Should information on the internet be certified for credibility?

Once upon a time IT was a black box managed by introverted magicians who were kept out of sight if not out of mind in the back rooms and cupboards of an organisation. IT is still complex, in many ways it is much more complex than 20 years ago, there is certainly many less ‘user serviceable parts’. Conversely it is also exponentially easier to use, in the way a car is increasingly complex but easier to drive than ever, some even park themselves. My teenage daughters know nothing of the underlying file systems or programming logic that underlies a modern laptop, yet they use the technology and have a relationship with it, that is radically different to my experience of technology. This simplification in the use of IT and the explosion in communications and information it has spawned what has been referred to as the democratisation of information.

At the same time, experience in the US shows that today’s college students are loosing the ability to critically assess the credibility of information that is presented on the internet. It has been suggested that we may the moving from the information age into the age of miss-information. The internet has provided access to a wealth of information, I am always staggered (and greatly enjoy) what I can find. As most of it is un-curated or moderated I am also very wary of the validity of the information as there is no easy way to assess its credibility. There is a pressing need for a reality check on the information on the internet especially given the plethora of health and wealth advice. Maybe in the not too distant future we will see information ratings agencies springing up giving ratings on the credibility of each site in the same way that ‘made in Australia’ or ‘certified organic’ does today.

David Gwillim
david.gwillim@optusnet.com.au

BYOD computing puts people back into the IT equation

I have been fascinated by the trend towards ‘bring your own computing’ normally staff would be very reticent to provide their own gear instead insisting the company provide it (for cost, repair and support reasons). This is engaging more people than ever in the leading edge of IT innovation and this is a good thing.

Of course this is also symptomatic of the fact that consumer IT innovation is outstripping corporate IT innovation by a large margin. Once upon a time if you wanted to play with the latest IT toys you needed to join an IT department. Today your lounge room is more It savvy with the iPhone, Twitter, Facebook and gaming consoles leading the IT revolution.

As far as BYOD in the work place goes there is a precedent, in the early days of ubiquitous mobile phones employees often used their own personal mobile before company policy and corporate thinking recognised the value and essential need for wide distribution of mobile phones in the office (initially they were issued to executives, then senior mangers etc, desktop PC’s had a similar evolution, as iPad’s are today with many boards of directors. I-pads and twitter are slowly making their way into the mainstream office too. The billion dollar question is where will innovation come from next – the corporate or personal world?

David Gwillim
Exploring the value of IT to organisations
email: david.gwillim@optusnet.com.au
blog: http://www.businessitvalue.blogspot.com/

IT project failure “it’s the people stupid”

I have long contemplated why IT projects and in particular, software projects fail so regularly and seem so hard to do compared to other project based disciplines. There has to be a reason why a bridge or factory (and physical IT infrastructure for that matter) can be built per project plan and be successful but software applications so often fail to live up to expectations. There are a great many lists and case studies that document software project failures and post-mortems on the likely causes and all seem valid and potentially useful. But they are still unsatisfactory in explaining why writing good software applications is so hard.

It struck me, that the answer is people, and no it’s not the project team, they exist in every project, so do the project sponsors etc. No, it is the fact that application software is dependent on the interaction of individual humans for its use and ultimate success (and arguably its existence). As humans we are a fickle and diverse lot and each of us experiences and interprets our surroundings in our own unique way, this makes designing software a unique challenge.

While we also experience buildings and bridges individually they have to conform to the physical constraints and characteristics of the materials they are made from, their intended purpose and location. It appears likely that our ‘experience’ of software is somewhat different, it is possible to divorce people from a building, you still have a successful building, software without its intended users is a failure.

The implications for software project management is that users must be the central feature of the development, while this sounds logical it is not always easy to engage users and in the case of consumer software (such as Apples IOS mobile operating system) it is even considered undesirable to engage users.

It is significant that modern development methodologies such as Agile emphasise and centralise the involvement of users throughout its iterative approach, there is room for refinement and better ways of doing software development that shift the emphasis from process, project specifications, project risk etc to one centralised on users. The bottom line is, if users fail to engage with the application it has failed.

David Gwillim
Exploring the value of IT to organisations
email: david.gwillim@optusnet.com.au
blog: http://www.businessitvalue.blogspot.com/

CFO’s predict the role of the CIO will not exist in 5 years

This prediction coming as it does from a survey of CFO’s to whom CIO’s are increasingly reporting is worth a closer look. The survey by IT services company Getronics canvassed 203 UK based CFO’s with 1,000 plus employees.

Key findings were:
• 17% of CFO’s believe the CIO role is in jeopardy
• 43% believe IT will merge with finance
• 77% of CFO’s had assumed greater responsibility for IT decisions over the past 2-3 years
• 50% claimed that lack of integration between finance and IT limited the impact of cost savings achievable from IT projects

Major drivers cited include the continuing commoditisation of IT services especially cloud and other outsourced services that are now available. Also apparent in the survey was a lack of trust in the IT leadership with 38% of CFO's feeling the CIO does not know enough about finance and 40% feeling the CIO does not know enough about IT!

For me the findings are more evidence of the growing paradox between the commoditisation and operationalisation of IT within business while at the same time rapid technology change is transforming the global economy and creating the opportunity for new and more effective business models. The survey results suggests that there is a lack of leadership and strategic insight from CIO’s and as a result IT is increasingly being marginalised. Comments such as that of Mark Cook the CEO of Getronics in reflecting on the survey “that only by freeing up CIO’s from the day to day burden of managing assets will organisations be able to truly realise the value that a CIO can bring to their business” ignore the fact that CIO’s have had about 30 years to stake their claim and provide true leadership to the business, most have failed to do so. A new logic for IT management is therefore needed to ensure organisations have the skill to survive and exploit the business environment of the future. The previous one has not worked, its time to try something else.

The Getronics report can be accessed at http://getronics-uk.com/knowledge-share/news-and-events/changingcfo.php

David Gwillim
Exploring the value of IT to organisations
email: david.gwillim@optusnet.com.au
blog: http://www.businessitvalue.blogspot.com/