Technology alignment: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 02:38, 12 June 2005

Revision as of 22:16, 18 January 2006

Line 2:

=== Changes terminology ===

When technology is changing very rapidly in an industry, the aligning of business terms to the distinctions that the technology requires tends to dominate any [[enterprise taxonomy]] development effort. In such circumstances, [[consultant]]s or specific technology training is usually required, as the organization lacks the internal skills or experience with the technologies that it is expects soon to be using.

=== Example: government ===

In [[government]], for example, citizen use of the [[Internet]] and the increased availability of [[telework]]ers has presented special challenges and opportunities, typically called "[[e-government]]". At the same time, internal operational efficiencies have become more of a priority due to rising competition between jurisdictions. Often the first step is to limit the number of different departments or agencies involved. By "consolidating the technology operations of 91 state agencies into the [[Virginia Information Technology Agency]], the State of Virginia estimates an eventual savings of nearly $100 million a year." - [http://cpr.ca.gov/report/cprrpt/issrec/stops/it/so01.htm#6b]

"Similarly, the [[U.S. National Performance Review]] recommended a data processing consolidation and modernization initiative citing industry experience suggesting operational savings of between 30 percent% and 50 percent%." - [http://cpr.ca.gov/report/cprrpt/issrec/stops/it/so01.htm#7b]

While "California is the cradle of the information technology industry" its own state government claims that "collaborative exploration and exploitation of emerging technologies is extremely rare within state government", accordingly it seeks to "[[customer relationship management|improve customer relationships]] through [[online service]]s." However such efforts tend to rely very much on driving personalities and [[leadership]]. After one resignation, the state "lost the vision and executive sponsorship that contributed to its success and the national recognition of California's emerging eGovernment activities." This is a major problem in all technology alignment.

Line 17 ⟶ 15:

When, as in California or Canada, new leadership and massive change to operations is required, technology alignment may simply excuse a massive [[business process re-engineering]] and [[downsizing]] exercise. This too is a common situation in technology alignment: using the fact of new technology as a pretext for other large changes.

However, as with all such exercises, there are claims that better service will result, by (in Canada) "opening new offices and creating more front-line jobs in local communities" or (in California) "a 20 percent% reduction in the workforce performing shared services" and of "nearly 9,000 state employees... about 3,600 are engaged in common core functions. An eventual 20 percent% reduction in this workforce segment is possible through attrition when phased in over 5 years." - [http://cpr.ca.gov/report/cprrpt/issrec/stops/it/so01.htm#69b]

These claims also are fairly typical: despite a longstanding admission among experts that there is a "[[productivity paradox]]", the introduction of new information technology and more automated work processes are always assumed to be "more efficient" than what they replace. Accordingly, technology alignment is probably not a passing fad, but, seems to be driven by factors built into business and technology culture.

== Sources ==

*[http://cpr.ca.gov/report/cprrpt/issrec/stops/it/so01.htm the State of California performance review]