In the worst case scenario, IT spending is already so lean that the companies that survive can't actually spend very much less on IT than they're spending. The worst case is that they can hold the line. That will mean that, as other areas get cut, IT will stay flat or nearly flat, becoming a bigger piece of the total corporate spending pie, giving IT more leverage when things eventually do turn around!
Latest management headlines from Network World:
IBM, South Carolina work to boost enrollment in IT classes
Compuware updates IT project portfolio management tool
Staff to stay at work over Christmas period claims report
|
Does Verizon's Voyager stack up to the iPhone? |
|
|
5 IT skills that won't boost your salary 
[1,407]
Women 4 times more likely than men to cough up personal info [589]
Japan's 10 funniest tech-related commercials [Videos] [407]
Throwing away a promo CD is "unauthorized distribution"? [1,265]
Adults too quick to dismiss educational video games [682]
Attack of the iPhone clones [Slideshow] [578]
10 things IT needs to know about AJAX [1,258]
This Year's 25 Geekiest 25th Anniversaries [Slideshow] [409]
|
|
Flat IT spending doesn't tell the whole story
I'm sure Gartner is right on here and that US IT spending will be flat or even slightly down in 2009. However, that won't mean that infrastructures won't grow, or that new revenue generating applications won't be deployed and have to be managed. What it means is that IT will have to do more with less. They won't be able to hire additional staff to handle new applications and supporting infrastructure, so they'll have to become more efficient. While a review of existing processes and procedures will certainly be in order, I see a tremendous opportunity in this time of stagnating IT growth for vendors who provide solutions that allow IT to automate time-consuming, labor intensive tasks. How else will IT be able to meet the needs of the businesses they support?
IT spending is essential
I agree that IT may be in a relatively safe position in the US economy. I'm just not sure most corporations view it that way.
I think the opportunity does exist for IT to help corporations cut costs - but who will pay for the vendors (or in-house staff) to supply the needed solutions? In most corporations IT budgets are already dangerously thin. There is nothing left to cut; it's nearly impossible to survive as is. Articles like 'Gartner recommends 20 ways to cut IT costs' only encourage managers to believe that their budget woes will be solved by reducing IT dollar allocations.
Become more efficient? Do more with less? We've been there for years.
In IT support, we as efficient as we are going to get - unless someone suddenly discovers a way to add several hours to the day, eliminate a human's need for sleep, or figure out how to grow a new set of arms and hands so that multitasking is less limited by the act of typing - and another pair of eyes wouldn't hurt either.
Support tends to currently consist of 'one-person silos' - with the one person covering multiple (sometimes critical) areas. Heaven help us if anyone gets hit by a bus. Yet the first thing on the Gartner list is to cut people costs. From where? Businesses seem to understand the importance of backing up data and systems, but forget about people. Knowledge is not a plug-and-play commodity. Neither are many IT skills, despite popular belief to the contrary.
And, while there is a rising demand for new and/or enhanced software to solve business needs, the budgets for IT development are increasingly slashed. Businesses used to want a Cadillac while paying for a Volkswagen; now they want a mansion - on the beach in Malibu - while paying for a tent.
Our world today is heavily dependent on computer systems, and those systems don't write or maintain themselves. Corporations need to start viewing IT as part of the essential life-blood of their business - not as a line on a budget to be cut. The economy will be difficult enough without shorting IT spending.
Post new comment