Share your experience: How does your organization introduce new systems?

The answer is rarely obvious. Take part in our short poll and we'll find out together


Reg Reader Survey The introduction of new systems into an organization is essential. If we stay still, if we continue to rely on legacy systems, if we fail to innovate – well, we (or, in reality, the company) will die. As business guru Sir John Harvey-Jones once put it: “If you are doing things the same way as two years ago, you are almost certainly doing them wrong.”

But who should lead innovation in our companies? Who should be introducing new systems? The answer is not obvious.

On one hand, the introduction of new systems into the business should be led by the business. In principle, the people doing the work, dealing with the suppliers, selling to the customers, are best placed to be standing up and saying: “We need the system to do X,” whether their motivation be to reduce cost, increase revenues, make products more efficiently, or even bolster our environmental credentials.

On the other hand, though, it may be the technical teams who lead innovation. After all, many research and development (R&D) teams are predominantly technical and focus on making technology that can analyse data more efficiently, process transactions more quickly or liaise with suppliers to make procurement and delivery more efficient and cheaper.

On yet another hand, perhaps a member of your board – particularly a non-executive director who is familiar with the processes and tech of another company on whose board he or she sits – may come to the organization and say: “I just came across this innovative approach at company X – perhaps it’s something we should try.”

To add to the variable of who should be introducing new systems, there is the additional question of the approach. How many of us have been to trade shows and vendor presentations where we have been shown a product that has made us think: “What an interesting product – that could be ideal for us?” No requirements specification, no business analysis, just: that’s a great idea, I want one.

The typical business, when asked what it needs, will largely trot out as its 'requirements' the things that its tech already does

And this is nothing to be ashamed of, because the typical business, when asked what it needs, will largely trot out as its “requirements” the things that its tech already does.

We mentioned earlier the need for “the system to do X,” but such requests are rare: most business people are so focused on getting the IT department to make their current systems do what they should, as quickly as they’d like, and as reliable as they require, that they seldom ask for systems with more functionality – and they are particularly rare in their requests for new features. Ask the average user what they want from IT and the answer is that they want the Wi-Fi to work properly, or better battery life on their laptops. New features? Nah, we’ll think about that once you IT chaps have made the current features actually work.

And finally, when we do decide that there is new technology required in the business, how do we achieve it? In some companies the decision needs the approval of just one or two key individuals. In others there is a seemingly interminable range of forms; approvers; and committees that must give their blessing to any investment in something new, something unusual, something innovative … perhaps these entities are already considered the “preventers” of business rather than the “promoters” thereof.

Our short survey below aims to find out which of these make up the reality in our organisations. It’s highly likely that the outcome will be a variety of the above, plus maybe some additional concepts that we have not gone into, or even thought of. There are three questions to answer. We'll run the poll for a few days and then publish a summary on The Register thereafter. ®

JavaScript Disabled

Please Enable JavaScript to use this feature.

Similar topics


Other stories you might like

  • Stolen university credentials up for sale by Russian crooks, FBI warns
    Forget dark-web souks, thousands of these are already being traded on public bazaars

    Russian crooks are selling network credentials and virtual private network access for a "multitude" of US universities and colleges on criminal marketplaces, according to the FBI.

    According to a warning issued on Thursday, these stolen credentials sell for thousands of dollars on both dark web and public internet forums, and could lead to subsequent cyberattacks against individual employees or the schools themselves.

    "The exposure of usernames and passwords can lead to brute force credential stuffing computer network attacks, whereby attackers attempt logins across various internet sites or exploit them for subsequent cyber attacks as criminal actors take advantage of users recycling the same credentials across multiple accounts, internet sites, and services," the Feds' alert [PDF] said.

    Continue reading
  • Big Tech loves talking up privacy – while trying to kill privacy legislation
    Study claims Amazon, Apple, Google, Meta, Microsoft work to derail data rules

    Amazon, Apple, Google, Meta, and Microsoft often support privacy in public statements, but behind the scenes they've been working through some common organizations to weaken or kill privacy legislation in US states.

    That's according to a report this week from news non-profit The Markup, which said the corporations hire lobbyists from the same few groups and law firms to defang or drown state privacy bills.

    The report examined 31 states when state legislatures were considering privacy legislation and identified 445 lobbyists and lobbying firms working on behalf of Amazon, Apple, Google, Meta, and Microsoft, along with industry groups like TechNet and the State Privacy and Security Coalition.

    Continue reading
  • SEC probes Musk for not properly disclosing Twitter stake
    Meanwhile, social network's board rejects resignation of one its directors

    America's financial watchdog is investigating whether Elon Musk adequately disclosed his purchase of Twitter shares last month, just as his bid to take over the social media company hangs in the balance. 

    A letter [PDF] from the SEC addressed to the tech billionaire said he "[did] not appear" to have filed the proper form detailing his 9.2 percent stake in Twitter "required 10 days from the date of acquisition," and asked him to provide more information. Musk's shares made him one of Twitter's largest shareholders. The letter is dated April 4, and was shared this week by the regulator.

    Musk quickly moved to try and buy the whole company outright in a deal initially worth over $44 billion. Musk sold a chunk of his shares in Tesla worth $8.4 billion and bagged another $7.14 billion from investors to help finance the $21 billion he promised to put forward for the deal. The remaining $25.5 billion bill was secured via debt financing by Morgan Stanley, Bank of America, Barclays, and others. But the takeover is not going smoothly.

    Continue reading

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022