Almost invariably, they indicated that the quality of the IT infrastructures in their organizations lagged behind their need and desire for change and was, to some degree, an impediment to it.
(See “Managers’ Dim View of Companies’ Capacity To Lead Industry Change.”) Although in every case, the companies’ chief information officers or chief technology officers sincerely intended to support the business managers in creating value in quickly evolving markets, they were constrained by legacy infrastructure —incompatible databases and applications, poor quality of data, restricted scalability and business processes trapped in vendors’ software modules.
Managers are continually being confronted with new and ever-changing competitive pressures from deregulation, globalization, ubiquitous connectivity and the convergence of industries and technologies.
But managers’ ability to respond rapidly to those challenges is predicated upon having a sophisticated and facile organizational and technical infrastructure, and a degree of information-technology flexibility that traditional approaches cannot provide.
Moreover, because IT departments are often assessed on their ability to control costs and not on their ability to respond flexibly to strategy, the expectations and goals of the business managers were, in many cases, at odds with those of the CIOs and CTOs.
The required flexibility — IT or strategic — will not be created without a shared understanding and a shared agenda between the business managers and IT managers.
Improved navigational aids and ships that could withstand the pack ice made the poles accessible to men and dogs.
In 1909 Peary sledded to the North Pole, and in 1911 Amundsen reached the South.As long as there have been people, there has been technology.Indeed, the techniques of shaping tools are taken as the chief evidence of the beginning of human culture.As a result, the constitutional powers relating to technology, such as s 51(v), for ‘postal, telegraphic, telephonic and other like services’, and s 51(xviii), for ‘copyrights, patents of inventions and designs and trademarks’, were not drafted with these developments in mind.As technological advance challenges the original boundaries of these powers, the inherent tension between the view that the meaning of a constitutional provision is fixed and the view that the Constitution is an enduring document, intended to adapt to new developments, is highlighted.Once the Court starts taking a narrow view of [patents], it is really taking a narrow view of inventiveness generally and of what might be regarded as inventiveness as technology changes. This article examines the interaction between technological change and the Australian Constitution (‘Constitution’).The Constitution was drafted in the 1890s, an era in which the framers were unable to foresee the advent of technology, such as television broadcasting, the Internet, biotechnology and computer chips.An alternative purpose-based methodology is proposed. Within this framework the Court is guided by the purpose of a constitutional provision to determine the essential meaning of a constitutional term.This replaces an approach which searches for the essential characteristics of a term as at 1900.] [I]f there is one phrase in the whole of the Constitution about which this Court should perhaps be inventive it is the phrase ‘patents of invention’.Customarily, technology's relation to environment is considered by evaluating lists of devices and machines: cars, oil tankers, nuclear power stations, windmills, wastewater-treatment plants, spray cans and chain saws. I ask whether technology enables us to obtain services more efficiently and, if so, at what rates.The answers indicate the feasibility of greatly diminishing our environmental burdens by increasing the productivity of our resources.My fundamental question is whether the technology that has conquered the earth can also spare it.To answer this question, I shall examine secular trends in what technology does with four paramount resources: energy, materials, land and water.Increasingly, even at global companies known for their competitive and technical savvy, the gap between emerging strategic direction and IT’s ability to support it is significant and debilitating.