I have, on several occasions, written about the correlation between the corporate business vision and strategy, and the IT strategy. How one forms the other and how clinical IT can transform the healthcare system. OUH has a clear research profile in its development plan (strategy) towards 2014, with exact goals and intentions. This should be apparent in the IT strategy as well, where certain paragraphs should address the research goals, and as to how IT can support this with solutions that bring the hospital closer to realizing said goals.
A sound theoretical model as basis for your work is the Strategic Alignment Model (SAM) which the University of Aarhus teaches in one of the courses in which I’m the examiner.
However, is it actually as simple as I sometimes imply? Something says it is not. Hospitals are often run according to operational settings, and because of this, strategy needs to be adjusted continually to prevent downtime in operation, decrease in quality or that everything simply stops due to unsuccessful IT initiatives in which effect cannot be measured before (maybe) 2-4 years.
I read an article in Computerworld regarding IT strategy where the managing director of Delta presents his strategy through 16 slides. This made me consider if you, as the theory has it, can plan and adjust continually or if the complete connection between business and IT strategy is more of a theoretical concept than a practical option. The truth is none of the above - simple as that – but then what?
Raf Cammarano suggests an answer in his article ”Why Business-IT Alignment is Yesterdays’ War” to what it is that is so difficult. He argues furthermore that instead of correlation you have to aim for synchronization. The difference, as I perceive it, is that correlation is more static while synchronization is an ongoing process, where one initiative or a new direction in the business strategy results in an immediate IT strategy adjustment. In the 16 slides presented by Delta this organic approach is the simpler one. It becomes, however, imperative that you ensure that everything isn’t always in play. Lucid goals and visions and a defined framework must be maintained to avoid perpetual leniency.
Raf Cammarano mentions a line of points that preclude seamless correlation (alignment). These are:
”Unfortunately there are four types of lag that make it almost impossible for IT Departments to stay synchronized with the organization:
However, my point is not to cancel the discussion of business versus IT. On the contrary, it is more important than ever and we need to consider this more often than every three years, when the business releases a new strategy.
If this does not happen then the whole correlation will vanish and IT becomes short sighted and operation oriented, losing planning, correlation, synchronization and strategy in the process.
A sound theoretical model as basis for your work is the Strategic Alignment Model (SAM) which the University of Aarhus teaches in one of the courses in which I’m the examiner.
However, is it actually as simple as I sometimes imply? Something says it is not. Hospitals are often run according to operational settings, and because of this, strategy needs to be adjusted continually to prevent downtime in operation, decrease in quality or that everything simply stops due to unsuccessful IT initiatives in which effect cannot be measured before (maybe) 2-4 years.
I read an article in Computerworld regarding IT strategy where the managing director of Delta presents his strategy through 16 slides. This made me consider if you, as the theory has it, can plan and adjust continually or if the complete connection between business and IT strategy is more of a theoretical concept than a practical option. The truth is none of the above - simple as that – but then what?
Raf Cammarano suggests an answer in his article ”Why Business-IT Alignment is Yesterdays’ War” to what it is that is so difficult. He argues furthermore that instead of correlation you have to aim for synchronization. The difference, as I perceive it, is that correlation is more static while synchronization is an ongoing process, where one initiative or a new direction in the business strategy results in an immediate IT strategy adjustment. In the 16 slides presented by Delta this organic approach is the simpler one. It becomes, however, imperative that you ensure that everything isn’t always in play. Lucid goals and visions and a defined framework must be maintained to avoid perpetual leniency.
Raf Cammarano mentions a line of points that preclude seamless correlation (alignment). These are:
”Unfortunately there are four types of lag that make it almost impossible for IT Departments to stay synchronized with the organization:
- Stimulus lag: the delay between the business changing course and IT finding out about it
- Response lag: the delay between IT finding out about the change and deciding what to do about it
- Execution lag: the delay between IT deciding what to do and actually doing it.
- Results lag: the delay between IT completing what it needed to do, and the business seeing the results.
However, my point is not to cancel the discussion of business versus IT. On the contrary, it is more important than ever and we need to consider this more often than every three years, when the business releases a new strategy.
If this does not happen then the whole correlation will vanish and IT becomes short sighted and operation oriented, losing planning, correlation, synchronization and strategy in the process.
Ingen kommentarer:
Send en kommentar