Good points Dan and I appreciated them all. As to your last set, regarding
transportation, you are correct although I would add that over the past 18-
24 months profits have been up substantially. Rate increases have become
more the norm than the exception and with fuel on a roller coaster ride,
temporary fuel surcharges are included on any movement regardless of length
of haul.
You are probably more accurate than I was initially in that the "view" has
been an issue for longer than I may have realized. However, I have seen
where when times are good IT/IS is treated more libarally when it comes to
expenditures than when times are tough, but that is a far cry from being
treated a strategic part of the operation.
weakness can certainly play a large roll in it, and once a company has
experienced a weak IT manager/CIO it is often very difficult for someone
else to step in and correct the perception.
My experience in manufacturing / wholesale is somewhat limited but I feel
comfortable saying that they fail to realize the benefits of a strategically
placed IT department. One of the issues I see is the neglect of including
IT/IS in major decision making processes. Part of it is educating the board
and upper management on the benefits, part of it is perception that IT/IS is
an "INSTALL IT / SERVICE IT / FIX IT" department and has little to
contribute to the overall corporate performance.
You also hit the nail when you mentioned short term profits over long term
goals.
Good points Dan, and good feedback, thanks....
Douglas
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 11:55:04 -0500, Dan wrote
> Having been in the "bizness" 20+ years myself, I concur with you in
general.
>
> Having spent most of that time as a contractor/consultant, I've probably
> worked short & long term in close to 50 shops. I am usually able to
> spot fairly quickly those companies that treat IS as a strategic
> asset vs. those that treat IS as a necessary expense. Especially
> when a company is doing well financially, and IS can't get the money
> to do some "necessary" things, even as budgets are formulated.
>
> I really don't think your analysis is a "new" problem, I think the
> asset vs. expense viewpoint has been with us all along. It really
> depends on the management view. Unfortunately (?), I have never
> experienced being on the "ground floor" of a company to know exactly
> *how* IS is initially viewed, so is it "set" when the company starts,
> or does it evolve as the company moves forward? Probably a
> combination of both, but I think where IS stands when a company
> starts functioning is a big factor. Weak IS managers may also cause
> a decline in the status of IS in management's eyes.
>
> This is a purely, mostly uneducated guess on my part, but in the 10-year
> timeframe you mention, it seems to me that 10 years ago, give or
> take (muzzy femory), we started seeing corporate America absolutely
> fixate on short-term profits, and neglect the long-term. In this
> scenario, I believe, IS will always get the short shrift.
>
> I think the type of industry you are in dictates the view as well.
Although
> with most of my experience in manufacturing (definitely a mixed bag),
> I've seen marketing and medical sectors having very strategic IS
departments.
> Hasn't the transportation industry really been struggling to remain/become
> profitable these past several years?
>
> Good topic. Thanks for bringing it up.
>
> - Dan
> --
> This is the Non-Technical Discussion about the AS400 / iSeries
> (Midrange-NonTech) mailing list To post a message email: Midrange-
NonTech@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
> visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-nontech
> or email: Midrange-NonTech-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
> at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-nontech.
If you bought it, it was hauled by a truck - somewhere, sometime.
