The Naked CIO: Innovation - same old story

Moronic end users are putting paid to any hope of introducing innovation at Naked CIO's new company. Their resistance to change is also taking a heavy toll on his sanity.

CIOs are often accused of lacking creativity and vision. Actually what they often lack is the will to live - after engaging with operational colleagues to improve systems.

Why is it that after spending a great deal of time specifying requirements the end result almost always looks like what is already in place?

After months of begging me to consider a new system because the one they currently use is broken, users tell me in very specific detail that they would like a system just as broken but in blue rather than orange.

On the other hand, when I present innovations I'm told they are commercially and operationally difficult: "What we do today won't work with the way the new system does it."

Isn't that exactly the point? What part of innovation do these morons not understand?

New exclusive:
The Naked CIO

Where have all the good staff gone?

Innovation is the art of applying new and better methods to solving traditional problems. But they can't see this. To achieve my desired results I have to metamorphose into some new-age therapist and start talking about utopia.

I now have to tell my users, directors and managers not to think of what we do now. Forget about the technology. Think instead how your department would run in a perfect world.

Although of course the perfect world lacks two basic but essential ingredients - users and customers.

I can introduce innovation and continue to drive progress - but the cost to my sanity is beginning to show.

Legacy mindsets are fixed on the processes that are the cause rather than the result of poorly performing systems. The cost of changing these mindsets is greater than the cost of the system themselves.

I suppose the answer lies in being able to promote positive change in organisations. Yet individuals are naturally defensive in the face of change because it means uncertainty and disruption.

Does this mean people would inherently rather have the status quo with unsuitable systems than push the boundaries of innovation?

This mindset is one of the greatest barriers to transformational change. Certainly creative concepts get watered down not because of their inherent potential but because of the users who sap the energy, drive and enthusiasm of those who sponsor the operational change.

So here's the real - but not politically correct - answer: if you want to innovate as well as get rid of the systems causing the problems, perhaps you should consider dispensing with the people too?

If only it were that simple.