Just read this via @jamesclay:
http://blogs.msdn.com/ukschools/archive/2010/05/06/network-managers-and-teachers-have-a-relationship-problem.aspx
First, I have to agree there is an issue and that the issue is about the relationship rather than either side being at fault. This is the reason use of the phrase "innovation Prevention Department" for such issues irks me as it implies fault.
However, I think the issue can be restated in a way that might inform perception of the fundamental nature of the issue which both sides see differently.
I'll use the terminology of the article and refer to network managers (NMs) and teachers, but in ITIL terms this would be Change Advisory Board (CAB) and Change requestor.
In the overall organisation, it is the role of the NM to provide reliable, effective and efficient IT systems for the organisation to utilize. The enemy of all three of those is change (although change can also be essential to deliver 'effective').
Teachers need IT systems that work when they need them to, they need the IT systems to cost as little as possible to allow the organisation to spend on other things too (like stopping the roof leaking, keeping the lights working etc), and they need the IT systems to provide them with the right tools for them. So they also need reliable, efficient and effective IT systems. But unlike the NMs, they often want change too. They new change to use the latest, most stimulating tools they can. They need change to apply the latest paedagogic practices. They need change to avoid students disengaging with technology that seems dated.
Now, NMs role is to deliver IT systems which meet the needs of the organisation, but those needs include a lot more constraints than just delivering the changes which teachers need. The constraints are at least financial, time/staff levels, architechtural and technical.
Let's put it bluntly, change costs. Change is expensive. Change brings risk.
When a NM's performance is assessed on the bottom line or system availability, or implementing major projects which don't directly address teachers tools (eg deploying a new OS), then that determines the priorities for and other change. The organisation has dictated those priorities in terms of the investment in staffing or other resources available or the choice of KPIs the NM is assessed against.
In ITIL, it is the role of the change advisory board to understand the business needs of the organisation and to ensure that changes are appoved or rejected to reflect those needs. If an organisation priorises innovation (change=risk and cost) over reliability then the CAB should reflect that and authorize changes which have the potential to cripple the systems or bankrupt the organisation (to make an extreme case).
Very few organisations as a whole are happy with risk, even fewer are happy with higher IT costs than they can get away with - and that sets the tone of which changes can be accomodated when requested.
To manage change in that environment means that it's impact needs to be assessed, it requires the transition to be managed (including training etc), it needs the changed to fully documented (so future changes can be assessed meaningfully) and it needs these costs to be factored in along with any product costs.
This all takes time, and resources. The fewer resources available, the more time it takes. It also cost real money as a result - such that even changes which may seem trivial to the person requesting a change may end up costing significant sums which are not justified by the operational advantage the change might bring.
Does this mean that teachers shouldn't seek to innovate? Of course not. Does this mean that NMs are those preventing innovation and worthy of desparaging? Of course not.
The phrase IPD seems to me to be used when innovators are prevented by wider organisational prorities (cost/risk/etc). The people being labeled with the insulting term are no more at fault than those seeking to innovate themselves - who's costs on the organisation through seeking innovation reduce the resources available to deliver someone elses innovative request elsewhere in the organisation.
Sometimes, NMs may resort to bad practice shortcuts to save costs to the organisation incurred by processing a change request by rejecting it out of hand, by inventing reasons to reject something. While this may seem tempting from their perspective, it is ultimately shortsighted.
Teachers too may get frustrated by having their requests rejected and seek ways around due process instead. Again, this is bad practice as it leads to non-compliance (in quality terms) which can lead to significant additional costs to the organisation and reducing the capacity for future change even further.
In the worst cases, both sides adopt these bad practices and lose sight of the common organisational objectives which points to systemic failiure of the continual improvement process management (usually senior mangment responsibility if not actively involved).
The solution? Both sides need to return to the basics and recognise each others roles, and most importantly the organisational priorities.
In any case, this improvement process will _never_ be helped by name calling, and using the phrase IPD falls into that trap.
-- Posted from my phone
No comments:
Post a Comment