Skip to main content

"Alignment" in Gartner list: advancing your software practice is the solution

Thought-leaders have advocated various techniques to align IT with business. Suggestions have included: improving communication between IT and business folks, seating both groups at the same location, etc. These approaches don’t seem to have cut it.
The alignment problem continues for several years now. It is number two in Gartner's Top 10 CIO Strategies for 2009.
In my opinion, the problem will continue . . . Unless we're willing to build a solution into the software development practice itself. A business process centric approach to software development is a practical solution to the alignment issue.

By its "nature," a business process centric approach keeps the software team's focus on business strategy and process performance. By using a practitioner who uniquely combines business analysis and design skills, the approach ensures that "requirements" (including strategy) are in fact translated to desgin without a fundamental change in perspective or priority, which is common where there is a handoff. The approach also suggests process and other changes, if any, required to make that strategy happen.

Comments

  1. Hi Predeep

    Nice point for discussion. It will surely remain a problem unless we change the language. Alignment suggests the two things running in parallel, whereas success will only come when they are integrated.

    Kind Regards

    Mark McGregor
    www.markmcgregor.com

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Explorer mentality Vs conqueror mentality

A fixation on competitors and on beating them is evidence of what Amazon's Jeff Bezos calls a conqueror mentality. In contrast, people waking up in the morning thinking how to innovate for the customer -- and having intense fun innovating -- is evidence of an explorer mentality.

The explorer mentality resulted in Amazon allowing negative reviews of its products. Reacting to this, a book publisher objected, saying "You make money when you sell things." But Bezos thought, "We don't make money when we sell things; we make money when we help customers make purchase decisions." So explorer mentality also demands a willingness to be misunderstood for long periods of time.

During his 16 years as CEO, Bezos' Amazon has delivered shareholder returns of 12,266% (industry-adjusted), and the company's value has grown by $111 billion. More in HBR Jan-Feb 2013.

M&A perspective: IT staffing Vs IT consulting

This report is a simple analysis by HT Capital -- a boutique investment banking firm in New York. It basically makes the point that being a staffing company (Vs consulting company) does not provide adequate returns to most investors, especially from an M&A perspective.

Peter Rozsa, co-author of the report, is a Senior Managing Director at HT Capital. He was also my "classmate" at a Columbia Business School executive education program. I have Peter's permission to make the report available here.

Click to download PDF report.

Leading Change Vs. "Leading" Status Quo

Change and Status quo can be as far apart from each other as a butterfly is from a caterpillar ...

Or ... as an Amazon.com is from a K-Mart ... Or ... as a BMW is from a Hyundai ... Or ... as laying a runway is from paving a cow path ... Or ... as a solution is from a product ... Or ... as experience is from service ... Or ... as customer success is from customer satisfaction ... Or ... as a distinct brand-you is from a me-too employee ...

Change can be triggered by innovation. Change can happen in corporate culture. And so on. There is a leader "behind" every Change. If you consider the corporate world, people like Lou Gerstner, Michael Dell, and Jack Welch may come to mind. Actually, there are scores of other lesser-known and unknown leaders that make change happen in their organizations.

Here's my question: What are some differences between those who lead change and those who "lead" the Status quo? Oh yes, we know about the staggering percentage of Change i…