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
What do organization's expect in this technological context of theirs?
It should always be quality, utility and safety:
> Quality, meant a lot of things in an organization. They don't have time to mince words and align quality measures only with a very specific area. Theirs is quality and they meant to address the entire organizational goal. Owners and senior management knows and can assimilate realities. No less.
> Utility, is not only about functionality. They need operational reliability and at the same it is something that doesn't sacrifice stakeholders' temperament, productivity and expectations. And
> Safety (and security), is to protect both systems and data. Resilient to incidents and human errors. No excuses.
How many human resources do you need to effectively and efficiently tackle these varying expanses, as shown in the image above? Have you been reciprocating and interchanging people with technology and there exists still that huge inconsistency and inconceivability of good outcome?
If you are not certain, it's a problem.
Don't be like this: Many people take no care of their money until they come nearly to the end of it and others do just the same with their time. --Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Time is limited even when finances aren't. We can help.
> Quality, meant a lot of things in an organization. They don't have time to mince words and align quality measures only with a very specific area. Theirs is quality and they meant to address the entire organizational goal. Owners and senior management knows and can assimilate realities. No less.
> Utility, is not only about functionality. They need operational reliability and at the same it is something that doesn't sacrifice stakeholders' temperament, productivity and expectations. And
> Safety (and security), is to protect both systems and data. Resilient to incidents and human errors. No excuses.
How many human resources do you need to effectively and efficiently tackle these varying expanses, as shown in the image above? Have you been reciprocating and interchanging people with technology and there exists still that huge inconsistency and inconceivability of good outcome?
If you are not certain, it's a problem.
Don't be like this: Many people take no care of their money until they come nearly to the end of it and others do just the same with their time. --Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Time is limited even when finances aren't. We can help.
Comments