The C in ICT

By Nick Hortovanyi

This C of course stands for Communications, so in context of ICT it is Communications Technology. What exactly is it? and why is it being grouped with Information Technology?

From wikipedia Communication's entry, we have a definition "Communication is a process of transferring information from one entity to another. Communication processes are sign-mediated interactions between at least two agents which share a repertoire of signs and semiotic rules. Communication is commonly defined as "the imparting or interchange of thoughts, opinions, or information by speech, writing, or signs"."

Many of us in the IT industry, I think forget and to a very large extent de-emphasize the communication component when it comes to things that are not related directly to two or more computers talking together or for IP based communications such as VOIP (Voice Over IP) or IM (Instant Messaging). However, the communications through web sites and in particular social media is becoming important, that is the expression of a persons or an organisations collective thoughts, opinions and information.

As I eluded in my post on Cup cakes and bunnies, the composite skill sets required to deliver these services has changed as the technology has changed. These composite skills now include a lot of those from marketing, communications and graphic design to name a few. Its getting the correct mix right for any given project that is critical for its success.

Yet we still refer to ourselves as the IT industry and not the ICT industry. It seems strange to me.

Cup cakes and bunnies

By Nick Hortovanyi

When I was a young programmer, the key punch ladies used to make cup cakes for the rest of the IT department. All of us enjoyed them at morning tea time, as well as the corresponding witty and fun conversation that was part of that daily ritual.

What happened of course is that we, being IT, were slowly automating the data entry processes and no new key punch ladies were being employed, at least during the years that I worked at the organisation. The ladies used to remind us, every now and then, that if we worked too hard, there might not be anything left for them to do. I moved on, into different pastures and always just assumed that those lovely ladies retired, still happy (I never did find out, something I must do one day).

This has always stuck in my mind, that as the technology progresses, the social and composite nature of teams change, to match the new potential that has been enabled. As they do evolve, you need to be mindful of people but you also can't keep delaying change. I don't hear of organisations now, that still have a separate key punch group, in their IT department. What about you?

Why don't we have them now? We'll communication technology has improved and now IT departments are invariably known as ICT (Information and Communication Technology) departments. The communication allows once manual processes to be automated. The internet, allows exchange of information between organisations, so reports aren't printed in one organisation (or department) that needs to be re-keyed into a computer in another organisation.

Since the internet is now becoming mainstream and increasingly being used to communicate, all sorts of useful knowledge and information, it has encroached on more traditional means of communication. A companies' web presence is in many circumstances the first point of call for new or existing customers. It may no longer be a brochure or some form of advertising. This has meant that the marketing and public relations persons, want to ensure that these internet based presences are executed properly; that is they portray the correct corporate image and messaging. This isn't an easy task to achieve and if you think about it, there is potential for tension between the different disciplines.

Over the last while, social media has come to the forefront. Who should drive the strategy? Who owns it? What is the nature of the skill sets required to successfully deliver it? What do you do if someone in your organisation says something they shouldn't have? (yes, a lot more people are writing things about or for your organisation)

Well I've recognised for a while, that you need a composite set of skills spanning multiple disciplines including marketing to address the aforementioned questions. Yes, us IT guys now need to work with the marketing bunnies ( a term I use with endearment), copy, usability, graphic designers etc. All those people that help make the experience better for the consumer of the medium being used.

Social media is moving rather quickly now, and I was reminded of some of this potential for tension that has been rising between the different disciplines as they seek to take ownership last weekend. I found this blog post "Why your IT person shouldn't manage your social media!" written by Diane Lee and as you can see it wasn't IT getting upset at Marketing but the other way round. It hit a note with me, and I tweeted about what a Marketing Bunny was saying about the social capabilities of IT persons. We'll you can tell by the comments on that post, that it hit the same note with a number of others. However, we were willing to help bridge these gaps if we saw a sincere apology (the apology happened, can read the post here).

Taryn Hicks was concerned about the implications of the original entry written by Diane and wrote "Why Marketing and ICT should work together on social media: a response to mosaic communications". It is well worth reading, as well as the comments.

New composite teams are required, to master not only implementing social media, but also with responding to the implications. There are no text books for where we are going, just etiquette, common sense and trust through sharing our knowledge openly. Those that share, are those that are respected by the communities they are involved in. Those that break the unwritten rules, are given another chance, as long as things aren't swept away under the carpet. Mistakes are shown, so that others may learn. Maybe that's where our text books are now, on the internet, held in conversations on twitter, in online forums and on blog entries? Continuously being appended to as we learn more!

Is SOA really dead?

By Nick Hortovanyi

A blog post titled "SOA is Dead; Long Live Services" was directed to me by a couple of persons. It highlights, what I first started to describe a couple of years ago as "Journalist led technology"; sometimes I do believe that it is Analyst led as well. That is, that the potential promise of the technology genres and acronyms, in this case SOA, take over. Without necesarrily having the real world experiences to back it up, to cut through the hype.

We most not forget that SOA means Service Oriented Architecture. It is an architectural style, that is a different style, then what has been used in the past in the client/server world of old. "to SOA or not to SOA" which I wrote about a couple of years ago, is always an interesting question.

"What are the alternates to a SOA style architecture?" still holds true in my opinion, that if you are not using a monolithic 80s/90s style client/server model, then there will be a business tier that exposes services at some granularity to be consumed by a presentation tier or another business tier service. Its the pace layering that becomes the issue (my thoughts here on timeless software).

To me Anne has highlighted the true issue that has been missed which is the important stuff: architecture and services.

Are IT Leaders Missing the Boat?

By Nick Hortovanyi

This is a great post from the Enterprise Initiatives (madgreek65) .

The following extract is great that was picked up: "Here’s the deal. The world has changed – forever. First, hierarchical management structures will weaken as we continue to globally decentralize our business units. We have to change the way we think about control, standardization and the overall governance we bring to technology acquisition, deployment and support."

Cloud Computing thinking within The Board

By Nick Hortovanyi

I'm presently doing the Australian Institute of Company Directors, Company Directors Course for management education. I elected to do this, as when I went to the information sessions, I found out, to my surprise, that they are suggesting that company boards look to appoint more IT focused Directors. In Australia at least, the majority of directors have had an accounting/finance or legal background. If this is different in other countries, please let me know.

My understanding is that, in general, the boards have relied on the advice from or they have deferred to the accounting/finance based directors when difficult governance issues have arisen, that have related to IT. I've often wondered why this is the case, in particular now, with the commoditisation of hardware and software in this area being ERPs. The net effect is, in most cases, they just allow the companies to operate more efficiently. To keep the cost base at a point to compete against their existing competitors.

I myself, have not worked on an Accounts Payable, Accounts Receivable and/or General Ledger system for a number of years now. Whilst understanding the importance of them to the operations of the business, I find that they are not the areas that occupy the forefront of innovation within an organisation.

One of the modules, last Friday was Strategic thinking. The lecturer, actually mentioned Cloud Computing, which was something that I was not expecting at all, as an example of thinking laterally. Others, that I talked to at the course, had not heard of the term Cloud Computing before.

But this is the issue, Human Capital and Information Capital, are now beginning to be at the forefront of new organisational strategies. Where I live in Adelaide, South Australia, the local state based government, is expecting 50% of the workforce to retire within the next ten years. I've also heard figures as high as 60% of the workforce in some utilities over the same period. These Human Capital issues compound the Information Capital issues, because better means are required to capture that Information Capital of an organisation before it retires out the door.

At the same time, new strategies are required to either compete more effectively in existing Red Oceans or to find new Blue Ocean strategies.

How is the strategy going to be underpinned? Potenially by using technology! SaaS (Software as a Service) based applications that utilise Cloud Computing infrastructure services are being steadily used as new strategy option. They may not be the answer, to every strategy, but increasingly, as it becomes more difficult to find resources willing to work within companies, they will become a core part of an organisation's strategy.

Are current boards or your existing board up to the challenge around this? Am interested to hear your opinions about this.