This article was written by me and published by CSC, and others. It details how technology, but not always business, has changed, and introduces the concept of a new paradigm for IT - the Pizza Paradigm.
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
The comments to this entry are closed.
Articles
March 2018
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | ||||
| 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
| 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 |
| 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 |
| 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |
Recent Comments
- Steve Burrows on The merging of mobile operators reduces competition and is bad for rural communities, the regulator adds no value
- DavidGaleUK on Transforming the UK Civil Service, not tinkering, a manifesto of ten changes that could be made by any political party
- John Suffolk on Transforming the UK Civil Service, not tinkering, a manifesto of ten changes that could be made by any political party
- DavidGaleUK on Transforming the UK Civil Service, not tinkering, a manifesto of ten changes that could be made by any political party
- Colin Beveridge on The closure of Microsoft’s TwC Group – a wrong move at the wrong time. Sometimes different isn’t better
- Morgan on Mr President we spend more than 2000 times per person on defence than China but we cannot defend our defence networks, is it true?
- John Suffolk on PRISM: Backtracking, justifications, and the shitty shoe shuffle, but how will the world respond?
- Urnhart on PRISM: Backtracking, justifications, and the shitty shoe shuffle, but how will the world respond?
- Ian Grant on PRISM: Backtracking, justifications, and the shitty shoe shuffle, but how will the world respond?
- firstname on Mr President we spend more than 2000 times per person on defence than China but we cannot defend our defence networks, is it true?
"Do I really care about infrastructure when I can use Google’s grid, or Microsoft, Amazon, eBay or Salesforce.com?"
You should. If you work in the public sector, you had better realise that the impact of the lack of strategic IT architecture will have a profound impact on the sustainability of not just a transformation programme, but on IT's ability to respond quickly and flexibly to the changing needs of the business. The lack of IT architects inside English government has led to the roost being ruled by low-level code-monkeys who believe that data standards are the only significant factor in integration.
For as long as English government continues to allow senior officers to hijack tactical, performanced managed objectives for their own career progression, those same civil servants will align themselves with suppliers who understand that the disjointed, quick-win is ultimately more profitable. Don't take my word for it, have a word with Google who will proudly announce that their strategy is to have no strategy. That they're not interested in systems integration (SI), they just want the easy-fit business, and they're happy to leave SI to the major commercial players... who, once again, will have a complete bean-feast.
Disturbingly, all of this has been documented on the SITFO.org blog, and linked via Tweets from DavidGaleUK and much of it has been taken up by overseas governments and corporations. In England, there seems little appetite inside government to take on the baronial empires of Whitehall with a much-needed fudamental architectural review of the country's underlying infrastructure. Plus ca change...
Posted by: David Gale | 15/02/2010 at 11:20 AM