Conclusion: With increasing pressure to digitise extra services to clients, now is the time to review the effectiveness of the partnership between IT and business units. Unless it is strong the capacity to deliver the extra services will be at risk.
Governance & Planning
Conclusion: There are several established models which have been used to evaluate technology investments. Some models are applied to assess the value of technology in use within an organisation.
Organisations can select a model for a particular need; however it is fundamental that the assumptions and the factors that construct the model are realistic and clearly understood. Furthermore, the models should be comprehended by other departments within an organisation, such as finance. A model that is only applied within, and solely has merit for IT is generally not an altogether useful tool. The outputs and the inferences drawn from these outputs may not convince other parties if the tool is not compatible to cross-department interpretation.
Conclusion: The IBRS technology investment model only assesses costs. It shows costs in net present value terms and can also compare those costs with a typical total cost of ownership calculation. It does not measure so-called benefits or other intangible features of a product. Its principal aim is to reveal what an investment will cost over its duration and to do that as thoroughly as all the data available will allow. In addition the model can be customised and work with different data sets.
Conclusion: Failure to embrace the SMACC stack (Social, Mobile, Analytics, Cloud and Consumerisation) will result in the wider organisation working around the internal ICT provider. Job losses in the ICT team and a reduction in wider corporate capability will result.
Conclusion: There is no single perfect financial analytical method. There are some models which are in common use but their longevity is due to their lack of rigour, or that they can be used for any occasion.
The best way to avoid the obvious gaps is to combine techniques, not in one model, but for comparison purposes. By bringing together parts of the stronger methodologies users can obtain better insights. How this type of optimised composite model will work is shown in the next paper.
Conclusion: Governments across Australia have been engaged in shared services initiatives for almost a decade. Unfortunately, while the benefits are clear in theory, in practice all large scale shared services initiatives in the Australian public sector have been problematic. While a number of state shared service programs have been significantly scaled back or completely abandoned, the promise of shared services benefits remains to be realised. Recently, the Australian government has commenced progression towards shared services. Most of the shared services projects were implemented as a ‘spin off’ and failed, while a ‘start up’ strategy may overcome many of the challenges of the previous implementations.
Conclusion: When it comes to balancing the demands of stakeholders, CIOs are often left with Hobson’s choice1 – give in to demands from their enterprise customers. The alternative (saying no) risks the CIO being labelled a ‘Blocker’.
Elite CIOs deal with individual stakeholder demands within an ecosystem of five distinct stakeholder forces, and in doing so drive extraordinary enterprise benefits. Less effective CIOs remain bogged down in a tactical debate focusing on one demand at a time – never really satisfying anyone.
Success as a CIO will be defined by how well an agreed balance by these five stake-holder forces will be achieved.
Conclusion: The architecture for a Software Asset Management solution must take into account an organisation’s structure, ability to digest and utilise the information that such solutions provide, using existing tools and processes. Furthermore, the architecture should not be considered a final end-state, but rather an evolving set of technologies and processes which will incrementally deliver benefits over time.
Conclusion: While many IT organisations believe that using public IaaS (e.g. AWS, Microsoft Azure, Google) to host business applications is a cost-effective strategy, the lack of IaaS usage planning will most likely increase consumption cost. IBRS recommends that IT organisations undertake a self-assessment of their usage management practices prior to migration to public IaaS1.
Conclusion: Organisations looking to adopt Software Asset Management (SAM) tools for the first time often discover that they lack the structure and maturity to realise the full benefits of these tools. Addressing the deep cultural issues that are at the heart SAM maturity may not be rushed, leapfrogged or outsourced. Instead, a steady process of organisational development is needed.