By f.a.buytendijk on January 10, 2008 1:54 PM
Tom Hudock, from the weblog, "BI for Business People," reacted to the "Future of IT" series. He said the following:
I like your post on "power back to the nerds" and "where's the exclusivity." I wonder, is exclusive software really going to give businesses a competitive advantage? If you look at the operations of a business, efficiencies are gained from using common products and methods thus reducing costs (and hopefully increasing profits). Those more efficient companies have a competitive advantage. Now bring this model of reducing costs to the software world. Wouldn't it be cheaper to puchase COTS software that other customers have also purchased? Or use common methodologies, such as ITIL, to reduce risks & costs? The competitive advantage is from how well you implement, apply, and use these common products and methods. I have a hard time seeing a world where the cost of exclusive (custom) software for each company is cheaper than COTS. I agree exclusive software would give more power to technology and IT people. And I agree that software will become more complicated, but hopefully not for the consumer. I like the simplicity of my iPod.
Tom rightfully points out the efficiencies of standard software. And I don't disagree! But what happens if that all of a sudden is not the most important thing anymore. What happens if the advantages of exclusivity, in terms of knowledge, innovation or first mover advantage, outweigh efficiency? What happens if people start finding an expert-device more cool to handle than the simplicity of the iPod? Who will be the winners and the losers then? Are we ready for a paradigm shift, whatever it may turn out to be?
--frank
By f.a.buytendijk on January 30, 2008 2:35 PM
In his blog "bi for business people," Tom Hudock revives the old business versus IT debate, based on some of his recent experiences.
Although I totally agree with the general gist of his post, he makes a few remarks that I'd like to comment on. I know Tom likes a good debate as much as I do!
Tom argues that the sponsor for any BI project should come from the business, not from IT. The CIO often is not at the decision-making table, he observes, and he mentions "the golden rule": those with the money, make the rules.
You know what, I think Tom is right, but I still don't agree. Maybe it is the case, but it shouldn't be. I've always said that the only project approach more disastrous than the IT-driven project, is the business-driven project. No concept of architecture, no leverage for other areas, no real expertise in systems implementations.
I really would like to introduce another golden rule, or wait, let's make it the platinum rule: "those with the knowledge and experience, make the rules." BI implementations, like most IT projects, have a strong business side and a strong IT component. Both IT and Business need to agree. Which brings me to a broader point, organizational maturity. In a project you collect the necessary skills, such as project management, technology skills and business skills, regardless in which department they reside. If I see an "IT project," or a "business project" doing BI, I know enough, it's gonna fail. You need a "BI project," or an "XYZ project."
Bottom line: It's not OR, it's AND. And if the company culture doesn't allow that, and one overrules the other, well, every organization gets the results it deserves.
-frank
