«  
  »

is IT alignment a waste of time?

Aligning IT with business strategy is a redundant concept. Instead of wasting time trying to align IT with business strategy, we need to make sure that our business strategy is underpinned with truly effective information systems.
Image of a Water Drop by Koshyk on flickr
Consequently the much-sought alignment of business with IT is a misplaced ambition.

I must admit that several years ago I was well and truly in the IT alignment camp BUT my thinking has progressed significantly since then.  Which is why I am now actively engaged in helping others to understand the shortcomings of the redundant IT-centric paradigm.

IT is not a direct key to strategy

I contend that IT is not a key part of business strategy, because IT is only a subsidiary component of an information system (IS). An IS may well be strategic, depending on the purpose and context. However claiming strategic value for a subsidiary component (IT) in such circumstances is highly questionable.

For example, would Amazon claim their warehouse racking, or delivery cartons to be strategic? I doubt it, although they may well cite their logistics systems as key strategic differentiators for their business.

The problem is not a question of semantics.
IT (Information Technology) is not interchangeable with IS (Information System). The confusion is further compounded by the use of IS to represent Information Services.

I do recognise, however, that many, many people do not acknowledge any distinction and regularly use both abbreviations (IT and IS) almost indiscriminately.

Confusion
This is a major source of confusion. The consequences of the confusion are global, in terms of the distribution and impact of poorly constituted “systems” that are too often heavily biased towards IT and sorely lacking in the other essential IS components.

This is an important distinction: between IT and IS.

Too many IT-centric “solutions” ignore the other IS components (people, process and organization) and more often lead to unexpected cost and disappointment.

Nicholas Carr was right – for the wrong reason

There is an absolutely fundamental difference between IT as an operational necessity and IS as a strategic differentiator. So, in my view Nicholas Carr was right when he wrote IT doesn’t matter – but for the wrong reason.

Carr’s perspective was that IT had become a commodity function.

My perspective is that the focus on IT belies the fundamental necessity of the equally (if not more) important components of information systems, i.e. people, process and organisation.

We only have to look around to see that the IT-centric paradigm is failing to deliver the goods.

You may also like to read:

Email this post Email this post
  • http://www.linkedin.com/in/prasadchitta Prasad Chitta

    Colin,

    Some of my thoughts few months back on this subject are on my blog:

    http://technofunctionalconsulting.blogspot.com/2007/11/business-it-alignment.html

    This Business IT alignment is not a project. It is a process… that is my honest opinion.

    Prasad.

  • David Flint

    Where to start? Business IT only has value as part of the business. Career-limiting problems result for IS/IT managers who ignore business plans, promote IT for its own sake or even promote kinds of IT that are strategically correct but too advanced for their senior non-IT colleagues.

    Therefore IT managers must be responsive to the business context. And since business plans and sensitivities change over time Prasad is right to call business/IT alignment a process. And it’s a process that requires, above all, good relations between IT managers and their senior non-IT colleagues.

    But responsiveness is not enough. A good IT manager will contribute to his colleagues strategic thinking and understanding of what IT can and can’t do. There are many ways to do this from private conversations to briefings by gurus and no single right method.

    A key part of this contribution will be articulation of the value of IT. It’s true that very few businesses gain competitive differentiation from technology per se. But many get it from processes that would be impossible without IT. And many, Amazon, Facebook and Wikipedia to name but three, would not exist without IT; nor would Tesco’s Clubcard deliver the value that it has.

    Arrogance used to be the besetting sin of our profession. Let’s not replace it with excessive modesty.

  • Max Reissmueller

    Colin, I am not sure that I can agree with you on this. Businesses are in the business to make money. This is a fact that many IT and IS personnel often forget. Instead they focus on how IT/IS can solve all of the business problems through technology. This is often not the best solution though. For instance, think of a company that grows through acquisition and ends up with several ERP systems (Oracle, SAP, JDE, etc). Most IT executives would recommend consolidating into a single ERP system. But what if the business is intending to spin them back off? Or what if the business cash flow is very tight (as a lot of us have had to contend with lately) and taking on such a project would be a burden that is too much to carry?

    My point is simple. If IT and IS do not stay in tune with the business needs and direction then we can not adequately provide the solutions that the business needs to grow or survive. Is IT a commodity? No more or less than Sales, Logistics, Finance, or even Manufacturing. But if we are not doing our job we can inhibit the effectiveness of all of the above. Not being business aligned is like producing goods without looking to see what your consumers want.

  • http://www.colin-beveridge.com Colin Beveridge

    Max

    I think that your first paragraph describes a widespread situation: the technicians’ focus on technology.

    Sadly, I suspect that some, perhaps many, stakeholders may find affinity with the final sentence of your second paragraph: “Not being business aligned is like producing goods without looking to see what your consumers want.”

    My perspective is that we need to stop trying to align technology and strategy directly, that approach too often fails because it loses sight of the systematic essentials.

    IT is an important part of an effective information system but can not be the senior component in the configuration.