Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Businesses Books Media Book Reviews Technology

Managing IT As An Investment 211

Posted by timothy from the you-can-play-buzzword-bingo dept.
Scott Abel writes "Itâ(TM)s no secret. To win at business, you must perform better than your competition. Better. Stronger. Faster. You get the picture. In Managing IT as an Investment: Partnering for Success, Ken Moskowitz and Harris Kern explore how changing the way you think about IT can help you develop solutions that exceed your strategic goals. To achieve the highest levels of profitability, the authors say, IT organizations must be well-tuned and in alignment with the goals of the enterprise to which they belong." Read on for the rest of Scott's review.
Managing IT As An Investment: Partnering for Success
author Ken Moskowitz, Harris Kern
pages 150+
publisher Prentice Hall PTR
rating 9
reviewer Scott Abel, Content Management Strategist
ISBN 013009627X
summary How changing the way you think about IT can help you develop solutions that exceed your strategic goals.

For far too long, the authors argue, IT has been incorrectly viewed as a separate part of the enterprise; a distant silo, relegated to the status of a âoecost center.â Instead, the authors make the case for transforming IT into a âoevalue centerâ â" a mission-critical member of the business enterprise, managed as a strategic asset.

In order to get there -â" and to maximize IT value -â" the authors say organizations must realize that âoeIT is inseparable from the business and requires complete alignment with business goals.â Then, they have to admit that thereâ(TM)s âoeno such thing as an IT project.â

âoeIT is no longer a cost center and a growing number of highly successful firms are recognizing this,â the authors say. âoeIT is an investment and should be managed as such to increase revenue and profits. No matter what size project, IT is a member of the business team and should be accountable and responsible.â

Getting past old-world ways of thinking can be difficult for business and IT-minded folks alike; such transformations are often riddled with unexpected organizational change management issues. Moskowitz and Kern do a nice job of exploring some of these difficulties at a high level, but leave plenty of room for in-depth exploration by other authors.

They introduce readers to âoeConsequence-Based Thinkingâ in Chapter 2, a concept that promotes decision-making based on desired business results, rather than on the IT problems you face. The authors explore ways you can avoid âoethe Right/Wrong trapâ (situations in which humans forfeit the desired consequences for the privilege of being right), develop jointly produced business cases (âoea technology case is not sufficientâ), and help each department in your organization contribute to the success of the enterprise mission.

In Chapter Three, âoePartnering,â the authors illustrate the importance of creating a team that will support the goals of the enterprise. âoeIt is key that members of IT teams see themselves and their work as core to the business itself, and not view the IT function as an appendage of the business.â As this happens, the authors say, âoeothers will view them (IT) as critical and necessary partners that can be trusted to provide solutions that donâ(TM)t merely serve a process, but truly serve business outcomes.â

Business partners must change the way they think of themselves as well. Business must think of itself as âoea partner with, rather than a customer of IT,â the authors say. They recommend the development of formalized contracts that spell out responsibility and accountability for all involved; a âoecommon vocabularyâ (to help get everyone in your organization, regardless of role, on the same page); and provide words to the wise for management: âoemanagers will never have as much information as people on the front line.â

Sizeable emphasis is placed on the importance of jointly developed business cases, which the authors say, âoeforces IT and business to engage in continuous dialog in order to ensure success.â Jointly developed business cases can help align IT with business objectives, and have the additional benefit of âoemoving the business agenda forward and creating partnerships and understanding.â A sample Business Case template is provided as an appendix.

Chapter Five, âoeStrategyâ makes the case for building a big-picture strategy that âoestresses an enterprise point of view over seat-of-the-pants, silo thinking.â Organizations without an enterprise strategy often end up creating what the authors call âoeislands of automationâ that will later need to be integrated.

Strategic thinking is a skill and not something that comes easily. It involves adopting new processes and changing the way we think about our jobs. By adopting a âoeBusiness Strategy Formation Processâ that relates an enterprise-to-an-individual and an individual-to-an-enterprise, the authors say organizations can make âoeconsistent decisions that incorporate foresight.â

Chapter Six, âoeThe Small Picture,â provides guidance on communicating the âoebig pictureâ to âoesmall pictureâ folks by answering the question: âoeWhatâ(TM)s in it for me?â Chapter Seven discusses ideas for setting up and managing IT departments as âoevalue centersâ while Chapter Eight, âoeHuman Capital Managementâ deals with issues of people management, individualism, and job satisfaction.

Chapter Nine, âoeInvesting In Values,â provides a brief overview of the importance of values, which the authors define as the âoeguiding principles and basic beliefs that are fundamental assumptions on which subsequent actions are based.â The authors provide several models to help you make which value decisions. They also discuss how to reap âoethe hidden harvestââ"the rewards delivered through collaborating with others toward a common, understood and measurable goal, benefits not realized through traditional, inside-the-box thinking.

While Managing IT as an Investment is indeed a value-added resource, reading the book is not enough. Youâ(TM)ll need to do a little homework before you go tackling a major change in your organization. Youâ(TM)ll need additional guidance not provided in the book to help you decide whether your IT and business staffs should work in the same physical space to help reduce communication barriers and establish a sense of âoeteamâ; if you should re-organize your management structure so both IT and business team members report to the same manager; how you should communicate information about your project in order to create project evangelists; and whether your reward structure needs some revamping (is IT currently rewarded for âoeon timeâ delivery as opposed to delivery of quality solutions that deliver the highest return on investment possible?).

Despite these weaknesses, Managing IT as an Investment: Partnering for Success is an excellent addition to both business and IT literature. At only 150+ pages â" 10 chapters, followed by 4 value-added appendices â" you can read the entire book in an afternoon. The book is well worth the effort. Includes case study information and references to other published works. Perfect for those involved in paradigm-shifting projects where strengthening the relationship between IT and business can help ensure success.

Scott Abel is a content management strategist. Look for his column, The Content Wrangler, on ePrairie.com. You can purchase the Managing IT As An Investment: Partnering for Success from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Managing IT As An Investment More

Managing IT As An Investment

Comments Filter:

  • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re:Step 1 (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mirko ( 198274 ) on Wednesday June 25, 2003 @10:55AM (#6294326) Journal
      I actually agree with the parent post :

      The best way to earn money is to reduce costs.

      In order to reduce these (I don't mean the hardware costs which are usually high but fixed, not repetitive), mangers want to drop people.

      By dropping people, they usually mean to either get rid of the redundant, non-mandatory staff, or to replace whenever possible mandatory existing ones with cheaper overseas workforce.

      So, I just have one proposal against this :
      whenever you have the choice, ensure your money will go to local workers.

      • Re:Step 1 (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Mac73117 ( 122267 )
        I think the parent post was supposed to be a joke. As for 'The best way to earn money is to reduce costs.', where is the income? Yes, you've reduced your overhead but you still aren't making money. By not having adequate and competent staff available you open yourself up to failure and/or buyout. If you can diversify and innovate, you can create a new market, thereby increasing income. To do that you have to spend a little money and ensure that the benefit outweighs the cost. It's sort of a no brainer
      • Outsourcing simply reduces the cost of your man-months. Even if you achieve a high level of efficiency per man-month or function point or however you measure your IT output, the real question is are you producing income or improving efficiencies in other areas. I've worked on large (200 + man-month) projects that have produced neglible income gains (my employer is probably still paying for them). I've also worked on small projects (1-2 man-month) that paid for themselves 12 times over within a year.

        Unfo

        • Re:Costs vs. Revenue (Score:2, Insightful)

          by junkgoof ( 607894 )
          Both of the previous points make sense, and they point out the fallacy of ignoring IT.

          "If I reduce costs enough I can make money without selling any products" is a Dilbertism.

          "The Mythical Man Month" made the point 20 years ago that there is no point in hiring cheap for IT projects. You are better off with a small group of good people who stay with the company than with cheap outside labor that could care less.

          I would also like to hear of an example where outsourcing works. HP is still recovering fr

      • Outsourcing only makes headlines when it is apllied on big corporations, to reduce costs (and staff, in the process). But it can be a good way for a small company to grow, have acess to new technology and don't loose focus on its main business. With outsourcing, strategic partnerships and consortiums, companies can grow without getting bloated. The IT industry is one of the best example of small companies entering in partnerships with other small companies and big corporations: the Wi-Fi alliance, the GSM A

  • refreshing (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Boromir son of Faram ( 645464 ) on Wednesday June 25, 2003 @10:51AM (#6294299) Homepage
    It's good to see IT getting increased recognition as an asset, as opposed to a necessary evil. Hopefully this book will find its way into the hands of a lot of PHBs, and we'll start to see some improvement across the industry.

    The old attitudes about IT have done a lot of damage, but with some effort, books like these, and a little mutual understanding, I think we'll reach a point where IT workers will be free to flourish in businesses and achieve their goals (to become real programmers).

    • Re:refreshing (Score:5, Insightful)

      by TopShelf ( 92521 ) on Wednesday June 25, 2003 @11:25AM (#6294580) Homepage Journal
      I think we'll reach a point where IT workers will be free to flourish in businesses and achieve their goals (to become real programmers).

      You're missing the critical point here. The goals of the programmers and IT as a whole need to be closely aligned with the business, not with some idea of being a "real programmer" (whatever that means). It's not about getting the PHB's to leave the nerds alone - it's about the nerds coming out of their shell and understanding exactly how business needs and technical solutions come together.
      • While I wholeheartedly agree with your statement, it's also very much about the business undersatnding the capabilities of IT.

        Don't get me wrong, I'm not at all saying that they need to understand every little detail, they do at least need to understand what the current IT staff can accomplish for them, and what types of things would require outsourcing.

        Another thing that is essential is for everyone concered to have some realistic expectations. The business cannot constantly be led to believe that we

      • It's not about getting the PHB's to leave the nerds alone - it's about the nerds coming out of their shell and understanding exactly how business needs and technical solutions come together.

        All fine and good, but many of us nerds think the suits are often clueless about IT. Most commercial organizations are heavily sales-based. Sales-oriented people rise to the top, and they in turn hire others like them to run IT and other departments.

        The problem is that being an expert at persuasion often does not tr

    • Humbug (Score:3, Insightful)

      by DABANSHEE ( 154661 )

      "Itâ(TM)s no secret. To win at business, you must perform better than your competition. Better. Stronger." Faster

      Crap, to win at business one simply has to make a real genuine profit.

      Look at Morgan Cars. They have about the most atiquitated auto factory in the world, using some of the most obsolete production methods arround (such as pushing rolling chassis from one plant to another plant across the yard for fitting on body work). They have a virtually nought marketshare & even then can't meet

  • You'll be sorry. There is a reason Bill Gates is f'ing rich. Vulture mentality when it comes to competition.

  • Measuring ROI (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Surak ( 18578 ) * <{moc.skcolbliam} {ta} {karus}> on Wednesday June 25, 2003 @10:52AM (#6294304) Homepage Journal
    The biggest problem with managing IT as an investment is measuring ROI. Sure, you can see "this process costs us n dollars and the process before costs us n*2 dollars" but then how much of that is taken up by the fact that you need to maintain additional IT resources? In many cases, IT projects end up being cost shifting rather than cost savings.

    In theory you'd just figure in the IT costs, but many PHBs don't do that. All they see is the *business* side and tend to look at the IT department as some separate thing.

    It sounds like this book handles that scenario. I'm eager to take a look at this book in the future.

    • PHBs will always... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 25, 2003 @11:00AM (#6294367)
      ...look at IT as a cost center (a liability, an expense) and never as an investment. You'll never be able to convince them that IT infrastructure is like the bolts that hold the wings onto the aircraft they're flying. I've been trying for 15 years and 4 different companies and it's just an exercise in futility.

      • Re:PHBs will always... (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        The bolts that hold the wings on the aircraft are a cost center (a liability, an expense) too. If you could come up with boltless wings and remove or reduce the expense of the bolts, the infrastructure to replace and repair bolts that are reaching the end of their life and the risk associated with bolt failures, you'd increase profitability. The bolts themselves don't make money.

      • Aye.

        The truth of it is, if you have a 'cost center' you should dump it right away; if it's costing you money, with nothing to show for it, lose it.

        If you have an 'infrastructure' center, or a 'indirect revenue center,' on the other hand, nurture it, love it. The toilets in your building aren't actively making you money, but for damn sure you need to keep them there. Same with IT. IT doesn't make you a profit, but it enables the other revenue centers to do so.

      • Your metaphor that IT is the bolts that hold the wings on the aircraft is nice. However, it seems to me that the bolts are more liability than asset (in an accounting sense, at least). They need to be checked periodically and replaced. Thats not to say that the bolts are worthless, or that you would be better of without them.

        IT in the traditional sense supports the business operations that bring money in. As soon as IT starts bringing in money (ie, when it is an asset) you might as well set up an IT de
      • Agreed. I think part of the problem is that to many things are incorrectly billed to IT. For example: The sales dept hires 5 new sales persons. To meet the new space requirments on a server for these people I must add another hard drive and buy a larger tape drive. Shouldn't the sales budget pay for at least some fo that cost?
    • While it is difficult, it is possible as long as everyone stays honest.

      Really. Take the simplest case. If we replace boxes with boxes that can literally deal with twice the load, electricity used goes down, colo space goes down.

      Now if it affects the customer, it's a matter of measuring what their experience change is. Do not measure the intangible. Just 'cause you switched from red to blue doesn't mean you'll attract more customers. If a customer can buy something faster or in some "better" way, that

    • Re:Measuring ROI (Score:4, Insightful)

      by TopShelf ( 92521 ) on Wednesday June 25, 2003 @11:35AM (#6294649) Homepage Journal
      That all depends on the company's financial structure - in a chargeback environment, wherein IT bills internal departments for services rendered, these costs are readily apparent and should be easy to roll into ROI.

      What happens in most cases is that there is no followup after the fact to determine whether ROI targets were really hit anyway. In my 10 years of IS experience, I've yet to see that happen.
      • This is absuolutely what IT is there to fix.

        It should be a chargeback environment, IT should be responsible for services, and other groups should be required to use IT services for IT needs.

        Much like an advertising group is responsible for advertising, and IT group is responsible for computing properly. There's an ownership in both cases that crosses departmental boundries. Perhaps is crosses more in IT cases, but it is still true. Think of how marketing works, and abuses, the notion (in many companies).
    • In many cases, IT projects end up being cost shifting rather than cost savings.

      Or, they turn into classic and memorable "White Elephants", where the cost increases are so embarassing that management simply stops talking about it.

      Often, some processes simply cannot be efficiently automated. For example, sometimes an entrenched and very manual government office gets in the way (automating on either side of them seems to be accepted practice, but I may be wrong).
    • ROI is always a puzzler in in-source situations, because
      1. it should be measured relative to some alternative (we don't build the system or buy it from someone else), but noone knows what revenues and expenses would be if the alternative was followed or which alternative should be used to evaluate ROI, and
      2. there is the little problem of allocation. If IT wsorks closely with the rest of the business, how do you allocate costs and revenues between IT and the rest of the business. Charge IT for time users sp

  • Noise Signal (Score:5, Interesting)

    by FamousLongAgo ( 257744 ) <maciej AT ceglowski DOT com> on Wednesday June 25, 2003 @10:54AM (#6294321) Homepage
    This reviewer can't even write like a human being; it's all consultant-speak and management jargon. The review is a value-subtracted blather center.

    I'm sure the topic of how to build computing into a business is timely, and interesting, but it doesn't sound like this book or this reviewer have anything useful to say. Otherwise they would have used English.

    Shame on Slashdot for giving this consultant a front-page post to pad his resume with.

  • BN link invalid (Score:5, Informative)

    by no soup for you ( 607826 ) <jesse.wolgamott@ ... ail.com minus pi> on Wednesday June 25, 2003 @10:55AM (#6294333) Homepage
    BN can't find the book -- Link to amazon [amazon.com]

    The ISBN is 013009627X

  • IT doesn't matter (Score:5, Informative)

    by landtuna ( 18187 ) on Wednesday June 25, 2003 @10:57AM (#6294348)
    Nicholas Carr, writing in a recent Harvard Business Review article [hbs.edu], probably wouldn't agree with Moskowitz and Kern.

    • Yes and No (Score:4, Insightful)

      by autechre ( 121980 ) on Wednesday June 25, 2003 @12:02PM (#6294855) Homepage
      At least he understands the concept that having a PC on every desktop in a business setting is bad in several ways (upgrade treadmill, wasted resources, increased administration). But IT service hasn't reached a "commodity" level, just as other services haven't, which is something that people born in an office tend to forget.

      I consider IT support to be, at its core, a blue-collar job. Like other "trades" people, it is largely forgotten by many "business" people (at least until it doesn't work), and quality of service varies widely.

      If your network is set up and maintained by people who really don't know their stuff, productivity will suffer. Are operating system updates tested before they're applied? Are they applied at all? Does your IT staff try to adapt the system to fit the needs of the users? Do they even talk to the users? Are you losing productivity to viruses when they should have been stopped by a mail gateway? Does the network "randomly go down"?

      Similarly, if the HVAC, electrical, plumbing, etc. systems in your building are poorly maintained, that will have a real impact on your business. Someone who really understands their chosen trade can make all the difference in the world, whether you're in the planning phase or maintaining a 100-year-old building.

      While it's true that many companies today spend too much on IT _equipment_, the value of good support staff should never be underemphasized. Great techs can do wonders with even a tiny equipment budget.

    • I think that both sides are getting at the fact that people are the IT department not all the computers, networks, and software.

      MS & co have been selling the "myth" of IT as a "thing" that you just buy and plug in. I've found most bosses want to throw money at IT and then complain about it instead of taking the time to understand what tools they use and need.

      I find the ROI to be a myth also. Computers only make a company money because they promote and enforce disipline to the companies policies.

    • This book seems to be arguing (from an IT centric standpoint) the same thing. Integrate with the business. Be a profit center.

      Have you read many marketing books, or sales books?

      IT has come of age. It isn't some bolt-on side project. It _is_ about time it becomes part of Just Doing Business.

      No, it isn't so cool anymore, but this is what being sucessful means, in the business world. That means work, and jobs, and stability. There are still cool things to be done. And yes, I do know that, because I'm playin
    • IT doesn't matter is not about IT being irrelevant - it is about IT being an accepted, necessary, and unavoidable cost of doing business. The "doesn't matter" part of the article in question means that IT is no longer a strategic advantage that one early-mover may have over another.

      If anything, Carr would agree with this article that IT is a permanent part of a business and will, once regarded as an asset and not just a cost center, be able to provide a more positive impact on the overall business.

    • Is, imho, a much more important piece to read [johnhagel.com], as it highlights the ways in which IT does matter, and how Carr's article is dangerous.

  • Loaded with cliche's (Score:5, Insightful)

    by BWJones ( 18351 ) on Wednesday June 25, 2003 @10:57AM (#6294351) Homepage Journal
    Man, I just got back from Philadelphia for business and I cannot tell you how much businessspeak and cliche's I heard. Reading this post was like a flashback with phrases like "Partnering for Success" and "cost center" and "consequence based thinking". I can't tell you how sick I get from hearing folks spout off tripe like "world class" etc... And most commonly I hear this stuff from folks that are absolute knuckleheads, but they have mastered the businessspeak vocabulary so they sound good to people who are not looking for real meaning.

    I know all businesses are not like this, but what is wrong with simply working hard and producing your product with craft and skill and not resorting to all sorts of "strategies for success"?

    • Thinking along those lines, the book should probably be run through this [dc.com] first. God I hate "business speak".

    • Re:Loaded with cliche's (Score:5, Informative)

      by mangino ( 1588 ) on Wednesday June 25, 2003 @11:27AM (#6294589) Homepage
      I agree with most of this, but I would disagree with "Cost Center". A cost center is a division within the enterprise that is measured based upon eliminating cost. IT is usually treated as a cost center because it does not directly generate profits or revenue (And is therefore not a profit or revenue center) and does not manage investments. Whether you think the company should be broken down this way or not is up to you, but the term is a real, established term.
      • It may be a real, established term, but it encourages a reductionist approach to business that is ultimately quite harmful. In reality, there is no such thing as a 'revenue center' or a 'cost center' -- all parts of a business work together to acheive a common goal, namely profit.

        Classifying sales as a 'revenue center' and support as a 'cost center' (because it doesn't generate any income) is foolish thinking that results in very dissatisfied customers and little brand loyalty. How many people do you kno
        • Actually in metered organizations, things get charged to "cost centers". For instance some places have implemented card-swipe or code-entry on their copy machines. By swiping or entering the code, you're supplying your "cost center". This allows the organization to know how many photocopies you made, and thus what percentage of the photocopy supply bill you're responsible for.

          Anything from ordering up pizza for a late night at the office to renting a car for a business trip gets charged to a "cost cente
        • "Cost center" means something that doesn't generate revenue. Much of the (horrible annoying things we bitch about here is) business of business is turning cost centers into something else that generates money.

          Of course IT is part of the business. If it were extraneous, that would be a pretty poor business to keep supporting it.

          I'm a big fan of internal value exchange for large businesses. Engineering and Sales have to buy IT services within the company. Cost controls have an interesting property in that t
      • Cost centers are not "measured upon eliminating cost".

        Cost centers are an accounting term, typically based on the charter of accounts. As an example from the SAP definition:

        Organizational unit within a controlling area that represents a defined location of cost incurrence. The definition can be based on:

        Functional requirements
        Allocation criteria
        Physical location
        Responsibility for costs

        EVERY organization that does any accounting does this. Whether it's submitting a reciept for a rented car for a sales

    • Detachment (Score:2, Informative)

      by Dalcius ( 587481 )
      Detachment seems to be a common theme. Rule your company at such a high level that you don't see the details, right?

      It really is weird, the trend I'm noticing... bosses get managers to handle certain projects, not caring how they're done as long as they're under budget. I know this isn't the same as replacing "being responsible" with "consequence based thinking", but the trend does seem to be all across the board.
    • Managing IT As An Investment
      from the you-can-play-buzzword-bingo dept.

      Also on Slashdot today:

      • Collapsible LCD Screens
      • Mozilla 1.4 RC3 Is Out
      • RMS Cuts Through Some SCO FUD
      • IP Shortage In Asia Just Myth, Says APNIC
      • Will Cellular Swamp WiFi?


      If there's anyone out there who can't complain about jargon and 'businessspeak', it's slashdot.

  • Is this FastCompany or Slashdot???? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Ars-Fartsica ( 166957 ) on Wednesday June 25, 2003 @10:58AM (#6294358)
    The blurb for this contained so much drivel-doublespeak I couldn't bring myself to read the rest.

  • Sounds like COBIT rehashed (Score:5, Interesting)

    by tagishsimon ( 175038 ) on Wednesday June 25, 2003 @10:59AM (#6294359) Homepage
    Why not download it all for free - seems to me like they're just presenting a dumbed down Capability Maturity Matrix [isaca.org] concept.

    To achieve the highest levels of profitability, the authors say, IT organizations must be well-tuned and in alignment with the goals of the enterprise to which they belong. Who'd have thought, eh?

  • It's all about perception (Score:5, Insightful)

    by doc_traig ( 453913 ) on Wednesday June 25, 2003 @11:01AM (#6294376) Homepage Journal
    IT is often looked at with a frown because of what it tends to be in most organizations: a very expensive division whose responsibility is to provide critical tools to perform business, with the ultimate goal being to produce a result, typically profit. Unfortunately, there are plenty of decision-makers who don't think far enough to recongnize the link from tool to result. Sales is seen to generate revenue. Marketing is seen to create and position the products for sale. Finance bills and spends. IT ties those pieces to one another and allows them to function, but you have to think creatively to draw a line from revenue to IT spending.

    Now that I think about it, I wonder how many parallels you could draw between HR and IT. HR is the machine that provides people and benefits to those people, without which the company ceases to function. In a more abstract sense people are tools (whoa), and HR can certainly be viewed as a cash drain with no direct revenue...
    • IT is often looked at with a frown because of what it tends to be in most organizations: a very expensive division whose responsibility is to provide critical tools to perform business, with the ultimate goal being to produce a result, typically profit.

      Additionally, failures in IT tend to be very very visible. IT is where people get overly excited often, especially after recieving new marketing materials from the "vendor", and expensive projects get created to only fizzle out after they realize there was

      • For example, why spend garganuan amounts of money for integrated voice-mail and e-mail, etc. etc. on a single-point-of-failure "cluster", when $30 answering machines are probably more reliable and fit the need like a glove, and are disposable.

        I work in a 3000 person company and I don't think that the IT guys would appreciate 1000 $30 answeing machines very much. Also, you $30 machine won't handle digital phone systems very well and will const $30000+ to maintain.

    • It is important that companies have an HR department so the employees will have someone to hate. You honestly don't want all that anger directed at IT do you?

  • The Nuprin school of success (Score:4, Funny)

    by clem ( 5683 ) on Wednesday June 25, 2003 @11:02AM (#6294389) Homepage
    To win at business, you must perform better than your competition. Better. Stronger. Faster.

    Little. Yellow. Different. Better.

  • Managing empowered, vertical enterprises (Score:5, Funny)

    by Ars-Fartsica ( 166957 ) on Wednesday June 25, 2003 @11:06AM (#6294415)
    The veritcally integrated enterprise application issue has long dogged managers who wish to enhance customer satisfaction, throughput, and utlimately, retention.

    Therein lies the key issue - developing coherent, scalable strategies that not only deliver ROI, but drastically reduce time to market with clear innovations for VARs, wholesalers, and channel merchants.

    It is in fact adaptation to the ecosystem of outsourced infrastructure solutions that is the key delivery point for CIOs across America, to whom the enterprise and the costs centers it addresses are ultimately the de facto element for partner satisfaction.

    This brings up the point of data, capital, resource management, and vertical integration as a key driver of ROI and coherent scalability. How will IT management address these issues in a pervasive redundant fashion which bolsters net throughput? This is the question our generation must face.

    (This was supposed to be humor)

  • People with their heads down writing books fail to look around them, they are inevitably 3-4 years out of date, and their advice always smells like old socks.
    This book would have been great in 1998, but in 2003 it's useless. More and more software is a commodity, and not an investment any more than electricity or coffee is. "Treat your coffee machine as a partner". Well, maybe.
    The truth is that commercial software companies still live by over-selling their wares, and it's an untenable business.
    "Heironymous' Law", which I proposed a day or so ago, states that software costs fall by half every 18 months. That ERP system which cost $1M in 1998 should now cost 32K$.
    And that's the truth, folks. Only asses still pay $1M today. And for those asses out there, I have this great coffee from 1998 too, only $500 per cup!!
    • Mod him up, this is true.

      There are a bunch of articles on IT as an investment.

      "The Portfolio Model" of IT.

      Basically, treat all you applications like stocks in your portfolio. You hold some, you fold some.
    • "Software" is a commodity.

      "Software you want" is not, especially for businesses, especially for businesses using the software as a skeleton to hang the rest of the business off of, which is basically every business over 50 employees. Oddly, they just don't sell Major University In A Box, or World-Class Automobile Company In A Box, and you sure as hell can't download it from Sourceforge.

      "Heironymous' Law" is more like "Heironymous' Really Idealistic But Wrong Idea"; don't hold your breath waiting for it to

  • More new-age business garbage (Score:5, Interesting)

    by swordgeek ( 112599 ) on Wednesday June 25, 2003 @11:07AM (#6294431) Journal
    As soon as I see a reviewer or a book talk about 'overcoming old-world ideas,' it enters the garbage pile.

    Businesses need to change, yes. They need to grow and adapt, undoubtedly. HOWEVER, it seems like every quack who can string two sentences together is writing a book on somehow integrating or embracing IT into your company, in a way that damages the long term outlook for the company. In fact, business "management" for the past three years seems to have been nothing more than destroying companies for the sake of bumping up the short-term stock value.

    But I digress.

    Trying, as this book and this reviewer do, to place IT as either a special division or a profit centre without looking at the individual company is silly. It's very simple:

    1) If you're an IT-based company, then IT is (part of) your core business.
    2) If you're not an IT-based business, then IT is infrastructure.

    Maybe what we REALLY need to do is stop looking at IT as a single department, and slice the appropriate IT roles into the existing departments when they fit. For a car company, web development has a whole hell of a lot more to do with the advertising department than it does with the internal service call tracking group. Why are we sticking them together, then?
    • As soon as I see a reviewer or a book talk about 'overcoming old-world ideas,' it enters the garbage pile.

      Overcoming old-world ideas... sounds a lot like "P/E ratios of 90+ are the way of today! The rules have changed! It's all about potential and thinking OUTSIDE OF THE BOX!" That was just four years ago...

      The meat of it is that there's a valid need for management to analyze how IT spending itself is being analyzed. As time goes on infotech plays a greater and greater role in the fabric of the whole bu
      • Yep. We're clearly living in a Dilbert world.

        IT must be analysed, certainly--ALL parts of a business must be examined, or the business dies.

        But as far as fragmenting IT, bear with me here for a minute.

        IT or more precisely computers and computing 'stuff,' is ubiquitous--there's hardly a piece of business that doesn't use it either directly or indirectly.

        Like phones.
        Like electricity.
        Like paper.

        Yeah, it's more complex and harder to manage than any of the above. There's still a question in my mind about wh
    • As soon as I see a reviewer or a book talk about 'overcoming old-world ideas,' it enters the garbage pile.


      You've just described the Oracle book I was reading yesterday. That book gave me bad vibes from the get go and now I have further evidence to prove I was right. The whole first chapter is just about the history of the company! How useful is that?! There really needs to be a big void between IT and businessmen. We really can't relate to each other's line of work.

    • ... in a way that damages the long term outlook for the company.

      If they cured the problem, they couldn't sell you another book in three years, could they?

      Revolutionary books about revolutionizing business are their own self-perpetuating business model.

    • Real management (Score:2, Insightful)

      by junkgoof ( 607894 )
      Any time you start talking about core business you should check out Nortel's strategy:

      1. We only care about our core business

      2. We can change our core business any time.

      You have to concentrate on what brings in money, but if you ignore the stuff that doesn't your company will die. HR may not be core business, but if you do it badly, or leave it to people outside your company (eg headhunters), you can expect failure.

      Most forms of downsizing fail. Remember about 5-10 years ago when every department

  • My three rules of IT (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Dark Paladin ( 116525 ) * <jhummel&johnhummel,net> on Wednesday June 25, 2003 @11:08AM (#6294435) Homepage
    Over time, and working with places that (frankly) spent far too much fscking money on useless crap, I've boiled down IT to three things:

    1. We provide access to data to those who need it.
    2. We deny access to data to those who do not need it.
    3. We increase the efficiency of access to the data in compliance with rules 1 and 2.

    That's it. Now, I'm not saying computers shouldn't be used for entertainment, etc - but in the workplace, those are the 3 things that IT should be focusing on.

    When I recieved requests for "Well, we need a bigger computer here!", I bring up the three rules above. Does it increase access to the data that much better? Would another alternative work?

    It's not about being "cheap" - sometimes you have to spend money to do things. But an IT staff should be going out to their customers (aka - the business they work for) and saying "All right, what do you need access to. What do you do in your day? Do you fill out the same data over and over again? What can we automate for you so you're spending more time on things the computer can be dealing with? Is there a way to give you better access to your information without compromising security?"

    The more you involve users (and their managers) in the Three Rules of IT, the more they come to see IT as an asset - not just an expenditure.

    In the end, I consider IT to be the janitors of data. They don't make the crap - but if they weren't there to keep it neat and clean and organized, the business would go to shit in a real hurry.

    That's just my view - I know, I could be wrong about it. But it's served me pretty well.
    • "the janitors of data"

      Wow. And I thought it was bad enough when a network guy I knew called himself a high-tech plumber.
    • Blockquoth parent poster:

      ...their customers (aka - the business they work for)...

      This is the only thing you say that I disagree with. I understand IT needs to be service oriented. But the internal business associates serviced are NOT customers.

      An unreasonable, unbearable, impossible customer is someone you can choose not to provide service to. But, no matter how much I may want to, I cannot tell the #$%@@^ in accounting to go away no matter how ridiculous she is.

      Now, in a decent company, there s

    • You're correct if... (Score:2, Insightful)

      by mill5ja ( 139259 )
      You're correct if you swap "data" with "services".

      1. We provide services to those who need it.
      2. We deny services to those who do not need it.
      3. We increase the efficiency of access to the services in compliance with rules 1 and 2.

      Otherwise, you have made some excellent points.

      -jason m

    • maintenance? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by junkgoof ( 607894 )
      How about continued maintenance? Most companies outsourced their web pages (or laid off the IT guys who put them together), and now they look silly. Even tech companies (eg Rogers) have non-functional pages, or ignored input (forms that submit to /dev/null, but inform clients that they will be contacted/served/helped).

      IT REQUIRES continuity.

  • Synergy..... (Score:2, Funny)

    by Tsali ( 594389 )
    My synergy meter went off the charts on that review... Can someone abridge it to a TPS coversheet, please? :-)

    Where I work, we are overhead and are treated as such. Yeah, we do important things, but if we can't bill our IT work, we're foam on the business ale.

    T.

  • A very good way to increase IT productivity is to block slashdot in your filtering software. That way your IT professionals won't waste all their time reading about SCO

  • "Winning in Business" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Tony ( 765 ) on Wednesday June 25, 2003 @11:38AM (#6294669) Journal
    Itâ(TM)s no secret. To win at business, you must perform better than your competition. Better. Stronger. Faster. You get the picture.

    To win at business, you must make a profit. That's it. You don't have to kill your competition; you don't have to fuck anyone over.

    You just have to be able to pay the people who work for you, accomplish what you set out to do, and maybe make a little bank in the process.

    It's this stupid "Business as competition" mentality (with "Business as war" at the most extreme), coupled with plain old greed, that led to Enron, WorldCom, Microsoft, and the RIAA/MPAA.

    I'm not saying, "C'mon, can't we all just get along?" I'm just saying, winning isn't measured by how much more profitable you are than the illusiory "competition." It's measured by the good you do versus the bad you do.
    • > It's this stupid "Business as competition" mentality (with "Business as war" at the most extreme), coupled with plain old greed, that led to Enron, WorldCom, Microsoft, and the RIAA/MPAA.

      No, it's the stupid "I want to make money investing" mentality of any investor (including you if you have any stocks/funds/401k/etc..) that leads to the need for the company to "perform better than your competition". Because if you don't, first, you lose market share to those who do, and second, you lose your investor

    • Um. (Score:2)

      by abulafia ( 7826 )
      You clearly don't work for yourself.

      If you did, you'd have a notion of competition.

      Competition is about providing best value. Sure, sounds trite, right? Try to offer a service in NYC, or San Francisco without a justification of why you're the best. Honestly, try it - I've done it in both cities. Please, report back here.I'll share mime if you share yours.

      You don't have to fuck your competition, but you have to be bloodthirsty. That's a fact.

      So, the question is, when do you stop? I don't exuse any of the
  • OK, so this review is written by someone who doesn't do anything for a living. He is a strategist not a doer not a manager but a bloody consultant who gets paid to write words about words and pictures and strategy.

    Those that can do, those that can't strategize ... for synergy, etc.

  • Truisms (Score:5, Insightful)

    by pubjames ( 468013 ) on Wednesday June 25, 2003 @11:42AM (#6294710)
    Itâ(TM)s no secret. To win at business, you must perform better than your competition. Better. Stronger. Faster. You get the picture.

    I hate this kind of truism, because people don't challenge them. The trouble with this approach to business is that it causes businesses to converge on the same thing - Hey, the restaurant next door is now selling tacos as well as burgers! We need to sell tacos too, only, erm, bigger ones! They also start to put more effort into competeting than actually thinking about their own business - Hey, they're selling bigger tacos than us next door! How should we compete with that? In my little illustration here, you end up with two restaurants selling nearly identical products, rather than two completely different restaurants, which is probably what most people walking past (the customers) would prefer.

    It is interesting that this business mentality is very prevailent in the US than europe. In most cities in the US there are lots of chain restaurants which are very similar, but in Europe (or at least France, Italy, Spain and places like that) all the restaurant tend to be different and there are fewer chains. And personally, I think Europeans get the better deal.
    • "The trouble with this approach to business is that it causes businesses to converge on the same thing - Hey, the restaurant next door is now selling tacos as well as burgers! We need to sell tacos too, only, erm, bigger ones!"

      So true. Management fads rule today's business world. 5 years ago some companies started spending millions in attempts to make money on the Internet, so everybody else followed. Then the bubble burst and the profits didn't materialize for most of them, so they laid off like crazy

  • We do this, and been doing it, but ever since... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by snatchitup ( 466222 ) on Wednesday June 25, 2003 @11:43AM (#6294713) Homepage Journal
    We really provide crap.

    We had been doing something more resembling XP. We had prototypes. The client used these prototypes to figure out what he really wanted.

    The investment model, is better suited to the waterfall method with development going forward, and there, quality is killed. Don't get me wrong, what we deliver works, if there's a bug, it gets fixed.

    But, excellence is lacking for sure because once we figure out what we need to get excellence, we've exceeded our budget, which oh by the way, has been gobbled up by all the mgmt consultants etc. trying that want to make it look like there's very little overhead in the IT org, when there's just frankly too much fat.

    We pat ourselves on the back for having a "Portfolio". BUt look at what we've produced since.

    Actaully, only a few small scale systems (but with the latest greatest J2EE, Portal, and Web Services. from IBM. The legacy systems run the show and get no recognition. I work on both.

    Here's an example. We're currently working on an application that's probably comprising about 120 tables. There are about 20 people on this project including the BA's, PM's, ARchitects.

    Then, there's another system I work on, with 1,100 tables, 1 million lines of code (including triggers, stored proc, client code, etc) We just provided an additional amount of functionality that eclipses the new system with the 20 developers.

    All this, with two developers, a dba, and a PM. 4 people.

    Things are weird here, this IT Investment philosophy has really made things strange.

    • I could not agree more.

      I was part of a large project that involved 20 people, PM, BPMs, architects etc. Took years and cost millions. The resulting application worked, but its internals made me cringe.

      The next project was supposed to be a tweak of the original project for a different target market. I essentially reimplemented the bulk of the application in 6 months with 1 PM, 2 hard core developers and an outstanding DBA.

      In my experience, the best way to accomplish projects is to have a small squad of

  • Feh! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by dutky ( 20510 ) on Wednesday June 25, 2003 @11:43AM (#6294717) Homepage Journal

    First: Feh! on the business-speak drivel.

    Second: The author is just plain looney. IT is not an investment any more than sticky notes are, and for precisely the same reason: Most of your IT hardware will need replacement in very short order (only a few years).

    If any part of the IT department is an investment it is the expertise of the people you employ to administer your IT, but either you (as a company) already know this (by treating all your employees as investments) or you don't (which, it appears, is the far more common attitude). Even the employess are not a very good investment, since there is damn little you can do to make sure they don't leave (you can't own your employees, at least not in most places) and they require a huge amount of maintenance (salaries, benefits, training, etc.).

    Everything else about IT is obviosly a simple cost (possibly amortized over a short period of time): All the hardware will be obsolete within only a few years. All the data you collect has an almost equally short shelf life (how long are individual customer demographics good for? how about marketing materials? maybe financial data has a reasonable lifespan, but it's not much more than 5 or 7 years) and have a continuing cost of maintenance in order to keep them up-to-date.

    The longest lived part of your IT infrastructure is probably the network cables, which can last 10 years or so. None of these items have the lifespan of a building, however, which is the canonical example of an investment item.

    • Second: The author is just plain looney. IT is not an investment any more than sticky notes are, and for precisely the same reason: Most of your IT hardware will need replacement in very short order (only a few years).

      You should re-evaluate your hardware and software choices if this is the case. I wouldn't expect a car to last only one year, I certainly wouldn't expect a desk to last one year, and computers should have a usable lifetime of around three to five years. Remember -- you're running business
      • Even a lifespan of 3-5 years doesn't rise to the level of 'investment', at least not in my book. The residual value in a piece of computing equipment after 3 years is very close to zero (consider the combination of resale value, replacement cost, and costs of maintenance over the previous three years of use: Once you've spent as much in administrator time as it would take to buy a new widget, the widget's life is over). Desks, buildings and vehicles don't depreciate as rapidly as most IT hardware (I'll gran

  • Better, Stronger, Faster? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 25, 2003 @11:57AM (#6294828)

    "It's no secret. To win at business, you must perform better than your competition. Better. Stronger. Faster. You get the picture."

    Nonsense. There are plenty of ways to "win" (I take it this means "succeed" here) in business. You can be innovative and first-to-market. You can take advantage of your opportunities. You can distinguish yourself from your competitors by targeting and appealing to a different audience. There is no one formula for success in any industry.

    "Better/Stronger/Faster" is typical lame management/MBA hype. I wouldn't trust a book review from someone who speaks in these kinds of cliches and rash generalizations.

  • Wishful thinking? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by pmz ( 462998 ) on Wednesday June 25, 2003 @12:03PM (#6294875) Homepage
    There is appears to be a fundamental flaw in accounting methods when they totally miss productivity loss due to having crap like Windows 9x or NT and PCs with double-digit failure rates.

    It is not uncommon to see someone with 32MB (or even 128MB) of RAM in their ancient PC, swapping all to hell, wasting hours upon hours of time, when "there is no budget" for a new PC. It really is sick.

    Not only that, after five years, stuff wears out. Replacements? "There is no budget for replacements."
    • I agree on this if I were a CIO. A 486 is perfectly fine and as long as the computer works then it can bring money in.

      Show me one study that poves otherwise? Computers are just commidities. Its the user and not the computer who brings home the bacon for big corp.If new pc's are needed then as a CIO I would take it out of your salary and let you go. Its that or make you work for free.

      Not that I am a clueless prick but you are right and without a budget I can not do much. Here is what I would do. If a new u
  • To achieve the highest levels of profitability, the authors say, IT organizations must be well-tuned and in alignment with the goals of the enterprise to which they belong

    Well duh...
  • This phrase ... "Instead, the authors make the case for transforming IT into a âoevalue centerâ â" a mission-critical member of the business enterprise, managed as a strategic asset." is very interesting.

    If the author gives clear concise examples of how to do this with FULL ROI models and detailed analysis, this book would be of a tremendous value for IT and business people. It seems that certain IT projects are more difficult to quantify in a P/L statement vs. a typical business project.

  • Personally, I see it as IT's task to commit to quickly building inexpensive sources as well as to professionally network effective information while maintaining the highest standards.

    or maybe:

    strive to assertively pursue diverse meta-services because that is what the customer expects.

    I'm sure these books are just generated by automatic [dilbert.com] management [giantflounderpenis.com] speak generators.

  • Audience and scope (Score:5, Insightful)

    by UnknowingFool ( 672806 ) on Wednesday June 25, 2003 @12:42PM (#6295172)
    The book might be worth reading to PHB types who don't realize the role and value of IT. But here is my 2 cents when addressing managers.

    1. IT is not a panacea. IT will not solve world hunger or help your products sell better if they're crap.

    2. IT is infrastructure. A good IT department will keep things running without fanfare, but like most infrastructure, its ROI is hard to compute. After all, how valuable is the interstate highway system to US commerce? Most people can acknowledge its value but few can actually quantify it. IT can provide solutions to problems but the success and value of solutions is dependent on the nature of the problem. Sure, an IT department can automate TPS reports and save productivity, but the business question should be whether TPS reports are necessary and the best solution to its problem.

    • Actually you can quantify ROI, just it's a difficult thing to do and is time consuming.

      For instance. I'm currently putting forward a cost/benefit analysis for switching our firewalls to a high availability solution. The calculations are actually pretty simple on this, as the cost to the company is the cost of the extra hardware and liscences compared to the potential losses caused by days lost to our systems weighed against the percentage chance of an outage happening...

      pretty much all IT work within com
      • I didn't say ROI is impossible to quantify, just difficult. Few people can do it. Some projects are easier than others. What is the ROI on email? File and print servers? Someone with your background has an edge in determining these things, but PHBs have very little understanding of technical issues.

  • Two better alternatives... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mbakaitis ( 675519 ) on Wednesday June 25, 2003 @12:48PM (#6295240)
    Having just finished a master's degree which involved both an MBA and an MS in Information Systems, I'd recommend these as *very* good guides for the technical who want to work better with the business (without the pain of the MBA):

    "Achieving Business Value from Technology : A Practical Guide for Today's Executive" by Tony Murphy
    A *really* good book that addresses the whole "how to measure ROI" when so many of the returns of an IT investment are soft.

    "Corporate Information Strategy and Management: Text and Cases" by Applegate &c.
    A textbook, but a good one. The cases teach some really valuable lessons. The text is, itself, a good overview of the different business-technology challenges that occur.

    Having used these both at school and at work, I think they are far better at explaining (a) how to explain the hard (cash) aspects of an IT project as well as (b) helping to show the value of the soft (architectural, organizational, etc.) benefits that can't easily be transferred into financial terms.

    If nothing else, they are both good for one other reason: they can both help you decide which project or option would be better...even if money is not involved. The simple ability to decide which project will be better in the long run and the ability to explain this in clear terms is an important skill that these books will also help readers develop...

  • "Itâ(TM)s no secret. To win at business, you must perform better than your competition. Better. Stronger. Faster." -

    Sometimes, you americans really lose sight of the facts.

    Firstly, there is no 'winner' in business; at any one time, in any given market, on some particular scale, someone is ahead of their rivals - but it never stays that way for very long.

    Secondly, is 'winning' actually the point of being in business? Surely it must be just as important to look after your staff and customers? Without

  • OMFG! Buzzword Alert! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by EinarH ( 583836 ) on Wednesday June 25, 2003 @06:05PM (#6298538) Journal
    "Itâ(TM)s no secret. To win at business, you must perform better than your competition. Better. Stronger. Faster. You get the picture. In Managing IT as an Investment: Partnering for Success, Ken Moskowitz and Harris Kern explore how changing the way you think about IT can help you develop solutions that exceed your strategic goals. To achieve the highest levels of profitability, the authors say, IT organizations must be well-tuned and in alignment with the goals of the enterprise to which they belong."

    Slashdot: Mission critical best of breed News for nerds, Total Quality Managemented synergizing stuff that matters.

Slashdot Top Deals

The wages of sin are unreported.

Close