|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ABSTRACT
Discussing whether IT architecture should be centralized or decentralized is as old as the technology itself. We propose that, notwithstanding the various perspectives that have been brought to the debate, what is missing thus far is the seesaw between centralization and decentralization. The reasons for this important phenomenon relate not only to IT-centric issues but also to current events pervading other areas of the organization. One key issue is how management has changed its IT focus from a "must have/keeping up with the Joneses" investment to a value-based "where's the beef?" approach pragmatically emphasizing the relevance of data and its uses. A second consideration is the business requirements for a reliable, available, fault-tolerant, backed-up, secure IT environment, even in the face of catastrophic events, including the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Executives cannot afford to not know why the renewed focus on IT architecture centralization has happened and how it might affect their organizations. REFERENCES
Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.
INDEX TERMS
Primary Classification:
Additional Classification:
REVIEW
"Charles William Bash : Reviewer"
Since the beginning of information technology, people have argued over whether all of the equipment should be physically close to the other pieces or physically distributed. For much of the time, the dominant issues were: "How to get the cards to
more...
Collaborative Colleagues:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||