Business-IT Alignment has always been a hot topic among CIOs, IT managers and consultants. Alignment was in the Top-10 IT management issues from 1980 through 1994, as reported by the Society for Information Management. Since 2006 it has been the topmost important issue on the agenda of CIOs around the world according to research by Luftman.
According to McKinsey after the recession shaking the world in 2008 IT has become even more important to improving business efficiency and reducing costs across the enterprise. One of the main conclusions from their survey of 444 executives representing the full range of industries, regions, and company sizes around the world was that despite the economic crisis, leaders need to continue improving the integration of their business and technology strategies.
Every now and then you can see articles and blog posts arguing that 'Alignment' is not a proper name, that it does not reflect the core of the issue.
This argument can be traced in the scientific publications of the past. Alignment was not the only name in the literature. You could find it by the names of fit (Chan 1992); (Henderson & Venkatraman 1993), linkage (Reich 1993), and integration (Henderson & Venkatraman 1993), as well as bridge (Ciborra 1997), harmony (Luftman & Brier 1999), and fusion (Smaczny 2001).
The same argument is going on these days in the blogs, practice communities, on forums and in whitepapers. Some experts eagerly argue that other name should be used instead of 'alignment'. Other even say that we cannot talk about business and IT anymore, because business is IT.
Well, sure IT is not a golden baby among other departments supporting business, such as Finance, HR or Marketing. But at the same time IT is relatively young constituent of business and technology is changing very rapidly and frequently. This brings up misunderstanding and misalignment problem again and again. So, no matter by what name, the problem has to be addressed.
Personally I can agree with any of the names mentioned. Some of them really highlight specific aspect of alignment. Other show desirable ideal state.
However the whole concept and domain of alignment is so large and at the same time vague and undefined that narrowing it down will not bring much good.
You will not find the exact definition of alignment that will provoke no objections. Some call it a final state, desirable destination while other describe alignment as a process, an ongoing journey. Some see the problem in different language used by business and IT, while other say it is all about organizational structure, roles and responsibilities.
Alignment to a large extent intersects with other urgent topics and areas of attention, such as IT Governance, Information Management, IT/IS Strategy, Change Management... And in different sources you will find different opinions on what is a part, what is the whole, or whether they are just two different domains.
Besides, it is not only alignment between Business and IT. Vertical alignment of strategy, management and operations is not less important and forms a part of the whole 'Alignment' concept as well.
I believe that for such vague concepts there is no sense in adding misunderstanding and disagreement by introducing new 'better' names or just buzzwords. 'Alignment' is a historically formed term and it is the most accepted by experts and scientists.
Maybe it is not the best one. But, same as many other 'large' historically formed names with a large body of knowledge and multiple ideas behind, alignment has a name and it has a spirit, an idea. Idea of coming to agreement, consensus and mutual effort towards the common goal.
There is no formal certification or attemts of setting rigid rules and definitions concerning what is alignment, what belongs to it and what not. Until it happens (which is very unlikely) there is not much reason in trying to fight against it and promote other alternative names. If only for marketing or other very specific goals.
No comments:
Post a Comment