The Insurance Tech Guru

Ara,

This is an excellent analysis of the "Business vs. IT" dynamic. However, there's one more element you didn't address: the question of just who is in charge.

Although both sides in the Tower of Babel need to pull together toward the same goals, I sometimes get the feeling that some IT people think that they should be the ones to determine goals and objectives, not the business people. There's a name for this kind of attitude: arrogance.

In any successful organization, the business people must be in charge. They call the tune and then it's the responsibility of everyone in a support role to sing the same tune. Where the disconnect occurs is when IT people assume that business goals should be dictated by technology capabilities. I sense that IT people - in addition to being challenged in the areas of communications skills and sartorial appropriateness - resent being considered merely support staff. Well, that's just too bad.

The wife of one of our staffers has a job that can be best described as a diplomatic envoy between corporate leadership and the IT staff. She conducts shuttle diplomacy in the manner of Henry Kissinger to avert problems between the propeller-heads and the Luddites. That the gulf between the two is so wide that it is necessary to create such a position speaks volumes to the depth of the differences in thinking.

It is no wonder that many firms have decided to outsource all IT functions. It can be much more efficient (not to mention less frustrating) for management to deal with an outside firm that wants to retain a company as a client. In such a dynamic, there is no doubt about who is in charge and the outside firm has a powerful incentive to appoint someone who translates geek-speak to the client. Best of all, there is no debate about who is in charge: it is the Luddites, who sign the checks.

Ted Besesparis
VP Communications
PIA National

Ara,

At my previous employer, I played the Henry Kissinger roll that Ted Besesparis described in his letter between the Geeks and the Luddites. Believe me, both sides are equally guilty.

Our IT Department was trying to write a program that would automatically quote several Affinity programs based on electronically received applications. We were also using an overseas (think India) company to write the code.

Between the Luddites constantly changing their minds in what they wanted the program to do or would like it to do versus the Geeks that couldn't seem to correct one problem without undoing problems that had been fixed months before, it was like dealing with a bunch of kids in the middle of the Terrible Twos. Neither side thought the other knew what they were talking about. Clients were caught in the middle trying to deal with a program that worked at 70% efficiency on a good day, the Luddites were screaming at the Geeks and the Geeks, being either in our home office halfway across the country or halfway around the world, sometimes didn't seem to care or were too busy with other projects to deal with the program problems immediately.

I agree with Ted that in the business world, the Luddites have to be in charge. The Geeks must realize that they are in a support capacity. The Luddites also have to realize that in order to have the best equipment, etc., that's going to cost money due to how quickly the IT industry changes.

Everyone needs to come to the table with the understanding that they have to find a way to get around the "Tower of Babel" and learn how to communicate effectively with each other. Otherwise, it's our customers who will suffer in the end.

Brenda C. Lawhorn
Business Service Specialist

Ara,

I am sorry to weigh in on this in a less than timely fashion. I was out of town and unable to access this due to IT problems. I appreciate that you wrote the article and you are absolutely correct.

Part of the problem (from my view) is the way that we treat our partners in IT. Look at the language in the previous two emails. The terms to describe the IT staff are less than flattering.

From the reading (and my experience), it appears that the clash of wills is the major stumbling block between the departments. Outsourcing may actually be the best answer. This way, each business is independent and no one must play a subordinate role. The IT people run their own business and control their destiny. The business people are still calling their shots because they dictate their needs and the IT supplier must attempt to meet them to retain the business.

Each of these groups think differently. They are miles apart in their approach to life, their dress, habits, and the environment in which they produce their best work. We must understand the differences, accept that we are different, then work toward the same goal with our almost polar opposite approaches.

Perhaps we (meaning my company) should turn our IT department into a separate business.

Great article.

Saw your NU Aug. 20 article, "Business vs IT: Stop 'Stinking Thinking'" and coudn't help but comment. Unfortunately your article offers only a nostrum to "Stop Stinking Thinking," similar to telling the alcoholic to "Just Stop Drinking." The article does not address potential causes of the problem and doesn't offer any solution. I believe that readers of the Tech Guru are looking for specific actions that will help them deal with their problems.

I contend that the very long standing problem (battle!) between business and IT managers results from an extremely bad software development process (waterfall) used by IT departments. I've been involved with systems development at insurance companies for 25 years, and have direct hands on experience with the extremely problematic issue that you highlight.

Most CIOs have tackled this problem, by outsourcing the broken waterfall process, which helps to lower the unit cost of develpers, but it does not address the root cause of the problem - the very broken and inefficient software development process

Nearly all IT departments that I've been involved with (that's a large number of insurance comanies) use a waterfall approach (Analaysis, Design, Develop, Test, Install), which is incredibly expensive, takes a very long time to arrive at working software and usually results in a yawn by the user community because the software is very low quality and nowhere near what is actually needed to do the job right now. Is is any wonder that that the business community has a low opinion of their IT department and have decided to minimally cooperate/interact with them?

In my humble opinion, there is a much better software development process - Agile Software Development (aka XP, Scrum, FDD and other variants) which some IT departments are experimenting with at the grass roots level and seem to be yielding much better results. Unfortunately many CIOs (the real decision makers) lack any understanding of this, because it was never a part of their experience or education. Perhaps the Tech Guru could help to enlighten them. I've had direct client experience with this process, and when compared with the traditional waterfall processes, yields a very different result, helps to get IT and business working together and if used properly can help to turn around that "Stinking Thinking."

As an objective journalist, you can not and should not rely upon a single person's experience and opinions. I'm sure Kim Harris, Judy Johnson, Chuck Johnston, Rick Williams, (myself perhaps) and many others that you rely upon - will have very good opinions, both pro and con about Agile, how it compares, which would be a very robust topic for future articles.

Would be very interested in your perspective.

Joel Collamer

OK, Joel, here's my perspective (and thanks very much for sharing yours). While it's true we don't just tell alcoholics to "stop drinking," it's also true that we DO tell them to "get real" and stop the "stinking thinking."

You say my comments do not address the cause of the problem or offer solutions, but I beg to differ. Let me summarize: The cause of the problem is poor human relationships spawned by specious and puerile thinking on both sides. The solution is honest self-examination and putting oneself in the other's shoes for a different perspective. Before anyone labels this solution as a nostrum (ineffective), perhaps they should try it.

What actions can the parties take to help the situation? Like anyone involved in "stinking thinking," the first step is to acknowledge that we have a problem in the way we think of the folks on the other side of the fence. We also need to admit that it is unfair and unrealistic to expect others to read our minds and come up with the solutions we envision--with no help or cooperation from us.

You say the problem is a faulty software development process, and that may or may not be true, but no development process will succeed where the participants insist on regularly demonizing each other. Of course, it's much easier to blame the "process" than it is to take the blame ourselves. Unfortunately, such an approach does nothing to repair the sadly damaged relationships between IT and business.

Finally, let me disabuse all of the notion that I am an objective journalist. Yes, when I write a factual news article on something or someone, I strive for objectivity. In the case of my column and this blog, however, subjectivity is what I offer. It's my opinion, clearly stated, and I very much appreciate the opinions of others, such as yourself.

Thanks for writing.

I think we're getting warm here and some good thoughts. Joel's comments - - which I conceptually agree with - - are somewhat akin to "tying two cat's tails together and throwing them over the clothes line," in that Agile and some RAD processes force physical proximity, but alas probably do not achieve the cultural bond that probably is needed to achieve solid results.

Agile does force IT people to engage "in their faces" with business functionality - - no way to avoid it. Similary, the rapid iteration cycle brings IT back days later (huh, you again...what do you want this time?) with fresh kill for the business people to look at. I find it wears them out.

IT people and business people fairly often do not share the same cultural origin...some might say species. Just like insurance agents and actuaries they not only speak and act differently, but their whole cultural backdrop is different.

The PC made some of this worse, because in its early incarnations IT people reveled in the fact that people had to type several hundred incomprehensible characters to even bring up a word processor, much less create anything. But some of those business people did crawl out of the mud, up onto the shore and start to walk on two legs and see that some of this stuff was in fact do-able by mere mortals, and started relegating the IT backslash wizards to the local dungeons and dragons hideouts, while they got real work done.

Enough blither - - a few solutions:

1. Hire business people and teach them IT. I used to prefer musicians to CompSci people because they had brains, not wires, inside their heads.

2. Require all entry IT people to spend time in the business side (Continental Insurance used to do that). If you cannot process an application, how on earth can you write a quoting system?

3. Hire IT management with business degrees or put them through mini-MBA programs. Give them financial incentives for business results.

4. Follow development processes that force everyone to state and agree on business objectives first, rubbing noses into it if necessary, and getting IT people to understand, not just concur...even force comment and suggestions from all sides.

5. Make the business side understand that they must be involved and that getting results is as much their responsibility as it is IT's. Get more than head nodding on this, get financial incentive and responsibility. Every methodology talks about project charters, etc., and most of them fall apart in minutes.

6. Kill PMOs. They are the haven of failed project managers and the worst of the communicators. It's like having a go-between for you and your wife (hmmmm....). Take direct responsibility and staff projects with people who will assume responsibility.

Just thoughts

Rick Williams

I got this recently from a reader who signs himself "Burnt Out By Technology."

Mr. Trembly,

Great article on the battle between the two.

One of the greatest fallacies of IT AND Management is that very seldom do they have the end users involved in the needs, design or ideas period. By that I mean that Underwriters know what they would like to have in their systems, same goes for claims. Agents needs are a combination of both underwriting and claims. Do you ever hear of cooperation and brainstorming? If you do it is so far and in between that it should be posted in Times Square!

Management is so far removed from the reality of the business today that it is no wonder they have the misconceptions of IT. They are too worried about bottom line and their end of year bonuses to even have an idea what is needed. Too many times they have heard the song and dance from the old Anderson Consulting and McKinsey--This is what they need and those two groups have no real idea what is needed so any company gets burned in “the latest and greatest” that is doomed to fail.

I am not in IT, I am in claims and have suffered severe brain damage for over 30 years by staying in this business. The end comment is when the financial “wizards” get out of running these companies and people who have experience in this business are put in charge again, the same mistakes will not be made over and over.