The IT Skeptic - Comments for "IT: to protect and serve"

Comparable to TOC

ITSMinfo — Thu, 14 Jun 2012 04:13:45 +0000

I compare the current hype around agile methods to a similar hype around Theory of Constraints a decade ago. Their proponents discuss them with almost religious reverence and fervor. This is not to say they are wrong or useless. It simply suggests none of these methods are silver bullets that will solve all problems believed by their adherents.

Regards,
Greg

No issue

RichPem — Mon, 11 Jun 2012 20:55:46 +0000

I don't really have such an issue with the cult of the customer. IT has spent much of its existence building walls to keep its customers at arms length. The exertion of a greater opposite force is needed to bring about the balance between internal and external focus. It inevitably means an unequal focus for a while until the education sticks and the pendulum settles.

I do find those proponents of Agile on here to be equally as cultish but without the obvious end of balance. And in Agile's case it's the balance of risk which one might consider of a little more import than the care afforded to it in some of these comments.

Back to your post, I do think IT has a unique challenge - after all, in what company does everyone think they're financial experts? Or legal experts? Yet everyone is an expert in IT, and this means that control takes on a greater meaning - and governance helps define those controls in an organisation.

I learned in the oil and gas industry just how key - and how central - information can be to an organisation, and dependence on exploiting information in the right way at the right time is growing all the time. Unmanaged risk to information [and data] management therefore is increasingly unmanaged risk to the business. I wonder if there's even been more apt description of IT's role than 'protect and serve' - not sure the balance or the maturity is there yet, of course.

Plus of course, whatever the motto, there will always be a Rodney King and a queue as big as an organisation ready to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

scale

kaimar — Mon, 11 Jun 2012 09:25:18 +0000

Agile is done in a far larger scale that you think. With legacy systems, at one point a decision has to be made - replace the legacy system or not. I'm not advocating for either - it depends on the circumstances, but size is not the only thing that matters. Nor is age. On occasion you can play Sim City in your organization, demolish the inefficient parts and replace them with more Agile ones - if it makes sense business-wise. Just that the potential demand for replacing legacy systems is now coming from more directions than it used to, and "expensive/risky to maintain" might not be the top one.

Nice analogy

skeptic — Mon, 11 Jun 2012 08:45:00 +0000

Nice analogy.

In a small town with wide streets, you can have nothing but roundabouts, to gain some control with minimal loss of agility, but big cities can't afford the real estate, and besides legacy street layouts don't have room for roundabouts. In addition, big cities need more sophisticated computer-controlled lights to allow advanced traffic pattern management, and to facilitate emergency services.

And so it is in IT. A cute little Agile development team is one thing; a major corporate with a complex of legacy systems is another.

Agility

ITSMinfo — Mon, 11 Jun 2012 07:56:08 +0000

Installing stop signs and street lights in cities can mean losses in agility.

It sounds just as stupid in an IT context.

ITIL says the same

skeptic — Sat, 09 Jun 2012 22:07:34 +0000

I should have mentioned the "balance" stuff from ITIL Service Operation (3.2) which says the same things:
- balance between internal and external focus (no Cult of the Customer)
- balance between stability and responsiveness (protect and serve)

Agility is not sacred

skeptic — Sat, 09 Jun 2012 11:58:10 +0000

On twitter @cveira said " orchestration/control can't mean loses in agility", to which i replied "level of agility vs risk is a governance decision. Agility is not sacred."