Information partnerships--shared data, shared scale

How can one company gain access to another's resources or customers without merging ownership, management, or plotting a takeover? The answer is found in new information partnerships, enabling diverse companies to develop strategic coalitions through the sharing of data. The key to cooperation is a quantum improvement in the hardware and software supporting relational databases: new computer speeds, cheaper mass-storage devices, the proliferation of fiber-optic networks, and networking architectures. Information partnerships mean that companies can distribute the technological and financial exposure that comes with huge investments. For the customer's part, partnerships inevitably lead to greater simplification on the desktop and more common standards around which vendors have to compete. The most common types of partnership are: joint marketing partnerships, such as American Airline's award of frequent flyer miles to customers who use Citibank's credit card; intraindustry partnerships, such as the insurance value-added network service (which links insurance and casualty companies to independent agents); customer-supplier partnerships, such as Baxter Healthcare's electronic channel to hospitals for medical and other equipment; and IT vendor-driven partnerships, exemplified by ESAB (a European welding supplies and equipment company), whose expansion strategy was premised on a technology platform offered by an IT vendor. Partnerships that succeed have shared vision at the top, reciprocal skills in information technology, concrete plans for an early success, persistence in the development of usable information for all partners, coordination on business policy, and a new and imaginative business architecture.     

Information technology and the board of directors

Ever since the Y2K scare, boards have grown increasingly nervous about corporate dependence on information technology. Since then, computer crashes, denial of service attacks, competitive pressures, and the need to automate compliance with government regulations have heightened board sensitivity to IT risk. Unfortunately, most boards remain largely in the dark when it comes to IT spending and strategy, despite the fact that corporate information assets can account for more than 50% of capital spending. A lack of board oversight for IT activities is dangerous, the authors say. It puts firms at risk in the same way that failing to audit their books would. Companies that have established board-level IT governance committees are better able to control IT project costs and carve out competitive advantage. But there is no one-size-fits-all model for board supervision of a company's IT operations. The correct approach depends on what strategic "mode" a company is in whether its operations are extremely dependent on IT or not, and whether or not it relies heavily on keeping up with the latest technologies. This article spells out the conditions under which boards need to change their level of involvement in IT decisions, explaining how members can recognize their firms' IT risks and decide whether they should pursue more aggressive IT governance. The authors delineate what an IT governance committee should look like in terms of charter, membership, duties, and overall agenda. They also offer recommendations for developing IT policies that take into account an organization's operational and strategic needs and suggest what to do when those needs change. Given the dizzying pace of change in the world of IT, boards can't afford to ignore the state of their IT systems and capabilities. Appropriate board governance can go a long way toward helping a company avoid unnecessary risk and improve its competitive position.     

The information archipelago--plotting a course.

Information systems applications in some aspects resemble those of a decade ago--they cost a lot, are technically complex, and take a long time to develop. Moreover, as the technology continues to change rapidly, managers find themselves continually squeezed by a shortage of the technical staff and financial resources they need to keep up. A company can use knowledge of its particular strengths and weaknesses in regard to IS to steer its way onto a safe course, say these authors in the second article of a series dealing with the "islands" of information: computers, telecommunications, and office automation (see "The Information Archipelago--Maps and Bridges," HBR September-October 1982). Setting a safe course requires a new planning approach, for which the guideposts are the company's familiarity with any one technology, the importance of the technology to corporate strategy, and certain business characteristics such as size, complexity of product lines, and the general approach to corporate planning.     

Working on nonprofit boards. Don't assume the shoe fits

Contrary to popular perception, businesspeople can be benevolent. For instance, one recent study notes that four-fifths of all Harvard Business School graduates are involved with nonprofits, with more than half of those serving on boards. Most business professionals will spend some time on a nonprofit board. That's the good news, the author says. The bad news is that the involvement of businesspeople can easily backfire. That's because they often try to take what they have learned from business school and the corporate world and apply it to their duties in the nonprofit sector. On the surface, there are similarities between the for-profit and nonprofit sectors. Both have boards of directors, trustees and chairpeople, regular meetings, and so forth. But the governance of nonprofit organizations is very different from the governance of for-profit businesses in several critical areas, including missions, measurements, and board composition. For instance, the CEO in the nonprofit world must manage a relationship with a nonexecutive board chair. In the for-profit world, the CEO is the chair. Such significant differences make it difficult to transfer ideas and practices between the for-profit and nonprofit worlds. In this article, F. Warren McFarlan describes the main differences between serving on a for-profit board and serving on a nonprofit board. As he points out, understanding the differences will make it easier for businesspeople to move smoothly from one environment to the other and will therefore make their commitments more effective. Nonprofits need businesspeople, but only on the right terms.