Skip to main content

Staying Ahead of the Wave of Irrelevance

Nicholas Carr wrote in the May 2003 edition of the Harvard Business Review that "IT doesn't matter."  (The full text of the article was provided online in 2007 by Mr. Carr if you wish to read it in its entirety.)  Recently, this article was resurrected for a discussion on LinkedIn after which input was solicited by the group of CIOs and senior IT people that were members of this particular group.

Predictably, everyone said "yes, IT does matter!"  Well, almost everyone did: I was the lone contrarian, which is humorous considering that IT paid my bills for 18 years, and now that I'm involved with sales to IT groups it continues to do so albeit in a more circuitous fashion.  Am I biting the hand that feeds me?

As a disclaimer, I had not read the article before this question was asked of the group nor had I read (although my management has been strongly hinting for over a year that I should) his book The Big Switch (link to Amazon).  You would think, then, that I would be against his opinion given my professional background, but instead those three words make a lot of sense.

Don't believe me?  Read on!  Of course, it will require that you accept what I've said in previous blog entries but I haven't yet heard any complaints about the premises on which my blog entries are based or the conclusions I draw so hopefully this won't be terribly difficult.

Let's quickly review a few basic postulates that I've put forth in the past:

  1. Companies exist to make money.  This is the most important statement and holds true even for non-profits because, even though they do not distribute the money they make as profits, they do make money so that they can continue to provide services to their clients.  For example, a faith-based health center isn't going to be able to provide much of anything to a sick person under the poverty level if they aren't making money.

  2. Lines of Business (LOBs) exist to make money.  LOBs are experts in market verticals or specific types of business activity and, as such, they know how to devise and execute initiatives that help the company achieve its goal of making money.

  3. IT exists because the LOBs needs them.  Without IT the LOBs would be challenged in their quest to make their initiatives successful.

At the end of the day, the only thing that matters to the Executive Management Team is the answer to the following question:  are you still on track to bring in the revenue that you committed to?  This is obviously because the only purpose of the entire company is to make money.

Having said this, the LOBs could theoretically be viewed as a black box in the following sense:

EMT:  are you going to make money this year?
LOB:  yes.
EMT:  how much money are you going to make this year?
LOB:  1...billlion...dollars!

From the perspective of the EMT, they don't care how the LOB accomplishes its goal. As such, if the LOB chooses to use a room full of monkeys with typewriters (and can convince them to do data entry rather than write the works of Shakespseare) then the EMT doesn't care as long as that goal is met.  This does require, however, that the LOB have a 100% success rate, which never happens in the real world.  As such, the EMT is required to know the details to understand the risk of failure for its own financial forecasting.

Understanding the risk of failure is the only reason why IT has any value in a company.  As long as IT is able to provide value in the sense that they reduce risk for the LOBs then they stay ahead of the wave of irrelevance.  But the moment that the Chief Innovation Officer reverts back to the Chief Information Officer role of yesteryear then the wave engulfs them and the search for a new CIO begins.  (Cue the surfing theme and Wipe Out on the iPod.)

"Wait!  Did you just contradict yourself?"  In a word, "maybe."  I would argue that I've simply shifted the question from "does IT matter?" to "to whom does IT matter?"  At the end of the day the only people whose opinion really matters is the EMT.  But since they are putting the onus on the LOBs to generate the revenue that determines the viability of the company going forward and the LOBs have a symbiotic relationship with IT - IT helps the LOBs make money and the LOBs continue to justify IT's existence to the EMT - then IT does matter but only indirectly.

Do you disagree?  Leave a comment!

Popular posts from this blog

"Ni jiang yi yang de hua ma?"

Last week, I wrote about the necessity of having a clear message . Because this topic is so important I decided to follow-up with another entry on this general subject. This week we will approach it from another angle. (For the curious, the title says " Do you speak the same language? " in pinyin, which is a transliterated Mandarin Chinese.) Recently, a good friend of mine (who is Chinese, ironically) and I were playing pool. He had to bank the 8-ball in the pocket to win the game, and since it was an informal game and bank shots are my area of expertise, he asked me for advice. I told him, "you just need to strike the cue ball with medium speed so that it hits the 8-ball right in the middle." He didn't believe me so we marked the positions of the balls, and then he took his shot only to watch the 8-ball sail past the pocket. "A-ha!" he exclaimed. "I told you it wasn't that easy." But when we reset the positions and I made an attemp

It's Easier to Fail at DevOps than it is to Succeed

Slippery when wet Since the term DevOps was coined in Belgium back in 2009, it is impossible to avoid the term whether in discussions with colleagues or in professional trade magazines.  And during the years while this movement has gained momentum, many things have been written to describe what elements of a DevOps strategy are required for it to be successful. Yet in spite of this, there is an interesting data point worth noting: not many organizations feel there is a need for DevOps.  In a Gartner report entitled DevOps Adoption Survey Results (published in September 2015),  40%  of respondents said they had no plans to implement DevOps and 31% of respondents said they hadn't implemented it but planned to start in the 12 months after the survey was conducted. That left only 29% who had implemented DevOps in a pilot project or in production systems, which isn't a lot. "Maybe it's because there truly isn't a need for DevOps," you say.  While that

Is No/Low-Code the Key to IT Nirvana?

 Unless you've had your head in the sand for the past year or so, you've seen the phrases low-code  and no-code  bandied about quite frequently everywhere you look.  You've probably wondered if this is something new that's here to stay or just a "flash in the pan."  Although the terms have been in the fore of the IT trade publications recently, Low Code Development Platforms (LCDP) (and the corresponding No Code Development Platforms) have been in existence since 2011.  Their roots can be traced to the 90's with 4th generation programming languages and GUI-assisted programming paradigms, e.g. IBM VisualAge for Basic, which was discontinued in 1998. For those of you who aren't familiar with either, the premise is that these platforms allow someone to quickly build applications using a WYSIWYG interface and a "click and configure" paradigm to Isn't this the source code to Roblox? rapidly build full applications with little or no coding requ