Going to industry conferences always produces new reflections.This one was no different. The venue was full of smart, educated,experienced, and motivated people exchanging stories and ideas. Yetsomething was amiss. If you listened carefully, there was a subtlebut unmistakable undercurrent of timidity and surrender. It felt asif CIOs were going through the motions of doing their jobs, but thefire wasn't there. Curiously, there were no discussions dedicatedto this issue.

Hence, I decided to try to breathe some fire into your souls.Let's analyze the reasons so many CIOs feel overworked andunderappreciated. Why have so many seemingly given up on their trueleadership aspirations? Most importantly, let's talk about how thatcan be changed.

This, I feel, is a key failing that can be ascribed to manyinsurance CIOs today. They have become purely operational,risk-averse managers. Yes, being a prudent IT/business manager witha proven ability to drive down costs while improving service is asine qua non. That virtue alone, however, will never elevate anyoneto the status of a leader.

The problem is clearly reflected by a well-learned and commonlyused phrase about "managing expectations." Have you noticed, inmany minds, this phrase now means: "Keep expectations as low as youpossibly can"? In other words, we not only have conditionedourselves to think "low" but also trained others to see us thisway.

If you continue to follow this gospel, you never will be viewedas a leader.

Another accepted wisdom that has crept into many organizationsis the virtue of incrementalism. It often is expressed as theinsistence that "no project can last more than six months." A finetactic to limit risk; however, in too many instances, it hasdeveloped into a limiting, even paralyzing device. It is one thingto embrace a strategy of "radical incrementalism" built on a notionof rapid waves of near-term initiatives linked by a shared view ofstrategic direction. It is quite another, as often happens, tolimit one's view to six, or a maximum 12, months.There are thingsin life, and especially the important ones, that can beaccomplished only through a large complex effort. Companies and ITunits that do not practice large projects are unpreparedmethodically and mentally. As a result, they tend simply to shyaway from anything that does not fit their smallish image. That,for example, is the key reason so few carriers are ready to executea major attack on replacing their legacy applications. They knowthey need to do it, but the risk associated with size andcomplexity of the task overwhelms and paralyzes them.

So, my call to you today is to put on your leader's hat firmlyand engage your company in a serious dialogue. Challenge theorganization to make a radical–not incremental–qualitative changethrough use of technology. It may end up being a replacement ofyour barely breathing 25-year-old policy admin system. The ideathat emerges is your ticket to a brighter future.

Undoubtedly, this will challenge your brains and skills as astrategist. It also will test your personal abilities. In myexperience, however, CIOs who demonstrate sustained passion,intellect, and courage combined with integrity and authenticitywill succeed.

Believe me, it is not as hard as you may think. In manyorganizations there is a serious, pent-up demand for a major ITchange. The trouble is we've forgotten how to do it. Manyorganizations have not practiced any major strategic deliveries foryears. Consequently, their cultural, organizational, andprofessional skills are either absent or in short supply. Thisleads us to a key point. There are certain must-have's to assureyour ambitious venture does not end up in the nearest ditch.

In setting the partnership stage, CIOs must gain a firmcommitment on two points. The first has to do with parity ofinfluence at the executive table–and it starts with the CIO.Wherever on the organizational chart he or she belongs, the key toachieving IT parity is the CIO's ability to do two things:influence and challenge. It is absolutely critical a CIO has fullcapability to be heard and, if necessary, contest the other seniormanagers.

The same is true at the lower levels of the organization. MostIT units have learned to behave and act like a service-orientedorganization. However, in some of them "service-oriented" morphedinto "subservient." That is a mistake. An organization's culturemust assure IT never be in a meek or unassertive position vis-?-visthe departments it serves. Many business units still fail torecognize (or perhaps IT people fail to explain to them) managingIT is a complex undertaking, and as such, many decisions must beleft to the pros.

The second commitment relates to rules concerning a division ofcorporate responsibilities and accountabilities for major ITdecisions, or as we often refer to it, IT governance. Moreprecisely, IT governance defines rights and accountabilitiesrelated to making IT decisions as well as describing desirablebehaviors in the context of using IT resources. IT principles setthe strategic role for IT, including issues such as structure,strategy alignment, culture, mission, values, norms, and balance ofbusiness-unit autonomy vs. commonality. The principles provide apractical guidance on how to use IT. Some may be non-negotiable,e.g., the corporate interests and needs come first when introducingand exploiting technology or when contracting with suppliers.Developing these principles is best done by a relatively intimategroup of business and IT senior executives–for example, the CEO,CFO, and CIO.

In the context of a major IT initiative, IT governance mustdefine accountability rules that protect against competing agendasand biases. For example, when developing a business case, adivision of responsibilities must reflect the parties' principalroles: the business unit (BU), which is the primary recipient ofthe investment, and the IT unit responsible for delivering andmanaging the solution. Such division of roles clearly delineatesresponsibilities for both elements of the ROI ratio: BU responsiblefor delivering the numerator side (benefits), and IT responsiblefor delivering the denominator (investment). Good governance alsoshould address highly probable skewing of the assumptions used inthe analysis. For that, the process needs an independent arbiter.That function, in most organizations, should belong to the CFO. Asa result, the three parties–CFO (arbiter), business VP(beneficiary), and CIO (supplier)–create a basic structure withinwhich they collaborate to deliver the best possible analysis.

These are examples of governance rules that can help every CIOmanage IT investments and assets. A leader-CIO must insist andbuild consensus on such basic points of process discipline. He orshe must engage the executives and make them agree maximizingreturns on technology investments is a collaborative processwherein everyone shares risks and rewards. Finally, the CIO mustinsist all responsibilities be clearly defined.

All of the above means IT must be ready to assume a seriousresponsibility. This, in turn, implies quality of the IT team is acritical and necessary element of success. For example, no ITorganization has a chance of "partnering" with its business clientsif its people are seriously short on either business knowledge orbusiness acumen. Similarly, no large project will be deliveredsuccessfully without excellence in project management.

Please note in today's world most IT capabilities have little todo with traditional technology skills. The time has long passedwhen your most important skills were in the hands of programmers.Today, it is the quality of your business analysts,architects/integrators, and project managers that defines thecompetence and capability of the IT team. If you have weaknesses inany of these areas, be wary.

So, now that you have developed a consensus and a business caseand formed a capable team, your big, life-changing project is underway.

Within three to six months, most projects will start giving offeither a fragrance of success or a stench of failure. Slippingproject schedules and bulging budgets are tough to hide, especiallywhen everyone's focus and attention is on the project. If you needto change key players who do not perform, do so quickly. If youneed to add unanticipated resources, don't be afraid to argue theneed.

And make sure to keep business to its obligations. This is wherea large number of ROI-based decisions lose their credibility if theupfront commitments made by the business are not monitored,verified, nor enforced. This is where influence parity andgovernance rules become a CIO's irreplaceable power tools.

Making a radical change always involves risk. It also involvesreward for those who succeed. The alternatives of either playingsecond fiddle or being inevitably squeezed out do not look likefun.