People, particularly on the industry side, often talk about the
benefits of integrating IT systems: the nirvana of so-called
end-to-end business processes. Such integration enables chief
information officers and IT directors to drive through business
process optimisation projects and give business managers the
ability to look at customers, suppliers and all manner of business
metrics from a single, comprehensive dashboard.
Yet, IT decision-makers in the private and public sector appear
to be driving less IT integration in their organisations than in
2006. Metrics to measure return on investment of integration are
used significantly less in 2008, compared with two years ago.
Furthermore, due to a lack of management support, IT integration
can be seen as an obstacle to meeting business expectations.
IT integration cooling down
An independent study for Intersystems/Computer Weekly run by
Reed Business Insight has discovered that integration is less of a
priority than previously.
In the survey of more than 450 IT decision-makers, 36% said
their integration strategy is driven from the company board down
27% said the strategy is driven by the IT department and 31%
reported that integrations are assessed on an ad hoc basis.
Although there was little change in organisations' approach to
IT integration in terms of who makes the decisions, the survey
found big differences in the perceived business benefits of IT
integration compared with 2006 and measurements of these
benefits.
In 2006, improving a business's competitive edge was the biggest
business benefit of integration (67%), while today, improving
consistency of service (72%) is regarded as the main benefit.
Larger companies are more likely to name a reduction in transaction
costs (71%) and helping the organisation to meet regulatory
compliance (61%) as a benefit of IT integration, while in 2006,
regulatory compliance was nominated by 52% of IT
decision-makers.
Views on technical benefits of IT integration have also changed
in the past two years. In 2006, 67% of IT decision-makers
considered the consolidation of systems as the main technical
benefit. Today, the ability to rapidly adapt IT to changes in the
business is seen as the top technical benefit (70%), followed by
consolidation (62%).
The survey also assessed how much resistance respondents
encountered when trying to introduce the idea of IT integration.
Reasons given for viewing IT integration as an obstacle to meeting
business expectations included a lack of management support (42%),
followed by insufficient user interest (39%) and IT and business
units communicating ineffectively (38%).
Important factors in selecting IT integration tools among the
sample were choosing the reference customers, a preferred list of
suppliers and existing skills.
Lack of business imperatives
The problem, according to Bola Rotibi, principal analyst at MWD
Advisors, is that board-level executives simply do not understand
IT integration. "Either the business imperative has not been
explained or board members do not believe it is important," she
says.
The business may have had a bad experience of IT integration in
the past, or it may lack thought leadership.
It might seem obvious, but how many IT decision-makers can
clearly link IT integration projects to measurable business
benefits? Worryingly, the survey showed that 33% of IT
decision-makers are not measuring business benefits of IT
integration. This is a huge increase compared with 2006, when only
5% said they had no metrics.
In Rotibi's experience, the disillusion among business heads is
probably a result of the industry frenzy around new integration
techniques such as service oriented architecture (SOA) and a
failure of previous integration projects to meet business
expectations.
"Everyone seems to latch onto the latest buzzword. Just because
everyone else is doing SOA projects, we should have it," says
Rotibi.
She recommends that IT decision-makers take a long hard look at
whether the latest integration technologies can make a difference
to the business. For instance, "SOA is transformation and relies on
organisations thinking in a different way, but the organisation may
not be culturally aligned for SOA."
SOA on the shelf
SOA is the latest industry approach to IT integration. According
to analyst Gartner, the worldwide application, infrastructure and
middleware (AIM) software market revenue grew to £7bn in 2007 - an
increase of 12.9% on the previous year. Gartner has found that
growth has been driven by strong demand for products that support
SOA and process-centric applications.
However, in spite of the noise coming from the IT industry, only
18% of IT decision-makers in the Intersystems/Computer Weekly
survey have implemented or are implementing SOA. Just less than a
fifth said SOA remains merely a concept in their companies and a
further one in seven intend to implement SOA projects within two
years. Significantly fewer respondents in 2008 are likely to
implement SOA than in 2006. Almost a third have no intention of
implementing SOA. However, in larger companies, about a third are
implementing SOA, although this is significantly less than in
2006.
This may seem puzzling, but the findings reflect research from
analyst group Freeform Dynamics.
"SOA is not a product, in spite of what the industry says," says
Tony Lock, programme director at Freeform Dynamics. "It is a
philosophy. Not many people say they are doing SOA, but when we
drill down, we have found that people are practising SOA."
SOA is regarded as a large-scale transformational project
involving people, processes and technology. It is as much a way of
thinking, an approach to IT projects, as the middleware products
that allow users to build SOAs.
Getting board-level buy-in
Although an enterprise-wide SOA may indeed offer major business
improvements - if it succeeds - smaller projects are easier to
manage and more likely to win board approval. They also have a
quicker return on investment. Rotibi suggests that IT
decision-makers speak to users and business managers about their
day-to-day pain points and work on integration projects to reduce
these. This way, it is easier to measure before and after to assess
whether the project has had a net benefit to the organisation.
If user feedback is positive and there is a measured business
benefit, then the IT decision-maker can demonstrate success to the
board, and perhaps put forward a strong case for further IT
integration funding. On the other hand, if it is a failure in terms
of the expected user benefits compared with the measured results,
then at least the IT decision-maker can say the project did not
cost very much.
A vision statement is the starting point on an any IT
integration project. In his
Service
Architecture blog, Steve Jones, head of SOA for global
outsourcing at Capgemini and author of
Enterprise
SOA Adoption Strategies, recommends that IT decision-makers
embarking on an SOA project keep their project vision short.
"Some people seem to think that the vision should be a document
that includes all the detail around the business case, outline plan
and other elements. For me that is the kick-off document and it is
something that has a life expectancy of only about three weeks when
everyone is on board and you are into the detail. The vision for me
is something very clear that says, what we are going to achieve for
the business, how will we measure success and what is important to
delivery?"
For his own projects, Jones conducts a "look back" exercise to
help him to identify the benefits and possible challenges. "I
imagine that the project has finished successfully and what people
[think is brilliant] about the project I also think about the
[challenges] we had to overcome."
The Intersystems/Computer Weekly survey has found that IT
integration and SOA are not getting enough board-level attention.
IT decision-makers need to take the lead and speak to the board
about the benefits of integration and SOA, using the language of
the business.
Measuring before and after is essential. As Rotibi says,
"Metrics may be hard and harsh they may require soul searching. But
if you want to get better, you have to look at everything, warts
and all. You have to know where you stand, before you can make the
changes and quantify the benefits."