Corporate Troika + Suppliers = Successful Governance

4

Whether we like it or not technology has invaded all aspects of our lives with varying degrees of success. Much is written about the issues regarding IT projects going wrong, or becoming too costly, with the obligatory finger-pointing that inevitably follows.

A lot of the press coverage tends to blame suppliers for failing to deliver although some do hint at the failings of client management to control the overall the situation. Some in corporate authority (both in client and supplier organisations) work under the constant pressure of trying to do more with less, living with the continual disbelief and dismay of their customers, and denial. So how can the management of technology be improved for all involved.

What is the issue?

Before quantifying what needs to be addressed we ought to ascertain whether there is an issue to start with. Context here is also important as most organisations utilise technology, to varying degrees of success, to further their business. The bigger the investment, the greater the headaches associated with keeping it all going to everyone’s satisfaction. Unfortunately it is only the ones that go badly awry that get the publicity. However it is fair to say that as the use of technology becomes embedded within the fabric of an organisation’s operation, the greater their dependency upon it. Hence the consequences are extensive when it does go wrong.

Some anecdotal evidence being:

• a. Major IT contracts going wrong souring the relationship between customer and supplier. Whether it’s the suppliers inability to deliver or the organisation’s inability to manage it effectively, there are no winners. Organisation’s management appear to be incompetent, and suppliers incapable of delivering on their promises.
• b. Business expectations are often unrealistically high. Suppliers’ marketing campaigns certainly don’t help in managing their client expectations. Business leaders see sexy, trendy advertising awnings showing the latest widget on the market and they cannot understand why that is not readily available in the workplace. In particular mobile technology which enables news, podcasts, emails etc to be delivered directly to you within minutes of anything happening and as such are seen as ‘must have’ items (or toys).
• c. Some suppliers try to put the fear of dread in customers with tales of doom and despondency relating to their installed infrastructure, particular any legacy systems that exist. It is true that any dependency on ageing system that requires certain hardware and software configurations and skills to maintain and support it, is a business risk. But you have to qualify what is meant by ageing. After all a system that is only one year old can also be a considerable burden if it hasn’t been thoroughly tried and tested before it is installed.
• d. Technological developments are outpacing demand. Today’s technology is barely exploited before its replacement is available. Service and product providers are determining the pace of roadmap developments, whereas the more mundane aspects of support services and back up are wholly inadequate. Users rarely utilise the full potential of their wordprocessor, spreadsheet or email functions on their office or home computers. Even today the old 80:20 rule still applies (i.e. 80% of users only use 20% of available functionality), and yet revamped products are still being churned out. It isn’t about throttling emerging technologies, we just need to get better at embedding it as a truly business enabling tool.
• e. Business often sees the benefits on offer from adopting technology proposals but the reality of implementation and its usage is different. Business users who possibly have more powerful technology at home don’t understand why it isn’t available in the workplace, and at the same cost. They don’t understand (and why should they) the complexities associated with getting something in and running: procurement of the equipment, project managing its successful implementation and operation, change control of effected business procedures, the training required to ensure its effective use, and the politics around who gets what, mount to what is in effect a huge investment in what is basically just IT!
• f. Major business initiatives which are announced at the beginning of the fiscal year as being critical to the strategic growth of the organisation are often cancelled or refocused. There are many reasons for that including inability of the internal IT department to successfully implement it, or changing the business objectives, or the supplier being unable to deliver, or there is a need to reprioritise strategic initiatives. If it is the latter it is likely to be financially driven, in which case it begs the question that if it can be cancelled so easily then why did it attract the relevant funding in the first place? Particularly if it is after the project has started, when money will have already been spent, and in effect wasted. This only contributes to employee cynicism towards further investment in technology.

So why is it that corporate technology seems to be so cumbersome, as opposed to being agile, nimble, flexible, as are the demands of modern business practice.