Betting on Winners

Discussion for EA874 Topic 4 > Technology Infrastructure Architecture

Post # 3

Continuing with the previous blog's theme of risks in technology choices and acquisitions for infrastructure, Gartner's recommendation for installing an Advanced Technology Group (ATG) in the organization is a key step in minimizing such risks, and allows the organization to pursue their investments with better  odds. I would think that as part of a robust EA governance being in place in the organization, creating the strategic technology planning function that Gartner speaks of can truly bring the necessary defined process for prioritizing and transferring potentially high-impact emerging technologies. Doing so will strengthen the company for avoiding the potential disasters of personality-driven investment decisions.

Five Styles of an Advanced Technology Group
Working with various organizations in the past, I can relate to the five styles described for ATG's as presented by Gartner. I would also go further to say that even in companies without a formal ATG, the five styles can be present - particularly the Guerilla kind, with characteristics, strengths and challenges most akin to small to medium-sized enterprises. As pointed out by the article,  ATGs can combine qualities from more than one style, but a single style is usually dominant.  I would also add that the idea of an ATG can be a venue of sorts, in which the members can come and go to contribute, but usually with a core group to maintain control and direction. And I think in some places, I've seen that the notion of an ATG can actually be a process -- again an open model that allows the free exchange to deliberate  technology options and directions. Lastly, I think I have also observed that while a group can display a particular style as dominant, the styles can be fluid, and shift from one to another depending on context, and the particular posture and requirements of the organization to which the service of the ATG is called upon.  The following styles descriptions can be useful: 1.) Navigator: Determining the strategic business impact of emerging technologies, through tracking and evaluation. Usually challenged by: Finding a willing home for a technology at the end of a successful evaluation. 2.) Guerrilla: Tactical and pragmatic "SWAT" team helping business units deploy new technologies. Usually challenged by: Carving out time for strategic planning and tracking activities. 3.) Priest: Educating senior management on emerging technology issues and potential. Usually challenged by: Lack of hands-on evaluation activities. 4.) Conductor: Coordinating and leveraging advanced technology activities performed in other parts of the organization. Usually challenged by:  Making its recommendations a reality by working primarily through other groups. 5.) Scholar: Research and development group investigating technologies ahead of business need. Usually challenged by: Avoiding acquiring a reputation as an “ivory tower” out of touch with current business needs.

Timing-Decisions for Adoption Opportunities
I think one of the more challenging decisions for ATG's or any group that functions to provide strategic technology planning is when to jump in to adopt a new technology. A strong prioritization criteria should be in place, and a clear view of enterprise portfolio is requisite to arrive at timely technology decisions with the restraint to jump along on hype. In performing the prioritization process, Gartner points out that it is also important to identify, and thus avoid, the commonly occurring wrong reasons for which companies adopt technology. The high level of hype surrounding technology in the marketplace is one of the factors that frequently drives companies to a poorly timed adoption of technology (typically too early). As noted in our other discussions, Gartner's model of the Hype Cycle characterizes the typical progression of a technology, from over-enthusiasm through a period of disillusionment (because of the inevitable failures that arise from inappropriate application), to an eventual understanding of the technology’s relevance and role. If a company launches its efforts too soon, it will suffer unnecessarily through the painful and expensive lessons associated with deploying an immature technology. If it delays action for too long, it runs the even greater risk of being left behind by competitors that have succeeded in making the technology work to their advantage.

Reference:
Fenn, Linden, and Fairchok. (2003 July). Strategic Technology Planning: Picking the Winners. Gartner Research.

/