Quocirca's Straight Talking: Linking IT and business - at last

The race is one to link IT delivery with business demand - but as yet there's no clear leader. Quocirca's Jon Collins looks at why companies have failed so far and what could spur the competitors to greater efforts.

There is a competition among IT providers that started decades ago but nobody talks about directly. Technology companies have attempted to capture the prize many times but thus far none have succeeded. Many of the players have been knocked out or have teamed up with others to give them a better chance of winning.

Today the competition is between only the largest computer software vendors, such as IBM, HP, Computer Associates and Microsoft, because only they have the necessary tools and technologies to stay in the running. Thus far, the obstacles have been too large to be overcome with available facilities and progress has been slowed because of a wide variety of non-technological reasons. The time is drawing near, however, for the competition to conclude; the pieces of the puzzle are nearly in place.

So, what is the competition? It is to complete the circle between IT delivery and business demand.

The latest manifestation of this competition is described differently by each vendor. IBM refers to the 'on-demand business' and HP talks about its 'adaptive infrastructure'. There are other terms such as 'utility IT', 'IT as a service' and 'agile enterprise'.

Each company has its angle, its unique selling points, but in the past they have all suffered from the same weakness - they have only really considered the IT side of the coin. As many vendors are working out, the existing models can only succeed if they link back into the business. This goal, the one that all sides are striving for, may be characterised according to three straightforward criteria:

• Business drives IT. A business articulates how it works and what it is trying to achieve. It describes this strategy as a series of business policies, processes and products, and incorporates a set of financial measures and metrics to give visibility on how closely it is achieving its goals. This information is directly linked to the finances of the business. So, for example, a sales process should be able to demonstrate the revenue generated and the cost of sale. All of this information is captured and modelled using software tools and the resulting models are the starting point for any use of technology.

• IT manages itself. Frameworks exist for the creation of applications that demonstrate a direct linkage to the business processes they are supporting. These applications run on an infrastructure that works in such a way so that technical resources and information assets are managed and provisioned to the applications in the most cost-effective and risk-managed manner, supporting the policies defined for the business.

• IT drives business. Management tools deliver information to demonstrate how well the technology platform is functioning, how much it is costing, how well business objectives are being achieved and what benefits are being delivered. By delivering performance and financial information back into the business models, IT and its contribution to business success can be clearly demonstrated, as well as paid for directly. Changes in business strategy can be decided based on real information, completing the cycle.

None of these criteria is new, but it is the ability to link them together in a meaningful way that has thus far proved elusive. This is not to downgrade the validity of the goal. Closing the loop and delivering full cycle IT brings with it huge potential benefits, not least in terms of enhanced productivity and business efficiency. This is not marketing rhetoric, but common sense. The fact that IT has failed to live up to its promises does not devalue the desire for IT to deliver its full potential. Indeed, there is not a company out there that does not hope that, this time, the market-speak might turn out to be true.

Why hasn't it yet been possible to close the loop between business and IT? One reason is the downright complexity of existing IT environments. Implementation of management tools, technologies and practices can be likened to parachuting a Portakabin into the jungle. Whatever our capabilities within the cabin, that doesn't change the fact that outside of it there is still a jungle - a nefarious mix of ill-connected systems, poorly documented applications and dirty data.

Peter Matthews at Computer Associates confirms this sentiment: "The difficulty is actually implementing it all. Many organisations can't even do a cross-enterprise server uptime survey. We shouldn't lose sight of the fact that there is a body of work to be done before we can get to a position where we can start to automate management."

This may be true, but too often the slow progress has had little to do with technology and more to do with self-interest. All sides are guilty. For a start, a great number of IT vendors have little to gain from supporting such a model. This does not necessarily include the companies listed here; it is more the niche players that have neither the vision nor the capability to deliver on the goal.

Similarly, within the corporations there have been too many reasons to prevent such a closed loop from happening. A more efficient infrastructure requires less people, so why would anyone want to put themselves out of a job? In addition, a better understanding of how business is conducted might be seen as unduly revelatory or even an admission of failure.

There are other reasons why no one's achieved the goal of linking IT and business. But still the validity of the goal should not be doubted. It is laudable to want IT to work for business and closing the loop will act as the major point of proof. Whether all vendors and businesses subscribe to the philosophy of full circle IT, these is little doubt that all of the computer companies mentioned above are trying to achieve it, and clearly there will be a certain amount of kudos for whoever gets there first. As Stephen Martin of Microsoft's Biztalk division commented recently, "we are dangerously close to cracking the code".

There is more than back-slapping credit at stake, however. It is reasonable to suggest that, just as Microsoft won the battle of the desktop and Cisco won the battle of the network, there may be a winner of the battle for full circle IT. If this is so, then the winner has much to gain; none of these companies would want to miss out on the chance for such success. The same, first-mover advantage goes also to integrators and to end-user companies.

Despite the current difficulties, past experience suggests that a few examples of companies that 'get' the closed loop idea, and that have the wherewithal to make it happen, would be enough to spur their competitors into action.

It is time for full circle IT to be recognised as a key battleground for IT vendors and as a strategic goal for end-user businesses. If it is, it can only mean that computer companies will drive even harder to bring the competition to its logical conclusion.

At its heart, this is about removing complexity, not adding to it, says Computer Associates' Matthews: "The mechanism to deliver technology and business alignment involves making IT simpler to use." For IT as well as for business, this can only be a good thing.