IT, We Have a Problem -- Revisited

Computerworld - In a recent column (Nov. 27, 2006), I chronicled my frustration while serving as a guest lecturer in a management of information systems technology MBA class at a local university.

My topic had been IT governance. As I wrote here, I had tried to convince the students (who were mostly non-IT types) that they had to get involved with the IT departments if they wanted them to develop systems that are relevant and timely. I had tried my best to explain to the students that this behavior was needed because an IT system doesnt belong to IT; it belongs to the user department.

Much to my dismay, I had been unable to get the class to understand this point, which became apparent during a group discussion toward the end of my time with them. As one of the students put it, I still dont understand why IT isnt completely responsible for their projects, just like I am responsible for my projects.

Despite my ineffectiveness  or perhaps because of my frustration  the professor invited me back for the next class. Apparently the students had enjoyed my presentation even though they didnt agree with me. For the second go-round, the professor and I met several months before the class and devised a better way to get the point across. We adjusted the timing of the governance lecture, expanded the case study depicting a fictional steering committee meeting to select the next years projects and, most important, totally changed the final exam.

Instead of the typical multiple-choice or essay exam, I created a series of scenarios depicting systems problems that typically occur during development. The five scenarios were as follows:

1. The system is way behind schedule, and the user blames IT while IT blames the user for changing the specifications.

2. The chief financial officer complains to the CEO that finance is not getting its fair share of IT time and wants to consider going to an ERP system. The CFO feels that ERP would solve the problem, since it would help his people get projects done more easily, with less IT time.

3. The chief marketing officer complains that the marketing system that was selected by the committee has been deferred in favor of a mandatory, government-imposed system.

4. IT has encountered a major technology problem that will require either a system upgrade or rework of the system logic.

5. The major vendor involved with the new system has just announced its decision to withdraw from the market, leaving the developers facing more expensive alternatives.