What if the most disruptive change to enterprise software is not another application, but needing fewer humans to operate the applications we already own? For decades, we digitized work, integrated systems and moved applications to the cloud.
What if the most disruptive change to enterprise software is not another application, but needing fewer humans to operate the applications we already own? For decades, we digitized work, integrated systems and moved applications to the cloud.
This changes more than productivity. It changes architecture, economics, security, governance, and ultimately the enterprise operating model.
For most of my career, enterprise application strategy began with these four familiar questions:
Those questions remain important. But they are no longer enough.
Enterprise applications have historically been places where people perform work. Employees navigate screens, enter information, reconcile exceptions, move between systems and trigger workflows.
The relationship has been remarkably consistent: The application provides capability. The human orchestrates the work.
In context
- Topic: Estrategia y Gobierno de TI — Decisiones de portafolio, costo total, gobierno y marcos de referencia.
- Source: CIO
- Published: 06/10/2026
Continue reading at the original source →
Excerpt published automatically by the site radar. The full text belongs to its publisher and is linked above.
Why it matters
IT governance rarely fails for lack of technology. It fails for lack of clarity about who decides what. A story like this one is usually the visible symptom of an operating model that no longer fits the size of the organisation, and those models get changed before the pressure arrives, not after.
My filter is always the same: does this change a decision, or only a tool? If at the end of the quarter the same people are approving the same things by the same criteria, there was no transformation, there was a purchase. The difference shows up in the committee minutes, not in the press release.
What usually goes wrong
What usually goes wrong is the part never discussed with the areas that will carry the work. It gets decided at the top, communicated downward, and the resistance shows up not as opposition but as slowness. Nobody says no; everything simply takes twice as long and nobody can explain why.
What to watch
- How the relationship with current vendors is left, which is usually where the dependency nobody measured is sitting.
- Who ends up owning the decision, and with what budget of their own rather than borrowed.
- Whether business metrics appear or only delivery metrics — cost per transaction beats percentage complete.
How I read this entry
If this landed on my desk, the first thing I would ask for is not a plan. It is an honest inventory of what is already running and what it costs to keep it alive. It almost always turns out that the budget for the new thing comes from switching off something old that nobody wants to name, and that conversation decides whether the project lives.
This entry is an excerpt from the original source, selected by the site radar. The commentary above is the site's own and does not belong to the cited publisher.
Comments
No comments yet. Yours can be the first.
Living through this in your own team?
Open the chat and tell me how you're handling it. I'm interested in comparing notes.
