Workbook for developing strategic computing initiatives 

some course material by Dr. Jerry Mechling of Harvard University.

----------

Bullet Para #&x~ p?nd other accounts.  Customers are learning to expect
that good service means personalization and accessibility at
any time of the day or week, from almost any place in the
world.

Examples in government include:

correspondence and case management systems in
Congress;
welfare payments via ATMs in Ramsey County, Minnesota,
and a combination of Food Stamp and other benefit
programs via point-of-sale and other terminals in
Maryland;
touch-tone phone access to Albuquerque databases
including, for example, water bill status so that real
estate closings can be concluded on weekends;
"Electronic City Halls" springing up for 24-hour
service around the country.

According to research of the Strategic Computing program,
client contact systems represent a major and underdeveloped
strategic target.  There are many opportunities for high
impact at a relatively low cost in terms of technology and
organizational change.















1.  CLIENT CONTACT SYSTEMS.  At what places within your
agency -- or in collaboration with other institutions --
might I-T be used to improve service at the point of direct
contact with clients and constituents?  Are there particular
services for which better access and personalization might
be strategic?

Work Dispersal.



Another strategic target is work dispersal and telecommuting
-- i.e., using I-T to move work to the people instead of
forcing people to move to the work.  Work dispersal need not
operate on a full-time basis.  Sizeable improvements could
be made via part-time work at home or neighborhood-based
satellite centers (perhaps organized on a cross-agency
basis).  Improvements in productivity (through less stress,
less turnover, less expensive office space, and/or through
the use of under-utilized part-time or handicapped workers)
can be weighed against needed investments in infrastructure
(databases, networks, portable and home-office computers)
and management (learning new skills for managing at a
distance).

A number of agencies are working on dispersal:

California is investing in prototypes, hoping to
reduce their horrendous environmental and traffic
problems.  
Seattle is also experimenting, again due to energy and
environmental concerns.
The IRS is seeking to attract needed staff by locating
their offices outside of the central cities.
Organizations around the world are globalizing office
work in much the same way manufacturing has already
been globalized.

Over the next 20 years organizations will push to locate
near "brains and beauty" -- i.e., in attractive locales
where talented people prefer to live.  Government should
understand and control this trend, not be surprised by it.















2.  WORK DISPERSAL.  How might your agency take advantage of
(or protect itself from) the abilities of I-T to support
geographically dispersed work and telecommuting? 

Job and Organizational Redesign.



For many years a dominant mode of organizing work has been
the production line.  Henry Ford made production lines
famous, bragging he could take an unschooled farmer from
Iowa and, in half a day, make him effective by having him
specialize on a narrow task and then using the production
line to set the pace and measure productivity. 

The production view provides a coherent view of workers,
machines, and how the two should be organized: 

workers have limited skills, 
machines are good for repetitive physical tasks, and
work should be organized by specialty, then integrated
by the production line and a clear hierarchy of
command.

Production lines are often effective.  Many government
bureaucracies have been designed as paperwork "factories,"
bringing production line organization to office work.  With
the advent of new information technologies, it is possible
to specialize tasks and measure results even more
aggressively. 

On the other hand, new information technologies are also
making it possible to organize in a new way, which some have
called the "network" view.  This assumes:

that workers have both skills and needs for work
involving choice and "intrinsically whole outputs;"
that machines have intelligence for
knowledge-intensive work; and 
that organizing should be based on broad jobs with a
heavy reliance on self-control and teamwork.

Technology projects, if strategic, are basically projects to
reorganize jobs and work flows.  The goal is to make the
organization flatter (fewer hierarchical layers), faster
(fewer steps and quicker turn-around in orders and new
service designs), and/or friendlier (services more
accessible and personalized).  If I-T is used for
simple-minded automation and "tightening up," it becomes
part of the problem rather than part of the solution.






firm




3.  JOB AND ORGANIZATIONAL REDESIGN.  Where is I-T likely to
significantly change the character of work in your agency
over the next few years?   What steps might you take to see
that the jobs and structures being created are appropriate
for future needs?

Executive Support.



Another I-T target is the managers responsible for
establishing the agency's strategic direction.  Executive
support systems (ESS) can be built for these people
following a methodology such as the "critical success
factors" (CSF) approach.  CSFs define a handful of areas of
utmost concern to senior managers over the next 3-5 years. 
Once these have been defined, data is sought (often
external, often survey-based or "soft") to track progress. 
Systems can then be developed to present this data
comfortably to senior managers and to keep them in touch no
matter where they are.

I-T has matured enough over the past decade to make such
systems technically feasible and often worthwhile,
especially in the private sector.  Internal data has become
more accessible through networks and relational databases. 
External data of an enormous variety is also becoming
available electronically.  Tools like electronic mail and
voice mail can speed up communications.  Better interfaces
through graphics, pointing devices, and voice recognition
can make the systems easy to use.

The public sector has been slow to adopt ESS, but numerous
agencies are exploring the possibilities:

In the federal government, the GSA and NOAA, among
others, have developed well-publicized systems;  such
efforts may typically need to find a new champion as
administrations change.
In state and local settings, financial systems (such
as the one for former Governor Sununu of New
Hampshire) remain the central focus.
In general, it is impossible to "sell" senior
executives on such initiatives.  Success requires the
executives to be the driving force and to want to use

I-T as a way of focusing the attention of their
management team. 

Executive support is still a pioneering effort in
government, but the prospects look increasingly good.












4.  EXECUTIVE SUPPORT.  Which senior managers might be good
targets for executive support systems?  For what programs or
purposes might they be interested?

II. TECHNOLOGICAL CAPACITY/THE AUTHORIZING ENVIRONMENT
Network and Database Infrastructures.



Without a consistent data and network infrastructure, many
"strategic" applications are impossible;  With the right
infrastructure, however, the marginal cost may be so low
that strategic applications are relatively easy to
implement.  To the extent this is the case, the
infrastructure is the strategy. 

Examples:

A well-known private initiative is Merrill Lynch's
"Cash Management Account" (CMA), the first nationwide
"relationship" banking service.  Once implemented, the
CMA attracted roughly $70 billion in new deposits. 
Success depended to a great extent on Merrill's
pre-existing databases and networks, and on its
competitors' lack of such infrastructure.
A public example may be found in recent initiatives of
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  EPA has
moved to extend its network and to share data in a
more intimate and integrated fashion with a variety of
state agencies.  The aim is not only to reduce the
costs of data collection (an important goal in today's
fiscal climate), but also to build an infrastructure
for EPA's data to exert strategic leverage in an era
concerned with dispersed, cross-media, and
locally-controlled pollution problems.
An ambitious example is the National Research and
Education Network (NREN), a high speed computer
network to connect the nation's research and
educational institutions.  The technical goal is to
increase communications and switching speeds from the
present 1.5 megabits per second to 3 gigabits;  the
more strategic goal is to evolve an infrastructure
which might eventually improve the global
competitiveness of the American economy.  

Building infrastructure requires major investments and
strong management and external support.  At workshops of the
Strategic Computing program, technology managers almost
uniformly given a top priority to infrastructure
investments, while program and political managers have been
skeptical.




























































The infrastructure is the strategy?






5.  NETWORK AND DATABASE INFRASTRUCTURES.  What networks
and/or databases might add strategic value for your agency? 
(You might want to think about infrastructure as a tool for
cross-program, cross-agency, even cross-governmental sharing
and integration.)

Crisis Leverage.



The way to win with technology in government is not by
frontal attack but by jujitsu:  i.e., by taking the momentum
of the opponent and, catching it at the right point, turning
it to your own advantage.

This insight, while powerful, is nothing new.  Successful
managers have long known that "politics is the art of the
possible."  A new element is that, until recently, no one
thought that I-T was a relevant weapon in the politics of
crisis and change.  Recently, however, the perceptions and
reality of technology have changed. 
I-T projects can often keep pace with and facilitate
crisis-initiated change.  Some examples:

In private companies, the high frequency of
organization-threatening crisis is cited as a key
factor in gaining support for strategic I-T
applications.
In Massachusetts, as a public example, a referendum on
hazardous wastes was used to justify I-T investments
for the required clean-up; today, these
referendum-driven investments are among the few bright
spots for I-T innovation in a horribly tight fiscal
situation.  

In general, the idea is to align I-T with other forces for
change.  Add a technology component to crisis management, to
a new administration, to new legislation.  Timing is
everything:  win via jujitsu.



6.  CRISIS LEVERAGE.  What crises or other powerful forces
might be allies in opening up opportunities for strategic
I-T investments?  For what problems will it be relatively
easy to acquire support?

III.  ORGANIZATIONAL CAPACITY
Plans and Linkage



Many strategic investments are initiated as some sort of
planning effort.  I-T projects, in particular, require
planning to handle the many details and interdependencies
involved. 

A problem, of course, is that planning alone is not enough. 
Planning may even be a means of deferring action which
otherwise could lead to change.  Too often we bring in the
consultants, isolate them from operations, drag things out,
listen politely to the recommendations, then let the report
gather dust. 

What we need is planning which not only handles the
technical elements, but also engages the power structure. 
There are many workable methodologies to do this.  What is
essential is for those involved in I-T planning to
understand the organization's overall strategy; and for
those involved in strategy understand the opportunities and
constraints created by I-T.

Such understanding may be created in many ways; e.g.:

by elevating I-T managers to the senior management
team, 
by having general managers take a greater role in
managing I-T, and/or
by requiring that I-T planning be included as part of
the budget process. 

Organizations which take planning and linkage seriously tend
to work on both formal and informal fronts, developing
explicit processes to tie I-T planning to other planning,
and staffing important planning efforts with a combination
of I-T and general managers. 










7.  PLANS AND LINKAGE.  How might your agency ensure that
I-T capabilities are properly aligned with organizational
strategy?  What changes in your procedures for planning
would add the most value?

The Acquisition Process.



Some things we produce internally under command and control
of the hierarchy.  Other things we purchase from markets. 
In general, markets have an advantage in terms of incentives
(production efficiency), while hierarchies benefit from
reduced coordination costs (search and negotiation). 
Markets are typically best for things that are simple
(commodities) while hierarchies are best for complex things
like large machine tools which require tight coordination
with other factors of production.

What can we expect as the Information Age progresses?  In
general, I-T makes things flexible and easier to coordinate; 
for example, computer-controlled machine tools can be used
in a broader array of tasks than earlier machine tools. 
Further, information technology makes it easier to compare
complex offerings;  thus a higher proportion of airline
tickets are now sold through travel agents than before the
arrival of computer networks.

As both markets and hierarchies become electronic, more work
may be coordinated via markets.  For complex and innovative
services, long-term cross-organizational relationships
(i.e., "strategic alliances") may increase in importance as
a way to manage I-T and other acquisitions.

These trends create important public sector issues:

Should governments move to market-based rather than
internal means of production?  Should governments be
moving aggressively to form widespread electronic
links with suppliers?
Should acquisitions at least for innovative
technologies and applications, be based importantly on
the concept of "relationship" and not only on the
concepts of "transactions" and "contracts."  Should
acquisition policy give more weight to vendor past
performance and other non-cost factors?








8.  THE ACQUISITION PROCESS.  How should the acquisition
process change if I-T is to be used strategically in your
organization?  Alternatively, how should I-T be used to
improve procurement and contracting for all government goods
and services?

Organizational Learning.



With organizational innovations, long-term benefits are
uncertain early in the learning curve.  Learning typically
follows an "S" curve, with slow growth followed by fast
growth followed by slow growth.  What is difficult with
I-T-based innovations is not so much getting the machines to
work as fitting them into a revised workflow.  Since
organizations cannot simply jump over a learning stage or
begin at full efficiency, the appropriate style of
management must shift over time, particularly between the
early "effectiveness learning" and later "efficiency
learning."

Organizations which take learning seriously tend to:

Accept higher risks on early stage projects.  They do
not require a uniform ROI justification for all
investments, but instead have an "R&D" category where
projects are funded for long-term learning and
strategic potential, not for near-term payback.
Monitor emerging technologies.  They invest in R&D to
keep near to the leading edge on technologies which
appear to be key to future success.
Allocate resources to pilot projects and other
"learning" investments.Defining their problem as
"learning," they invest to learn about applications as
well as technologies.

Support for organizational learning and innovation is
difficult in government, given tight resources public
scrutiny.  Still, perhaps especially in government, support
for organizational learning may be the key strategic
investment.














9.  ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING.  What might you do to improve
your organization's capacity to learn about and use
technology for innovation?  What technologies need to be
explored?

Some Other Opportunity.



There are many dimensions along which high priority I-T
investments could be described and analyzed -- we could
search for particular technologies such as GIS or imaging,
particular activities such as the establishment of
technology standards, etc.  In your view, what is a
promising opportunity which has been left out of the list of
nine opportunities presented above?










10.  SOME OTHER OPPORTUNITY.  What is the most promising
opportunity which, in your view, has been left out of the
list presented above?

In Summary:  What's strategic for you?



Now you should begin to look back over the ideas you have
generated.  Sift through them and identify the few which
seem to be best for you.  How would they work?  What problem
would they solve?  How would they be strategic?  If you
don't have the information to answer these questions
confidently just now, where could you go or what could you
do to get a "definitive" answer?

Our class time on Thursday will be devoted to issues of
implementation and to helping you think about how to build
momentum for your own "short list" of top opportunities.










11.YOUR "SHORT LIST."  Please go back over your notes and
summarize your best ideas here.

High Impact Ideas









Most Feasible (Starter) Ideas (repeat from above if
applicable)

----------
Workbook Two


IMPLEMENTING STRATEGIC OPPORTUNITIES


This workbook is designed to help you get the strategic
opportunities you identified Tuesday ready for
implementation.  We will proceed by examining the
implementation problem, then look at seven elements of
implementation success.  The goal is to build momentum for
your own strategic opportunities.  As before, there are no
"right"
answers -- brainstorming is the proper approach.

You can take notes directly in this workbook.  (For your
convenience, beginning  on page 9, we include a summary of
the presentation.) 

1.  VISION.  What is your vision of success?  Imagine it is
several years from now and you have just met an old friend. 
You are out for dinner, catching up, and the time has come
to tell the story of your success.












What did your success do and how?












Why was it strategic?












What made it happen?













2.  STYLE.  Should your opportunity and vision be pursued as
a "revolutionary" or "evolutionary" effort?  What are the
implications of this choice on your implementation plan?












If revolutionary, implications?












If evolutionary, implications?












Best approach?













3.  MOTIVES.  Who will be your likely supporters and why? 
Who will be your likely resistors and why?  What can you do
to mobilize support and neutralize resistance?  (Be as
specific as possible.)












Likely supporters, motives, mobilization.












Likely resistors, motives, neutralization.












Other motivational issues.













4.  LEADERSHIP.  Who might be a good "senior sponsor?"  Who
a good "operating champion?"  What will they need and how
can you get them to act?  Who could serve as external
supporters or change-agents?












How do we get a "senior sponsor?"












How do we get an "operating champion?"












How do we get external support and change-agents?













5.  SIZE.  What is the biggest your initiative could be in
its first year (in dollars, other measures) without
outrunning your ability to attract resources or manage it? 
What is the smallest it could be and still prove the
concept?  With these limits in mind, what is the "right
size" for your initiative?












Biggest?












Smallest?












Right size?













6.  MILESTONES.  Describe a handful of milestones you could
use to measure progress and/or communicate with others.






a.






b.






c.






d.






e.







7.  FLEXIBILITY.  What's a good goal for a year from now? 
What pitfalls might be most problematic?  What flexibility
does your initiative need to respond to these problems
successfully?







1-year goal.







Pitfalls . . . and responses.







a.







b.







c.







d.









A Summary of the Presentation on
IMPLEMENTING STRATEGIC OPPORTUNITIES


I.  WHAT IS THE "IMPLEMENTATION PROBLEM?"
"There is nothing permanent except change."


The quote could come from any of a large number of
management gurus.  It could refer to recent concerns about,
even preoccupations with, the "increasingly turbulent social
and business environment."

But of course it doesn't.  Heraclitus was born in 540 B.C.

The point is simple:  leaders have always been dealing with
change and the balance between continuity and change.  The
focus on change is a primary difference between leaders and
managers.

We are interested in "strategic computing and
telecommunications" because of its potential for dramatic
and positive change.  But the potential is fulfilled only if
the change is successful.




























AYc = TYc - ISU


We all know that change is NOT always successful.  Every
organization has its stories of "implementation screw ups." 
The history of I-T in government has its share of painful
failed projects.

Still, some people seem better at managing change than
others just as some surfers are better when the waves are
rough:

Some paddle around all afternoon, looking but never
actually catching a wave.
Others catch a wave and are bold enough to stand up for a
ride, but are soon swept out of control and dashed onto
the reef.
A few can consistently catch a wave, keep their balance,
avoid the reef, and ride to the safety of shore.

Our purpose in this session is to examine seven elements of
technology-based change in order to help your build momentum
for your own initiatives.  Be forewarned, however, that
implementation is still more art more than science.












































Organizations are Resilient.


Successful change is difficult because it's not just a
technology problem.  It's not even mostly a technology
problem.  Organizational change is very much a problem of
people and task allocations and coordinating systems. 
Changes in one component of the overall system tend to be
damped out by compensating changes in other components.

For strategic success, many if not all components need to
change, and in ways which support each other.  If technology
changes, what changes are needed in task allocations?  In
finding new people, or at least in developing new
orientations and skills?  In revising the control and reward
system?

































Given the resiliency of human organizations, strategic
change requires significant and sustained action by the
power structure.  It cannot be handled as a problem of
technology alone.













































Unfreezing --> Moving --> Refreezing.


This simple model has long been used as a framework for
thinking about change. 

1.The first need is to unfreeze the status quo.  This
typically takes more force than the actual movement to a
new end state.  People must feel a compelling need if they
are to accept any change which will probably disturb the
web of relationships within the organization.  Destruction
of the status quo is often a necessary prelude to
creativity.
2.The second need is to move -- and to motivate and guide
your progress through appropriate incentives and
controls.
3.The final -- and often neglected -- need is to refreeze
the organization at the new end state.  Without
reinforcement and institutionalization of newly learned
behaviors, old behaviors may soon be re-established.

The central insight is that strategic change, whether or not
it involves technology, is essentially a political process. 
What works is what people can be convinced to make work. 
"Top-down" may generate large change, but it will also take
large force and political resources.  "Bottom-up" (or even
"middle out") may proceed with more consensus and less
resistance, but tends to be incremental and slower.








































Elements of Implementation Planning.






















What you should seek to produce is not a detailed
implementation plan, but rather some ideas to get you
started.

Let's examine seven elements of the change process:

1.Vision.  What is the end state you desire and how will
it add value?

2.Style.  Should your opportunity and vision be pursued as
a "revolutionary" or "evolutionary" effort?

3.Motives.  How could your supporters be mobilized and
your resistors be neutralized?

4.Leadership.  Who will sponsor your initiative?  Who will
be the day-to-day champion?  Who will be the external
change-agents or supporters?

5.Size.  How big is too big?  How small is too small? 
What is the right size and how can you get the resources
you'll need?

6.Milestones.  How can you measure progress and
communicate it to others?

7.Flexibility.  What are the major threats you can expect
in the next year and how might you respond?

We'll spend 8-10 minutes on each of these questions.  I'll
describe each one, then give you time for thinking about how
they apply to your own situation.

















































Vision.


What is your vision of success?  How clear can you make it? 
Will your vision, like a lighthouse, show the way for
others?  Does it make the end state clear?  Does it make the
benefits palpable?  Is it strategic?  Will it generate
excitement?

Research on athletes shows that visualization is extremely
important for success in many physical activities. 
Experiments suggest that basketball players, for example,
don't have to shoot real foul shots in practice, they merely
have to go through the motions and imagine the ball going
through the net.  Visions are powerful.

What is your own vision of success?  Imagine that it is
several years from now and you have just met an old friend. 
You are out for dinner, catching up, and the time has come
to tell the story of your success.  What was it and how did
it work?  Why was it strategic?  What made it happen?






















































1.  VISION.  What is your vision of success?  Imagine that
it is several years from now and you have just met an old
friend.  You are out for dinner, catching up, and the time
has come to tell the story of your success.  What was it and
how did it work?  Why was it strategic?

Style.


Should your opportunity and vision be pursued as a
"revolutionary" or "evolutionary" effort?

Most of the time we pursue innovation on an evolutionary
basis.  We keep most of the present organization in place,
changing only a few pieces.  We make progress through lots
of small starts.  This approach depends heavily on clarity
and consensus building.  It rewards participation and often
succeeds through "bottom up" and "inside out" movement. 
Thomas Edison advertised electricity in this fashion,
emphasizing the similarity of electric lighting to gas
lighting, not the long-term differences of the new approach. 
Total Quality Management is an aggressively incremental
approach to significant long-term improvement.

But incremental improvement within a basic organizational
paradigm can only take us so far.  Continued progress
eventually requires a completely new approach.  This implies
a revolutionary leap and depends heavily for its success on
conflict resolution.  It often succeeds through "top down"
leadership and "outside in" movement.  It often depends on
speed to keep the opposition disorganized.  Revolutionary
change promises very high returns, but at a cost of high
disruption and risk.  Still, there are times when
revolutionary change is clearly the way to go:  getting to
the moon requires a rocket, not a series of step ladders. 
Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid escaped by literally
jumping off a cliff.

Which style of change should your opportunity and vision
pursue?  What are the implications of this choice on your
implementation plan?


















































2.  STYLE.  Should your opportunity and vision be pursued as
a "revolutionary" or "evolutionary" effort?  What are the
implications of this choice on your implementation plan?

Motives.


Those seeking change must overcome motives and forces that
maintain the status quo.  For each individual, some motives
support change while others resist it.  Many motives may be
brought into play in order to shift:

misunderstanding into comprehension
disagreement into agreement
personal loss into personal gain
overload into capacity
fear of incompetence into confidence
value conflict into value congruence

Think about motives relevant to your own strategic
opportunity.  Then predict:

1.Who will be your likely supporters and why?








2.Who will be your likely resistors and why?








3.What can you do to mobilize support and neutralize
resistance?  (Be as specific as possible.)


















































2.  MOTIVES.  Who will be your supporters and why?  Who will
be your resistors and why?  What can you do to mobilize
support and neutralize resistance?  (Be as specific and
detailed as possible.)

Leadership.


Research on innovation suggests a need for several types of
leaders:

A senior sponsor.  This person legitimizes the project
and secures needed resources.

An operating champion.  This person provides ongoing
energy and support from the inside.  Successful champions
need technical and communications skills; they may also
need political resources (i.e., the ability to be a
"fixer" on many lower-level problems).

An external change-agent and supporter.  Especially for
public sector innovations, it appears extremely valuable
to join with external players who can demand change and
provide expertise.

For your strategic opportunity, who might be the "senior
sponsor?"  Who the "operating champion?"  What will they
need to be good at and how can you get them to act?  Whom
might you recruit as external change-agents and supporters?
















































3.  LEADERSHIP.  Who might be a good "senior sponsor?"  Who
a good "operating champion?"  What will they need and how
can you get them to act?  Who could serve as external
supporters or change-agents?

Size.


Some projects are so costly and uncertain they create
paralyzing confusion among those who must authorize the
needed resources.

In such cases, it may be possible to prove the concept
through a pilot project, thereby reducing uncertainty.  It
may then become possible to roll out full-scale investment
later when the "authorizing environment" has become
comfortable with the payback.  New technologies are much
better than those of a decade ago at facilitating quick
pilots and modular construction.

In thinking about the scope of your initiative, what is the
biggest you could become in the first year (in dollars or
other measures) without outrunning your ability to attract
resources or manage the effort?  What is the smallest you
could be and still prove the concept and generate
supporters?  With these limits in mind, what is the "right
size" for your initiative?

















































4.  SIZE.  What is the biggest your initiative could be in
the first year (in dollars, other measures) without
outrunning your ability to attract resources or manage it? 
What is the smallest it could be and still prove the
concept?  With these limits in mind, what is the "right
size" for your initiative?

Milestones.


Systems projects are notorious for being 90% complete
through 90% of their development.  That is, there is steady
reported progress through 10% completion, 20% completion,
and so on, until serious problems arise as 90% approaches;
the result is a project that stalls for a seeming eternity
around "90% complete."

Painful history has taught us important lessons about
objective milestones for measuring progress:  we need
testable benchmarks, not subjective guesstimates of
percentage completion. 

With strategic projects, uncertainties are so great that
detailed milestones are not needed.  They may even hamper
progress by becoming outdated and destroying the credibility
of the entire effort.

But we still need measurable milestones for mid-course
correction and control.  Describe a handful of milestones
which you might use on your own initiatives.  Could these
milestones also be used for communicating with others?



















































5.  MILESTONES.  Describe a handful of milestones you could
use to measure progress and/or to communicate with others.

Flexibility.


Research suggests that another key for success is
flexibility.  Strategic initiatives need a capacity to
learn, to adapt, and to respond to adversity.  Like the palm
tree, it is better to bend in the wind than to snap.

In building momentum for strategic change, details are not
so important as a general sense of where you are headed and
how you might preserve flexibility.

Over the first year of your own I-T initiative, what's a
good goal for your effort?  What pitfalls might be most
problematic?  What flexibility does your initiative need to
respond to these problems successfully?

















































6.  FLEXIBILITY.  What's a good goal for a year from now? 
What flexibility does your initiative need to respond to
these problems successfully?

In Summary:  What's your plan?


Now is the time to look back over your notes to summarize
the key ideas. 

1.What's your vision?
2.How will you build momentum for implementation?

We look forward to your answers.  Please write up your
strategic proposal in memo of 5 pages or less.  Discuss it
with members of the class and get 3 to sign your proposal. 
Their signature will indicate that they have read your
proposal and discussed it with you -- not that they agree
with it (they may either agree or disagree).  When you are
done, turn your paper in to Taubman 354 by Tuesday, November
23rd.  Good luck!




IN SUMMARY




What's your vision?


How will you build momentum