by Jack Santos | April 28, 2011 | Comments Off on IT as Whipping Boy
The Journal (and for those of you that don’t know what I am referring to, go read someone else’s blog) had a recent section on IT that was interesting, and a good overview of the executive POV.
But one of the things I see fundamentally missing in their viewpoint, and in many discussions I have with companies about strategy and organization, is the distinction between IT as an organizational function, and IT roles/tasks/work.
There is no question (and our research bears this out) that IT functions morph in two directions – into the business (think analytics) and into the market (think sourcing, outsourcing, cloud). The implications of that to the IT department are profound. Even more profound is the impact on IT careers and work futures. I have research coming out on that from Gartner (The Future of IT Work).
Take the WSJ article “Put IT Where It Belongs; Control of information technology shouldn’t rest with the IT staff. But moving the responsibility isn’t going to be easy.” The article tries to address the dichotomy of work vs. organization, but really doesn’t get at this core issue. Making IT results clearly (while using business terms) linked to business results is just a start. There is very little reason why some of the work that we have labeled “IT” shouldn’t be dispersed within the business. Deciding what is centralized vs decentralized is the classic management dilemma – and we know that shifts with the wind. Having some of it go outside has become a current fade entitled “cloud computing”.
But the core issues of technology and process are still there; the core questions still have to be grappled with. That’s where our research comes in – whether it’s read by a geek/gear head, an IT executive, or a CEO. Of course, we write that to those different continuances – but with similar messages; often times its not WHAT you say – but HOW you say it.
I’ve come to notate the variants of IT organization within enterprises as:
F (DiGamma or Stigma): organizations that may choose to marginalize IT – along the lines of “facilities”. The IT department than becomes a 2nd tier, and a service.
λ (Lambda): organizations that may choose to integrate IT – really make it part of the business DNA. The need for IT as a department may be more strategic, and part of an innovation effort. The department itself could be quite small, and there for direction setting and oversight.
And numerous variation in between Stigma organizations and Lambda organizations.
Putting the whole dynamic into a black/white winner/loser paradigm helps no one. Understanding and acting on the distinctions between the department and organizational design vs. skills sets and workforce development – that is what we need to be talking about.
View Free, Relevant Gartner Research
Gartner's research helps you cut through the complexity and deliver the knowledge you need to make the right decisions quickly, and with confidence.Read Free Gartner Research
Category: career cio-issues cloud externalization governance it-governance management managment offshore outsourcing strategic-planning
Tags: cio consumerization culture externalization gearheads management outsourcing
Comments or opinions expressed on this blog are those of the individual contributors only, and do not necessarily represent the views of Gartner, Inc. or its management. Readers may copy and redistribute blog postings on other blogs, or otherwise for private, non-commercial or journalistic purposes, with attribution to Gartner. This content may not be used for any other purposes in any other formats or media. The content on this blog is provided on an "as-is" basis. Gartner shall not be liable for any damages whatsoever arising out of the content or use of this blog.