http://www.itskeptic.org/node/609 Comments for "A better name for IT is "Business Improvement and Information"" en http://www.itskeptic.org/node/609#comment-2957 <p>Hi Rob,</p> <p>Your post formed the basis of my blog "IT (still) exists for one reason",</p> <p>http://www.keystonesandrivets.com/kar/2008/06/it-still-exists.html#more</p> <p>My take is that its not so much how the assets are tied together, instead we need to consider why they exist.</p> <p>If the name has to be changed, I suggest something along the lines of "Business Improvement and Data Flow Control".</p> <p>regards</p> Wed, 11 Jun 2008 00:51:52 +0000 Paul Wallis comment 2957 at http://www.itskeptic.org http://www.itskeptic.org/node/609#comment-2934 <p>Two comments;</p> <p>1) To suggest that what IT does is solely responsible for Business Improvement and therefore worthy of being labeled that, is a bit arrogant (it my small mind). We play a part, an important one at that, but Business Improvement is a partnership between IT and a number of other sources, including the business owner and functions of HR, Finance etc. etc..</p> <p>2) Business improvement can be a nice mixture of 1 part cap-ex and 2 parts op-ex. Some organizations maintain significant operational expenditure for business improvement projects on a continual basis. Also, given most projects require people to execute and people are far more expensive than physical infrastructure, this is a bit misleading. Its pretty common practice to put physical infrastructure into a leasing vehicle to convert it to an operating expense, so pretty much the opex and capex differentiation can be pretty blurred..</p> <p>Maybe the differentiation your looking for is discretionary vs. fixed recurring ?</p> <p>$0.02</p> <p>Brad Vaughan<br /> http://blogs.sun.com/buraddo</p> Mon, 09 Jun 2008 06:42:39 +0000 buraddo comment 2934 at http://www.itskeptic.org http://www.itskeptic.org/node/609#comment-2933 <p>I suggest a new name of <em>Process development and management</em>. </p> <p>I think using the word "business" -- for a business function is redundant. I mean nobody says they work in Business Human Relations or Business Accounting or Business Facilities etc... </p> <p>I also don't think it is wise to include the term <em>information</em> in the name. I feel that the word <em>information</em> is too close to <em>information systems</em> which I feel has significant negative energy to overcome.</p> <p>Comments welcome...</p> Mon, 09 Jun 2008 01:28:52 +0000 John Sundberg comment 2933 at http://www.itskeptic.org