The Balance Between Risk and Reliability part II
by
Charlie Bess
I placed an entry back in June that got a number of comments. One of the comments mentioned that the CIO and CTO roles are something akin to unwanted step children feeding at the trough of corporate investment funding – if anything is left over.
That is one of the concerns I've felt at times as well, but can't that be evidence of a passive decision on our part? A great example I've encountered is when there is an N-1 agreement in our contract with a client, that means we can't get more than one release out of the current market facing version of a product for a particular vendor, without their approval.
My view is that the only time that clause should force an upgrade (once you've caught up) is if the vendor is adding no real business value. If the new features added functionality that would benefit the business, there would be a business case to accelerate deployment (N), not let it languish until an obtuse clause forces the upgrade.
It may be a more effective use of resources to scour the marketplace for products supporting that space, whose new features are being demanding by the revenue generating side of the business.
The IT organization should move from forcing upgrades down the throats of the business to educating and enabling them so they're demanding new features and functions. Then IT is not stuck with the leftovers for investment, but viewed as a real business partner strategically moving the organization in the industry.
