John;

A good example of what you have stated can be taken from the "recent" dot bomb explosion. In the case of .COM we had the additional ingredient of “GREED”. The people in change had no concept of business practices and used IT as a means to get rich quick. When the money ran out reality set in.

Good business practices demand ROI and are devoted to the profitability of the business. IT should serve business and not control it. IT is itself a business and is an empire much like HR. Both should be watched and understood for a business to be successful.

Perhaps if IT was not in charge of .COM, we would not have 8% housing vacancy, over 16 million square feet of vacant office/rd space, and 160,000 lost jobs in Silicon Valley and the San Francisco Bay Area, with the numbers climbing daily.

Tom




>Business requirements should be what drives I/T. Unless an I/T solution is directly addressing a specific business challenge, it should not be undertaken. Also, ideal I/T solution specifications are generated independent of a specific technology.
>
>The sooner technology folks come to understand this reality, the incidence failed/death march projects will diminish.
>
>
>>>I would say there are more business implications than technical implications. And FWIW, the business implications are what normally do and should drive the decision...
>>>
>>
>>normally do -- yes
>>
>>and should -- only from a bean counter's or manager's point of view ;)