Home Career

Many consultants encourage "fads" – or even "cults" – amongst their clients. To these consultants, a fad provides a gateway for them to capture clients with methodologies and proprietary software.

E-strategy committee

Some consulting firms seem to have leapt wholeheartedly onto the fad of encouraging a board to form a committee to develop and implement an "e-strategy". This ignores the fact that the Internet and web sites are simply tools. They work at an operational level. ISSPs – information systems strategic plans – never came that close to the board, even in information technology companies.

The issues with electronic and Internet-based business are either operational or strategic. This is because:

• some businesses treat this area solely as a commodity, providing a channel to their customers, suppliers and prospects; and
• other businesses treat it as a new strategic direction for them.

In the first case, the board will have little interest in the operational issues involved, especially if an easily replaceable third party provides the mechanisms. An e-strategy committee will be irrelevant.

In the second case, the board will have a continuing active interest in the strategies and policies driving the transition. This means that the entire board will be involved, whether or not it has an e-business committee reporting to it.

E-strategy directors

If a board sets up an e-strategy committee, at least one of its members may be expected to have experience in this area. This means that this "expert" will be either a director of several other companies who have implemented similar strategies or an e-business specialist.

There are dangers in terms of originality in having a director whose knowledge is based entirely on what has happened elsewhere. It may be doubtful that this director will be able to contribute to an original, unique strategy for the business.

There are also dangers in appointing a director who has expertise only in one area, especially when that area is not a core competence for the business. This becomes worse if the new director has no previous experience as a director. It becomes acute if the new director's expertise is technical rather than strategic.

Strategic divergence

Where there is a separate "e-strategy", there is a danger that it may diverge from the central business strategy.

This used to happen frequently with ISSPs, where the IS priorities could begin to diverge from the business's priorities, with the result that the information systems would not match the business's functions, outcomes and even objectives.

The solution is to have the "e-strategy" tightly bound to the business strategy. Ideally, the "e-strategy" should be contained entirely within the business strategy.

Keeping the "e-strategy" within the business strategy has a number of effects.

1. The "e-strategy" will be less likely to change. This is an excellent way of ensuring that the "e-strategy" remains at a strategic level, rather than descending into tactical and operational areas. This descent was a frequent occurrence with ISSPs.
2. Linked to this is a reduced tendency to move into new technologies solely because they are new. This will be caused partly because the "e-strategy" will have little to say about technology. It will also be because the business's strategy will not offer incentives or rewards for the implementation of new but unneeded technology. It was a tendency of some ISSP implementations that they could shift appreciably - and especially in terms of times and budgets - to accommodate new technology. Unless embracing new technology for itself is a specific goal of the "e-strategy", it will tend to be avoided.
3. It is also likely that any new initiatives will need to be justified in real terme that will make sense to the board. It has been a feature of IS that its "business cases" tended to be both lengthy and fictitious. The fiction is added by such elements as apparent savings of four hours work per week by each of four employees. Any dollar saving as a result of this is entirely in the mind of a business analyst. Boards would not be fooled by such fictions, and they would apply real risk and governance measures to them.

This is not to say that responsibilities and decision-making about new systems or services will be referred upwards to the board. That should not happen. The effects described above will be brought about by the board's methods of thinking being moved down through the business.

These methods are likely to enter many IS departments for the first time. Future IS initiatives - especially in e-business - should become more closely linked to the real business objectives, to adding value in real ways (by increasing revenues or margins or market share), and to doing what the business needs to be done.