Comments on: Hot off the Presses http://andrewmcafee.org/2006/10/hot_off_the_presses/ The Business Impact of IT Sun, 14 Mar 2010 01:50:57 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.1 hourly 1 By: ptaahworom http://andrewmcafee.org/2006/10/hot_off_the_presses/comment-page-1/#comment-2805 ptaahworom Sat, 13 Jan 2007 07:51:39 +0000 #comment-2805 By: IeriWinner_75 http://andrewmcafee.org/2006/10/hot_off_the_presses/comment-page-1/#comment-2804 IeriWinner_75 Fri, 08 Dec 2006 06:41:51 +0000 #comment-2804 By: Martin R. Dugage http://andrewmcafee.org/2006/10/hot_off_the_presses/comment-page-1/#comment-2803 Martin R. Dugage Sun, 26 Nov 2006 16:35:03 +0000 #comment-2803 I haven't read the article, because I did not subscribe to HBR on line. However, it appears to me that those three categories do make sense but do not provide enough guidance for IT managers who need to make decisions. The paralysis in big companies is not only due to the fact that we split IT in two groups that no longer make sense(Enterprise tools vs. personal productivity tools), but also that our industrial business model for introducing new software is top-down in all cases. And it no longer works. The real problem is about a new way to introduce technology in large corporations, from the ground up rather from the top down, from the experiment on the field to the infrastructure for all, rather than from the specs to the roll-out. And very few IT department - and very few CEOs I should say - actually think that way. I haven’t read the article, because I did not subscribe to HBR on line. However, it appears to me that those three categories do make sense but do not provide enough guidance for IT managers who need to make decisions. The paralysis in big companies is not only due to the fact that we split IT in two groups that no longer make sense(Enterprise tools vs. personal productivity tools), but also that our industrial business model for introducing new software is top-down in all cases. And it no longer works.

The real problem is about a new way to introduce technology in large corporations, from the ground up rather from the top down, from the experiment on the field to the infrastructure for all, rather than from the specs to the roll-out. And very few IT department – and very few CEOs I should say – actually think that way.

]]> By: Neil Macehiter http://andrewmcafee.org/2006/10/hot_off_the_presses/comment-page-1/#comment-2802 Neil Macehiter Mon, 30 Oct 2006 11:26:22 +0000 #comment-2802 Interesting stuff Andrew - thanks. I presume you have seen Nick Carr's comments here: http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2006/10/the_brouhaha_th.php I share some of Nick's observations but, as I discuss here, http://www.ebizq.net/blogs/softwareinfrastructure/2006/10/on_gpts_organisational_complem.php, I think he is missing an important aspect of your model: the fact that you marry the classification of IT with the organisational implications and so help to facilitate a dialogue between business and IT in a language which both sides understand. Equally importantly, you move beyond the technology selection phase to outline the role of the business during adoption and subsequent exploitation. Interesting stuff Andrew – thanks. I presume you have seen Nick Carr’s comments here: http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2006/10/the_brouhaha_th.php
I share some of Nick’s observations but, as I discuss here, http://www.ebizq.net/blogs/softwareinfrastructure/2006/10/on_gpts_organisational_complem.php,
I think he is missing an important aspect of your model: the fact that you marry the classification of IT with the organisational implications and so help to facilitate a dialogue between business and IT in a language which both sides understand. Equally importantly, you move beyond the technology selection phase to outline the role of the business during adoption and subsequent exploitation.

]]>