In the absence of a new idea, a new name for an old one will have to do.

Which is about the only justification I can imagine for ITaaS — IT as a service.

No, ITaaS isn’t a new technology that serves up everything a traditional IT department does, only over the Internet and into your browser. It’s the twentieth-century model of IT service delivery, where the IT department envisions itself as a supplier to the rest of the business, selling various forms of information technology to its internal customers, who pay for it through a system of chargeback.

As regular readers have surely figured out by now, this isn’t a model I usually endorse — in most circumstances, integrating IT into the business leads to superior results.

But instead of piling on more criticism (or even drearier, repeating the same old ones) let’s figure out how to make it work, because there are situations — centralized IT supporting more-or-less autonomous business units, for example — where ITaaS is the only practical alternative.

Where to start? The same place real businesses start: by choosing their basic business model, “business model” meaning the buttons and levers the business can push and pull to turn its actions into profitable revenue.

Somewhere in my IT Catalysts detritus I have a list of twenty or so business models, which successfully describe every business I’ve ever run across (not all of them are good models, just as not all businesses know how to sustainable make a profit). And while there are a lot of them, three are dominant:

  • Product innovation, filling known or newly discovered needs, wants and desires with ever-increasingly wonderful goods and services (services being, in this context, just another type of product — you charge for services, different from providing good service).
  • Customer intimacy, where you know your customers so well, and take care of them so well, that taking their business elsewhere is almost unimaginable.
  • Operational excellence, where you’re so efficient that you can offer your admittedly less interesting products to whoever happens to show up, at such a low price that the savings outweigh all other concerns.

By the way: while every well-run business has one business model that’s its lead story, that doesn’t mean business leaders get to ignore the others. Product innovators still have to operate efficiently, just not with relentless efficiency; likewise they shouldn’t treat their customers like dirt, even though they can’t offer them custom-tailored solutions the way a customer-intimacy company does.

And so on.

Ready for the punch line?

IT that’s integrated into the business is close kin to the customer-intimacy business model — so much so that the rest of the business doesn’t think like a customer at all and IT stops thinking like a supplier. In this model they and we become peers and partners.

ITaaS? IT’s CEO (the CIO, but we’re modeling IT as a separate and independent business) has a choice to make. IT can be a product/service innovator or it can be what, in pre-cloud days, was called an information utility — a purveyor of inexpensive commodity solutions.

It can be finer-grained than this. For example, IT infrastructure services can have a different model from application services, with the former focusing on hyper-standardization in support of operational excellence while the latter provides technology leadership to the rest of the enterprise in the guise of product innovation.

Don’t like these business models as a framework? Come up with a different one. That’s fine — these simply illustrate the more fundamental point: With ITaaS the whole nature of IT strategy and governance undergo profound changes.

With IT as an integral part of the business, its strategy is a consequence of the overall business strategy. As an independent business its strategy is derived independently … although, like any good business, it has to guide its strategy with its understanding of marketplace (or, as it’s all metaphorical, “marketplace”) trends.

This, by the say, is one place many ITaaS proponents miss the mark. They start by defining an IT services catalog. It isn’t that having an IT services catalog is a mistake. It’s that without a business strategy behind it, an IT services catalog is just a list of stuff we do.

Strategy precedes product.

Governance? With integrated IT, governance is how the business makes sure IT’s project portfolio optimally supports business priorities. With ITaaS, revenue is revenue — IT governance is mostly a matter of which business units have the budget to do what.

Which might explain the appeal of the ITaaS relationship model: It results in a lot less arguing.

Jimmy Dean should never have recorded “Big Bad John.” His squeaky tenor just doesn’t fit the lyrics — they demand a Johnny Cash baritone.

Still, Dean got some things right — his sausages, for example.

And, he gave us a useful quote: “I can’t change the direction of the wind, but I can adjust my sails to always reach my destination.” It will never make it on despair.com, but that’s okay. Cynicism is more fun, but figuring out how to make things work is what pays the bills.

My last two columns have talked about the direction of the wind (“An imperfect storm,” 2/24/2014 and “More storm warnings,” 3/4/2014) — trends you can’t do much to affect, and do have to respond to:

  • Cloud 3.0 — enterprise-class computing that includes cloud-based applications.
  • Shadow IT — the growing amount of information technology implemented without IT’s involvement.
  • The digital enterprise — a grab-bag; right now its most important elements are smart products, the so-called “internet of things,” and all of the opportunities possible when you put the two together.
  • Income disparity — and the rising demand for luxuries and uniqueness by those on the lucky end of this trend.
  • The rise of business practices over processes — practices being the way to organize how work gets done so as to be able to deliver uniqueness.

Your challenge: Adjusting your sails so IT can at least survive these trends and maybe even enjoy the outcome. Suggestions:

Get the relationship right. I know you’re tired of hearing me rant and rave about moving beyond the supplier/internal-customer relationship model to a fully collaborative alternative. I also know I talk to IT leaders all the time who haven’t made the transition.

It matters in this context because in your brave new world of embracing shadow IT, a collaborative relationship is what will stop shadow IT from become rogue IT.

Automated regression testing. Take this to the limit, and beyond.

Cloud 3.0 means multi-cloud plus inside-the-firewall infrastructure provisioning. Multi-cloud, and especially multiple cloud solutions managed directly by the lines of business, means patch management and version management move outside IT’s control.

With automated regression testing you might be able to persuade the lines of business that IT should test cloud-vendor-induced configuration changes before they’re put into production. Without it, IT will once more be positioning itself as a bottleneck rather than an enabler.

Redefine the “I” in “IT.”

Except for shadow IT, all of these trends mean more work for IT, not less. Even cloud computing doesn’t mean IT has less work to do. You’ll be managing multi-cloud systems. Think monitoring for availability and performance. Think more reliance on your WAN. Think about what restoring from backup now means. Especially, think about integration.

This is the redefinition of “I” — from “information,” which never truly encompassed IT’s responsibilities anyway, to “integration,” which completely describes where IT is essential.

Look, like it or not, sales managers everywhere understood the difference between cloud-based shadow IT and the installed alternative. Installed software meant asking IT to unlock sales reps’ laptops so they could install Act! and asking IT to provide a server so their laptops could synchronize to a shared database.

The Cloud meant buying licenses from Salesforce, doing everything through the browser, and getting the shared database too, all with no IT involvement.

So encourage Shadow IT. Get rid of as much responsibility for the applications portfolio as you can. For individual applications, shadow IT’s drawbacks are diminishing, and this also eliminates the “This application doesn’t do what I need” vs “The specs were wrong” arguments that now dominate many business/IT relationships.

But integrating the applications? Only IT … “Integration Technology” … can make this happen.

Which gets us to enterprise technical architecture management (ETAM). This is a long-running personal favorite, and it’s only going to be more important in the future.

A multi-cloud environment with lots of quasi-independent line-of-business and departmental IT departments adding to the application layer is akin to a bunch of developers adding buildings to a community without building codes or well-designed water purification, electricity-delivery and sewage treatment systems to connect to.

In particular, the ETAM function should choose the company’s integration technology system and define the company’s data integration engineering requirements.

Data integration is what causes the most trouble when it comes to accidental architecture. Without a clean, clear, well-engineered approach, shadow IT will exacerbate the situation exponentially.

Okay, okay. “Polynomially” is more accurate, but who’s counting?

* * *

15 years ago in KJR’s predecessor, InfoWorld’s “IS Survival Guide”: An app dev methodology that looks a lot like Agile, two years before the Agile Manifesto.

Way back in 1996, I recommended viewing yourself as a product, not an employee.

And ten years ago, how to avoid the proximity trap — the tendency to pay more attention to those who have access than to those who have answers.