The strategy of an IT department

Consider the idea, of a corporate information technology (IT) department standardizing all the computer equipment and programs within a company. Seems sensible at first, until you start to realise that IT people are fallible. No IT person or group of IT specialists can possess total knowledge. It isn't just a question of ability or training it is the amount of time needed to know all there is to know and to keep abreast of all the new developments and initiatives that affect IT decisions. Knowing even a fraction of this, with any degree of depth, is a not a practical reality for even the most gifted scholar.

This means that in standardising they are "taking a view": they are gambling. Investing in an IT department that commits a company to a single technological solution is similar to using an investment company that invests in only one type of stock. A single IT solution commits a company to only one interpretation of the rapidly changing events in the digital communication environment. There is no spread of risk to offset any bias or lack of knowledge within the IT department.

Additional to this, in entering the fast moving environment of digital communications, there is a crucial need for a company to be versatile and flexible. This necessitate that a company can select from a variety of different tools and techniques. It must be able to bring many different points of view to bear on solutions and problems. It must be able to choose from a range of options. The traditional industrial age's preference for standardization and efficiency is at odds with these requirements.

In this age of information, computers should not be considered as items to be standardised. They shouldn't even be treated in the plural. Computers should be thought of as part of an individual: each treated as a unique extension of a particular employee's ability to fulfil a function. In the information age it is not appropriate to think of computers a as part of some robotic process. They must be considered as individual enhancements - to people.

Committing everyone in a company to using the same computers with the same programs is the equivalent to decreeing that every person in the company must have identical experience and educational qualifications. Organisations owe their power and strength to the variety of skills and knowledge that can be brought to bear on their business activities. It isn't sensible to curtail this variety. It doesn't allow the company to adjust to the unusual, adapt to changing conditions, seize new opportunities. By standardising, a company will lose out to other companies who are more likely to have the right people, the right knowledge and the right tools.

Why then, do so many companies gamble their investment in IT departments who are "taking a view"? Surely the most sensible strategy in the environment of information technology with so many unknowns and unknowables is to spread the risk. This must entail the employment of a variety of hardware and software solutions. Maybe this does involve more cost, maybe it does mean some loss of control for the IT department, but, it is far better than being tied into an inflexible solution that may not be optimally suitable for all parts of the company.

Corporations head hunt for highly qualified people to run their IT departments. They want them to be experienced and expert in a wide and extensive range of appropriate computer technologies. Is this realistic? Even if there were such people, it is questionable whether this would be the best kind of person to head up an IT department. As good as they might be, it is unlikely that they would know everything. As specialists and experts they would be very likely to take a view on technological issues. They may not want to risk options where they have incomplete knowledge or control. This would limit the technology of the company to the knowledge of the head of the IT department.

Many well paid technologists are defensive of their knowledge base and feel it a weakness to be seen to be unaware of any new technological developments. They'll often declare a specific preference when they have very little experience of the alternatives. On the other hand, pragmatic technologists will realise and accept the limitations of their own knowledge and allow ample opportunity for unfamiliar technology to co-exist with their own.

In a fast moving technological field where it is impossible to know everything, wouldn't it be better to deal with technologists in the same way as the newsagent deals with his paper boys? Allow for fallibility? Assume that they do not know everything and provide cover, duplication and backup?

With the strong possibility that a real expert would take a narrow position, there is a case to be made for a non expert to run an IT department. If the head of an IT department knew that their knowledge was insufficient, they'd have to rely on others. They'd have to assume that they didn't know enough to judge whether or not a technologist was competent or expert enough to get a particular job done. They'd then be forced to cover themselves and use a strategy that included back up and duplication. They'd have to employ a variety of solutions because they wouldn't be able to decide which is the best.

With the conventional mind set of the old industrial age, this would seem a grossly inefficient and woolly way to work, but, it is similar to the strategy of the newsagent who is creating a reliable business out of unreliable paper boys. It is the strategy of the investment manager who knows that his knowledge is limited and satisfies the client by spreading the risk. By dividing up the risks into as many different compartments as possible a non expert can cover all possibilities and at the same time expose the company to a wealth of different knowledge and option possibilities. This is the way of the information age.

The same thinking must be applied to creating Web sites. Who really knows what is the best strategy, the best design, the best software and hardware. A large investment in a single plan is again equivalent to handing your capital over to an investment manger who is going to "take a view". There is no justification at all for limiting an e-business or e-commerce project to a single solution.

Why go for a single Web server, when a similar result can be obtained with many? Even a "expert in a month" philosophy will tell you that there are so many different ways too run a Web site that you'd be crazy to be stuck with a single option. There are innumerable hardware configurations, innumerable software applications that can be employed. Why be stuck with a single choice when it is virtually impossible for anyone to decide on the best possible combinations of options to use?

What is needed is flexibility. A system may be more suitably configured if it uses the combined resources of a number of different hosts. A server hardware configuration may be suitable for one part of an operation, a quite different server may be configured more appropriately for another. It is likely to be far more efficient to use several specialist servers rather than to compromise with only one.

An e-commerce project is likely to need a variety of different specialist software packages. Would it be reasonable to expect the optimum of each package to be present at a single location or emanate from a single source? Is it reasonable to expect one person or even one team to make all the right choices? Surely a strategy should avoid the possibility that a project should be shackled to a single rigid solution, or, dominated by a single line of thought?

How about Web site design? Here is an area that is totally subjective and is fraught with technological bias. With the large number of possible ways to design and run a Web site it would be totally irresponsible to trust this to a single creative source. There are a large number of Web authoring tools that require highly specialist practitioners. It stands to reason that no one person can know enough about all of the capabilities and limitations of all the various different approaches to be able to categorically come up with an optimum solution.

Again, we are coming to the conclusion that it is not about technology it is about people. It is about combining people's abilities. It is about being aware of their abilities and strengths but taking account of and safeguarding against their limitations. The successful player in the world of e-business and e-commerce will have to play the game like the newsagent - dealing primarily with people rather than the technology.