Preparation:
In 2001 the Anderson Consulting separated from its parent
company Arthur Anderson and rebranded as Accenture.
The CIO, Frank Modruson, from 2002 onwards, had the task of
replacing Arthur Anderson’s legacy systems.
Decisions lay with a few possible options:
- Continue managing platforms with a decentralized approach?
- Use a mixed approach, where the same standard applications run throughout the enterprise but managed independently within offices?
- Use a one-firm approach, where there is a centralized implementation of critical systems with all offices connected to a central platform?
In addition to the above choices, a decision had to be made
with whether or not the firm retained a “cost center” concept or should it
regard IT as a service provision center that generated measurable value for the
organization?
History:
Arthur Anderson was founded in 1913 to meet the requirements
of tax regulations. In 1954, as the company expanded around the globe, the
company differentiated itself by offering consulting. In 1989, the company
split into two entities – one focusing on consulting and the other providing
traditional audit services. In 1997, an arbitration began about separating the
consulting division from the financial audit division. In 2000, the agreement
was reached that the consulting division would pay 1 Billion dollars to the
audit firm and give up its name in exchange for independence. In 2001, the
company rebranded as Accenture via a 175 Million dollar campaign. Accenture
IPO’d in 2001 and raised 1.7 Billion dollars.
Selecting a Platform:
Best of Breed aka One-Platform approach.
Managing:
The company’s 600 global and 1500 local applications would
be too complicated to manage on multiple platforms. A single vendor approach
would hopefully reduce costs. Microsoft was chosen as a partner. SAP was also
chosen as the worldwide application for finance and HR. Hardware was also reduced
to a few partners such as HP for computers and servers and Cisco for network
related issues.
IT Like a Business:
Accenture was born during tough times. The DOT-COM bubble
had burst and the ramifications of 9/11 would be pervasive. Accenture would
continually have to seek operational IT cost reduction. Outsourcing was one of
the fundamental approaches to cut costs.
Culture Shift:
Reflection:
Memorandum: Accenture/COBIT Consulting Reflection
When I originally found out that we were going to bring consultants to discuss
COBIT as an option I was skeptical of what the worth of the presentation might
be. The skepticism had nothing to do with the consultants, concept, or consult charge but
with the consultation expectations. After all, we are a consulting firm, the
level of excellence we should expect should be high if we are seeking outside
consultants. Despite my skepticism, the team from ConsulCube presented well.
They displayed a grasp of Accenture’s charge to them and stayed on topic. The
following illustration about Accenture was done well:
The actual presentation was done well, but I have to
disagree with some of the points illustrated. I agree with the consultants that
COBIT is not the right path for our company, however, I disagree that our current path is cutting edge and doesn't need upgrading.
To explain my reasoning let's back track a little to about COBIT.
COBIT 5 is the latest edition of ISACA’s globally accepted framework, providing an end-to-end business view of the governance of enterprise IT that reflects the central role of information and technology in creating value for enterprises. The principles, practices, analytical tools and models found in COBIT 5 embody thought leadership and guidance from business, IT and governance experts around the world.
Sourced From:
http://www.isaca.org/COBIT/Pages/default.aspx?cid=1003566&Appeal=PR
I agree with the consultants that COBIT 5 is cumbersome and complex. Their illustration of one process alone captures that essence.
However, to be fair and to avoid being influenced on a singular decision, I felt that some additional investigated was warranted. Furthermore, with some additional there has been some unfavorable trends based on economic research. According to Shengnan Zhang and Hans Le Fever in the
Journal of Economics, Business and Management, Vol. 1, No. 4, November 2013 COBIT is on a decline.
The following is an excerpt from the article highlighting the point:
Some researchers [3] have
pointed out that the biggest disadvantage with COBIT is that
it requires a great deal of knowledge to understand its
framework before it could be applied as a tool to support IT
governance. It is reported [4] that the usage of COBIT
decreased from 14% in 2008 to 12.9% in 2010. This trend
proves the conclusion that COBIT is not as easily
implemented as originally estimated [5]. ITIL and ISO
17799/ISO 27000 are the two most frequently used
frameworks. Many executives agree that even though they
believe COBIT is a good framework, they prefer to focus on
ITIL and ISO27000.
http://www.joebm.com/papers/84-M021.pdf
To circle back to my disagreement, I want to point out that as a large mulit-national organization of consultants were are faced with the pressure of divergent agendas. We can maintain a distribution point, but without a centralized mandate it can get increasingly difficult to enforce our numerous consulting teams across the globe to carry out our desires. Various applications and platforms are used in this industry. Consultants, by nature, tend to be more inclined to use their own out of the box preferences rather than managements. In part, this is what makes them successful but it is also difficulty we face as managing a company of consultants.
Our current mandate should be to find a centralized platform that can mitigate the potential divergences as well as bring a unity to the company that can enhance our consulting capabilities.
Regards,
AJ Varghese
No comments:
Post a Comment