Sometimes being third is best

Years ago while attending a conference, I was transfixed by what one of the speakers said, that "the early bird gets the worm, but it's the second mouse that gets the cheese."

The context of this statement is irrelevant but it is a valid allegory for corporate IT strategies. While one can take this expression to mean a couple of different things, I've always taken it to mean that while you might be first, you're either left eating worms or worse getting yourself killed (or in this case, put out of business).

During the IT boom of the late nineties, many companies simply wanted to be early birds. And now the world of IT is littered with scores of organizations that tried to push the envelope a little too far in the quest of being there first. Many surviving organizations are now sitting back and saying, "we didn't go down that road, and we're here today eating the cheese, weren't we smart." The problem with this approach is there is more to life than worms and cheese.

This begs the question, if number one gets worms and number two gets cheese, what does number three get? While many may be quick to say nothing, I'll say the smart number three gets everything, and that includes the champagne and caviar.

So what's your IT strategy? Are you an early bird, the second mouse or something else? As the IT sector emerges from the bust we've been experiencing this is an important question. We have to ask ourselves if our IT strategy is in-line with corporate goals and if the two are not the same, how do we reconcile them?

Why is this important? In the simplest terms, we don't want a repeat of the boom and bust we've just experienced, it's not good for anyone. So let's look at this constructively. Being the early bird means you face a higher-than-average cost of implementation, higher support costs, especially if you are building the technology yourself, and a high risk of failure; there is no proof this technology will work for you. The rewards, if it works, are generally great. Everyone remembers who crossed the finish line first.

On the other hand, the second mouse takes the middle road. They usually face a lower cost of implementation by buying the technology after the initial price drops, lower support costs, and have almost eliminated the risk of failure because they they've seen successful and unsuccessful implementations.

But being number three comes with its own rewards and perils. While the cost of implementation is low, buying once all hype is over and costs have been reduced, as are support costs, the potential for failure is almost zero since it's all been done. All they risk is whether or not they can support the old technology i.e. does it cost more to support the old then to support newer technology?

Sign up for ITworld's Daily newsletter
Follow ITworld on Twitter @IT_world

• Email
• Print
• Share
  • Slashdot
  • Digg
  • Stumble
  • Reddit
  • Newsvine