The Naked CIO: Tech's weasel words

To improve our credibility we could all start by rooting out the waffle, the weasel words and the technical jargon. And a little more honesty wouldn't go amiss either, says the Naked CIO.

As a CIO I probably have as many pet peeves as the next person. But one thing particularly rankles with me. It's people casually bandying about words and phrases to conceal complex ideas.

Exclusive column: The Naked CIO

See what this CIO really thinks…

The Naked CIO: Poisoned BlackBerrys

The Naked CIO: Enemies of the state

The Naked CIO: Service level disagreements

The Naked CIO: What makes a great IT leader?

The Naked CIO: Business misintelligence

The practice is debilitating in a world where assumptions create massive problems.

Take, for example, the use of the word 'anomaly' in an IT context. Anomaly means we have an issue no one understands, cannot identify and are powerless to resolve should it happen again.

I also hate the use of 'the business' to mean an opposing force that only exists to complicate the world of IT.

But my current favourite is 'business alignment', which usually means nothing because IT staff employ it as a placeholder to signify a gap between IT and business strategy - instead of trying to close it.

It seems the IT community increasingly uses words that give it plausible deniability in almost any situation. A department that once was the epitome of straight-talking no longer seems capable of giving a simple answer.

This calculated stance is greatly damaging credibility, respect and collaboration. When I listen to my own employees and colleagues, I see how we have moved from being technically elitist to plain clichéd.

We use words like specification, requirements, compliance, process, methodology and standards as ways to confuse others and distance ourselves from the responsibilities we have to the organisation.

All these words are fine when properly applied. But when they relate to effective and efficient services, they become excuses, stall tactics, containment or ways of deflecting attention from our failure to do our jobs properly.

We have become political and yet we are not qualified to play business politics in an increasingly frugal and cost-conscious business environment.

Why are we scared to tell the real story? Why do we have to confuse and confound to buffer us from criticism rather than improve the way we do our jobs?

Organisations deserve straight-talking IT people telling them not necessarily what they want to hear but what they need to know.

In my team I have outlawed people saying 'but'. As in, "I understand what you are saying but…" or "That is a great idea but…". It has no value and only harms attempts to build consensus.

We need to keep reducing the technical jargon that is so divisive and replace it with meaningful communication.

To gain credibility we also need to be more honest and work as part of a comprehensive strategy that produces tangible and transparent results.

What do you think? Join the debate and post your reader comments on this story by clicking on the link below.