FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W345553679> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W345553679 startingPage "39" @default.
• W345553679 abstract "For several years, a growing number of executives, analysts, and management writers have argued that business leaders, not technologists, should take ownership of corporate information technology by holding themselves responsible both for its impact and for the money spent to improve it. (1) Information technology's role within organizations has changed, these critics argue, and the way they manage their investments in technology must change, too. Once, the IT organization could be run effectively as a support function. Today, however, most new IT applications span businesses and functions, while some connect organizations to their partners and customers. Companies that aim to derive full value from their investment in IT must therefore alter their business processes and understand how IT can be used to foster improvements and competitive advantage (see Technology after the bubble, in the current issue). But these advances will be achieved only if business leaders become more involved in technological decision making--only, in fact, if they call the shots. Some companies have heeded this advice. Yet few believe that the effort had the desired effect; after appointing business leaders to corporate technology committees, for example, they found that the hoped-for improvement in relations between the two sides failed to occur. In the meantime, useless applications continue to be implemented and IT costs to rise. Even so, companies have unquestionably taken a step forward by creating structures and processes that encourage business and IT managers to work together. This collaboration at least ensures that business leaders oversee investments, evaluate proposed IT applications, and help the organization plan for the changes any new system requires. But oversight aside, business leaders have no incentive to run IT with the same rigor they bring to running the business. The management of information technology is still left to IT leaders, who struggle to balance the changing demands of the companies for which they work. How, then, can companies close the gap between IT and the business it is supposed to support? The key is to ensure that executives not only set the corporate IT agenda but also manage the performance of IT--and their compensation should reflect their ability to do so. We have seen business leaders ignore potentially valuable technology projects and then suddenly cancel them when they ran into difficulties instead of taking the responsibility, up front, to ensure their successful completion. These leaders must own decisions instead of just making them and assuming that someone else will be accountable. Other changes too are needed. Most companies now manage IT as a function separate and distinct from the business. Thus, though IT executives lead complicated organizations that serve not only companies as a whole--networks, for instance, and corporate applications--but also individual businesses and functions, there are too few links between them and IT. To bridge the gap, selected IT managers should be drawn more closely into the business units and--just as business leaders should answer for the performance of IT--be made more accountable for the performance of the business. A handful of companies in financial services, energy, and high technology have begun to make this transformation and, as a result, are improving their return on investment and managing their IT costs more successfully. Taking these companies as our example, we have developed some practical advice on how to encourage a more effective partnership between IT and business. What goes wrong? Many companies have tried and failed to improve the working relationship between their business units and IT organizations. Developing these relationships is extraordinarily difficult, partly because managers and employees in the two camps view one another with suspicion and partly because companies have few precedents for modeling the partnership. …" @default.
• W345553679 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W345553679 creator A5012132979 @default.
• W345553679 creator A5063148925 @default.
• W345553679 creator A5080017860 @default.
• W345553679 date "2002-12-22" @default.
• W345553679 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W345553679 title "Who's Accountable for IT? Business Leaders-That's Who" @default.
• W345553679 hasPublicationYear "2002" @default.
• W345553679 type Work @default.
• W345553679 sameAs 345553679 @default.
• W345553679 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W345553679 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W345553679 hasAuthorship W345553679A5012132979 @default.
• W345553679 hasAuthorship W345553679A5063148925 @default.
• W345553679 hasAuthorship W345553679A5080017860 @default.
• W345553679 hasConcept C119857082 @default.
• W345553679 hasConcept C121017731 @default.
• W345553679 hasConcept C127413603 @default.
• W345553679 hasConcept C14036430 @default.
• W345553679 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
• W345553679 hasConcept C162853370 @default.
• W345553679 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W345553679 hasConcept C18762648 @default.
• W345553679 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W345553679 hasConcept C2776291640 @default.
• W345553679 hasConcept C34630208 @default.
• W345553679 hasConcept C39549134 @default.
• W345553679 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W345553679 hasConcept C4216890 @default.
• W345553679 hasConcept C58546491 @default.
• W345553679 hasConcept C78458016 @default.
• W345553679 hasConcept C78519656 @default.
• W345553679 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W345553679 hasConceptScore W345553679C119857082 @default.
• W345553679 hasConceptScore W345553679C121017731 @default.
• W345553679 hasConceptScore W345553679C127413603 @default.
• W345553679 hasConceptScore W345553679C14036430 @default.
• W345553679 hasConceptScore W345553679C144133560 @default.
• W345553679 hasConceptScore W345553679C162853370 @default.
• W345553679 hasConceptScore W345553679C17744445 @default.
• W345553679 hasConceptScore W345553679C18762648 @default.
• W345553679 hasConceptScore W345553679C199539241 @default.
• W345553679 hasConceptScore W345553679C2776291640 @default.
• W345553679 hasConceptScore W345553679C34630208 @default.
• W345553679 hasConceptScore W345553679C39549134 @default.
• W345553679 hasConceptScore W345553679C41008148 @default.
• W345553679 hasConceptScore W345553679C4216890 @default.
• W345553679 hasConceptScore W345553679C58546491 @default.
• W345553679 hasConceptScore W345553679C78458016 @default.
• W345553679 hasConceptScore W345553679C78519656 @default.
• W345553679 hasConceptScore W345553679C86803240 @default.
• W345553679 hasLocation W3455536791 @default.
• W345553679 hasOpenAccess W345553679 @default.
• W345553679 hasPrimaryLocation W3455536791 @default.
• W345553679 hasRelatedWork W1510385863 @default.
• W345553679 hasRelatedWork W1532439586 @default.
• W345553679 hasRelatedWork W168706578 @default.
• W345553679 hasRelatedWork W219934861 @default.
• W345553679 hasRelatedWork W2502478090 @default.
• W345553679 hasRelatedWork W252124033 @default.
• W345553679 hasRelatedWork W2599736599 @default.
• W345553679 hasRelatedWork W273082237 @default.
• W345553679 hasRelatedWork W2922197906 @default.
• W345553679 hasRelatedWork W2953127917 @default.
• W345553679 hasRelatedWork W310883573 @default.
• W345553679 hasRelatedWork W344832997 @default.
• W345553679 hasRelatedWork W54687513 @default.
• W345553679 hasRelatedWork W748353936 @default.
• W345553679 hasRelatedWork W799308966 @default.
• W345553679 hasRelatedWork W2188990259 @default.
• W345553679 hasRelatedWork W223384512 @default.
• W345553679 hasRelatedWork W2405002186 @default.
• W345553679 hasRelatedWork W2567181916 @default.
• W345553679 hasRelatedWork W2599039008 @default.
• W345553679 isParatext "false" @default.
• W345553679 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W345553679 magId "345553679" @default.
• W345553679 workType "article" @default.