CIOs are, according to many in the business punditocracy, supposed to run IT as a business. Yet in spite of all of the ink smeared on crushed trees advocating this thought process (not to mention the miniscule magnetic domains that have given up their freedom to store it) I've yet to see anyone define what they mean by "business."
It might seem too obvious to bother with. We all know what a business is, don't we?
That's the problem with this sort of thing: We all do know what a business is, only we don't all know what one is in the same way. Depending on the situation and who is doing the talking, businesses can be:
- Non-human, amoral organisms that have an existence independent of the people who make them up, and which, like any other organisms, consider self-perpetuation their first and most important goal.
- Mission-driven entities that exist to provide goods and services that have value to someone.
- Product generators that exist to deliver items for which customers will pay more money than was needed to provide them.
- Profit generators that exist to deliver a stream of money to their actively-involved owners.
- Ecologies -- environments in which individuals compete, and sometimes collaborate to obtain resources.
- Assemblages of processes that connect to transform inputs into outputs.
- Places of employment that exchange work assignments for money and non-cash compensation.
- Social fabrics that provide a space for people to interact and form connections.
- Personal "force multipliers" that increase an individual's ability to achieve goals.
- Opportunities for investment, to deliver a lump of cash to a passively involved shareholder.
- Commodities to be bought, sold, aggregated or dispersed for profit.
When a CIO is supposed to run IT as a business, which definitions are supposed to be part of the formula?
Certainly not Definition #1. If you work in IT you might like it, as it makes Definition #7 a more enduring possibility. But even ignoring the pundits who also recommend disbanding internal IT in favor of outsourcing, self-perpetuation isn't something you can sell to a board of directors.
Which also means you can scratch Definition #7 off the list.
Definition #2 is a certainty. In its simplest form, IT's mission is to provide working information technology to the business. This, or something like it, is IT's mission whether you run it as a business, a department, or a hobby, so scratch Definition #2 off the list as well. The same logic applies to Definitions #6, #8 and #9.
Definition #3 is a distinct possibility. Never mind a mission. A Definition #3 IT business would deliver products and services to internal customers in exchange for money, through the magic of transfer pricing (the practice formerly known as charge-backs).
Except that it doesn't work that way. When companies engage in transfer pricing they put controls in place to make sure internal departments break even exactly. If they didn't, the business as a whole would be an ecology (Definition #5, as are most companies that engage in transfer pricing anyway). Scratch this one off, too, and Definition #4 for the same reason.
Definition #5 is a good representation of a marketplace as well as a jungle, and in fact, marketplaces are near-perfect parallels to ecologies. It's bad enough when a CEO turns a whole enterprise into an ecology. Another description of this sort of environment is "political quagmire." One presumes "run IT as a political quagmire" isn't what the pundits have in mind.
Definitions #10 and #11 make no sense either. It might be fun to sell shares in IT to various business executives and might even lead to beneficial results, in much the way the Green Bay Packers benefit from having 125,000 fans as the shareholders who collectively own the team.
Somehow I just don't see it working very well in practice.
So there you have it. Eleven different definitions of "business" and not one of them makes any sense for IT. Which leads to a question: If IT isn't a business by any reasonable definition of the term, what might it mean to run it like one?
I'm left without an answer, and with only one possible conclusion -- that I don't know what the pundits are talking about.
I suspect that's something they and I have in common.
-----------------
Copyright and other stuff -- The great KJR link point
No comments:
Post a Comment