Infrastructures Vs. Platforms & Applications: Shifting the paradigm to go Industry 4.0

The quarrel about relative prominence of Platforms & Applications (P&A) vs. Infrastructures reminds the dilemma of egg and chicken.

The most dangerous implication of such (false) dilemma is that it shadows the core issue for many Corporates, which is the role of Business & Function (B&F) in driving Corporate IT.

In our view, there is a natural order in addressing Corporate IT, even if it is obvious that such order can be re-arranged by necessity whenever there is appalling inability of B&F to drive [1][2][3][4], or it happens that other boundary conditions may advice to select to lead P&A or Infrastructures.

Even when it is clear which domain sets course, it is very risk not to go to the further step, which is to have clear assignments of responsibility within selected domain, and to allow - therefore - that potential growth of divergences, in directions and priorities, can be closed, if necessary, by authority.

It is often seen the case of inadequate leadership set-up, which is unable to cope with complexity [5], becoming one of major root causes for those trillion USD, which are wasted every year in failed IT initiative [6][7].

To this extent, the wisdom and wit of Napoleon Bonaparte, about unity of command, should be recalled:

In following paragraphs, we will explain our view and provide a simple scheme for mapping what may go wrong.

?A trinity with a hierarchy

If it is all about value creation, then user - and only user - decides what is valuable.

This is the fundament of any business activity, and Corporate IT should not be exempted by respecting this first commandment.

ITIL V.4 [8] clearly highlights it and describes precisely how to set up processes and methods to regard value creation. However, to presume that users know how to express clearly what they need is a very strong assumption that is as crucial, as uncommon, especially in Corporate IT context.

Steve Jobs was keenly aware of the difficulty associated to innovation and his words are, in a way, a warning and a reason why it is so rare to see true success stories in Corporate IT:

However, this fact must not justify that reason is suspended and best practice declined and ruled out a-priori.

Once thoroughly evaluated and scrutinized for both risks and possible outcomes [9][10], in our view, IT innovation process should always encompass 3 steps with precise ownership and responsibilities: 1) Business & Function describes processes and expected performances; 2) P&A selects appropriate software solutions and architectures; 3) Infrastructures ensures that technological solutions and architectures deliver needed performances with proper cost/benefit profile.

If there are objective constraints (not only technical), which prevent users’ satisfaction to be fulfilled, the loop must start again, adjusting at each stage what is needed, to result in the end in a sustainable IT Corporate landscape.

In fact, IT Corporate, like any other human activity, should welcome kaizen as a daily practice and ensure that Digital Transformation is not considered as a temporary project-focused endeavor in Corporate agenda.

The following picture is aimed to stress that there is a natural hierarchy, besides an order, and this should be respected whenever possible, being ready to manage consequences when circumstances make such best practice nor applicable:?

Daniele Rizzo ? 2021

However, it is worth noting that the role of Infrastructures is not lesser than P&A, as both need to be aligned and harmonized as two legs which enable the body of Corporate IT to progress as needed.

?Infrastructures and P&A

If we accept orthogonality of Infrastructures and P&A, a simple matrix can be built, by assuming two conditions only for these closely inter-related, while largely independent, variables.

The first condition is Optimal, which means that associated variable does as expected by B&F; the other condition is Sub-Optimal, which means that expectations of B&F are not met.

The combination of these two conditions by two variables lead to the following matrix, which can be called IT Operational Matrix (ITOM):

Daniele Rizzo ? 2021

In subsequent paragraphs, we will review each quadrant and provide examples of their meaning.

?Functional Debt

This is when Infrastructures is optimal and P&A is sub-optimal, so that B&F does not receive a complete and satisfactory coverage of own processes and operational requirements.

For instance, it can be that certain activities are not performed, integrated and seamless, in P&A and users must go out of IT mainstream, to return after having carried out what is missing somewhere else.

Good news in this quadrant is that Infrastructures are neither a bottleneck, nor an excessive burden from a cost, or risk, standpoint, getting an A-grade as optimal contributor to the uncomplete IT value-chain.

?Infrastructural Debt

This is when P&A is optimal and Infrastructures is sub-optimal, so that B&F does not perform at the expected speed, or reliability, or cost, etc. because of the technological substrate on which P&A runs.

For instance, an obsolete network architecture (because of components and/or topology) might require too frequent maintenance sessions, which reduce service availability, or it can be too expensive compared to other technologies of benchmark.

?IT Operational Handicap

This is when both P&A and Infrastructures are sub-optimal, so that B&F does not perform a seamless process (due to P&A) and, on top, this does not happen in fast and/or reliable and/or inexpensive way, etc. because of the technological substrate on which P&A runs.

?IT Operational Excellence

This is when both P&A and Infrastructures are optimal, so that B&F does perform a complete seamless process in the fastest, most reliable, and cost-effective way that technology allows to perform certain B&F activities.

?Conclusions

To be in any of such quadrants is not a permanent status.

For instance, needs and processes of B&F normally evolve, so gaps in processes can suddenly open, moving Corporate IT from ideal IT Operational Excellence to Functional Debt, which might worsen in IT Operational Handicap if technological evolution pushes all at once Corporate infrastructures in obsolescence.

ITOM can be used as a simple tool for assessing which are the most impacting constraints, with respect of B&F performances, and decide on which value enabler – Infrastructures or P&A – to act for improvement.

However, kaizen exercise should be the best practice, in the relentless effort to monitor Corporate Digital Health Index [11] and decide consistently.

As Oliver Cromwell said:

References

[1] “Corporate business processes and IT platforms: Why a shift of paradigms to go for Industry 4.0”, Daniele Rizzo, LinkedIn, September 12th, 2019;

?[2] “Corporate transformation: Why adequate leadership is not an option”, Daniele Rizzo, LinkedIn, June 7th, 2019;

?[3] “IT-engineered Corporates: How to implement with grace digital transformation”, Daniele Rizzo, LinkedIn, May 3rd, 2019;

?[4] “Change management: Key dimensions to consider for implementing a sensible base strategy”, Daniele Rizzo, LinkedIn, May 21st, 2019;

?[5] “Corporate transformation: Story of one elephant and eight blind monks”, Daniele Rizzo, LinkedIn, March 26th, 2019;

?[6] “Megaprojects and risk: An anatomy of ambition”, Bent Flyvbjerg, Nils Bruzelius, Werner Rothengatter (Cambridge University Press – UK - 2003);

?[7] “The cost of poor-quality software in the US: A 2018 Report”, Herb Krasner (Consortium for IT Software Quality CISQ – USA - 2018);

?[8] “ITIL? Foundation: ITIL 4 Edition”, TSO, William Lea, Axelos Limited, 2019;

?[9] “Innovation and risk: How to categorize Corporate IT initiatives”, Daniele Rizzo, LinkedIn, August 30th, 2019;

?[10] “Corporate IT programs: Four cardinal landing scenarios”, Daniele Rizzo, LinkedIn, August 20th, 2019;

?[11] “Corporate Digital Health Index: Checking up Information Systems”, Daniele Rizzo, LinkedIn, October 20th, 2020.