Discussion on:
View:
Show:
Awesome.....I got a $ 829.99 i-P??d2 for only $ 103.37 and my mom got a $ 1498.99 H-D T.V for only $ 251.92, they are both coming with U.S.P.S tomorrow. I would be an id!ot to ever pay full ret??il pr??c??s at plac??s like W??lm??rt or B??stbuy. I sold a 37" H-D T.V to my boss for $ 600 that I only paid $ 78.24 for. I use..., Tagcent.com
Hi Patrick,
I think your description of Shared Services is perhaps not up to date? Shared Services is way more than a Shared Services Centre (SSC) that you describe. And I haven't heard of the "full Shared Services" model that you describe.
As you state, a Shared Services Centre (SSC) is based on standardised, commoditised services. And I would add that in an effective SSC, a client can expect and get a consistent level of quality and timeliness for *standard* services such as a userid setup or a new PC. Surely most IT professionals would agree that's achieveable and reasonable?
Your article seems to imply that every IT service is commoditised in Shared Services? I would say that's (i) not the intention of Shared Services (ii) simply not achieveable.
Complex services such as Project Management or Enterprise Architecture are not commodities. These however can certainly benefit from Centres of Excellence, where scalable methodologies applicable to projects of various sizes and complexity are utilised, and applicable to all areas of the business. This is what I would call mature Shared Services.
Also, chargebacks are optional. This is not a core concept of Shared Services. Neither is the "monopoly" described. If chargebacks are mandated without discussion and agreement or a monopoly setup without giving the internal client choice, then I would *not* call this shared services!
Cheers,
Diahnne
I think your description of Shared Services is perhaps not up to date? Shared Services is way more than a Shared Services Centre (SSC) that you describe. And I haven't heard of the "full Shared Services" model that you describe.
As you state, a Shared Services Centre (SSC) is based on standardised, commoditised services. And I would add that in an effective SSC, a client can expect and get a consistent level of quality and timeliness for *standard* services such as a userid setup or a new PC. Surely most IT professionals would agree that's achieveable and reasonable?
Your article seems to imply that every IT service is commoditised in Shared Services? I would say that's (i) not the intention of Shared Services (ii) simply not achieveable.
Complex services such as Project Management or Enterprise Architecture are not commodities. These however can certainly benefit from Centres of Excellence, where scalable methodologies applicable to projects of various sizes and complexity are utilised, and applicable to all areas of the business. This is what I would call mature Shared Services.
Also, chargebacks are optional. This is not a core concept of Shared Services. Neither is the "monopoly" described. If chargebacks are mandated without discussion and agreement or a monopoly setup without giving the internal client choice, then I would *not* call this shared services!
Cheers,
Diahnne
Core IT work gets shuffled into the background and gets lost in this scenario. Capacity planning, root cause troubleshooting, etc. Since these services are normally not actually "billable" because they are considered BAU ( business as usual) and not directly part of an on-going project - which is billable, then the timesheets of the normally higher level technician, due to the complexities involved in this work - gets skewed to low percentages of billable time and looks like a liability instead of being the go-to person that they really are. These activities are directly linked to the business units ability to make money - no internet webpage due to a server running out of memory over the weekend - something that can be caught by good cap planning, and you can lose millions of dollars.
corporate pays for "helpdesk"/BAU service for everyone. Then departments have their own budget for their IT needs. Anything outside of that has to be found somewhere else in their budget. I agree about the BAU though. I think it is silly that if you want to justify yourself you have to keep churning projects, somehow managing millions of dollars of equipment day to day isn't billable which is silly.
If a professional service is being provided, then as you rightly say these type of activities need to be undertaken for every IT service offered. My take is as it's part of the costs it then should be part of the charges.
A mature approach to project management will include a Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) analysis as part of the original business case. So will include time/effort/resources required to do initial capacity planning as part of the project (even if it's performed by a team outside of the project). And then also ongoing capacity management, root cause analysis etc as part of the support for the IT service post go-live.
Also in the business case, you include examples like the great one you've given - business units potentially losing millions of dollars because of an issue that could have been predicted and prevented. As you say, if there's a direct link between business units ability to make money and the IT services they receive, then the business case will stack up.
If in your organisation cap planning, RC analysis etc are done as part of BAU, then I'd suggest perhaps adding a percentage or ratio of the BAU costs to every new project? After all, if you have new / upgraded IT services coming online then you'll probably need to hire more BAU staff and buy additional tool licences to support it!
A mature approach to project management will include a Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) analysis as part of the original business case. So will include time/effort/resources required to do initial capacity planning as part of the project (even if it's performed by a team outside of the project). And then also ongoing capacity management, root cause analysis etc as part of the support for the IT service post go-live.
Also in the business case, you include examples like the great one you've given - business units potentially losing millions of dollars because of an issue that could have been predicted and prevented. As you say, if there's a direct link between business units ability to make money and the IT services they receive, then the business case will stack up.
If in your organisation cap planning, RC analysis etc are done as part of BAU, then I'd suggest perhaps adding a percentage or ratio of the BAU costs to every new project? After all, if you have new / upgraded IT services coming online then you'll probably need to hire more BAU staff and buy additional tool licences to support it!
The thing that always seems to get lost in all the outsourcing hullaballoo is that when you go looking outside your business for IT help, you lose one of the major bonuses of keeping IT internal: knowledge of the business. I have worked as both a consultant and as direct staff, and it takes dedicated time to grow to learn the ins and outs of how a business wants to do business. What many decision-makers fail to take into account, however, is how closely these business ins and outs translate to procedure, policy, and process in designing and implementing systems and keeping them running. This is information that any successful outsourcer is going to have to learn, and is IMO the main reason why companies that think to save money by outsourcing tend to spend a lot of money "managing" the project. What they are actually doing is teaching the outsource provider how your company operates so they can build your software! What a tremendous waste of time and resources!
The other item that this mentality uncovers is the fallacy of the idea that all sources are the same for IT. The author hints at this when mentioning the "lowest common denominator" problem that is an inevitable outcome of focusing solely on cost without considering _value_. If managers fail to take into account - and this can be a very difficult thing to do - the value of the services provided when looking at just the costs, it is easy to decide that you are paying too much for IT. This mentality has a snowball effect, however, as managers begin to view IT as merely a cost, rather than as a value proposition. What compounds the problem is that this is a difficult cycle to break.
Business managers need to look at IT as a value proposition not as a cost center. Those who can adopt this method of thinking will be able to more accurately evaluate their internal IT operations and realize the true value - or lack of it - within their organization.
The other item that this mentality uncovers is the fallacy of the idea that all sources are the same for IT. The author hints at this when mentioning the "lowest common denominator" problem that is an inevitable outcome of focusing solely on cost without considering _value_. If managers fail to take into account - and this can be a very difficult thing to do - the value of the services provided when looking at just the costs, it is easy to decide that you are paying too much for IT. This mentality has a snowball effect, however, as managers begin to view IT as merely a cost, rather than as a value proposition. What compounds the problem is that this is a difficult cycle to break.
Business managers need to look at IT as a value proposition not as a cost center. Those who can adopt this method of thinking will be able to more accurately evaluate their internal IT operations and realize the true value - or lack of it - within their organization.
- Keyboard Shortcuts:
- Prev
- Next
- Toggle
