CIO Dashboard » The Art of Why

The Art of Why

post by Chris Curran on June 2, 2009

Many of the words associated with information technology reflect the long-standing focus on how to do things. Software engineering, methodology, use cases, BPM, governance, and workflow are just some examples. This makes sense because IT is complex and focusing on getting better is part of the challenge.

With this as a backdrop, think about some of the questions that you discuss with other parts of the business. Maybe some of these will sound familiar:

Why can’t we get our products to market faster?
How can I use it to better engage our customers?
Are we investing in the right things?
What it projects should we do?

None of these questions beg a deep dive into how the problem will be solved. They are all forms of Why questions. Unfortunately, many of us fall back on the old standby - boxes and arrows. This is because, to our core, we are How people. We have grown up in IT as action oriented, process centric, software (or infrastructure) engineers. I’ve been accused of trying to design solutions in meetings focused on understanding problems. If you’ve her had someone say “let’s not try to design the solution right now” to one of your suggestions, I’m right there with you. (I usually retort “it’s iterative design” - oh well.)

I finally decided to try to get better at the Why part of my game.

Conversations or Presentations?

One place the Why or How question is front and center is when you are preparing for a meeting. Many people treat all meetings as How meetings. These meetings are very 1-sided, as in “let me tell you about how we did this” or “here’s how we can solve this problem.”

I have been annoyed by what I call the “8-point font” presentations or what others call “death by Powerpoint.” I have come to the conclusion, aided by many others, that these presentations are made by people who have not practiced the “Art of Why.”

I believe that Why-oriented meetings, in contrast, are very conversational and seek to understand the opportunity, situation and context at hand. They ask a lot of Why questions. Here are some examples of Why questions that I have heard CIOs ask:

Why would a customer want to use our website?
Why are we introducing so many customized products?
Why do we have so many governance committees?

Each of these questions seeks to understand a given situation in a broader context and promotes conversation, engagement and eventually, trust.

I mentioned that many others have influenced my desire to better understand the Art of Why. Most of the reading I have done has been centered on developing better presentations and visual communication. Here are some of the good books I can recommend:

The Back of the Napkin, by Dan Roam. This book is the basis for a class I developed for our firm on picking the right time for Powerpoint and the right time for discussion and whiteboarding.
Slide:ology, by Nancy Duarte. Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth slides were designed by Nancy’s firm.
Presentation Zen, by Garr Reynolds
Advanced Presentations by Design, by Andrew Abela. This book does a great job of distinguishing presentation from board room style discussions.

These books are just scratching the surface as they are just dealing with presentations. There is much more to learn in developing great questions, communication styles, etc.

I think that adding more Why-oriented conversations can make us all better communicators, listeners and problem-solvers.

Ivo

I fully support the point you are making. However, the “boxes and arrows” can be friends to the why-approach. I’ve shared some ideas in this direction here: http://www.via-nova-architectura.org/magazine/magazine/cohesion-of-enterprise-models.html

Regards

Ivo
Ivo

I fully support the point you are making. However, the “boxes and arrows” can be friends to the why-approach. I’ve shared some ideas in this direction here: http://www.via-nova-architectura.org/magazine/magazine/cohesion-of-enterprise-models.html

Regards

Ivo
http://www.thehotiron.com/ Mike Maddaloni - The Hot Iron

When I read this, the first thing that came to mind was, “do the people in IT care why?” When I worked for large and small firms - even a dot-com - over my career, most people in IT didn’t care why, they were more concerned with how much time was needed to code a solution or server load or the other things that IT are supposed to think about.

It was only when I tried to bring in end-users, marketing and other departments in with IT did I ever hear the question, “why?” as they didn’t want to know why, they just wanted to know what to do.

Granted this was a cultural issue, but IT was not the only one to blame. Other departments felt it was their role to just tell IT what was needed, and IT was never given an opportunity to respond. Then throw myself into the mix, a self-proclaimed generalist, and people got all up in arms. But in the end, there would be a better solution provided.

I completely agree - it is an art-form to bring different disciplines together, and one that needs to be performed more!

mp/m
http://www.thehotiron.com/ Mike Maddaloni - The Hot Iron

When I read this, the first thing that came to mind was, “do the people in IT care why?” When I worked for large and small firms - even a dot-com - over my career, most people in IT didn’t care why, they were more concerned with how much time was needed to code a solution or server load or the other things that IT are supposed to think about.

It was only when I tried to bring in end-users, marketing and other departments in with IT did I ever hear the question, “why?” as they didn’t want to know why, they just wanted to know what to do.

Granted this was a cultural issue, but IT was not the only one to blame. Other departments felt it was their role to just tell IT what was needed, and IT was never given an opportunity to respond. Then throw myself into the mix, a self-proclaimed generalist, and people got all up in arms. But in the end, there would be a better solution provided.

I completely agree - it is an art-form to bring different disciplines together, and one that needs to be performed more!

mp/m
http://paimeiitguy.wordpress.com/ Lui Sieh

Hi there,

Came across your blog through “A CIO’s Voice”. Thanks for writing this - you really hit some great points on the importance of “why”. I’m trying to teach this to the younger guys but is still a very good reminder for the experienced folks.

“Why” questions are excellent for facilitating difficult discussions between the “business” and “IT”. It can help diffuse potentially tricky situations where a lot of education is required. Getting people on the same page with good questions before then getting into the “How” makes one a more effective IT person.

Cheers,
http://paimeiitguy.wordpress.com/ Lui Sieh

Hi there,

Came across your blog through “A CIO’s Voice”. Thanks for writing this - you really hit some great points on the importance of “why”. I’m trying to teach this to the younger guys but is still a very good reminder for the experienced folks.

“Why” questions are excellent for facilitating difficult discussions between the “business” and “IT”. It can help diffuse potentially tricky situations where a lot of education is required. Getting people on the same page with good questions before then getting into the “How” makes one a more effective IT person.

Cheers,
http://lundbergmedia.com Abbie Lundberg

I can think of dozens of meetings that should have been “why” conversations but that instead turned into “how” expositions or sometimes debates. My experience has been that IT people, in general, are fantastic problem solvers, but problem definition doesn’t come as easily. It will have to be a very explicit exercise to change that. I also really like the way you tie means of communication to type. Form and function. Thanks for the great post.
http://lundbergmedia.com Abbie Lundberg

I can think of dozens of meetings that should have been “why” conversations but that instead turned into “how” expositions or sometimes debates. My experience has been that IT people, in general, are fantastic problem solvers, but problem definition doesn’t come as easily. It will have to be a very explicit exercise to change that. I also really like the way you tie means of communication to type. Form and function. Thanks for the great post.