“Efficiency is doing things right; effectiveness is doing the right things.”
— Peter Drucker
I’ve spent most of my career working with technology. Software development, systems architecture, business applications, infrastructure, reporting, and process automation have all been central to the work that I do. People are often surprised, then, whenever they hear me say “I’m sick of IT.” I’m not, really, but I am tired of the implementations of IT that are so focused on the technology that they’re not meeting real business needs.
When I’ve been expected to look for a new system, a software recommendation, or a digital initiative, my first question is never, “What technology are you currently using?” Instead, I want to understand where the business is trying to go. What is your strategy? What are you trying to accomplish? What problem are you trying to solve? What outcome are you hoping to achieve? The answers to those questions shape every technology decision that follows.
Technology has become remarkably accessible, especially recently. Amplified with the general availability of AI, allowing anyone to generate content and solutions previously demanding tens or hundreds of hours of someone else’s expertise, technology is now a rapid enabler and barriers to entry in solutions are decreasing. The challenge, of course, is that with rapid AI-driven implementations and solutions, you also have a high potential for rapid failure. You can think of an idea, brainstorm it with AI, produce a solution, and have a new technology system or platform in place in a day. But just as easily, you can hit a barrier where that solution collapses or fails just as quickly. Even without AI support or direction, businesses of every size have access to sophisticated software, cloud platforms, and automation tools that would have been out of reach only a few years ago. Having more options available, however, also means there are more opportunities to make expensive decisions that don’t move the business forward.
Technology is an amplifier. It accelerates the direction an organization is already moving.
If technology is defining the direction an organization is going, unless you’re a technology company, you’re likely headed down an expensive path. If the business has a clear strategy, technology can improve efficiency, strengthen communication, and help people make better decisions. When the strategy is unclear, technology often magnifies the uncertainty. New systems are introduced to solve individual problems, departments purchase tools independently, information becomes scattered across multiple platforms, and people gradually spend more time managing technology than benefiting from it.
This idea is hardly new. The Strategic Alignment Model developed by John C. Henderson and N. Venkatraman has influenced business and technology thinking for decades by demonstrating that technology delivers its greatest value when it is aligned with business strategy rather than developed independently of it. Their work continues to serve as one of the foundational models for business and IT alignment. (Sage Journals)
One of the most common questions I hear from leadership teams—aside from “how quickly can we do this”—is, “can we build software to do this?” Or some variation of that. It might be a suggestion to buy software, customize existing software, or expand current software, but the underlying message is still the same: leadership often thinks that software is the solution, and all we need is the next piece.
I think there’s a better question: “What capability does our business need?”
This change in thinking promotes a very different conversation. The first approach begins with a product. The second begins with an objective.
Suppose a company wants to improve customer service. One group may immediately begin evaluating help desk software. Another may recommend artificial intelligence. Someone else may suggest replacing the CRM. Each proposal could have merit, but none of them answers the more fundamental question of what the organization is actually trying to improve.
Is the goal to reduce response times?
Improve customer satisfaction?
Handle a higher volume of requests?
Reduce operating costs?
Those are different objectives, and each may lead to a different technology decision. In fact, and this one surprises people when I mention it, often the solution isn’t a technology solution at all. Even as a technology enthusiast, I would rather find a solution that doesn’t require technology, because it has a higher chance of team members getting into alignment and agreeing with it. But once an objective is clearly defined, evaluating technology as an option becomes much more straightforward as every option can be measured against the same outcome.
I’ve seen organizations invest heavily in software that performed exactly as it was designed to perform. In principle, the implementation is successful and stable. In practice, the business still struggled because the software solved a problem that wasn’t central to the organization’s direction. In some cases, solutions are pigeon-holed to work in a way that the software wasn’t meant to, and then fail when they don’t meet a natural growth path later on. In these cases, technology isn’t creating the problem, and it’s faithfully executing the decision it was given, but it still winds up being wrong.
That distinction is important because technology is rarely the strategy. It is one of the tools used to execute it. Before selecting a platform, defining an architecture, or beginning a major implementation, spend time making sure the business has answered the much simpler question:
Where are we trying to go?
Once that destination is understood, technology decisions become easier to evaluate. Some opportunities become obvious. Others naturally fall away because they don’t contribute to the outcome the organization has chosen.
Technology continues to evolve at an incredible pace, and every month brings new tools that promise to transform the way businesses operate. Some of those tools will prove valuable. Others will quietly disappear.
A clear strategy makes it easier to tell the difference.