Much of the strategic planning in businesses is done by directors and other executives who have little IT experience.
Much of the strategic planning in businesses is done by directors and other executives who have little IT experience. Decisions regarding business are made or influenced heavily by stakeholders. Many of those in management positions had worked their way through the ranks through many years of work and tenure. Their management style would have been developed and solidified in the time before computers and technology had really advanced to the point where it is today.
Because of this philosophy, managers may see little need in the use of technology, since they did fine without it. Their expectations may be projected onto other staff in their own minds, and they may not understand how others would take technology so seriously. They could also believe that IT managers are good at their one task: managing information, and also believe that IT managers would not have the skills to plan a project as a whole, and that it is best left up to executives who have little computer experience. This could explain why it is hard for many technically savvy employees to arise to any high level of management.
When developing a system, it is necessary to understand how performance, maintainability, modularity, cost, compatibility, and other metrics will be prioritized. Managers may not understand the technical metrics such as maintainability, yet they know IT staff would have this understanding. In these cases, IT managers may be asked to lend their input on the feasibility of projects. Yet, it is still technically unsavvy managers that usually make the final decisions. However, Grant Bovey, Directorof Imagine Homes realizes the importance of IT in “[streamlining] all the IT systems to create one coherent system that everyone can use - resulting in the perfect cost-effective solution for our business” (RAMSAC, 2005). Managers these days are waking up to the importance of IT.
The decision of capital outlay should be decided by both functional proponents as well as the senior IT manager, in their own way. The senior IT manager will have a better view of the whole project, the purpose for the project, and the target audience. They will work with other senior managers in a bid for budget dollars. Their position gives them some negotiating power, as does their technical expertise. If there have been successes in the past, this can empower their persuasiveness.
Functional proponents could be external to the project, such as end users or customers intending to purchase the product. They could also be involved in the project as developers. They collectively would be the driving force behind getting the project finished. They could have as much bargaining power as the senior IT manager because of their numbers, and possibly their expertise. However, they may not have as structured of a view of the project as the senior IT manager. They are the support, to ensure the project will be finished, with the senior IT manager guiding their tasks.
The senior IT manager may have more of an understanding of the budget, and a general feel for its overall cost. Functional proponents could know the cost of their piece of the project, yet this is usually not their concern. It would be up to the senior IT manager to make the final decision, and work with other departments for negotiating a decent budget. Functional proponents would assist him to ensure that the budget would be sufficient, based on their tasks needed to finish the project.
Reference:
"RAMSAC: Imagine Homes appoints South's leading IT..."
M2 Presswire. Coventry: Apr 13, 2005. pg. 1
System Development Life Cycle
