ICT needs to get its own house in order

ICT really needs to get its own house in order before suggesting to the business how it can help the business on business things (strategies, plans etc.).

I have just sat in a room of 50 EA's saying how EA needs to be driven by the business and the need to engage with the business i.e. go and talk to them. It is a sentiment I agree with in principle. Clearly all ICT strategy and architecture is for and about business - and should be driven by the business.

However usually these people have no credibility with the business - because the business doesn't see they as business people i.e. understanding fundamentally what business is about.

Like me, the business people suspect that these EA people can't usually answer fundamental questions about ICT (i.e. their business domain). They think it a little precipitous of the EA people to suggest to the business that they jump up and help the business proper - when getting their own house in order would usually be a better starting point (i.e. leading by example, and from a position or strength and knowledge).

Most large ICT organisations can't produce, maintain and analyse the basic information associated with the ICT domain they are meant to be managing (i.e. they don't manage their business). So what the business really thinks is
"how are they so brave - having failed in the business management of their domain - to suggest they can engage with the business about another domain (which they are not the domain experts in)?"

Ultimately managing things in any business is about managing things like people, assets, money and risks.

Usually EA's can't report on what is actually spent on ICT, how it is spent, why it is spent; how the spend can be reduced; how asset utilisation can be optimised etc. They can't demonstrate an understanding of ICT costs based on: asset/product type, location, vendor, class (product, people, service) etc or related to the services/offerings their business provides (except at the very highest and vaguest level). They can't link their ICT spend to the enterprise's income and mandated compliance needs at a level of detail that allows management to be effective i.e. what is the impact of this project not proceeding or this asset failing. They can't describe the major business functions, information, rules etc. their ICT systems implement (where and how).

This all requires a system (accessible to all, that supports reporting) and data gathering, and some hard work and thinking.

So having failed in one domain they are in fact responsible for - rather than doing the hard work to manage this domain (ICT as it increasingly gets more complex and less well undestood) they seem more inclined to redefine the domain rather than actually address the problems.

I can't help thinking it would make more sense to demonstrate excellence in the management of ICT before postulating the ability to engage with the business.