
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
||
|
9 |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
52 |
|
1 |
|
|
1 |
|
|
85 |
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
1 |
||
|
10 |
|
1 |
|
|
1 |
|
|
53 |
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
86 |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
1 |
||
|
11 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
54 |
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
87 |
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
1 |
||
|
12 |
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
55 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
88 |
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
||
|
13 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
56 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
89 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
||
|
14 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
57 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
90 |
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
1 |
||
|
15 |
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
58 |
|
1 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
91 |
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
||
|
16 |
|
1 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
59 |
|
|
1 |
|
|
1 |
|
92 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
||
|
17 |
|
|
1 |
|
1 |
|
|
60 |
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
93 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
1 |
||
|
18 |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
61 |
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
1 |
94 |
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
||
|
19 |
1 |
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
62 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
95 |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
1 |
||
|
20 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
63 |
1 |
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
96 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
1 |
||
|
21 |
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
64 |
|
|
|
1 |
1 |
|
|
97 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
1 |
||
|
22 |
|
|
1 |
|
1 |
|
|
65 |
|
|
|
|
1 |
1 |
|
98 |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
||
|
23 |
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
1 |
66 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
99 |
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
1 |
||
|
24 |
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
67 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
1 |
100 |
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
1 |
||
|
25 |
|
|
1 |
|
1 |
|
|
68 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
101 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
||
|
26 |
1 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
69 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
102 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
1 |
||
|
27 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
70 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
103 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
1 |
||
|
28 |
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
1 |
71 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
1 |
|
104 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
1 |
||
|
29 |
|
|
1 |
|
1 |
|
|
72 |
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
105 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
||
|
30 |
1 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
73 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
1 |
Tot |
22 |
18 |
18 |
25 |
22 |
24 |
29 |
||
|
31 |
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
74 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
32 |
1 |
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
75 |
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
1 |
||||||||||
|
33 |
1 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
76 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
1 |
||||||||||
|
34 |
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
35 |
|
|
|
1 |
1 |
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
36 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
37 |
|
1 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
38 |
1 |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
39 |
|
1 |
|
1 |
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
40 |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
41 |
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
42 |
|
|
1 |
|
1 |
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
43 |
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
||||||||||||||||||
Table 6.8 BITA scoring example
|
|
Example |
||||||||
|
|
BUSINESS or IT or OVERALL |
||||||||
|
|
<Name> |
Cul-ture |
Strat-egy |
Struc-ture |
Pro-cess |
Intel-lect |
Func-tion |
Tact-ics |
BITA |
|
A |
Max Y-count (Fixed-do not change) |
22 |
18 |
18 |
25 |
22 |
24 |
29 |
158 |
|
B |
Raw Y-Count (Actual Count) |
12 |
8 |
10 |
6 |
8 |
5 |
8 |
57 |
|
C |
Score ((B/A)*100 |
55 |
44 |
56 |
24 |
36 |
21 |
28 |
37.6 |
The total scores may be entered as shown in Table 6.8. The actual count of 1s in each dimension is entered in row B. In the case of multiple respondents, the average score for each dimension is entered in Row B. Row A, which is fixed, shows the max possible count, that is, the total number of statements corresponding to that dimension out of the full set. You may note that the total number of statements is 105, but the total of Row A is 158. This is because some of the statements correspond to two dimensions.
Figure 6.3 BITA score chart
The score for each dimension is calculated on a base of 100 by simply taking the ratio of Actual (row B) and Maximum (row A) count and multiplying by 100.
Plotting the final scores (row C) on a radar graph as in Figure 6.3 gives an excellent relational view of the scores on each dimension. The graph tells us here that while the organization has relatively good cultural and structural alignment, it needs to pull up its alignment score on other dimensions. In the book Mastering the 7 Dimensions of Business-Technology Alignment1 by the same author, a few approaches to improve the dimensional scores are discussed in detail with exercises and examples. As we said earlier, all dimensions are connected. For example, if you align strongly on your strategy, without strengthening the capacity to execute it (tactical alignment), it wouldn’t take you very far. Or, if you align on strategy and tactics dimensions but lack the structure (people, competencies) and process alignment required to deliver, the desired outcomes will elude you.
What’s a Good BITA Score?
If you are expecting a centum score on BITA—or even any of its dimensions—you are setting yourself up for disappointment. Let’s face it. There are far too many variables in every dimension of BITA for any one enterprise to achieve perfection in the initial attempt, though it is a theoretical possibility.
There are no benchmarks yet available for the BITA scores. Hence, I am relying on my own assessment, which is based on the scores of enterprises at different stages of BITA. When I performed the test for an organization, which I rate the highest in BITA among the few organizations that I assessed, I achieved average scores of 45–60 on each dimension and an overall BITA of 55. Does this mean this is the most one can aspire to? Probably not. It is certainly rewarding to aim higher, and more importantly, to grow from wherever you may be right now. For this reason, I may put an organization which has moved from, say, 25–40 a bit higher than the organization that is stagnating at 42 in the same period.
Table 6.9 BITA score ranges
|
SN |
BITA Level—where are you on your BITA journey |
Score range (Overall BITA) |
Semesterly improvement target |
Retest in |
|
1 |
Excellent—Well settled |
80+ |
Maintain |
1 year |
|
2 |
Very Good—Arrived |
60–80 |
10% |
1 year |
|
3 |
Good—Almost there |
50–60 |
20% |
6–9 months |
|
4 |
Fair—On the right track |
40–50 |
25% |
6 months |
|
5 |
Deficient—Need course correction |
30–40 |
25% |
3 months |
|
6 |
Low—Lack momentum |
20–30 |
35% |
3 months |
|
7 |
Nonexistent—Not started |
<20 |
50% |
2 months |
On the other hand, another company that I conducted this test for surprisingly scored as low as 7–10 on culture, strategy, process, intellect, and function alignment while it scored 20 on tactical alignment. Overall, it was at about 11. Having some knowledge of where this company is in its thought process and actions regarding BITA, I think this should form the lower end of the BITA scale. Anything lower would indeed make it rather uphill to achieve a respectable score.
Going by these experiments, companies with an overall BITA score of over 50 in their first assessment should feel reasonably good about their prospects in the digital economy. Taking this further, the progressive score ranges and the targeted semesterly improvement in the scores would be as per Table 6.9.
It would be helpful to further plot a line graph over time for each dimension (and the overall BITA score) to monitor the trends. Any dimension showing a downward movement should instantly ring an alert and must become the focus of immediate correction.
Variants are possible, which may perhaps yield more accurate results. One such could be to rate each statement on a scale of 0 to 4 (Never Demonstrated → Major Strength) instead of just 0 or 1 and calculate the scores accordingly. This will enable monitoring the improvement at the level of each statement. There is indeed enormous scope for innovating as we go to make this tool a very precise indicator of BITA in your organization.