What’s in a name? The hazards of rebranding your department

Dear Bob …

I ran across this recently and thought of you.

[ Want to cash in on your IT experiences? InfoWorld is looking for stories of an amazing or amusing IT adventure, lesson learned, or war tale from the trenches. Send your story to offtherecord@infoworld.com. If we publish it, we’ll keep you anonymous and send you a $50 American Express gift cheque. ]

Forrester Research CEO George Colony states:

Changing the term [from IT (Information Technology)] to BT (Business Technology) is also a powerful way for the chief technologist–CIO or CTO–to signal to line-of-business managers and executives and also to the presidents, COO, CEO, and the board of directors that “We’re not in the technology business anymore; we’re in the real business–the company’s business.” I believe by changing the name to BT, and changing its behavior to focus on the business of the business, the technology organization would transform its relationship with the business.

Do you really think that changing the name of the department will accomplish anything? I agree with the concept of IT as part of the business, but is this just more blather about what should be painfully obvious by now?

Full article is here.

– Blather Detector

Dear Blather Detector …

Departmental name changes have a lot in common with rebranding exercises. When companies do this, it sometimes makes sense to customers (Federal Express to FedEx); often puzzles them (Datsun to Nissan); frequently appears to be so much smoke (British Petroleum to BP, which was supposed to mean “Beyond Petroleum”); and too often looks like an attempt to run away from a bad reputation (Borland to Inprise; Blackwater to Xe).

Colony’s suggestion strikes me as a bad rebranding move, especially given the rationale: an attempt to run away from a bad reputation that was never deserved in the first place. The image that comes to mind is of the CIO, twisting his cap nervously in his hands while mumbling, “Sorry I got it wrong all these years. But I’ve learned my lesson. Hope you’ll give me another chance.”

The IT department that bought technology for its own sake is such an enduring myth that I’m surprised I haven’t seen Snopes debunk it. I’ve rarely seen anything that remotely resembles this reputation, and in fact the opposite problem has dominated business IT: CIOs who fail to understand that part of their role is to provide technology leadership to the business, instead of waiting for requests from their “internal customers.” If those internal customers don’t know to ask for something, it just doesn’t happen.

I have in the past, semi-seriously, suggested IT change its name to “process automation” (PA). The difference is that this name change is indicative of an actual, important change in role.

Or we could forget the whole thing and instead focus on having productive conversations about how to help the business increase its revenue and profits.

– Bob

This story, “What’s in a name? The hazards of rebranding your department,” was originally published at InfoWorld.com. Read more of Bob Lewis’s Advice Line blog on InfoWorld.com.