Survey Says: Investing in IT Distinguishes Industry Leaders from Industry Laggards
Survey Says: Investing in IT Distinguishes Industry Leadersfrom Industry LaggardsTranscript of a sponsored BrieﬁngsDirect podcast on the results of a survey that shows thatinnovation focusing on information and KPIs drives substantial positive business results.Listen to the podcast. Find it on iTunes/iPod. Sponsor: HP.Dana Gardner: Hi. This is Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst at Interarbor Solutions, and you’relistening to BrieﬁngsDirect.Today we present a sponsored podcast discussion on some fascinating new ﬁndings from a recent survey on CIO priorities. Well uncover what distinguishes leaders from laggards among CIOs and identify which IT approaches and solutions are driving the most powerful business results these days. To help dig into the survey, explain what it means, and learn how these results can lead to establishing winning new IT strategies were joined by our guests, Joel Dobbs, President and CEO of Compass Talent Management Group. Hes also an Executive in Residence at the School of Business at the University ofAlabama, Birmingham, and a lead blogger and member of the Enterprise CIO Forum.What’s more, Joel is a retired CIO himself, coming from such organizations as GlaxoWellcome,Schering-Plough, and Eisai. Welcome to our discussion, Joel.Joel Dobbs: Thank you very much.Gardner: Were also here with Daniel Dorr, a Worldwide Solutions Manager for HP EnterpriseMarketing. Welcome to you, Daniel.Daniel Dorr: Thank you, Dana.Gardner: Let’s start with just an overview of what we wanted to accomplish. Daniel, what wasthe idea behind doing this survey at this time?Dorr: Dana, a lot of companies talk about how important technology is and we all represent our technology as the right answer to the problem. But if our job is to help our CIO clients better use technology to solve business results, and if our job is to help our CIOs work more effectively with their executive committees and CEOs, the best way for us to help them is to determine which technology actually changes or is correlated with in-market results. In other words, if we look at revenue leaders in-market, which technology seems to be most closely associated with those who lead in-market performance? Its not
technology for technology’s sake, or because it’s exciting or new, but technology that actuallyseems to represent business results.So our goal here was to help our clients do a better job of assessing which technologies lead toin-market business results and which technologies might not.Gardner: Well, this has been a hot topic for decades, trying to establish the link betweentechnology practices and business results.Joel, youve been in the trenches as a CIO. Youre now involved with the academic view of thisand doing some talent work. When you reviewed these results, was there anything that jumpedout, that was perhaps something new or interesting from the tried-and-true approach to linkingIT and business?Not much separationDobbs: There were a couple of things that surprised me, one of which is how close statistically the leaders and laggards were in some areas. There was not as much separation in some of the areas that were looked at as I would have expected. The other thing that surprised me is one of the areas that gets an awful lot of play in the press now -- this whole idea of bring-your-own-device (BYOD) policies for employees. For the most part, this seemed to have been a non-issue for most of these folks. This suggests that either this has not taken hold as much as we would be led to believe or that companies have just basically decided theyre not going to tackle this battle now and will save that for another day.Gardner: Tell us a little bit, Daniel, about this survey. When did it happen? Who was targeted?HP was involved. Maybe you can tell us how, and then who conducted it? Let’s just get the brasstacks on how this came about.Dorr: We wanted to understand the difference between market leaders, from a revenueperspective, and market laggards or followers and see what their IT environments looked like.We surveyed 688 organizations. We spoke to IT decision makers, so we would call that "CIOminus one." We didn’t speak to the CIO directly. We spoke to the people that reported to him orher.Everyone that we spoke to had to have signiﬁcant knowledge about applications, information,data center operation, security, and cloud. The survey was conducted over nine differentgeographies: the U.S., Brazil, Mexico, UK, Germany, France, Japan, China, Australia, andcovered a number of different industry groups.This was not a public survey. In other words, the people responding didnt know the survey wascoming from HP. It was a blind survey. We asked over 55 different questions around areas of
application, security, information, cloud, etc. to understand which attributes were most stronglycorrelated with in-market or revenue performance, and those that werent.The questions we were trying to answer were what do market leaders do versus followers? Howdo industry leaders differ from followers? Is there a difference depending on the region or themarket or the industry? And where do IT decision makers focus on a day-to-day level, versus themore CIO strategic forward two-year thinking level?Gardner: Just to be clear, the surveys were delivered and answered in the last few months of2011. Is that right?Dorr: Exactly right. The results came into us in December 2011. So this is pretty accurate andup-to-date data.Gardner: How about some of the top ﬁndings? Were there some nuts and bolts issues herearound workload, automation, server capacity, things like that, that we could look to and just geta sense of who these organizations are and where they are on their journey towards a better IToutcome?In search of prioritiesDorr: We asked over 50 questions to understand from organizations where their priorities wereand what they were doing today and then we compared that to their in-market performance. And I would say the answers fell into three buckets. They were around infrastructure issues, information and information management, and people and processes. On the infrastructure side of the equation, we asked a number of questions, but the ones that rose to the top in terms of driving in-market or correlation between revenue performance were probably three or four. A lot of it had to do with application modernization and security, when it came to the infrastructure side of the equation.For example, market leaders tended to have fewer custom applications and fewer legacyapplications. They tended to use their server capacity more efﬁciently than their peers. Thosewere some of the big ones around the infrastructure side of equation.With security, which we talked about brieﬂy, the market leaders tended to build security, not onlyinto the boundary, but also into the applications themselves, versus the market followers tendedto focus on an us-versus-them mentality, or just boundary security.… Companies that manage risk more effectively and more automated deﬁnitely outperformedtheir peers. As a technology company, were always looking at the infrastructure. Were alwaystalking about how infrastructure can lead to competitive advantage, and we saw that, but a lot oftimes we forget the people and process side of the equation.
One of the other areas that jumped out at me was the need for clarity and agreement of keyperformance indicators (KPIs). Market-leading companies who outperform in revenue over theirpeers had more clarity within IT about which KPIs were important and had agreement on thoseKPIs. Everyone is marching and working toward the same goals. That had a huge impact on meas well.It’s not just about infrastructure. It’s not just about managing risk. It’s also the people/processside of the equation that is critical in market-leading companies.Gardner: Joel, when you hear that those who are doing well seem to have fewer custom apps,fewer legacy apps, higher utilization rates on their servers, what does that tell you about thesetypes of organizations?Dobbs: It tells me a couple of things. Well start with the second one, server utilization. What Ithink youre seeing there is the affected people who have really done a good job withvirtualization. Youre not having is a lot of equipment sitting around idle or used at undercapacity. So I suspect virtualization probably plays into that difference signiﬁcantly for a numberof people.Custom and legacy applications was something I hadnt really thought about until I read thismaterial. I suspect that what youre seeing is probably a result of modernization of applicationsthat I call commodity applications, things like human resources, some of the ﬁnancialapplications, a lot of things that are generic across businesses. Youre probably seeing some ofthe leaders move to more software-as-a-service (SaaS) type applications in order to free up theirstaff to work on things that are much more strategic to their business.Unique valueSo the things that theyre working on are probably things that are adding unique value to theirbusiness, and theyre not spending a lot of cycles doing things with generic applications that theycan buy and let somebody else manage.The security thing bears out what we were talking about a few minutes ago. If youre just doingsecurity on the boundaries, thats a cheap way to do security, if you think about it. You put aﬁrewall in place, you conﬁgure the thing, and you do the boundary security stuff. But whenyoure building another layer of security into your applications, that tells me that theres a lotmore focus on the realization of the value of whats in there, in terms of the data and the way thatit’s used.Theres very much an intentional focus on protecting not only the perimeter of the institution, butmaking sure that theres added security and protection within the perimeter. I would expect thatfolks who are really serious about understanding the value of the information within thosesystems and the risk to their corporate reputation, should those be compromised, are being veryintentional about mitigating those risks.
Gardner: So its a strategic comprehensive approach to security across the assets, including theapplications.Daniel, before we move on, a question on the infrastructure. When I saw this, I said that soundslike services orientation -- modernized apps, fewer monolithic stacks, higher utilization vis-à-visvirtualization. Was there anything else that would back up my hunch that services orientationwas also prominent in the way they are doing infrastructure?Dorr: Youre absolutely right, but the key component here is actually using it for the rightpurposes. Virtualization was one of the questions, but youll notice virtualization, in and of itself,did not rise to the surface of market leaders versus followers.It wasnt just that youre moving to a service-oriented view, but youre actually implementing it ina way that means something to the business. Youre actually seeing a change in capacity usage.Youre actually seeing a change in custom and legacy applications.Again, not following that shiny object, but its implementing it in a way thats strategic to thebusiness, is what we are seeing here. Its not just virtualization, but its using virtualization to itsfull capacity.Dobbs: I agree completely.Gardner: So we have talked a little bit about infrastructure. What were some of the other majorareas, Daniel?Dorr: The second big area was around information. There was a huge difference around the areaof audit and compliance. For example, we saw that more than half of the market leaders hadautomated their audit and compliance, about 52 percent. Market followers tended to be muchless. Around 39 percent had automated their audit and compliance.Information strategyThere was an information strategy in place in both market leaders and market followers.However, market leaders tended to have automated their information-management strategy,versus followers, who just had it documented.Also, we see a big difference in the use of business intelligence (BI) to automate decisionmaking. About 18 percent of market leaders are automating their decision making using BI tools,while only 7 percent, so less than half of them, less than half of them as leaders, are doing that.Now, there is still a huge amount of room for growth on both leaders and followers there, but tosee only 18 percent rise to the surface already tells you the importance of automating BI decisionmaking as a clear difference for market leadership.
Gardner: Lets go back to Joel on those two items. This gets to a point that Im really interestedin, a movement in business nowadays to much more of a data-driven and analysis-drivendecision process. Perhaps the older way might be summed up by the highest paid personsopinion being the way that ultimately decisions were made.But Joel, how do you react to some of this issue around information management and BI?Dobbs: There are a couple of things here. One is that theres been an interesting evolution overthe last 20 years in this ﬁeld. We started out in IT automating various business processes. Thefocus was on making those processes faster or more efﬁcient or something of that sort. As aresult of that, we were generating information that had valuable use, but really wasnt being usedthat much.It was during the reengineering revolution in the early 90s that people began to look at that.Along with the uptake of Six Sigma and Lean Sigma, people began looking at harvesting thatdata that was collected almost as a byproduct of automation and using it for continuousimprovement and various other things.This whole ﬁeld has matured. Take the example of just the retail industry and all the informationthat’s collected as a result of point-of-sale processing and things like that. What weve learned isthat that’s a rich trove of information that can be mined and used for all kind of things.What youre seeing with the leaders is that they not only understand it, but theyre doing it. That’sa big differentiator between those who understand it and have the insight and the capabilities totake this information and look at it in different ways. I suspect some of the automating ofbusiness, the BI automation, as we were talking about, is really a way of going back and usingtechnology to create options for decision making, based on automated looks at data.Lets talk about the automation of, I think the term you used, Daniel, was the automation of theirinformation strategy, versus documentation. What that tells me is one group is doing it and theother group is just writing it down, and that’s a big difference. It’s like the difference betweenwhat most people do with strategy. Most people develop a strategy and there comes nice a bookthat sits on a shelf somewhere, and very little gets done about it.The ones who are really leaders are the people who develop a strategy and then part of thatstrategy is a strategy to implement the strategy. That’s what this automation that you saw amongthe leaders really reﬂects -- not just talking about it, but actually doing it.Single viewGardner: Yeah, it strikes me too that this gets back to that theme that we raised earlier aboutbeing controlled and being comprehensive as an IT organization. You can’t gain that single viewof the customer and you can’t gain insight across an entire business process, purchasing, supplychain, the relationship between cost and outcomes, without that ability to gather all the differentbits and pieces and then manage that in some way.
So it strikes me, again, as an indicator of maturity and comprehensive control vis-à-vis IT andmakes them therefore more powerful when it comes to this level of insight. Daniel, what otherareas were part of the top ﬁndings, and where can we go now to the next stage, which wouldperhaps a little bit better deﬁne what distinguishes leaders?Dorr: Just to close on that information discussion, I agree completely with Joel’s points. If youthink about it, there were seven key attributes that rose to the surface for market leaders, revenueleaders, and revenue followers.Three of those were around information. Automating your audit and compliance, having anautomated information strategy. In other words, as Joel said, doing it, versus just writing it down,and really using BI for decision making. Three out of seven are around information. So clearlythis is a key theme for in-market performance.One of the things we do at HP is workshops for CIOs to help align business and IT and identifythe impact that IT can have on the business. This comes up every single workshop we do.We did it with a retailer recently. It took them days to process in-store information, in order toknow what SKUs were selling and how well marketing programs were doing. By the time theyhad that information, it was too late for them to do anything.They couldn’t change the SKUs on shelf. They couldn’t update, migrate, manage, or move themarketing program into new regions or what have you. As a result, their performance in-marketclearly showed the difference. They were at a 20 percent disadvantage to the revenue leader intheir category.So I don’t think we can understate the importance of helping the business see what’s happeningand understand what’s happening through automating audit and compliance, through actuallyimplementing the information management strategy and trying to automate as much as possibledecision making using BI.Dobbs: I would echo that and add one thing. Daniel pointed out that there is increasingly acompetitive advantage. The competitive advantage becomes not just doing it, but doing it fasterthan your competitors and being able to understand the meaning and the application of the dataahead of your competitor.The retail example is a great one, where youre lagging days behind in your ability to harvest anduse the information. Increasingly, the competitive advantage becomes being able to makeadjustments and move much more quickly, whether it’s deciding where to place inventory orhow much inventory you need to keep on hand, and all those kind of things. Time is money, andbeing able to move quickly can be a huge advantage.
What about cloud?Gardner: We haven’t talked too much about cloud, and this did come up as one item thatdistinguishes leaders over laggards. Perhaps we could address that. Daniel, what is it about cloudthat popped out in this survey?Dorr: The focus of the survey was what capabilities clients have today and how that correlates totheir revenue performance. We didn’t see a lot of cloud attributes rising to the service in people’scurrent capabilities. We did, however, see it rising to the surface in the focus area, where weasked IT decision makers, the CIO minus one, what was important to them. We did see a prettysigniﬁcant difference between what market leaders, revenue leaders, thought was importantabout cloud versus market followers.In fact, almost half of revenue leaders see cloud as incredibly important to them versus theirpeers, almost half of that number in the market followers. So, were seeing a lot more priorityfocus on cloud computing going forward.We didn’t see it driving current revenue performance, which makes sense. Cloud is somewhat ofa new technology. We haven’t seen it fully deployed in many cases in driving today’s revenue.Gardner: For the beneﬁt of our listeners, Daniel, maybe we could just go through the list at aprioritized basis, with descending priority, on what distinguished the leaders over the laggards. Ithink the top one is security as we mentioned, but let’s just go through it on a list basis, so theycan get a sense of the importance.Dorr: Sure. Of the 50 attributes that we asked our CIO minus one IT decision makers anddirectors, what was happening within their IT environment, seven of those attributes rose to thesurface, and they fell into three buckets, as we talked about brieﬂy before. One was around theinfrastructure side of the equation or the core computing environment, one was aroundinformation, and then the ﬁnal one was around people and processes.… With the survey, once we identiﬁed which speciﬁc attributes differentiated market leaders andmarket laggards or market followers from a revenue perspective, we then put it on a maturityscore and we would score them based on those key attributes. You can see a clear differencebetween those with obviously a higher score, a higher maturity in their IT environment, aroundthose key speciﬁc areas and their in-market performance.Speciﬁc areasSo from the infrastructure side, it was custom applications and legacy applications. Leaders hadfewer custom applications -- 38 percent versus the followers at 45 percent.Leaders had fewer legacy applications -- 25 percent versus followers at 32 percent.
Leaders used their server capacity more efﬁciently. They used about 80 percent of their servercapacity at peak usage, versus followers using only 71 percent.Leaders had security built into the applications as well as at the boundary, versus only aboundary-level security, inside/outside view of the world.In the information area, leaders automated audit and compliance at an average of about 52percent versus followers at 39 percent.Leaders had automated their information strategy, versus followers only documenting theirinformation strategy.Leaders tended to use more BI and automated decision making versus followers. So 18 percentof leaders had automated business decision making using BI, versus followers at only 7 percent.Then there is the people and processes side -- and this is an area where CIOs can actually startworking on right now without spending a cent -- which was clarity and agreement of KPIs. Wesaw a big difference in market leaders. There was a high degree of clarity within theirorganizations about what the KPIs were and agreement on those KPIs, versus only a moderatelevel of agreement within market followers.That’s an area where CIOs can take action today. They don’t even have to talk to a vendor or ananalyst at all. They can walk right into the CEO’s ofﬁce and start working on that problem today.Gardner: Let’s move to a separate lens to view this through. One of the things you asked was aseries of questions that led to some conclusions about what distinguishes those who do best, andwhat leaders were focused more on. You broke it out into ﬁve different areas and you got someindicators of why it’s important, leaders versus laggards. Perhaps you could run through those aswell.Dorr: At the end of the survey, we asked them areas of importance, and we gave them security,information and insight, infrastructure convergence, application transformation, and cloudcomputing. We asked them to rank which were the most important to them. And we asked themto rank their current capabilities.This was different from the attributes. For example, most of our IT decision makers rankedsecurity, deﬁned as keeping the lights on, as the number one priority. When they ranked theircurrent capability, again, they ranked their current capabilities quite high, doing that well today.Although leaders tended to feel they were doing a better job of keeping the lights on, versusrevenue followers.Number two on the list was information and insight, in terms of driving what is important todayfrom an IT organization. Again, the average of how important it is was not signiﬁcantly differentbetween leaders and followers. What was signiﬁcantly different was how well they ratedthemselves.
We saw this in the individual attributes, but also when they ranked it at the end as well. Leaderstended to outperform, or believe they were doing a better job managing information and insight,than their followers by almost twice as much.No huge differenceThere were no huge differences on converged infrastructure or applications between leaders andfollowers, but the area where we saw a big difference was in cloud computing. Leaders ranked itmuch higher in importance and believed their current capabilities are much higher than theirindustry peers.Gardner: Joel, lets go back to something you mentioned earlier. You were a little bit surprisedthat the difference on some of these areas between the leaders and the laggards was smaller --there wasn’t a great deal of difference. Which of those were you referring to and what does thattell us about a baseline of IT functionality that everyone has, but it doesn’t really distinguishanyone either?Dobbs: Some of the things really surprised me, security actually. The magnitude of thatdifference was somewhat surprising. Things like the infrastructure convergence were actuallyfairly close. I expected a little bit more of a spread there.Around information and insight, theres a pretty good difference. Its statistically signiﬁcantbecause of the size. In many ways I would have expected that spread to be even larger, becauseso many laggard companies are really just operationally focused, keeping the lights on, etc.I was even surprised that you had that large of a percentage that rated themselves very capable. Iwould have expected it to be lower than that. In some ways, I would have expected more of theleaders to have considered themselves very capable. So that was a little bit lower than I wouldhave expected.For cloud computing, the capabilities are probably not that surprising but, again, the spread was alittle less than I would have expected. Because its a new technology, one would expect that theleading companies would have been much more further out front, beginning to look at ways ofexploring the capability there.But you had only about 36 percent versus 20 percent. Its statistically signiﬁcant, but wassomewhat surprising to me that the gap was not even larger than that.If you look back at how they ranked cloud computing by importance, its the same sort of thing, Iwould have expected a higher percentage to have been looking, if thats something that’spotentially very important, particularly at some of the capabilities that are available today inSaaS. Its a way of getting away from having to maintain rudimentary legacy systems that reallydon’t add a lot of business value.
Gardner: Lets slice and dice this a different way. Daniel, what about regional differences, orsimilarities, but lets start with differences? What were some of the biggest differences by regionthat jumped out at you? Then, maybe we could ask Joel to tell us what he thinks that means interms of the progression of these technologies and maturity models around the globe.Dorr: We didn’t see a huge difference in the regions, particularly the U.S., Latin America, orAsia Paciﬁc and Japan. In those regions we saw a little bit in terms of platforms -- Windowsversus Linux, virtualization, and so forth -- but not huge issues. It was more kind of personalpreferences.Mainframe in EuropeThe one that did jump out at us though was Europe. The biggest difference in Europe is thatthere is actually a growing movement around the mainframe. At the global level, we saw themainframe was irrelevant to market leaders versus market followers.In other words, some market leaders were moving more towards the mainframe, some marketfollowers were moving more towards the mainframe. Some market leaders were moving off ofthe mainframe and some market followers were doing the same. So there was no correlationbetween a mainframe strategy and in-market performance anywhere, except in Europe.In Europe, we saw that market leaders were those that were moving and growing theirmainframe strategy, versus market followers who were just maintaining their current mainframestrategy.Gardner: What does that tell you, Joel? What is it about Europe that has them so interested inmainframes or perhaps that leads them to be successful?Dobbs: That’s a very good question. That’s actually a surprising ﬁnding. Having worked inEurope for a number of years earlier in my career, there are two things that I suspect that mightbe factors, and these are generalizations. So I don’t know if theyre applicable in all cases.What you see a lot of times in European companies is a much more conservative approach to alot of things in business, and IT is certainly one of those. So change doesnt always come asrapidly in some of those cultures as one would see in cultures with a higher risk tolerance, likeyou may see in U.S. and other areas. That may be one thing.The other thing I would wonder about is the extent to which the economic environment theremay have an impact on this. Youre seeing growth in the mainframe sector, largely becausecompanies may be avoiding expensive investments in other technologies and simply expandingupon what they already have. There are a lot of implications, not only in terms of software andlicensing and a number of other things, in being moved to another platform.
So I wonder if the economic environment there has been a factor as well. Its hard to say, butthat’s interesting and somewhat perplexing ﬁnding.Gardner: It makes sense that they are maintaining their current systems rather than growing andmodernizing.How about vertical industries, Daniel, anything that jumps out there in terms of which verticalindustries that you examined and broke out in your survey seemed to be doing well, and for whatreasons?Vertical industriesDorr: We looked at retail, communication service providers or telco, manufacturing, energy,healthcare, and banking. The results were comparable to what we saw in each of the regions withwhat we saw at a global level.We saw a couple of differences in each of the industries. In retail, for example, when it came totheir information strategy, a new aspect was how they managed both structured and unstructureddata, versus only structured information.This makes sense, if you think about it from a retail perspective. There is a lot of qualitativeinformation coming in for leaders to understand, not just that the inventories are up or down orsales are up or down, but to understand why. So that was a big one that’s different from a retailperspective.In communication service providers, no big differences there between what was happening at theglobal level versus the retail level.In manufacturing, we saw a little difference in terms of external IT spend on new applications. Inthis case, leaders were spending less on new applications than followers.In the energy sector, there were no signiﬁcant differences there, or in healthcare. In banking, theone biggest one was cloud capabilities. We did see a lot more interest in cloud in banking thanwe saw in some of the other areas. Otherwise, it was very similar to what we saw at the globallevel.Gardner: So weve got some interesting takeaways here about the role of modernizing, gainingvisibility, measuring along the way, being comprehensive in how IT approaches these problems,being responsive to the business on the business terms rather than the technology terms, with anemphasis on culture as well and the people and the process. Weve talked about this at a highlevel.Daniel, for those folks who are intrigued and would like to get some of these statistics andﬁndings themselves, do you have a place they can go to learn more to either perhaps see a slidedeck, a white paper? What’s available for them?
Dorr: A couple of places. First of all, you can join us at the HP Discover 2012 event in LasVegas in June. Well be presenting these results there and sharing it with attendees there. Inaddition, they will be posted on hp.com.Gardner: Great. Joel, what takeaways do you have from this in terms of whether people shouldreadjust their thinking or perhaps take a pause and ask what they can be doing different whenthey sort of tease out some of the ﬁndings here?Impact of investmentsDobbs: There was an interesting study published by MIT just a month or so ago that looked at anumber of companies. What they found is that some of these companies that were investingheavily in IT, the IT investments actually had a greater impact on proﬁtability than the sameamount of money invested in research and development or in advertising. That’s a shockingﬁnding.I think what happens, when you delve underneath these companies who get such great returns onIT, you ﬁnd two or three different things that are embodied in what we saw in some of theleaders here.One of them is really good governance around decision making. The second thing is probablyownership of IT by the entire executive team. And I think the third thing is that theyre probablymeasuring their return using business metrics on the investments that they make.That’s what differentiates the leaders from the laggards -- theyre approaching IT holistically as acore part of their business strategy, instead of seeing it as a support function or a back-ofﬁcefunction.And things like this study that weve just been talking about today, as well as the MIT study, helpadd credence to the idea that money is well invested in IT, and I emphasize well-invested. It canhave a tremendous payback, but only if you use it wisely.Gardner: And that sort of runs counter to the perception of IT as a cost center, rather than as anenabler for growth and opportunity.Dobbs: Precisely.Gardner: Okay. Daniel, last word to you, are there takeaways or areas that we may not havecovered that you think we should also uncover here?Dorr: Joel said it very eloquently. There is a large body of research. Now, we have HPs ownresearch. We have the MIT study, showing that there is a clear correlation between technologyand in-market revenue results. As CIOs, we should feel conﬁdent to walk into the CEO’s ofﬁceand talk to them about the strategic beneﬁts that we can offer the organization.
The two biggest areas that we should be having conversations with our business counterpartstoday are clearly around information and KPIs. If we have agreement on those, weve coveredmore than half of the key attributes that we see between market leaders and market followers.So theres a lot of opportunity for us in IT to start playing an even bigger leadership role inhelping our companies innovate and drive in-market results. I look forward to seeing what theresults look like two years from now, once we see cloud and other things deployed and drivingeven bigger beneﬁts.Gardner: As you point out, theres a lot more room for growth around those BI and analyticsbeneﬁts. Theyre already sort of showing a great deal of worth even though we are still early intoit.Youve been listening to a sponsored BrieﬁngsDirect podcast discussion on some new ﬁndingsfrom a recent survey on priorities for IT organizations and what distinguishes leaders andlaggards in the ﬁeld based on their business outcome.Id like to thank our guests. Weve been joined by Joel Dobbs, President and CEO of CompassTalent Management Group, as well as Executive in Residence at the School of Business at theUniversity of Alabama, Birmingham. He is also a lead blogger and a member of the EnterpriseCIO Forum.And weve also been joined by Daniel Dorr, Worldwide Solutions Manager for HP EnterpriseMarketing. Thanks to you both.Dobbs: Thank you.Dorr: Thank you.Gardner: This is Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst at Interarbor Solutions. Thanks also to you forlistening, and come back next time.Listen to the podcast. Find it on iTunes/iPod. Sponsor: HP.Transcript of a sponsored BrieﬁngsDirect podcast on the results of a survey that shows thatinnovation focusing on information and KPIs drives substantial positive business results.Copyright Interarbor Solutions, LLC, 2005-2012. All rights reserved.You may also be interested in: • Expert Chat with HP on How Better Understanding Security Makes it an Enabler, Rather than Inhibitor, of Cloud Adoption • Expert Chat with HP on How IT Can Enable Cloud While Maintaining Control and Governance
• Expert Chat on How HP Ecosystem Provides Holistic Support for VMware Virtualized IT Environments• Continuous Improvement and Flexibility Are Keys to Successful Data Center Transformation, Say HP Experts• HPs Liz Roche on Why Enterprise Technology Strategy Must Move Beyond the Professional and Consumer Split• Well-Planned Data Center Transformation Effort Delivers IT Efﬁciency Paybacks, Green IT Boost for Valero Energy