IT documents comes with different names such as the following: - Manual or handbook, - Policies and procedures, - Management systems, - Project plans. In the real world we have various names with unique descriptions and purposes when in fact they could be made to do a uniform direction for which actions are based for the entire IT initiatives, probably the longest in IT lifecycle is operation. The problem is our inclination on something else which is wrong. IT remains an IT area. Business remains a business area. The same problem is carried out when we conduct IT audit. Most audit are missing the gists in which IT is being used by businesses. We once said that an effective IT audit is conducted by IT people themselves but there is something wrong with that even. Business and accounting people have been doing it with a different bias and preconceived notions which doesn't make the cut for IT direction and audit respectively. Leaders play the same game and so the problem continues an
The wellbeing of the companies and stakeholders is where decision makers and senior managers causally act on
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.
Comments