Round II: Readers Have More to Say About Carr's "IT Revolution" - ' Why IT Is More '

As Perry Cherpes said [in a previous letter to the editor]: "Electricity is the same for every company—information is not." What doesn't matter in IT in the future is all the things that are essentially the same across companies: servers, routers, any hardware platform that's been profitable for at least three years (think vehicles—you may make rules about buying only Ford or Toyota for maintenance reasons, but you won't have a whole department focused on researching horsepower needs).

What does matter is what distinguishes your company from the others. The bureaucracies above mine (we are a small cog in USDA) wanted us to identify the common data items so we could share info easier.

Examining the data shows that the differences in our data exactly match the differences in our missions.

Our data (the database structure) AND the way users interface with that data (entry forms, reports, and sometimes the specific end-user hardware (think UPS)) are what matters. That's essentially your IT/business alignment.

If it's important for competitive reasons that your IT is always the best in the world, you will have a hardware department (just like the NASCAR groups do); otherwise you're wasting your money and can get along with Best Buy and maybe a consultant or single staff member up to date on industry news.

It's similar with data entry and reporting. If you have to accept strange inputs from various sources, you will need a development group. Same if you need to crunch humongous hunks of data faster than anyone else. If everything can be done through standard off-the-shelf stuff (smart cash-register/scanner/cardreader), then just buy it and focus on your specialty.

Barnes and Noble cannot distinguish themselves from Borders based on how they accept money at their stores, so don't focus on it unless you can think of some way cool thing that would make it attract more customers and be profitable.

What distinguishes them is not their inventory tracking system or their employee time and attendance software, any more than would the fact that their managers drive Fords instead of Toyotas (unless it was advertised company policy to "support America" or "support the environment").

A pizza delivery service can make a competitive statement by using Porsches (speed) or Peterbilt Tractors (volume), or they can compete in completely different areas such as freshness of ingredients or variety of menu.

Carr is correct in that right now, too many businesses have "departments of electricity" even though they aren't competing in any category that really needs that department. Those IT resources are unnecessary and will go away, turning into contract management departments before being absorbed completely into Finance. The other IT resources are immensely valuable and will not go away and still leave the company successful.

Mike Moxcey, Computer Specialist
USDA APHIS Wildlife Services
Fort Collins, CO

Dear Mr. Carr:

As a CFO I can hardly find fault with your desire to reduce inefficiencies. The problem lies in identifying those inefficiencies. Your contention that 70 percent of IT doesn't matter is somewhat glib and akin to throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

The first order of business is to keep the business operating. This requires an infrastructure that is reliable and, often, redundant. Consolidated data centers clearly save money, but also introduce single points of failure. The cost savings must be viewed as coming with added risk to business continuity.

The second order of business is to make sure the infrastructure can support reasonable growth and doesn't become an impediment to accepting and delivering new business. In my 35 years I have seen many short-sighted decisions based purely on cost that ended up costing more because equipment had to be replaced or upgraded less than halfway into its useful life. IT planning must be plugged into the overall business planning and forecasting function with a variable cost component based on growth projections.

The third order of business is to make it efficient, i.e. reduce costs and increase profits. I have seen how technologists fall in love with the technology. I have also seen how they can't seem to scale the technology to the size and needs of the business. They seem to believe there is only one right way to build an infrastructure.

That may be fine for very large and very complicated organizational structures, but usually results in large inefficiencies for small to midsize organizations. Most technologists just don't seem capable of recognizing inefficiencies that are staring them right in the face.

Based on the three items above, I have come to the conclusion that the IT function should always be run by a technology-savvy and strategy-savvy business person. That is the real key to realizing the next IT revolution.

Frank A. Van de Kerkhove
frank.vandekerkhove@wtchen.com
CFO/Treasurer
WT Chen & Company, Inc.
Maynard, MA