Home > IT > The pIT and the Pendulum

The pIT and the Pendulum

We’ve all heard or said the expression one time or another at work: “…blah blah blah and the pendulum swings the other way” or something to that effect.  It’s usually said after management does a 180 and reverses a decision it made the last time we said it.

A pendulum is an apt metaphor for trends in management decision-making, particularly in IT.  More often than not, the swing in IT is between the two opposing philosphies of centralization and distribution.  Centralized solutions are by nature standardized and controlled.  Distributed solutions tend to be customized and organic.  The benefits of a centralized approach are efficiency, cost effectiveness and manageability, while the cost is often an unwieldy bureaucracy that impedes agility.  Conversely, a distributed approach produces a leaner solution that is quick and responsive but usually at a higher cost with more risk.  I’ve seen this tug-of-war manifest itself in the following examples.

IT Alignment (Centralized: Functional, Distributed: Business)
Where does IT belong on the org chart?  Back in the day, IT was kept at arms-length by the business and IT responded in kind.  Over time, computers emerged as valuable tools for not only counting beans but also creating, selling and analyzing them.  Business invited IT to the table and even into the boardroom.  Now the question about whether IT should be functionally aligned or integrated with the business units is a proxy for the real debate about the competing forces of efficiency and agility.

IT Resourcing (Centralized: Hire, Distributed: Outsource)
Is skilled technical labor a commodity or a strategic asset?  The debate continues.  Is IT at the point where the bulk of its practitioners are interchangeable parts that can be outsourced to the lowest bidder?  What does a company lose when that happens?  Is IT expertise a strategic asset?  Or is the company better served by specialized vendors who can achieve economies of scale through a service architecture?  And since all I am doing here is asking and not answering questions, how many times have you seen this pendulum swing over the course of your career?

Application Architecture (Centralized: Thin Client, Distributed: Thick Client)
In the beginning we had no choice.  An organization had a single, very big, computer.  Applications were written for it and users were happy (in the same way your grandparents were happy to sip shoe-leather soup during The Great Depression).  Then, those long-haired kids from California invented computers that could be used by anybody (well, almost anybody), and workplaces became an archipelago of distributed applications that didn’t talk to each other.  Networks and shared disk space solved that issue, bringing a hybrid fix to the distributed mess.  And then the ultimate thin client architecture emerged—the Web.  Were PCs even needed anymore?  Now the battle has moved to mobile and the debate has resumed.  Native apps or mobile web?

Application Services (Centralized: Managed Hosting, Distributed: Local Hosting)
Here’s a simple question:  Which is more important to your organization, the ability to customize your applications and integrate your data freely or the elimination of the cost and overhead of maintaining an infrastructure that is not part of your core business?  It’s a classic centralized vs. dispersed conundrum, and if you think the argument has been settled, don’t turn your back on the pendulum that just passed you by. 

Standardization (Centralized: Standards, Distributed: Guidelines)
Standards are undoubtedly a good thing, but as Emerson said, “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds”.  The key word is “foolish”, of course.  Standards must make sense and be rooted in reality, otherwise they will be ignored at best or adhered to at worst—at worst, because the end result will be efficient solutions that no one wants.  As long as there are software makers and software users, this tension will exist, and organizations will be dodging the swinging pendulum.

The forces of centralization and dispersion are natural to humans operating in groups of two or more, and the greater the forces the longer and more dizzying the pendulum swing.  Perhaps the way to avoid this trauma is to increase the force of gravity by exerting more downward force in the center.  (A yo-yo weighed down by gravity doesn’t swing very much.)  Compromise—a hybrid solution—may be the best approach.  In other words, let the things that require agility be dispersed and things that require stability be centralized.  Then, the challenge will be to figure out where the boundaries lie and how the two forces can coordinate their efforts. 

Piece of cake, right?

Categories: IT
  1. No comments yet.
  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: