Information Security Media Group - Essay Example

ISMG
Response 1-What the Consultant's Report Tell Us about Davies' Firing And Barton's Hiring
Expert consultants wrote a confidential report to Kyle Crawford. The confidential report detailed an assessment of Davies's job as a CIO before his firing (Austin et al 81).
However, Barton would transit to the next level with speed and hence his hiring. The consultants asserted that Davies earned respect from his IT staff but he equally had poor interrelationships in his job as a CIO where he always relied on IT to solve any problem (Austin et al 82). Again, the consultants recommended that sufficient training and counseling would solve this problem. As such, the report tells us that IT investments generate great value for the company and such investment resides in the IT experts that the company hires (Austin et al 81). However, the report favors the significance of the ability to manage portfolio projects, play senior team leadership roles, and manage infrastructure. Indeed, it disregards individualism and advocates for teamwork in management, which leads to Davies' firing and Barton's hiring (Austin et al 81-82).

Response 2-Why It Is Often So Difficult To Assign a Quantitative Value to the Return on an IT Investment
Ideally, IT investments do not generate revenues from external source s ad hence they cannot indicate growth in profits or revenues which measure the quantitative value to returns (Austin et al 71). Indeed, returns on an IT investment only generate value to the internal customers and business units where we cannot establish the quantity of such value (Austin et al 71). More so, the benefits claimed from the success of a proposed project are the same benefits that IT would claim, and hence assigning quantitative value to the return on an IT investment would amount to double claims of value (Austin et al 72). At the same time, where a business unit proposes an IT-enabled change, it would be difficult to allocate some or all the resultant benefits between the business units and IT (Austin et al 72).

Response 3- Examples to Refute the "It Doesn't Matter" Contention
Assuredly, IT plays a very significant part in any company. In fact, the adoption and success of IT in an organization derives a great competitive advantage. For example, Apple invests in IT to produce classy, cool, entertaining, and multipurpose gadgets like iPods and iPad, which gives it a competitive edge over its main competitors. More so, Nestle collaborated with Google to reinforce its digital technology and online presence, which enable Nestle to take its products to a wider market and satisfy the customers’ preferences. As such, it is clear that IT investments can enable an organization to derive capabilities that are not available to relevant competitors.

Response 4-Where My firm Fall on the "Strategic Grid" Presented on pp. 77-78
McFarlan’s Strategic Grid has the vertical and the horizontal axis. The vertical axis depicts the operational dependence of the organization on IT while the horizontal axis represents the competitive differentiation that a company derives from IT (Austin et al 77-78). My reference company is Accenture, which is a management consulting, technology services, and outsourcing company. Ideally, Accenture is in the upper right quadrant as derives a lot of competitive advantage from IT and its operations are highly dependent on IT. Indeed, the company depends on IT to offer a wide range of technological services aimed at helping organizations to enhance their productivity. As a result, the company stands out as one of the world’s leading management consulting, technology services, and outsourcing companies.

Response 5-Whether We Can Generalize On the Percentages of "Competes" Versus "Qualifiers" Applications
Most assuredly, we should not generalize systems into categories of just competes and qualifiers. Indeed, we should analyze systems in reference to the four quadrants in McFarlan’s Strategic Grid. At the same time, we can evaluate systems in terms of cost and value thus negating the general assumption of systems as just competes and qualifiers (Austin et al 78).