IT Governance Needs to Change to Gain a Competitive Advantage

Friday, May 7, 2010 by Aaron Whittenberger
Futurists have been fore-telling the look of the business enterprise and the IT Department for years.  The latest version from the Corporate Executive Board state that we are in for rapid, radical change.  It fore-tells that the IT Department in 5 years will bear little resemblance to the IT Department of today.  As business users become more tech savvy, the business units will absorb a lot of today’s IT functions.  Along with continued IT outsourcing, they predict that only 25% of today's IT professionals will still be in IT in 5 years.

The CTO blog does not forecast such a dismal future for the IT professional, but it also acknowledges the need for better alignment with business strategic goals and faster IT solutions delivery.

Whereas, I will not completely buy in to the idea that 75% of today’s IT professionals will not be working in IT in 5 years or that change will be so rapid or radical.  It is increasingly apparent that change in IT solution delivery is necessary, and that is where I suggest that business organizations start; in particular IT Governance. 

I hope to see today’s IT Governance Committee, which approve and prioritize IT business solutions projects, replaced with a Business Improvement Project Review Board who approve and prioritize all business improvement projects.  This new Governance Body will consider all business improvement projects; those with business solutions and those with IT solutions.  As I mentioned a few weeks ago this new board needs to better track all projects and continue to give its support to all projects at every stage of the project.  Once the cost of the project outweigh the benefits, or other external forces make continuance of the project unwise, the project can be stopped and decrease the expense to the organization.

Along with that we will see the idea of a Project Management Office (PMO) replaced with a Business Improvement Office (BIO).  The BIO will be staffed with people with business backgrounds and those with IT backgrounds; however, cross-training and best practices will require all members of the BIO to look for the best solution, considering both business and IT solutions, to meet the needs of the business.  The BIO will take over the project management, business analysis and quality assurance aspects of a project. 

Continued competitive pressures will force the BIO to change its practices in order to achieve faster solution delivery.  Some will embrace the Agile methodology; others will develop some hybrid methodology taking parts from both the Agile and Waterfall methodologies.  However they achieve it, continued pressures for competitive advantage will require continual improvement in the methodology to push for faster and faster delivery while not sacrificing quality.

Many references now forecast a change to IT Departments and IT staffing as we know it today.  It will be interesting to see the changes as they come about and see which forecast was most correct.

Comments for IT Governance Needs to Change to Gain a Competitive Advantage

Thursday, May 13, 2010 by Todd Curphey:
I believe the "25% of today's IT professionals" would need a geographic qualifier. Possibly U.S. IT Professionals; I wouldn't doubt some decline. Having been a front-line Business Analyst under the IT realm for 12 years and currently seeking employment, I see more and more job requirements to build the rocket and fly it too, for half the mean salary. So I may be one of those 75% leaving the trade. If business operations want my 12 hour days and 24/7 support calls because somebody didn't start up a server, they can have my PDA. As to the BIPRB, I recently saw this in a company/systems merger, where *every* change request went through a singular control board, struggles were seen in consistency/clarity in submissions (causing recycling of the requests), status-tracking, ownership, diverse opinions/agendas on what was 'best', and quite often, the decision was kicked back the specialists/sub-dept. anyway. We also burned out that board rather quickly. As to the BIO, don't we rather see this scenario on a project-by-project basis? I suppose in larger organizations, IT is still silo-ed, however where I came from (relatively small insurance co.) we could pull the best-of-the-best for the given situation. It seems like a BIO scenario might inhibit that. And if I'm sitting in Ops, with a specialty certification (i.e. CPCU), moving exclusively to a BIO would be a depreciation of my licensing/certs. I'll just say-very few operations people wanted my IT job. I might also lean towards calling it a Business Change Office (BCO) - they're not all improvements ;0) .
Saturday, May 15, 2010 by Aaron Whittenberger:
Todd, you are probably correct that most business people would not want our IT job, especially when they find out it requires 12 hour days and comes with an pager (PDA) that puts you on call 24/7. It is unfortunate you were involved with a BIPRB that was less than successful. I too was involved in the implementation of a BIPRB and we had good success with it. We did not burn out the members of the board and had a low rate of project requests kick backs to the requester for further definition. Your experience suggests that the up-front analysis was not done completely. I guess I was speaking from a large organization perspective concerning the BIO (BCO), but I do not believe that instituting a BIO will decrease the value of any certification or license that a person may hold. I have been requested on many projects either because of my CBAP® certification or my work ethic. If I were in a BIO a business stakeholder, manager or project manager would still have the ability to request to have me on the project.

Leave a comment





Captcha