IT and Business

Let me start with a truism.

There is a schism in most businesses today neatly separating 'The Business' from 'IT'. As with most splits of this sort, this is not a healthy situation. Schisms are historically borne out of a lack of communication and always lead to friction between the opposing factions. Of course, most schisms could be avoided in the first place if the two opposing sides are brought together and shown that, actually, they are both trying to achieve the same aims. Sadly, once the divisions have become ingrained and even accepted as the norm there is not much for the rest of the world to do apart from diminish the friction and manage any potential conflict.

So, how did the split between IT and Business come to exist in the first place? How have we come to find ourselves in a situation where, in most organisations, IT and Business tend to regard each other in a way normally expected only from moody teenage boys and girls eyeing each other nervously from opposite sides of a hastily constructed dancefloor in a school canteen?

Just like the sulky kids, both IT and Business desperately want something from each other. Business thrives on the productivity gains and competitive advantage that comes with implementing new technologies. IT needs the Business's money, without which there would be no need for technology in the first place. Unfortunately they simply lack the ability to communicate effectively. They each speak a different language. Where the Business sees a project in terms of 'opportunity' and 'efficiency', IT will often see the same thing as an awful lot of hard work. Therefore, when IT talks about security, for instance, or other system alterations it sees as necessary, it is often taken by the Business that obstacles are being put in the way of the project.

Then the politicking starts and each side tries to out-maneuvere the other. Once this takes hold the project is almost always doomed to failure. The original goals of the project are either lost completely or become so compromised that neither side wants to take ownership of it. Without a champion the project becomes a disaster. And here's the final truth - a failed project that required a lot of investment in technology is going to embrass the CEO, annoy the CFO, frustrate the head of sales and leave the rest of the board bemused. The CIO will not survive. The CIO will either be sacked, be forced to resign, or will be left with so little credibility that there will be no major IT projects throughout the rest of their tenure. This, of course, is bad news for IT.