advising on IT-business alignment
IT-business alignment about us blog our services articles & reports resources your profile exposure
blog
blog
Wednesday, February 22, 2006

More on the 'P' word - back to basics

Following up on Neil's post about policy, I thought it was making a single point about whether or not the concept of "policy" could be in or out of vogue. Its a simple enough point, but one that took me years to work out - that a policy defines a set of rules. However the term "policy" is defined for whatever situation, but this principle should underly any definition.

So, for example, the statements "It's not business policy to allow that" or "we have a data retention policy of 30 days" both map back to simple rules that determine whether the policy is to be applied or not - then what to do about it.

I don't want to underestimate the complexity of business situations, but I do want to acknowledge that the building blocks, the central concepts are quite straightforward. I believe there are four fundamental concepts in any business or IT situation, all of which are related:

- policy - sets of rules to be applied by the business
- entity - what the business sees as the "things" it deals with
- service - things that can be requested of the business
- process - concatenations of activities to support service delivery

(there might be 5 - if you want to add state - but this is also about the relationship between entity and process so it can be derived from the above)

We can dress these up in whichever terminology is in vogue, but to say they should or shouldn’t exist is tantamount to saying that atomic particles shouldn’t exist - they'll still be there, whether we want them to be or not!

Given that enterprise IT exists purely to automate business models (another simple, yet fundamental principle), it follows that there are IT equivalents of the above, and that they are mappable one to the other. Any shortfalls between the mappings are more an indication of our failure to deliver IT in a way business needs it, than anything.


Burn this feed
Burn this feed!

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Blog home

Previous posts

Insight on information security - well worth a read
Beware the 'P' word
Nick Carr isn't always right - but ignore him at y...
Microsoft vs EC - adequate response, but who remem...
It must be that time again... more software announ...
HP and Outerbay - packing the storage portfolio
Mashups: VBAD, not SOA
The Vista business proposition - or lack of it
SOA: it's about people more than about technology
Microsoft ups the ante with the Commission

Blog archive

March 2005
April 2005
May 2005
June 2005
July 2005
August 2005
September 2005
October 2005
November 2005
December 2005
January 2006
February 2006
March 2006
April 2006
May 2006
June 2006
July 2006
August 2006
September 2006
October 2006
November 2006
December 2006
January 2007
February 2007
March 2007
April 2007
May 2007
June 2007
July 2007
August 2007
September 2007
October 2007
November 2007
December 2007
January 2008
February 2008
March 2008
April 2008
May 2008
June 2008
July 2008
August 2008
September 2008
October 2008
November 2008
December 2008
January 2009
February 2009
March 2009
April 2009
May 2009
June 2009
July 2009

Blogroll

Andrew McAfee
Andy Updegrove
Bob Sutor
Dare Obasanjo
Dave Orchard
Digital Identity
Don Box
Fred Chong's WebBlog
Inside Architecture
Irving Wladawsky-Berger
James Governor
Jon Udell
Kim Cameron
Nicholas Carr
Planet Identity
Radovan Janecek
Sandy Kemsley
Service Architecture - SOA
Todd Biske: Outside the Box

Powered by Blogger

Weblog Commenting and Trackback by HaloScan.com

Enter your email address to subscribe to updates:

Delivered by FeedBurner