IT managers face logistical problems in balancing global standards with local needs in increasingly globalized organizations. While many people in business and government repeat the mantra "think globally, act locally," applying this ideal entails a host of challenges ranging from coordinating communication across disparate time zones to determining technical standards implemented on top of wildly differing infrastructures.

The success rates of adopting agile methods on a large scale have been disappointing. We have made good progress at the project level, but from portfolio to enterprise, success has been elusive. Even when we have somehow skirted resistance, delays, politics, and bureaucracy, results have not met expectations.

In the past couple of years, organizations have sought sourcing value beyond cost savings. Access to talent and business process innovation are two examples of these more strategic aspirations. Yet, as the economy goes, so go sourcing priorities. Cost-saving sourcing projects are likely the highest priority again this year. While saving money proved elusive for some organizations in the past, those disappointing efforts arm managers today with a deeper understanding of the levers influencing sourcing costs, increasing the likelihood of success.

A couple of months ago, we complimented the folks at Cutter about the recent Cutter IT Journal (CITJ) on Project Management 2.0. 1 We were impressed with the breadth and quality of the articles and their general themes. However, we also noted that the term "business value" was mentioned only once in CITJ -- and was not discussed in any of the articles.

In Part I of this two-part Executive Update series, we explored the value of architecture and the function of the architect.1 Here, we discuss the various stages and domains of architecture and why enterprise architecture (EA) is good business.

The Internet is undergoing a rapid transformation from a web of hyperlinked documents to a web of semantically linked data. Recent observations lead me to believe we're seeing the emergence of what may qualify as Web 3.0 (or Semantic Web) applications.1 These applications are consumers and providers of semantically linked data. For the purposes of this Executive Update, I will refer to this new generation of Internet applications as semantically aware applications (SAAs).2

If frequent mention of business-IT alignment were a capital offense, I would have been executed long ago instead of writing this Executive Update, which intends to amend my various comments in earlier Cutter publications about business-IT alignment. It's no crime to champion the cause of an important business issue, but I must plead guilty to a misdemeanor in overlooking an important subtlety, a fine distinction in the topic whose importance is heightened in our current economic mess.

If frequent mention of business-IT alignment were a capital offense, I would have been executed long ago instead of writing this Executive Update, which intends to amend my various comments in earlier Cutter publications about business-IT alignment. It's no crime to champion the cause of an important business issue, but I must plead guilty to a misdemeanor in overlooking an important subtlety, a fine distinction in the topic whose importance is heightened in our current economic mess.

The Internet is undergoing a rapid transformation from a web of hyperlinked documents to a web of semantically linked data. Recent observations lead me to believe we're seeing the emergence of what may qualify as Web 3.0 (or Semantic Web) applications.1 These applications are consumers and providers of semantically linked data.

(Editor's note: This Executive Update was revised in 2019.)

In Part I of this Executive Update series, I examined the notion of project volatility and set forth the assumptions that underlie my own project planning approach.1 Here in Part II, I delve more deeply into the definition of project volatility and the use of a project-volatility metric.

So maybe it's just the people I hang around with, or maybe it's just me, but my radar about what's being said between the lines is getting keener and keener. Communications professionals have long sensitized us to the elements of effective communication, which always includes insight and attention to the sender, the message, the channel, and the receiver.

This is the third in a series of Executive Updates examining the results of a recent Cutter Consortium survey on the subject of open source Java frameworks (OSJFs). Part I1 revealed that Java EE's platform neutrality is considered its greatest strength, followed by tool support, scalability, maturity, and robustness.

For leaders of corporations, risk management has become a top concern in the face of increasing demand for greater corporate accountability as well as world events that have changed the risk landscape and its impact on the business world.

Performing some IT and communications tasks through internal or external means is not a technological decision; in fact, it is one that focuses on business, and it needs to be framed within the company's general organizational strategy. The reasons that a CIO confronts this dilemma can vary, but they usually involve company pressure to reduce costs, concern for fighting hardware obsolescence, and an intention to reduce the organizational structure. However, there is much more.

In the first three parts of this Executive Update series 1 about Cutter's annual survey on innovation practices, we described the enterprise innovation chain (value innovation, management innovation, business model innovation, and invention), identified key findings of the research, and presented additional detailed characteristics of organizations that assess themselves as successful innovators.

In the first three parts of this Executive Update series 1 about Cutter's annual survey on innovation practices, we described the enterprise innovation chain (value innovation, management innovation, business model innovation, and invention), identified key findings of the research, and presented additional detailed characteristics of organizations that assess themselves as successful innovators.

Performing some IT and communications tasks through internal or external means is not a technological decision; in fact, it is one that focuses on business, and it needs to be framed within the company's general organizational strategy. The reasons that a CIO confronts this dilemma can vary, but they usually involve company pressure to reduce costs, concern for fighting hardware obsolescence, and an intention to reduce the organizational structure. However, there is much more.

Value-based governance enables leaders to define the value of the business and inject those values into the governance structure that defines how players in the organization conduct themselves. Institutionalizing business governance at each level of the organization is daunting when considering the complexities of increasingly global and virtual work environments. Standardizing business governance in business operations requires more than documenting and training employees on corporate code-of-conduct requirements.

Consider a house. It has form and function, much like a business. There is an overall structure, and its function is supported by the assembly of various components and the way the interior is implemented within that framework. In most houses, this structure enables it to fulfill its purpose and make sense for its users.

In October 2008, Cutter Consortium conducted a survey that asked 85 end-user organizations about their BI and data warehousing plans. The goal was to determine the degree to which companies are adopting various types of BI, data warehousing, and other analytic technologies and practices.

For Cutter Benchmark Review (CBR), Cutter Consortium has conducted three annual worldwide surveys about IT budget practices, and, in 2008, conducted a worldwide survey about dynamic IT and the impact of IT governance on the ability of companies to be dynamic.1 The participants were global in scope (about half from North America with the remaining from other parts of the world).

Like the stock market, IT projects can be volatile: requirements can change; scope can creep; unknown dependencies can appear; teams can get mired down in myriad ways; technology can fail; executive sponsorship can evaporate; schedules can jitter; and dates can slip.

Organizations today are in the throes of profound change fostered by technical evolution and economic crisis. One of the most significant is the continued growth in collaboration within the company and with the supply chain -- and even with customers. The importance of collaboration has grown steadily since the 1970s, with significant additional impetus applied by digitization.

About three years ago, the term "Web 2.0" entered into public consciousness, first propagating through the blogosphere, then appearing in the mainstream business and technology media, and more recently on the agenda of a global research community. When it appeared, some greeted the term as a welcome lifeline in the postdot-bomb era; others dismissed it as marketing hype. But one thing was clear: no one knew quite what it meant.

Corporate governance is the means by which accountability to stakeholders is ensured, yet organizations often fail at creating governance plans that align with the organizational context. They also fail at institutionalizing governance that spans levels and processes in the business, particularly in global, multicultural organizations. In this Executive Update, we introduce value-based adaptive models for business governance structure design, operational planning, and implementation for complex global organizations.