<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The IT department we have today is not the IT department we&#8217;ll need tomorrow</title>
	<atom:link href="http://peter.evans-greenwood.com/2010/04/21/the-it-department-we-have-today-is-not-the-it-department-well-need-tomorrow/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://peter.evans-greenwood.com/2010/04/21/the-it-department-we-have-today-is-not-the-it-department-well-need-tomorrow/</link>
	<description>Trying to understand the intersection between business and technology</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 01 Dec 2011 14:45:43 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: This is Not Your Daddy&#8217;s IT Department &#171; IT Blagger 3.0</title>
		<link>http://peter.evans-greenwood.com/2010/04/21/the-it-department-we-have-today-is-not-the-it-department-well-need-tomorrow/comment-page-1/#comment-1195</link>
		<dc:creator>This is Not Your Daddy&#8217;s IT Department &#171; IT Blagger 3.0</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Nov 2010 16:48:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://peter.evans-greenwood.com/?p=1392#comment-1195</guid>
		<description>[...] I came across an excellent Peter Evans-Greenwood piece from a few months ago on a related theme – namely the future of the IT department.  I found it so interesting I decided to forgo my other post for now and jot down some [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] I came across an excellent Peter Evans-Greenwood piece from a few months ago on a related theme – namely the future of the IT department.  I found it so interesting I decided to forgo my other post for now and jot down some [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://peter.evans-greenwood.com/2010/04/21/the-it-department-we-have-today-is-not-the-it-department-well-need-tomorrow/comment-page-1/#comment-1190</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Oct 2010 18:12:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://peter.evans-greenwood.com/?p=1392#comment-1190</guid>
		<description>The process based (decide plan manage and do) strategic outcome as described above are very appealing at the first sight but misses the complexity raised by consumer &amp; technology trend. We need to base our vision on catalyst which drives the change.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The process based (decide plan manage and do) strategic outcome as described above are very appealing at the first sight but misses the complexity raised by consumer &amp; technology trend. We need to base our vision on catalyst which drives the change.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Balasubramanian</title>
		<link>http://peter.evans-greenwood.com/2010/04/21/the-it-department-we-have-today-is-not-the-it-department-well-need-tomorrow/comment-page-1/#comment-1124</link>
		<dc:creator>Balasubramanian</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Jun 2010 21:19:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://peter.evans-greenwood.com/?p=1392#comment-1124</guid>
		<description>Very insightful post...Had a similar observation in my blog recenty.&lt;br&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://architectsoul.blogspot.com/2010/06/it-is-becoming-et-enterprise-technology.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://architectsoul.blogspot.com/2010/06/it-is...&lt;/a&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Very insightful post&#8230;Had a similar observation in my blog recenty.<br /><a href="http://architectsoul.blogspot.com/2010/06/it-is-becoming-et-enterprise-technology.html" rel="nofollow">http://architectsoul.blogspot.com/2010/06/it-is&#8230;</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: PEG: What a great blog &#171; Tony Pauley &#8211; Innovation and Technology Leader</title>
		<link>http://peter.evans-greenwood.com/2010/04/21/the-it-department-we-have-today-is-not-the-it-department-well-need-tomorrow/comment-page-1/#comment-1031</link>
		<dc:creator>PEG: What a great blog &#171; Tony Pauley &#8211; Innovation and Technology Leader</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 May 2010 19:01:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://peter.evans-greenwood.com/?p=1392#comment-1031</guid>
		<description>[...] of IT a lot of thought lately. Especially the split between onshore and offshore. PEG has a great article that covered this perfectly. I think I was on the right [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] of IT a lot of thought lately. Especially the split between onshore and offshore. PEG has a great article that covered this perfectly. I think I was on the right [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Peter Evans-Greenwood</title>
		<link>http://peter.evans-greenwood.com/2010/04/21/the-it-department-we-have-today-is-not-the-it-department-well-need-tomorrow/comment-page-1/#comment-1024</link>
		<dc:creator>Peter Evans-Greenwood</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 04 May 2010 05:14:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://peter.evans-greenwood.com/?p=1392#comment-1024</guid>
		<description>I&#039;ve been wondering about that too, and seem to be coming to the conclusion that how the IT function is spread around the business is orthogonal to the type of roles required (i.e. the triangle). Some business have already taken a federated approach, where the lines-of-business are more-or-less full responsibility for IT, with a centralised procurement function providing purchasing scale.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;The most interesting thing to note is that the thinning our of the middle ranks is making this sort of transformation much easier.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#39;ve been wondering about that too, and seem to be coming to the conclusion that how the IT function is spread around the business is orthogonal to the type of roles required (i.e. the triangle). Some business have already taken a federated approach, where the lines-of-business are more-or-less full responsibility for IT, with a centralised procurement function providing purchasing scale.</p>
<p>The most interesting thing to note is that the thinning our of the middle ranks is making this sort of transformation much easier.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: npeeters</title>
		<link>http://peter.evans-greenwood.com/2010/04/21/the-it-department-we-have-today-is-not-the-it-department-well-need-tomorrow/comment-page-1/#comment-1023</link>
		<dc:creator>npeeters</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 04 May 2010 04:49:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://peter.evans-greenwood.com/?p=1392#comment-1023</guid>
		<description>Very insightful Peter.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Very insightful Peter.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Greg Quinn</title>
		<link>http://peter.evans-greenwood.com/2010/04/21/the-it-department-we-have-today-is-not-the-it-department-well-need-tomorrow/comment-page-1/#comment-1022</link>
		<dc:creator>Greg Quinn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 May 2010 16:16:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://peter.evans-greenwood.com/?p=1392#comment-1022</guid>
		<description>Peter,&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;I agree with a lot of what you&#039;ve said particularly the idea of automation which I&#039;ve touched on  &lt;a href=&quot;http://qubesystems.com/?p=69&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://qubesystems.com/?p=69&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;However, behind all this is a much more fundamental question. Is corporate I.T. a legacy department, destined ultimately to disappear?&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;It&#039;s not too difficult to imagine a future where all of corporate I.T&#039;.s functions have been dispatched elsewhere. The technical stuff could be outsourced and the business strategy stuff could, and arguable, should be handed over to the operational arms of the business. This really only leaves  vendor management which could be probably be relocated in a corporate purchasing function.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Peter,</p>
<p>I agree with a lot of what you&#39;ve said particularly the idea of automation which I&#39;ve touched on  <a href="http://qubesystems.com/?p=69" rel="nofollow">http://qubesystems.com/?p=69</a></p>
<p>However, behind all this is a much more fundamental question. Is corporate I.T. a legacy department, destined ultimately to disappear?</p>
<p>It&#39;s not too difficult to imagine a future where all of corporate I.T&#39;.s functions have been dispatched elsewhere. The technical stuff could be outsourced and the business strategy stuff could, and arguable, should be handed over to the operational arms of the business. This really only leaves  vendor management which could be probably be relocated in a corporate purchasing function.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: raghu p</title>
		<link>http://peter.evans-greenwood.com/2010/04/21/the-it-department-we-have-today-is-not-the-it-department-well-need-tomorrow/comment-page-1/#comment-1021</link>
		<dc:creator>raghu p</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 02 May 2010 16:49:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://peter.evans-greenwood.com/?p=1392#comment-1021</guid>
		<description>Intuitive, insightful, logical analogy..do beleive in this note by PEG</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Intuitive, insightful, logical analogy..do beleive in this note by PEG</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

