The IT Clock Speed in 2015

The IT Clock Speed in 2015

by | 3 Nov 2015 | Technology

How CIOs can raise their ‘IT clock speed’ as pressure to innovate grows

CIOs are facing pressure from the board to roll out IT projects increasingly quickly. How can they do that without running unacceptable risks?

I came across this article in the Computer Weekly based on cutting-edge research among leading businesses, such as CEB – formerly the Corporate Exectutive Board – and other industry experts which sums up the need for IT Speed and Agility very well indeed.” stated Craig Ashmole from IT Consulting CCServe Ltd.

Businesses are under pressure to radically rethink the way they manage information technology and the ability to introduce new technology quickly has become a boardroom issue.

More than three-quarters of business leaders identify their number one priorities as developing new products and services, entering new markets and complying with regulations, a CEB study of 3,000 business leaders has found. And the speed at which the IT department can respond to those demands is critical, says Andrew Horne, a managing director at CEB, a cross-industry membership group for business leaders.

“We are increasingly hearing from CEOs that their biggest concern is how organisations can change faster. The thing slowing them down and helping them speed up is technology,” he tells Computer Weekly.

Agile is not enough

The CEB – formerly the Corporate Exectutive Board – argues that traditional ways of managing IT are no longer able to meet the demands of modern businesses. Even agile programming techniques, which do away with long-winded development cycles in favour of rapid programming sprints, are not enough to get companies where they need to be.

A new model for IT is beginning to emerge, which is helping organisations speed up project roll-outs and free up reserves from maintenance to spend on innovative, high-impact IT projects.

Why the IT department needs a faster clock speed

IT departments have always been under pressure to respond more quickly to business demands.

Ten or 15 years ago, they hit on the idea of standardising their IT systems to cut down development time. Rather than roll out multiple enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems in different areas of an organisation, it made much more sense to roll out a single ERP system across the whole organisation.

That worked for CIOs back then, says Horne, but the emergence of cloud computing, analytics and mobile technology means IT can no longer keep pace with the demands of the boardroom. “Now the environment is so competitive. You have legacy systems, big data, analytic tools, technology for customers. You can’t standardise that. You can’t globalise that,” he says.

The rise of the two-speed IT department

Faced with this recognition, companies have opted for a two-speed approach, carving out specialist teams within the IT department to work exclusively on urgent projects.

The fast teams, often dubbed “tiger teams”, focus on innovation, use agile programming techniques and develop experimental skunkworks projects. CEB’s research shows the idea has worked, but only up to a point. Once more than about 15% of projects go through the fast team, productivity starts to fall away dramatically.

We are increasingly hearing from CEOs that their biggest concern is how organisations can change faster. The thing slowing them down and helping them speed up is technology states Andrew Horne, from CEB

“You start off with agile tiger teams, top people, and they deliver at speed. They are glamorous, they get a lot of accolades from senior management,” Jaimie Capella, managing director for CEB’s US IT practice, told a masterclass for CIOs in October 2015. “And then we hit the valley of despair.”

Fast teams cannot work in insolation. They rely on other IT specialists in the slow team to get things done, and they need to work with other parts of the business that do work in an agile way. Once their workload grows, the teams find themselves dragged back by inertia in the rest of the organisation.

There is another problem too. As Capella pointed out, no IT professional with any sense of ambition will want to work in the slow team. “You create the fast team, give it a cool name, put it in new offices. Then everyone on the slow team wants to be in the fast team. That creates morale issues,” he says.

CEB1

The emergence of adaptive IT

The answer that is beginning to emerge from this growing complexity is called adaptive IT. It allows the whole organisation to respond quickly to projects, if it needs to. CEB’s Horne describes it as “ramping up the IT clock speed”.

IT teams will either work at a fast pace or a slow pace, depending on the needs of their current project, and they will be comfortable changing between the two different modes of working.

What is IT clock speed?

IT clock speed is the overall pace at which IT understands business needs, decides how to support those needs and responds by delivering capabilities that create value.

“In any given situation the team can make a call whether speed is most important thing, and trade that off against cost or reliability,” says Horne. Building an adaptive IT department is difficult, and needs a radical rethink of the way CIOs manage their own part of the organisation and their relationships with the rest of the business.

Research by CEB suggests that 6% of organisations have made the transition, while some 29% are taking active steps towards it.

Eliminate communication bottlenecks

Companies can achieve the biggest improvements in IT clock speed by systematically identifying bottlenecks in the IT development cycle. Typically, the sticking points occur when agile IT teams collide with other parts of the organisation.

“Sometimes the problem is conflicting timelines. The IT team needs an architecture decision next week, but the architecture team only meets once a month. Or it needs an urgent risk review, but there is only one person in the organisation doing risk reviews,” says Horne.

The next step is to minimise the red tape. As Horne points out, IT has become extremely process-orientated. Techniques such as ITIL and agile development are in fashion. “And for good reason,” he says. “It helps IT departments keep control.”

But how much process do CIOs really need? Adaptive companies have found they can manage with much less than they might think. They make streamlined processes the default. And if developers want something more rigorous, they have to argue the business case for it.

How CIOs can become faster

CEB’s research shows that CIOs can encourage a culture of speed by delegating more decisions. That does not mean losing control of IT, but it does mean setting clear goals and guidelines that allow other parts of the IT department to make their own decisions.

At the same time, CIOs need to think about the way they communicate with their IT teams. That might mean congratulating people on rapid delivery of projects, rather than focusing on the quality of the project. Horne poses the question: “What are the things on top of the IT score card – is it speed or reliability?”

If that sounds like a lot to do, it is. But companies can start off in a small way and still achieve some of the benefits. “It does not have to be big bang,” says Horne. The transition is not always easy. As one CIO put it: “The co-existence of agile with waterfall projects means we can’t devote people 100% to agile. People work two hours on waterfall, then two hours on agile. It’s hard to manage it.”

One mistake IT departments frequently make is to create a fast-track IT process and then “forget” to tell other parts of the business about it. “I can’t tell you how many times I have heard CIOs say they have a fast-track, but don’t tell business about it because then everyone will want it,” says Capella.

In other cases, IT departments have created such an onerous process for businesses to request fast-track IT – often involving answering questionnaires that can be hundreds of pages long – that business leaders simply don’t bother applying.

The benefits of IT triage

Those companies that have been successful at introducing adaptive IT have taken a cue from the medical world and are triaging their IT projects into streams of urgency.

One US company, for example, assesses each IT project against the following criteria:

  1. The value the business will gain if the project is rolled out quickly.
  2. Whether the risk of the project is contained.
  3. Whether it affects multiple areas of the company.
  4. How frequently the requirements are likely to change.

It has been able to speed up projects by creating self-service portals for urgent, frequently requested projects. They allow marketing people, for example, to create new marketing campaigns as they need them, without the need to wait for a developer.

CEB2

Business professionals can also use pre-defined checklists to set specifications for commonly requested IT projects, which then go through fast-track development, with the minimum testing. Only the most business-critical systems which affect wide sections of the business go through a full rigorous development and testing process.

In another case, a large energy company has decided to do away with formal business cases for all but the most complex 10% of projects. It approves urgent, high-value projects as a matter of course. Non-urgent, low-value projects are simply not approved. A large consumer goods company has taken a different approach. It prioritises only projects that have the greatest impact on customer experience.

Adaptive IT increases efficiency

For those companies that have been able to take up the adaptive model, CEB’s research shows the benefits can be huge. Business can typically roll out a project 20% more quickly – a saving of one month on a six-month project.

They also have more freedom to re-allocate cash to the most urgent projects. Traditional IT departments can re-allocate about 15% of their budget if a new project comes up. For adaptive organisations, the figure is 40%.

CEB3

“Adaptive organisations are also more efficient. If you have a £100m IT budget, they are spending £2m less than average on IT legacy systems, which means they are spending more on collaboration, cloud and big data,” says Horne.

The pressure for IT to become faster is coming down from the CEO and their fellow board directors. “They are frustrated at how slow the company is changing. When they ask why it’s slow, technology is coming up as the answer,” says Horne.

But to succeed, organisations require a strong CIO, with strong leadership skills. “It needs someone willing to lead change rather than just keep IT stable; someone who can work well with business leaders and communicate with their teams. If you are an old-style CIO, interested in technology, keeping the lights on, you are going to be in trouble,” he concluded.

Having spent a majority of my career working with and supporting the Corporate CIO Function, I now seek to provide a forum whereby CIOs or IT Directors can learn from the experience of others to address burning Change or Transformation challenges.

Craig Ashmole

Founding Director CCServe

Tech TBM drives M&A

Tech TBM drives M&A

by | 2 Nov 2015 | Consulting, Technology

Technology Business Management Drives M&A

Throughout the entire M&A lifecycle, the CIO is poised to assess opportunities, mitigate risk and develop and executable IT plan rooted in a multidimensional, 360-degree view of the process.

“As merger and acquisition activity heats up, IT leaders need to be prepared to take a more active role in ensuring that value is properly assessed before the transaction is completed,” Comments Craig Ashmole, Founding Partner of London based IT Consulting firm CCServe. “The key is in ensuring that Boards recognise the need for the CIO involvement throughout the integration process that follows”.

With tens of thousands of M&A transactions expected this year, Steven Hall a Partner, of Emerging Technologies Group at Information Services Group (ISG) makes some clear observations around the focus of Technology within the M&A framework.

CIOs will be called on to help the board determine how the deal will grow revenue, decrease costs, and mitigate risk. The effective use of Technology Business Management (TBM), and the collaboration between IT and lines of business that it entails, will not only inform the M&A transaction during the due diligence phase, but it will also lead to a more efficient transition and a better understanding of the costs and anticipated benefits of the deal. Because TBM is a holistic framework that positions IT in a collaborative business role—one that provides data-driven assessments of its value and role—it is the IT leaders themselves, engaged at the outset of the M&A process, and through its completion, who are best positioned to help fully articulate the M&A rationale and deliver a successful process and outcome.

If one considers several M&A scenarios and their associated business objectives, it becomes clear that IT integration approaches are not one-size-fits-all. In an M&A case driven by cost reductions and improved efficiencies within the context of eliminating a competitor, the absorption rationale—although not without its challenges—is straightforward. The acquiring entity provides all IT systems, but even then the implementation or advancement of a TBM strategy requires attention during the integration. If the primary M&A goal is based on R&D, the parallel but bridged IT coexistence is straightforward, too.

An M&A rationale based on geographic expansion to increase market share also seems straightforward, but IT professionals prepared for this M&A challenge are delivering quality data to best guide the M&A strategy development, as well as execute it. That geographic expansion likely requires a hybrid response to IT systems integration with elements of the absorption model, but it also relies heavily on a “best of breed” approach that retains or recombines superior process or functionality provided by the acquired company. Making optimal decisions requires IT leaders to assess the strengths and weaknesses of the target firm’s IT systems, evaluate the portfolios of both, and deliver cost-effective solutions that drive future growth.

Throughout the entire M&A lifecycle, the CIO is poised to assess opportunities, mitigate risk and develop and executable IT plan rooted in a multidimensional, 360-degree view of the process. The CIO operates as an integral part of the organisational team within that lifecycle, but the critical and active role of IT emerges as the parties move from an acquisition and divestiture phase to executing the separation-integration process. Here, the two issues at the forefront of M&A transactions from that IT perspective—a perspective connected in the TBM framework to all other business units and processes—is to ensure that different platforms work together post-acquisition, and how to optimise the new environment and the costs involved. Doing so is not always easy, and resistance from either or both M&A parties is a given. It becomes easier when the IT leader communicates a core business case throughout the process.

Metrics are the basis for building that case, and for creating a meaningful baseline that anticipates growth and measures savings before the deal closes. But metrics are in service to more than the creation of benchmarks, and quality data is as important a communication tool as it is a standard measure for quantifying success. Data tell a story for stakeholders, and provides a common language for discussing and evaluating the M&A process to both its internal and external constituencies. When, inevitably, at some point in the process stakeholders on either side step in and say, “We used to do it better,” data provides a shared understanding between the M&A parties’ expectations and cultures.

Ideally, that data isn’t meant for looking backward or creating reports that do. Identifying data that supports TBM priorities—and designing that data collection into the toolkit—offers the enterprise an opportunity to revisit how it measures success, and maximises the foresight value of that data.

The traditional approach in M&A circles has been all about percentages, and how to achieve a certain percentage as a measure of cost—but we know now that is impractical, and subject to far too many contingencies to offer the most realistic portrait. Reducing costs to a percentage—as opposed to reducing costs with performance metrics in place for a greater understanding—will only lead to greater risks elsewhere. This strategy, moreover, often fails to accurately evaluate specific, real-life scenarios.

If the costs for services are truly understood through a TBM process both comprehensive and focused, then the “big picture” can supplant the percentage mandate and lead to more intelligent decisions and the M&A discussions that surround them. For example, if the costs are understood but still seen as too high, then the discussion is no longer framed as, “Reduce it by another half percent.” More important, the strategic possibilities and conclusions are no longer derived from conversations that fail to capture critical information that the TBM model makes available. The discussion about where to cut or eliminate becomes more focused, and is a more reliable measure of very specific services, or a better evaluation of operational IT choices to move more on-premise to an as-a-service environment. These approaches deliver value during the M&A process, but it’s important to design them to extend beyond the moment.

Steven goes on to state that: From a TBM standpoint, the M&A process itself is not a departure from “normal business,” rather than an expression of it. The CIO and other organisational team members leading through each M&A phase need to design plans that are reusable, support continuous improvement and remain flexible enough for agile and intelligent responses in the changing business environment of the future. Just as IT leaders are tasked with the systems integration that the M&A process demands, so too is a leadership team whose basis in TBM positions the M&A experience itself within the wider data-driven future of the enterprise.

Technology Business Management

The biggest challenge in M&A, is achieving that common language, and this requires a rapid adoption of TBM principles, knowing what is being spent in both organisations, and how they align. Achieving the desired M&A outcome with a clear shared understanding not just from an IT perspective but within a TBM framework creates the optimal environment for success during the M&A cycle.

Corporate Boardroom Tech Challenge

Corporate Boardroom Tech Challenge

by | 15 Oct 2015 | Consulting, Technology

Are Chairpersons Preparing their Boards for Technology Readiness

The shocking truth about the lack of technology awareness on many corporate Boards in top British firms is exposed!

Executive directors are usually selected for their leadership qualities; they often have experience with general management or leadership experience rather than narrow expertise or technical acumen. So the big question is why should knowledge of IT be an exception?

“Scouting the net to see what topics I could find on the subject of bringing the CIO to the Board table I came across an interesting article from Jean-Louis Bravard, Chairman for DotLondon.” States Craig Ashmole, Founding Partner of London-based CCServe Consulting. “I could not agree more with some of the findings from Jean-Louis so Non-Executive Board members should be actively targeting sound Technology experts.”

A few months ago Jean-Louis decided to look into the professional experience of non-executive directors at the major banks listed in Britain. Like almost every other major industry today, banking relies on hugely complex, enormously expensive technology.

Jean-Louis goes on to say; So I was curious as to whether the individuals charged with corporate governance would have any more than a layman’s knowledge of IT. I discovered that only one bank had a board member with some direct experience in technology and in that case it was as a sales executive.

I’m afraid this is typical not just in banking but across most major industries. Technology is the most important agent of change today; hardly any industry is immune to both its value-creating and disruptive potential. Yet I perceive a large gap between the direct experience of non-executive directors and the experience required to challenge and support chairmen and CEOs in their quest to bring the best technology to their business.

The truth is that many industries today employ outdated technology. Consumer banking is one — layers of technology have been implemented since the 1960s and almost nothing has been taken out. A total overhaul is required. There are countless other examples. Fax machines remain the preferred way to share health care data in most countries despite the fact that the cloud could theoretically allow clinicians to instantaneously share medical records. Chalk remains the technological tool of choice in most education settings. Utilities have only recently begun to add sensors throughout the electric grid and add smart meters in homes and business.

The main reason for this lag is that the project horizon of most IT overhauls goes beyond executive tenures. The cost of overhauls can run into the billions of dollars, the risk of overruns and even failure is high, and that means that many executives kick technology refreshes into the tall grass. Of course, this leaves too many companies vulnerable to technology-fuelled disruption. Few expected Apple to disrupt the music industry (with the iPod and iTunes), communication (with the iPhone) and now potentially consumer banking with ApplePay. Amazon dramatically impacted not just book shops but shopping; Google is now a verb. Who would argue against a future in which disruptive services continue to impact everything from healthcare to retail to personal finances?

Only a multi-year, board-level sponsored effort can ensure a responsible IT overhaul. But without IT expertise at the director level, how can a board truly make an educated decision and, more importantly, follow it through until the end of the project, adapting the design of the overhaul over the course of years to take advantage of rapidly changing technology and consumer behaviour?

The Remedy

Craig Ashmole goes on to suggest, “We need to ensure that corporate governance includes sufficient oversight of technology, and companies should be following basic principles” such as:

  • Hire a technology expert to your board. That is probably the most difficult task and it is very industry dependent. Give priority to individuals with experience scars, both success and failures and who continue to be involved with technology. This means look ‘Outside the Box”, be receptive to new talent, perhaps those new to NED or Board roles. Technology moves too fast for “stale” talent, however well-informed innovation leaders should be sort who can rapidly educate the board. Be prepared to rotate this role every few years.
  • Don’t rely entirely on Big-5 advisers. Many boards rely on technical advisers and Big-5 consultants to assess their firm’s technology needs. Too often the corporate advice these advisers offer is generic. It’s often focused on the competitive environment — used to reassure management that it is not falling behind rivals. This leads to the predominance of the lowest common denominator.
  • Ask tough questions about technology spending. Using Moore’s Law, zero-based budgeting would call for technology spending to fall each year by about 30%; in most companies spending goes up by at least 5% annually. Part of the reason is that CIOs are not rewarded for taking out old code and old hardware; instead they “layer” old technology on top of ancient technology, bad on top of worse.
  • Understand the cyber threat. Unfortunately, new technology opens up vulnerabilities even as it creates value. Total security is not possible, but understanding the risk-benefit trade-off is essential. A recent survey by the Ponemon Institute, sponsored by Raytheon, found that 80% of boards do not even receive briefings on their company’s cyber security strategy.

Poor corporate governance remains a problem at many companies and is a complicated challenge that goes beyond a shortage of technology expertise. But this scarcity of technology experts is one of the easiest problems to fix.

The Board Chairperson Challenge

The Board Chair should test their company’s preparedness to handle technological change by mapping current and future challenges to their current non-executive directors’ pool. They will almost surely discover there is a gap between their team and their corporate needs; using the suggestions above should help the board bridge the gap.

Having spent a majority of my career working with and supporting the Corporate CIO Function, I now seek to provide a forum whereby CIOs or IT Directors can learn from the experience of others to address burning Change or Transformation challenges.

Craig Ashmole

Founding Director CCServe

Failing Corporate Recruitment Processes

Failing Corporate Recruitment Processes

by | 5 Oct 2015 | Consulting

Top Frustrations for Interim Consulting and the Divide between the Corporate Recruiting Process

Are Corporate HR addressing the hiring process for Interim Consulting staff in a manner that befits their experience levels and capabilities?

The gulf between hiring Interim Consultants vs Permanent employees

There is a “gulf of expectation” between employers and contractors over how long the hiring process should take. A white paper by a top London recruitment specialist firm looking at maximising the value of Contractors, surveyed over 500 self-employed workers and hiring managers across the UK, it found 95% of interim contractors expect the hiring process to take no more than three weeks. However, over half (52% of employers) expect the negotiations to take much more than this, leading to frustration among the interim and self-employed candidates.

The ‘gulf’ is in the HR functions recognition of remuneration method between Interim versus Permanent. Permanent roles once hired enjoy ‘gardening leave’ income waiting to start new roles. Interim Consultants, on the other hand only invoice for working days actually delivered, while also easily being disposed of without typical employee benefits if programmes are stalled or shut down. The recruiting process fundamentally forgets these key differences when delaying decisions take place.

weeks graph

It’s natural that experienced seasoned Interim Consultants view this approach less favourably. We understand seasoned Interims are typically on the upper end of consulting day rates but often more qualified than the role, which brings real additional value for an employer. If Interims were being placed quicker could these day rates become a little more competitive? Well that’s an interesting angle. Employers risk losing high-skilled, specialist Interim candidates if they drag their heels during the hiring process.

The Hiring process of Interim Consultants and full-time employees should certainly be looked at separately with regard to decision process, delay and skills requirements from both the in-house HR and recruitment firms.

The Pigeon-Hole approach

Something quite common in the corporate hiring process is the HR list of skills and requirements for a position, but sadly this has created what we all know in the recruitment game as the ‘Pigeon Hole’ effect often phrased as ‘the computer says NO’!

Recruitment agents are good at pigeon holing candidates, after all it suits them to place candidates in the ‘holes’ that their clients are looking for because that is when they get paid. It’s also easier to have a robot application throw out 90% of the applicants. I often find recruitment agencies, just don’t get it, when you have a conversation on soft skills like personality management and ability to deliver, which cannot be placed in a category. Agencies, however tow the line HR departments lay out as the competition is so high. The focus on finding senior level personnel or Interim Consultants who can actually get the job done with the ‘right’ business acumen is more often clouded by tick box lists of  superfluous certifications or skills often only required for staff that “actually write the code”, so as to speak.

Corporate HR pushing CV’s back into the Recruitment process

An activity often found in the corporate HR function is; pushing CV’s of candidates received directly from their careers web portal back into recruitment firms to process, and dare I say it, to be “pigeon holed” again, but this time paying an exorbitant extra marked up cost for the privilege. Where’s the logic in that? Please remind me, what was the HR function established to do again!

While accepting the different levels of candidates required for hire across an organisation there should, in my humble opinion, be a more recognised respect within the HR process for the senior end of the spectrum especially with regard to Interim Consulting roles. These roles often support the executive CXO layer or head of departments, so perhaps a little more respect from the HR function as if they were hiring their own Executive layer. It’s not  difficult to pick out the quality of seasoned Interim Consultants, especially those that might have approach firms directly. Interims very often spend substantial time researching target clients, before reaching out to key members of the organisation for consideration. The HR function seems to have missed an opportunity here, and that’s to use basic common sense in recognising which CV’s need to be pushed out to recruitment firms and which should be channelled directly to the HR Director – there’s a massive cost implication to corporations based on the action taken here.

So is hiring the right skills too robotic?

The 2015 recruitment market is certainly a buyers’ market and sadly that depicts the way skilled resources are being treated today. In my experience, including views from many Interims I have spoken to, we all feel the same; There’s very little respect of the experience and skills Interim candidate can bring by both HR departments and the recruitment firms.

The buyers’ Market has tarnished the Interim process too, as agencies become more blasé and have less time to read the true value of soft skills Interim candidates bring. As an Interim Consultant, I often try to establish and build a relationship with agencies that one sees as professional enough to put your resume and credentials forward, but that’s becoming an impossibility when one cannot even get a call returned. We are seeing a washing away of valuable soft skills like executive layer stakeholder management, empathy and people impartiality so often required in programmes to get the ‘job done’.

I would go as far as suggesting that senior level Interim roles require more than the 40 second CV scan more junior roles get from agencies today. Along with this, the demand for CV’s to be short means Interim CV’s are harder to garner the wider capabilities, usually due to the number of roles they have typically engaged. I very often find myself following up with a skills matrix and a more detailed introduction letter to try to raise profile visibility.

Who are the winners and who are the losers?

Well that’s an interesting debate indeed. Trying to put a fair spin on this I would suggest the recruitment firms are really the winners, the losers are the corporates. Corporations tend to pay way over the odds for the senior layer of employees or Interim Consulting resources. Remembering that the interim market look reduce gap between assignments, so added delay in the hire process will inevitably get reflected in day rates. You will always get more qualified Interim than what’s actually being sort so corporates should look to take advantage of that, but pushing CV’s back unnecessarily into recruitment firms to process will increase day rates to justify all the recruitment firm activity.

“This is not a witch hunt on the recruitment firms out there,” states Craig Ashmole, Founding Partner of London based IT consulting CCServe. “I have many good colleagues in that field, but I do question the lazy approach the corporate HR function takes for not recognising senior level skills that come to them in the first instance.”

Many executives have said, ‘The rates that Interim Consultants charge makes hiring these skills so much more difficult to justify’, which does pose the question, what will be the ramification to Consulting? I fear that the losers with be the corporations for not getting their HR house in order, from a cost and access to skills perspective.

Balancing the argument, recruiters and hiring managers are often not on the same page. Yes, there are the small percentage of hiring managers who are savvy about hiring and deeply involved in the process. However, the large majority of hiring managers could do a much better job of “participating in their own roles” and understanding the processes. The amount of times I have heard a corporation has gone out to source an Interim role draining both candidate and recruitment firm time only to say; “We have decided to source internally”.

Hiring managers, the corporate recruit firms and the HR function all working together can lower the cost of hiring, improve the quality of skilled resources while reducing the time to fill.

Having spent a majority of my career working with and supporting the Corporate CIO Function, I now seek to provide a forum whereby CIOs or IT Directors can learn from the experience of others to address burning Change or Transformation challenges.

Craig Ashmole

Founding Director CCServe