Technology alignment: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 22:16, 18 January 2006

Revision as of 19:23, 1 June 2006

Line 1:

Business/''' and technology alignment''', or just '''technology alignment''', corrects terminology and assumptions used in business to better match those of technology and standards anticipated in the [[technology strategy]] and so-called [[technology roadmap]]s.

=== Changes terminology ===

Line 13:

In Canada, a similar nationwide effort called [[Service Canada]] has similar goals, and has run into similar problems: "The big complaints are that departments fight over their turf and are organized to serve the bureaucracy, not Canadians. They don’t [[data dictionary|share data]], [[enterprise taxonomy|information]], [[information infrastructure|common infrastructure]], [[information technology|technology]] or integrate their [[business process]]es. Senior bureaucrats are often accused of being out of touch with the needs of Canadians." - [http://openpolitics.ca/Service+Canada] The government claims that it "is expected to save C$3 billion over five years by automating manual operations, consolidating [[call centre]]s and reducing overpayments in [[Canada Pension Plan]] and employment service." It "will need to spend about C$500 million for technology, consolidate or move offices and retrain the thousands of workers whose jobs were eliminated by automation."

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-engineeringreengineering]] 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 % 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 % 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]

Line 21:

== Sources ==

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

[[Category:Technology strategy]]