CIOs are in a difficult position. As a recent article by Janaki Akella, Helge Buckow, and Stéphane Rey points out, "IT represents an important part of total spending—5 percent or more in some industries—and its direct contribution to revenues and profits is often difficult to assess."
The authors recommend IT leaders find significant additional reductions and efficiencies by "taking a broader look at the way they manage the IT architecture as a whole. The key to these economies is bringing business and IT leaders together in a combined effort to rationalize not only business applications and processes but also the core IT infrastructure and operations."
As anyone who has been intimately involved in IT understands, the reality is that short-term business wants and needs of individuals, divisions, and units are often addressed without full consideration to the larger requirements of the organization. While IT may design a long-term blueprint, the operational reality is that decisions often get made by divisions and business units with "relatively little regard for the impact on a company’s overall IT architecture" or the business processes than move beyond their division or unit.
The authors write: "CIOs at the corporate or division level generally do have substantial control over the core IT infrastructure components: servers, storage systems, and the associated infrastructure software. But the business applications, processes, and business model sitting atop the IT infrastructure often reflect the wants of the leaders of business units and functions, who understandably focus more on their own needs than on overall IT efficiency. Across a global company, the result is often an unwieldy, heterogeneous IT environment where incompatible (and often duplicative) hardware, applications, and processes sprout year by year, in every corner of the organization, in response to specific near-term needs....
"These patchwork systems require substantially more time and money for development, support, and maintenance—at the expense of budgets, new IT capabilities, and business innovation. At large companies, eliminating these duplications and inefficiencies can reduce IT spending by tens or hundreds of millions of dollars while improving the quality of the IT operation and the satisfaction of those who rely on it. The CIO alone, however, cannot reduce these costs; business leaders too must sponsor and participate in the transformation."
In their discussion about reducing costs and complextity, the authors mention two areas that my partners and I have also found to be of particular importance. The first is the need to develop an integrated data model (in our case, we have a common data model since our entire Supply Chain Synchronization suite is built on one data model rather than several that have been disconnected and then, later, integrated -- there are many benefits to the common data model approach). "[N]onintegrated databases greatly raise costs and result in inefficient processes, duplicative development efforts, longer times to market, business errors, and missed opportunities."
The other area of particular importance is the need to reduce interface complexity. "An IT staff can spend as much as 30 percent of its development time on applications making all of their interfaces work, largely because customized applications have so many point-to-point interfaces. Standardized interfaces, such as the enterprise service bus (ESB), can greatly ease the burden of system integration and minimize the chore of dealing with local changes." (Again, in our case we've developed our solution using SOA architecture and web services to the highest levels of cost savings while maintaining the flexibility to handle rapid change in the supply chain.)
When we talk with consultants and clients, they are often focused on the issue of customizations. My partners and I share the view articulated by Akella, Buckow, and Rey. They recommend that the focus on software customization should be in those areas that provide meaningful competitive advantage. They point out that rarely do functions like HR, finance, and accounting provide a competitive advantage in direct competition with other companies. Functions such as sales, product development, and supply chain are much better candidates for tailoring solutions that will create differentiation in the market. It should be noted that while it is very costly and time-consuming to customize most legacy ERP applications, some newer software in the supply chain and sales domains are specifically designed to overcome this limitation. Software such as our Evavi Supply Chain Synchronization Suite is designed for rapid tailoring and configuration, and enables companies to achieve market differentiation in the areas that matter.
Emerging technologies support new ways of gathering, managing, processing, and sharing information. In order to obtain the greatest benefits across the enterprise, legacy IT barriers must be removed and replaced with technologies that share common data models, provide easy data integration, and seamlessly enable planning and execution across business processes. With an architecture in place that supports these capabilities, companies can then shape their future.
