Staff will always adapt software programs to suit their needs, but
IT must be informed and consulted
It is no longer surprising that much more IT development takes
place outside corporate IT departments than within. The growing PC
population, disenchantment with delivery priorities, and increasing
numbers of "power users" have created an enormous and
mission-threatening challenge to many IT directors and
organisations.
It happens for the wrong reasons: disenchanted with out-of-date
online applications, and not understanding the IT project
submission process, users develop local solutions to meet their
needs. They are proud of them and share ideas with colleagues until
it quickly becomes a strategic application that is enhanced all the
time.
It also happens for the right reasons: when IT departments are
deemed to have little understanding of the business; when there are
technology projects; or when companies refuse to be driven by
technology.
"So what?" you may ask. "We supply the machines, the easy-to-use
applications and, if business people choose to develop their own
solutions, that is relieving the burden on IT departments. Also,
PCs are integral to many people's work." But there are compelling
arguments against allowing ad hoc developments.
People who develop local solutions rarely have any documentation,
so the original developer quickly becomes the help desk, which is
fine until they leave the department or the company, or it becomes
too much for them. Such developments seldom follow standards or
procedures, and ownership is unclear - until something goes
wrong.
Business people should be persuaded not to spend time playing with
applications when they should be doing the job they are employed to
do. Putting such applications on local area networks can bring down
other systems.
Meanwhile, word will quickly spread that IT is slow at doing things
compared with Mike in marketing, who will run you off an Excel
macro in two days. The hidden costs associated with this trend are
enormous. These applications must be explained, supported and even
integrated with existing systems.
Company structure has an impact on the ownership, control and
priorities of IT projects. The one-company approach, with one IT
department serving all, has as many advantages as disadvantages.
Strategic business units each with their own IT services and
support have the opposite.
The key here is not to pretend one way is better; it is not. The
challenges and consequences must be understood. Failure to consider
them could consign the organisation to follow one approach for a
while until business managers complain about poor focus or local
delivery and switch, or operate in "silos" for a few years until
the company realises there is too much duplication in costs and
resources, and too many conflicting standards and approaches.
There is no easy solution. However, you can minimise problems
by:
- Standardising on one office suite
- Setting up a group of senior IT/business users to document the
number of user-developed applications
- Auditing each application, record who owns it, supports it, and
check documentation
- Establishing how many people use the application - is it
mission-critical?
- Prioritising your mission-critical exposure
- Having the IT department put standards in place for such
development
- Estimating the total cost of owning and supporting these
applications, and share this information with business users at all
levels.
This subject goes to the heart of the "who drives the future?"
debate. Technology is there to be used but it must be acknowledged
and quality controlled.
To join the debate e-mail ross.bentley@rbi.co.uk