We looked at three different ways of how to create a futuristic scenario, in this case the future of IT. I described how the value proposition of IT could become more exclusive again, instead of aimed at user-friendliness. How a trend can lead to a counter-trend. I described how the role of software vendors and systems integrators can change, if we extrapolate the trend towards service-oriented architectures. I lastly described how the future of search engines could look like, if we compare it with a shopping experience.
Are the "Power to the Nerds" and "Software Vendors as Business Consultants" conflicting? The first scenario describes that IT is becoming harder to use, for it to make a difference, while the second scenario stated it becomes easier to use to make a difference.
First of all, great if they are conflicting. It shows there are multiple futures, and it should spark a discussion which future you like best. And trends and futures can coexist. Different strategies to reach the same. IT becomes the business itself. Some car manufacturers, like Volkswagen, are very successful in producing for the masses, others, such as Lamborghini, produce for an exclusive group. Oh and by the way, the Volkswagen and Lamborghini brands belong to the same group.
Of course, this exercise is not complete. I only used one example and one technique at the same time. Multiple techniques should be used to draw multiple scenarios. The possible futures that I described have in common that they all point in the direction of an increasing importance of IT. That in itself is nothing more than an assumption, that could be questioned. Anyone up for producing that scenario, as I couldn't imagine it? ;-)
frank
Comments (1)
Your series of posts about the "Future of IT" are a great read and provide much food for thought. In my view IT exists for one reason: to manage the flow of data between business assets. If you take this approach, then techniques used in the Oil & Gas industries for many years can be applied in any sector. In Oil and Gas, the introduction of digital monitoring equipment means flows of product can be seen as analogous to flows of data. These flows are displayed, monitored and trended in dollars per second. This means business processes can be optimised around value, and the contribution each asset makes to the cost/value of the flow can be evaluated in business (monetary) terms. Today, business resources (which includes people) and IT assets are either providers of data, consumers of data or provide the conduit through which the data can flow. The role of IT is to support, process and optimise the flow of data to maximise business performance. One of the main differences between professions like engineering and architecture, and IT, is that for many years they have been fully documented. Like IT, the very complex projects they manage involve many related assets, processes and people. Yet unlike IT, the business and the professionals can easily understand each other and these days disastrous projects are fairly rare. Why? Because they have simple means of communicating with each other. After all, how could complex things like skyscrapers or bridges be built without blueprints or engineering diagrams? It is this easy to understand "big picture" of the business and IT relationship that has been missing. To create this picture, and enable business and IT to speak a common language, understanding dataflows is critical. It is the understanding, documenting, and engineering of them which is key to managing complexity. If we have a simple picture of how each dataflow moves across and through the assets of the business the responsibilities, roles, risks and costs of every IT resource (or group of IT resources) employed in support of each business activity (and/or set of business activities) can be clearly visualised and, thus, understood. By attaching value meta data to data flows and cost information to IT assets, we can start to assess the ratio between IT support costs and the value of the contribution of IT to the business. Which means IT can speak to the board in the language it understands -- that of money. It also means that IT will be fully documented, providing a standard for governance and a foundation for professionalism. A critical time for IT is rapidly approaching. For example, the Companies Act of 2006 comes into force in the UK during October 2009. Directors and managers (including IT) could be jailed if they fail to ensure that the right IT systems are in place to store and retrieve data and that electronic communication with shareholders is robust and secure. Without full documentation of assets, people and services and a clear understanding of how data flows through the business, many IT professionals could find themselves with more to worry about than a bad reputation. When IT and the business can sit around the table together, see "the big picture," and speak a common language, the rules will be clear to everyone.
Posted by Paul | February 3, 2008 4:50 PM
Posted on February 3, 2008 16:50