We should mean almost, digitally. With serious considerations to best practices, widely acceptable principles including that of, directly and indirectly related, applicable laws and, if any, for the sake of thoughtful and sensible transparency. Almost everything, in this case is about, as nations and industries are already taking it as an initiative to protect entities such as people, enterprises, assets, properties including but not limited to information, which is the sole subject of information security specialists but it's reality is more complicated than arguing on which security can cover which area. Technology practitioners should appreciate it. Those who goes beyond a few specializations could realized it and make an effective position paramount to a cybersecurity responsibility. And the size of that responsibility may mean breaking and delegating it with various roles, with those who are effective and prudent in their jobs.
So many trending mechanisms as well as initiatives can supposedly help IT efforts to function effectively and securely. Yet the figure is unprecedented and more costly for victims of incidents. Whether or not this is caused by an internal misuse, intentionally and not, or directed attack from outsider. Why can't organization replicate the effectiveness of others in its application and use of IT? It probably is their understanding of the language. It causes a different, most of the time inferior adaptation of the technology.
Imagine the two things simply apparent to many practitioners, both in business and technology, about ICT. Non-stop technological advances. International standards document is relatively low priced. What matters here are their continuous improvement. Still failures continue to manifest and records are especially made by big organizations.
Our belief is that it is in the efficacy of the decision makers and managers to deal with crucial matters in IT—especially if boundaries are not conjoining—only if it learns how to intervene. Here is where we draw the line that manager and head of IT have different responsibilities. The decision maker pursues its management strategy and the head of IT build company’s computing architecture. That alone clearly delineates how affairs are being executed at each end of the organization, of course, with ingenuity.
It is a fact that IT in its own right is complex primarily due to misunderstanding—from the managers up to the end-users—and expensive due to an outright mistake and waste during acquisitions. There is also a notion that IT is performing well when it is not. Why risk management is directly assigned ownership to decision makers, now often attributed and extended to IT, and being put as an additional burden to doing business when it is not so (naturally with IT)? They said it is a matter-of-fact that risk exist in IT, maybe, when they owned it, or maybe not, if they don't.
Imagine the two things simply apparent to many practitioners, both in business and technology, about ICT. Non-stop technological advances. International standards document is relatively low priced. What matters here are their continuous improvement. Still failures continue to manifest and records are especially made by big organizations.
Our belief is that it is in the efficacy of the decision makers and managers to deal with crucial matters in IT—especially if boundaries are not conjoining—only if it learns how to intervene. Here is where we draw the line that manager and head of IT have different responsibilities. The decision maker pursues its management strategy and the head of IT build company’s computing architecture. That alone clearly delineates how affairs are being executed at each end of the organization, of course, with ingenuity.
It is a fact that IT in its own right is complex primarily due to misunderstanding—from the managers up to the end-users—and expensive due to an outright mistake and waste during acquisitions. There is also a notion that IT is performing well when it is not. Why risk management is directly assigned ownership to decision makers, now often attributed and extended to IT, and being put as an additional burden to doing business when it is not so (naturally with IT)? They said it is a matter-of-fact that risk exist in IT, maybe, when they owned it, or maybe not, if they don't.
Comments