Read - Bringing Business and IT Together, Part I: An Imperative for Data-Driven Business

Read - Bringing Business and IT Together, Part II: Organizational Alignment

In the first article of this series, Bringing Business and IT Together: An Imperative for Data-Driven Business, I set forth a mandate that the business/IT divide must go away, and that managing the gap isn’t enough. In the second article, Bringing Business and IT Together, Part II: Organizational Alignment, I described a continuous organizational alignment (COA) approach based on a three-dimensional framework that encompasses elements of working relationships, organizational effectiveness, and alignment activities. At the writing of the second article, I thought that I could complete the series with one additional article, but have concluded that two are needed. This article describes how to measure the gap. Separately, in a fourth article, I will discuss how to manage, minimize, and eventually eliminate the gap.

The alignment activities described earlier—identify misalignment, correct misalignment, and sustain alignment—offer a macro view of the solution but are not sufficiently specific and concrete to be actionable. A continuous alignment process (see Figure 1) is necessary for real and meaningful changes to occur. Continuous is a key concept here. Continuous alignment is the goal and the challenge - continuous because organizations, people, processes, and technology continuously change. One-time alignment simply will not do.

Figure 1. Continuous Organizational Alignment Process

Note that each cycle of the COA process begins and ends with measurement. As with any continuous improvement work (CQI - continuous quality improvement, CPI - continuous process improvement, etc.) measurement is fundamental. It is the beginning of a cycle, the end of a cycle, and the essential element to provide continuity. Although essential, measuring organizational alignment is difficult and challenging. Inter- and intra-organization working relationships are complex things that are primarily driven by human factors - belief behaviors, experiences, politics, power, and the like. 

Measuring organizational alignment is a complex problem. It seeks to turn personal, subjective, and intangible things into quantifiable and objective things. Given the complexities, it is impractical to devise a measurement system that provides precise and absolute quantification of organizational alignment. I propose a measurement system that will work—a system that is useful to: 

• assess the current state of alignment, 

• identify the trouble spots, 

• determine the root causes of trouble spots, 

• make informed decisions to correct problems, 

• take corrective actions, and 

• evaluate the impact of those actions.

WHAT TO MEASURE

As with all metric systems, organizational alignment measures must be dimensional if they are to be useful for analysis. Two primary dimensions are organizational effectiveness and working relationships, which are described in detail in the earlier articles of this series and briefly reviewed here. The third dimension of organizational alignment is human behaviors. 

Organizational Effectiveness: Ineffective organizations are difficult (and undesirable) to align with. Organizational effectiveness has three major components: 

• Processes are the procedures and activities through which interaction occurs, needs are communicated, products and services are delivered, and payment or chargeback is achieved. 

• Relationships involve both the state and the quality of interaction among multiple organizations. 

• Skills are the abilities to produce solutions in the problem domain. Business skills, technology skills, and interpersonal skills are all important.

Working Relationships: Working relationships are the procedures, processes, attitudes, and behaviors with which organizations interact. Working relationships are founded on three elements: 

• Governance provides the structure and controls needed to achieve value from IT resources, minimize the risk of IT initiatives, and ensure the long-term viability of IT solutions. Governance addresses ownership, responsibilities, policies, and practices. 

• Competency is the ability to produce and deliver results, It encompasses both knowledge and ability to apply that knowledge. 

• Communications are a cornerstone of Business/IT alignment - the connections that enable access, understanding, cooperation, and teamwork. Every aspect of alignment depends in some way and to some degree on communication. 

Human Behaviors: This third dimension, not discussed in the previous articles, is essential both for measurement and for action taking to effect change. Organizations are, of course, composed of people. Thus, organizational alignment problems are also people's problems, and measuring alignment must include a human dimension. A measurement structure for organizational alignment must include ways to measure: 

• What we think—Expectations and beliefs are the basis of natural and instinctive responses and reactions in any situation where two or more people interact. Shared expectations and beliefs - those of groups and teams - and individual expectations and beliefs both play a significant role in working relationships. 

• What we say—Communications of many kinds - spoken, written, and visual—influence the expectations and beliefs of individuals and groups. Where communications as an element of the working relationships dimension address formal communications, it is also necessary to evaluate informal communication which frequently has a greater impact than formal communication. 

• What we do—The old adage "actions speak louder than words" is undoubtedly true when applied to work relationships. The effect of positive communication is quickly undone when we say one thing and do another. Actions are perhaps the most visual of communications. 

QUANTIFYING SUBJECTIVE THINGS

When measuring organizational alignment, the purpose is to quantify "soft" things—intangibles such as beliefs and attitudes. In this realm, the only things that can be practically measured are perceptions (what we think), and that is the right stuff to measure because that is what drives the actions and behaviors. Using three dimensions of organizational effectiveness, working relationships, and human behaviors offer twenty-seven points of measurement that can be used to quantify perceptions of: 

• What we think about process communication 

• What we say about process communication 

• What we do about process communication 

• What we think about process competency 

• What we say about process competency 

• What we do about process competency 

• and so on ... 

Each measurement point must be assigned a numerical value as a first step to making it quantifiable. For ease of analysis and intuitive understanding, it is ideal to work with a one-hundred-point scale. Figure 2 illustrates the distribution of values across the twenty-seven measurement points to support a one-hundred-point scale. 

Figure 2: Quantifying Organizational Alignment

Note that one-hundred percent of the values are distributed through the nine building blocks that are based on organizational effectiveness and working relationships. The distribution is not equal —that is not all of the nine areas carry equal weight in the measurement process. The intersection of relationships with competency is given more significance than the remaining eight building blocks. It is obvious that competency in relationships is a core component essential to achieve real and lasting impact from improvement in the other eight areas. 

The values are also distributed along the human factors dimension, with "what we do" weighted more heavily than "what we think" and "what we say." This is based on the premise that the things we do have a greater impact than the things that we think and say - actions speak louder than words. 

The contribution of each of the twenty-seven individual measurement points to aggregate alignment scores is determined by the two distributions of values. What we do about relationship competency, for example, contributes 8% of the overall measure (40% of 20%). Distribution across all measurement points appears as 

The three dimensions, twenty-seven measurement points, and distribution of values throughout are interesting, but only academically without a means to collect data. Without data, it still is not measurement. Figure 3 illustrates the data collection basis. A sound data collection structure provides: 

• Consistency of semantics across all measurement points: In this case, the semantic structure is composed of three elements - how we manage, how we implement, and how we sustain - at each measurement point. Collecting data, for example, about how we manage process governance has sufficient context to provide analytic value, to inform decisions, and to take actions. 

• A scale that is uniform for all measurement points: In this case, we use a three-point scale where a value of one is the lowest rating and a value of three is the highest rating. One means that we do it poorly; three means that we do it well. 

• Interpretation of the scale: To have real meaning and support decision making we must be able to apply the numbers to real-world concepts about organizational alignment. In this case, the scale is interpreted as three levels of management (purposefully, carelessly, casually), three levels of implementation (globally, locally, individually), and three levels of sustenance (proactively, reactively, and accidentally). 

Figure 3. Semantics, Scale, and Interpretation

The structure of three dimensions and twenty-seven measurement points provides a big picture. Semantics, scale, and interpretation add detail to the big picture. One additional view is needed to develop a survey to measure organizational alignment—a concept of how survey results will be aggregated and presented for analysis. Certainly, more than one person will respond to the survey. Looking at each response individually isn't informative. Important considerations for a good survey include knowing how you will:

• combine multiple responses into a collective set of values, 

• visually present those values as a starting place for analysis. 

Employing the dimensions and following the survey principles I have constructed a survey that consists of one-hundred statements with each statement mapped to one of the twenty-seven measurement points and further classified by the semantic structure (manage, implement, sustain) that underlies those measurement points. The percentage distribution of values determines the number of statements that are used for each measurement point. A sample of survey statements is shown in figure 4.

Figure 4. The Alignment Surveysurvey continues for a total of 100 statements

MEASUREMENT, ANALYSIS, AND ACTION

With the fourth and final (yes, really final this time) article of this series, I’ll provide a download link to acquire the survey and scoring spreadsheet. And I’ll discuss how to analyze the scores and use them to take actions to narrow and eventually eliminate the Business/IT divide.

Read - Bringing Business and IT Together, Part IV: Analysis and Action