Jiri’s Notepad

Yet another article, this time from CIO Magazine, on the eternal topic of why IT is different:

“When I build a new parts plant, I’m told how much it’s going to cost, how long it’s going to take and what it will do when it’s done. Sometimes we have problems, but the people in charge come pretty close to doing what they say they will. Even if they don’t, it’s for a good reason that I can see and understand. Why can’t I buy a new computer system that way? Why can’t I get you IT people to work like that?”

There are some valid points, but I think, the article goes a bit over the top. Sure, IT projects are often dealing problems that no-one has tackled before, but this is not necessarily unique to IT. Large construction and engineering projects are renowned for being very risky. Isn’t the reference to being different just an excuse?

The point which the article fails to make is that what is called IT or IT project is not a single thing. There is not a single ‘construction project’ either. Building a garden shed is different from building a pre-fab package house, which is altogether different from building a designer hotel in a historical city centre. Each is different and each carries a different amount of risk. In a similar way, an implementation of an accounting software for an SME is quite different from implementing an ERP system for 100.000 users, which is altogether different from a desktop implementation for 100 people strong company. Some of those are truly unique, but others are really a different instance of the same.

Projects which are truly innovative, large-scale or generally breaking new ground imply more uncertainty and risk and do need somehow different treatment. On the other hand, there are large aspects of IT (some argue they currently eat up up to 80% of an IT budget), which are about implementing well-understood technology against a reasonably well understood business process.

What the article reveals is that we way too often use sweeping generalisations and that what we need in a first place is a more nuanced vocabulary. Some parts of IT are lower risk and saying that they are ‘different’ is just an excuse. Mind you, lower risk does not neccessarily mean simple - even projects with lower risk require considerable experience to be carried out successfully. On the other hand, there will still be projects which are unique, and high risk. Saying that they are different is more a statement of fact rather than an excuse.