The article that's been in the press most of the last couple of weeks has been the Harvard Business Review article, IT doesn't matter . (The piece is available for download at a cost of US$6 from Harvard Business Online .)

HBR is probably the most respected business strategy magazine in the world. So its contention that a lot of corporate IT spend is wasted has attracted a great deal of attention.

Is HBR right? It claims that, like electricity, computing power has standardised to such an extent that a smart IT idea can no longer provide competitive advantage. If you can do something good with IT, your competitors can copy it a day later.

But in BPG's view, this is not right. IT directors struggle today to integrate corporate systems. Vendors may claim that systems have become so simple that they can be connected as easily as flicking a light switch. But that's not the experience "on the ground," where integration is still a painful and expensive business.

Given this, where does competitive advantage lie? Certainly with IT directors who have planned systems so they can integrate and re-integrate as the business makes different demands of IT. That need can't be ignored even if it is harder for IT directors to achieve than most vendors will allow.

In fact, the most salutary lesson in fallout of the the HBR piece is probably for vendors. Certainly corporates will flock to buy systems that are easy to "snap together".

But while journalists may be fooled into thinking that integration has become simple, this is far from the view of those who have to actually use the stuff.

Taken from ITRM.