A few years ago CA ran an ad campaign around a cardboard software salesman - the unresponsive, static type.
Jevon McDonald, a fellow EI, reports he was at a conference recently where 2 vendors were running static HTML mockups of their "next generation portal" and the guys on the floor kept imploring people not to click on anything. In the end one of them just unplugged the mouse. Now that is what we can agree is unresponsive, static, cardboard software.
Wonder if this happened at Waste Management. In demos, it alleges, SAP led Waste Management to believe that it was looking at the finished product when in reality it was mock-up.
Here's what I don't get - given the business they are in, how could they have missed the recycle logo on the cardboard? -)
Do I wear rose colored glasses?
There has been a spate of "Bad CIO" and "Bad IT" articles recently - CIO Magazine, Michael Krigsman's extinct IT post, and now John Hamalka talking about fellow "bad" CIOs.
I have been racking my brain to think of a really bad CIO over my IT career, especially in recent years in my client base. Not as good compared to other CIOs? Sure. Bad compared to others in the executive suite? Not sure.
CIOs have an almost impossible job - balancing innovation, keeping lights on, compliance and security. Most deliver a lot for 1 to 2% of revenue. The one criticism I have of some of them is they let certain vendors get away with obscene margins. But even in companies which had massive ERP and other overruns their IT staff were typically at only 0.25 to 0.5 % of revenues. So, in many cases they took the bullet for performance of their vendors.
Find me any other domain in the executive suite with that much stress, which outsources 80 to 90% of its departmental spend, has that much enterprise-wide impact and that much rapid change.
Against that filter - and maybe it is rose colored - I have a hard time saying I know too many "bad" CIOs.
March 28, 2008 in Industry Commentary | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)