By Phil Wainewright
Why conflict is inevitable
Simon Wardley of the CSC Leading Edge Forum is even more scathing on bimodal IT:
In 2014, I came across bimodal / dual operating system and twin speed IT. I can’t tell you how much this caused me to howl with laughter. I’m no fan of these concepts. I view them as old ideas, poorly thought through and dressed up as new.
Wardley explains why conflict is inevitable, using a model of implementing change that recognizes three types of people: pioneers, settlers and planners. He argues that the bimodal approach ignores the crucial role of settlers in mediating between the creativity of pioneers and the industrialization skills of planners. Without the settlers to play that role, he writes:
You’ll create a them vs us culture. None of the novel concepts will ever be industrialised because the Pioneers won’t develop them enough and the Town Planners will refuse to accept them for being underdeveloped. Both groups feel they are the most important and both ridicules the other.
Independent analyst Jason Bloomberg, president of Intellyx, recently rounded up these and other criticisms of what he called Gartner’s ‘recipe for disaster’, adding his own recommendation for a converged approach:
What many organizations are finding is that for digital transformation to be successful, it must be end-to-end — with customers at one end and systems of record at the other. Traditional IT, of course, remains responsible for those systems of record.
Read the entire article at https://diginomica.com/2015/12/14/gartners-bimodal-it-considered-harmful/#.Vm9oh7-1T5c
