The ability to see within an enterprise with operations requiring various technologies in information, communication, operational, security and compliance, or two or more of these, finds stakeholders, or the need to adjust techniques and make, some ingenious ways to be more effective in their responsibilities and deliverables or production. Enterprise technology is not an area and language to be used where there are only some specializations involved but which still within the confines of information technology. IT may have been serving utility operations or energy generation for sometime already and yet stakeholders cannot see how to work hand-in-hand to increase their own efficiency, and the output for which customers are very dependent. There are efforts but they remain completely separate and the result is the bigger realizations and concerns about costs rather than creation of value from the start, not just when profits began to come in. If IT is not clearly use in such environmen
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