Our title is itself a book's and the first sentence, see that after the comma, is in its front flap by journalist Scott Rosenberg. Let's take some more words from it and share here. Blogging brought the Web's native character into focus---convivial, expressive, democratic. Bloggers have become the curators of our collective experience, testing out their ideas in front of a crowd and linking people in ways that broadcasts can't match. Blogs have created a new kind of public sphere--one in which we can think out loud together. The preceding paragraph is all in the book flap, front and back. It is the simplest answer if somebody is asking what a blog is, then and now. Although we see that as the magnanimous purpose of a blog which is really enticing and challenging. It adds choices and rooms for both sources and audiences without the regular prescriptive cadence. What's common is the responsibility. Whether or not we do it via blog, print and online news, and whoever ...
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