Stewardship, not ownership: It's time for IT to give up on control

The world has changed since the 1960s' data-processing model, but many IT shops haven't changed with it. A new approach to application, device, and user management is needed

Page 2 of 3

Three inescapable trends that have changed the IT landscape
The IT landscape has changed in three fundamental ways that together are making our habit of control obsolete:

  • A vast expansion of IT's scope.
  • A radical increase in business-user sophistication.
  • The nascent dominance of single-actor business processes.

It's the Yogi Berra theory of roads, and IT is facing it right now: We're at a fork and we have to take it. One path ignores these changes and follows IT's tradition of controlling the use of information technology. The other, better choice redefines IT's role, turning us into stewards who support everyone's ability to more effectively exploit information technology's potential.

Let's explore the three trends that have brought us to this fork (and seem to be poking us with it).

Vast IT scope expansion. Take a moment to track IT's sphere of responsibility over time:

  • 1960s and early '70s. Core accounting functions: general ledger, accounts payable, billing/accounts receivable, and payroll.
  • Mid-'70s through mid-'80s. All of the above, plus full or partial automation of core nonaccounting processes such as inventory management, purchasing/supply chain, and order entry.
  • Mid-'80s through early '90s. All of the above, plus personal effectiveness and communication technologies like email, word processing, electronic spreadsheets, and presentation software.
  • Early '90s through late '00s. All of the above, plus e-commerce, work process management, content management, and further-expanded communication technologies (Web conferencing, for example).
  • Late '00s to the present and beyond. Even more of the above, plus social media, expanded media (YouTube, podcasts), and an explosion of client platforms to support.

Makes your head hurt, doesn't it?

Business-user sophistication. Starting in the early 2000s, households with computers outnumbered households without them. While this was happening, a few cadres of gamers -- people accustomed to figuring out new user interfaces because that's part of the fun and no more difficult than learning how to drive a rental car -- began to enter the workforce. At the same time, their parents and grandparents, still in the workforce, were enjoying pictures of their grandkids that arrived by email, blissfully unaware that they were part of a major change in business realities.

IT's old "White-Out on the screen" assumption of business-user ignorance has become obsolete. Business users are, if anything, too comfortable using information technology. Otherwise, IT wouldn't have smartphones, iPads, and social media to worry about -- business users would be terrified, doing their best to avoid them all while playing solitaire on their desks with real playing cards.

IT's new challenge isn't to get business users to work with the technology in front of them. It's to prevent them from improvising when the provided systems don't address the situations they have to deal with or don't surface the features that address those situations. Anyone who's ever been part of a data cleanup effort resulting from different users putting the same information in separate database fields knows this.

And everyone who's ever had to cope with a mess of Excel front ends and back ends to the official business systems -- either as a result of official systems that aren't flexible enough to address the business's needs or the lack of IT staff to adapt them -- knows this even more.

Single-actor business processes. We're at the confluence of two competing computing metaphors; call them the mainframe and portal views of computing.

The mainframe view is what IT is accustomed to, never mind the actual technology deployed in the data center. It's a mindset that puts the enterprise applications in the middle, with human beings using computer terminals (now tightly controlled "thin clients") at the periphery. The enterprise applications manage the company's "core processes." The human beings perform process roles according to the rules laid out and enforced by the enterprise applications. It's the mass-production business model.

One problem: The mass-production business model fits fewer and fewer businesses, and even within businesses that still engage in mass production, fewer employees have mass-production jobs.

In mass production's place are an increasing number of business processes performed by single actors -- and often performed only once, to deal with an unexpected situation.

To understand how business processes are collapsing from assembly lines to individual actors, you can look at an item as prosaic as the interoffice memo. Once upon a time it was a four-actor process: The author wrote a draft longhand or dictated it. From there, it went to the typing pool, then back to the author for editing, then back to the typing pool. Next, the author's manager handled final editing and approval before being typed for signature. Finally, the mailroom delivered it.

Yes, little Johnny, that's how it used to be done back in Grandpa's time. The process commonly required days. It's now a single-actor process completed in minutes: The author composes an email, IM, or text message -- and sends it.

Increasingly, responsibilities that used to go from desk to desk are handled by single individuals who draw on whatever business resources they need -- mostly, those available through the computing device that sits on their desk.

It's the portal view of computing: The desktop or laptop computer -- and increasingly, the smartphone and tablet -- are portals to the array of resources employees need to handle modern business processes. That's a good reason to get away from the "single software image" mentality that denies users flexibility in the apps they use.

Along with this change is decreased reliance on standardized processes and an increase in the level of creativity required for success. Probably the best-understood example is the move away from standard reports to BI-driven analytics. The difference: Fixed reports answered whatever questions the report's designer knew to answer.

Business intelligence systems stand this on its head. Managers and analysts will have different questions at different times, and fixed reports will only answer these queries by accident. Business intelligence systems let them ask whatever questions of the data occur to them and get answers right away.

| 1 2 3 Page 2
From CIO: 8 Free Online Courses to Grow Your Tech Skills
Notice to our Readers
We're now using social media to take your comments and feedback. Learn more about this here.