A new metaphor for IT: How can we know the dancer from the dance?

I have often used the metaphor of an island to describe the IT department. It provides the visual imagery of a landmass (aka “IT”) floating off the coast of a mainland (aka “the business”) depicting the physical distance between an IT unit and the rest of the organization. This visualization is mirrored in the structure of most companies too: the IT department is shown as a separate box on the organization chart. Drilling down, we can see that it has its own leader, structure, and ways of working. But here’s the thing, it’s also totally dependent on the business to fund its activities and this is actually the genesis of the problem that most organizations have with technology.

As a sovereign territory of the mainland, the relationship between both is often strained. Sometimes, it is even confrontational. Most of those living on the mainland don’t actually understand what happens on the island anyway; and quite frankly, don’t really care. Some on the island would like to keep it that way; they don’t want those pesky mainlanders interfering! If they do have something in common, it is that they can treat each other with indifference.

Owing and running an island is not cheap either. The biggest cost is just keeping the party going (aka maintenance, licenses, staffing) and this has only increased over the years. But like any good party, we wake up with the inevitable headache. In IT language, it is called legacy or technical debt and it can be a massive pain, especially for the mainlanders who actually foot the bill.

Sometimes, when things get so bad or costs are deemed out of control, the mainland decides to bring in a new regime to run the show (aka outsourcing), comfortable in the knowledge that they now have someone in charge who knows how to run islands. This means that the islanders must constantly navigate a delicate balance between doing what the mainland expects and in a way they expect them to do it and generally keeping them happy, and what they actually believe they should be doing.

Life on the island though is not actually too bad, although inhabitants do like to give the impression that it could be better. This keeps away too much focus on what is actually happening there. It confers the islanders the opportunity to do the things they love doing: surfing, swimming, rock climbing (aka work with technology, preferably the latest tech, problem solving and experimenting). For many, this is why they studied computer science or mathematics or learned to program and came into IT in the first instance. It wasn’t that they were passionate about what happens on the mainland anyway (i.e. retail or banking or insurance or manufacturing), they were attracted by the mountains, beaches and surf of the islands and the endless days of sunshine.

Of course this does not apply to all island inhabitants. But if you live on a 2000-person island, and the majority are in this category, they can set the tone. They complain endlessly about “the mainlanders” and how life would be so much better if only those mainlanders would let them get on with their stuff. But they do also recognize that they are totally dependent on them for funding their lifestyle, so they do look to appease them, particularly when the mainland considers that it is possibly funding a very expensive lifestyle.

For self-preservation, the island has developed practices and ways of working with the mainland that seek to sustain its activities. In managing the island (read managing the flow of funding), the mainland has implemented practices and ways of working that it believes gives it control and visibility into what is happening on the island. At the same time, certain practices are often forced on the islanders by those on the mainland. One concession given to the islanders is that they get to vet their own work and what they build (aka ensure architectural integrity). Yet, despite the best intention of both, the evidence of many decades suggests that this is not working: companies are struggling with tech.

In this article I lay out some arguments as to why we need to rethink how we organize for tech, or more specifically how we organize to realize value from tech. It all starts with the engagement model, a product of how companies organize to harness IT and the assignment of accountabilities. The engagement model, itself a creation of a particular frame of reference, leads to behaviors that result in the exact opposite of what the expectation for them are. These unintended consequences can be devastating. Practices that seem realistic, such as the Waterfall model giving those on the business side the appearance of control, are adopted that merely reinforce the negative outcomes. The result is cycle of practices, supported by metrics and funding models and reinforced by accountabilities where everyone is convinced they are doing the right thing.

It is not that either side set out for this situation to exist. IT knows that that are better ways, but struggles to gets it message across, and has effectively surrendered. On the business side, they are convinced that what they are doing is the best way to manage something that they really don’t believe they understand. They can’t be blamed, can they… they just don’t know what they don’t know? Both are in a cycle of destruction, where the best of intentions collide with the dynamics of reality. What we need to do is break the cycle. Unfortunately, making small changes around the edges will not work. Big bold moves are required. If not, IT will continue to under-perform. As a starter, we need a new metaphor, one that is more appropriate to the realities of today’s digital world. One that focuses on delivering value from technology rather than one focused on managing tech. One where IT is not portrayed as an island.

THIS IS THE INTRODUCTION TO A 7,500 WORD DRAFT ARTICLE THAT I HAVE PUT TOGETHER. IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN THE FULL TEXT PLEASE DM ME.