Our enterprises as we know it is continuously being expounded by an IT-induced responsibilities. Before technology became a mainstream, the status quo on our obligations are missives to sleepyhead performance in offices. When technologies are being adapted and used everywhere transcending industries and imaginations, it made things worst. Even with laws and regulations that are in place cannot do so much to prevent cybersecurity targeted attacks. Fines are inevitable. Customers' trust and experience manipulated.
Do we want that to be our norm? It cannot be. It may not be obvious for people how technology is being operated in laxity now but they will know and they will be able to decide on their own and will see their reality as they become aware of technological significance to society. The limitations and restraints in their responsibility and their ability to see beyond what they are doing exacerbated the improper application and potentials of technology.
How many are mindful on the actual state of their technology investment including associated practices involved? The answer has nothing to do with the number but what their important apprehensions in this seemingly ever inflating area are that makes their enterprise equip with the technology architecture and business strategy that they need. Cyberstrategy or the business itself must incorporate all areas in, and with the adaption and utility of, technologies facilitating the operational demand of the enterprise and its future or goals.
Each and everyone in the board and C-level has unique responsibility to fulfill. Decisions are directly communicated among them and yet responsibilities don't amplify outside of their confined sphere. This creates unnecessary subtleties in between them and their people running and operating their respective businesses or unit activities. The gap further widens the disparity of their own performance.
The intensive accord of enterprise and technology investments and what makes its result satisfactory for stakeholders are based upon a genuine criterion with which everyone can depend on. The high expectations from those who has been tasked to build on organizational capabilities. The responsibility for boards, C-levels and business as well as technical leaders to provide their people the required facility and directions to make every initiative a success and dependable. Technology must be true-and-tested, when dealt with properly during planning, adaptation and its application suitable to the business itself including anticipation of any forward-looking and surge of foundation goals.
Do we want that to be our norm? It cannot be. It may not be obvious for people how technology is being operated in laxity now but they will know and they will be able to decide on their own and will see their reality as they become aware of technological significance to society. The limitations and restraints in their responsibility and their ability to see beyond what they are doing exacerbated the improper application and potentials of technology.
How many are mindful on the actual state of their technology investment including associated practices involved? The answer has nothing to do with the number but what their important apprehensions in this seemingly ever inflating area are that makes their enterprise equip with the technology architecture and business strategy that they need. Cyberstrategy or the business itself must incorporate all areas in, and with the adaption and utility of, technologies facilitating the operational demand of the enterprise and its future or goals.
Each and everyone in the board and C-level has unique responsibility to fulfill. Decisions are directly communicated among them and yet responsibilities don't amplify outside of their confined sphere. This creates unnecessary subtleties in between them and their people running and operating their respective businesses or unit activities. The gap further widens the disparity of their own performance.
The intensive accord of enterprise and technology investments and what makes its result satisfactory for stakeholders are based upon a genuine criterion with which everyone can depend on. The high expectations from those who has been tasked to build on organizational capabilities. The responsibility for boards, C-levels and business as well as technical leaders to provide their people the required facility and directions to make every initiative a success and dependable. Technology must be true-and-tested, when dealt with properly during planning, adaptation and its application suitable to the business itself including anticipation of any forward-looking and surge of foundation goals.
It means every person and materials in place have jobs and deliverables to do and not fail. It's the entire organization, not just a team, working to design, budget and operate their enterprise system.
Organizations are inherently different from one to the other. Making everyone work their own part is not simple. It's either they will be collectively cooperative or just following and do whatever they can without really paying attention what their contributions will be to the whole effort.
Somehow, we can further visualize what needs to be done to rid ourselves of the dilemma of lax decision and execution which, and if not attended to with relative wiz due to vehement necessities, will compound full-blown failure of initiative, and waste of time, vim or second wind and resources. It is now a matter of time before it become a wreaker and trust would break loose for all involved.
While it's smarter to describe the surface, which can be in itself the cue what those needs are, and their outcome and benefit to the business, we cannot as our usual munificence assume that effective technical know-how exist in the boards, C-levels and team leaders. Unless there are factual manifestation that demonstrated such abilities. Even so, these cannot be used to cause those wishes as well as results to be a clincher to success. Acceptance from cascades of multi-stakeholders, outsiders may be included, is.
The experts' qualifications must be evidently permeated with authority, power, and influence. Where any of these are present, it shall convince stakeholders that such quality and role would provide appropriate measures not just the patented requirements of technical finesse, business acumen or whatever tasks at hand but also for conclusive success, satisfaction and efficiency being the ultimate resolution all throughout. The thrust of technological progress is for everyone as we all have designed it to be. We must take that is it really transforming ourselves, our business operations and production even better now due to digitalization, which supports fluidity of actions even for sanctioned bureaucratic styles and methods.
Security and privacy are just the few being added to the growing responsibilities of boards and C-levels. Unless it's required by law or regulation, companies' due diligence and due care may prevail and as others have done otherwise, they need not be created or chartered separately. Whether or not security and privacy, their cyber impact, will become part of the old-fashioned audit or risk management team, what will matter is how such disciplines will contribute to the organization's obligation and business success. It reinforces the job by those limited designations in technology which is always left to employees.
To convey one's business objective is not enough especially when it comes to technology-operating suitability, which is confronted with the necessities of efficient procedures, customer satisfaction, regulations and international standards compliance. This is not to simply operationalize the technology to facilitate the business processes and which improvement might be scrimpy, attended by increasing employment of people designed with very limited value to the organization due to job specialty application qualification.
That's where a lot of questions about the real purpose of technology begins.
Technology is supposed to be dependable and trustworthy, that practices, processes and policies must be reviewed, and grappled even, for continuous validation of effectiveness and improvement with which it can be a representation of technological composite for, and at the most, interweaving the perfect economy for the future of the enterprise and the people around.
We can help the boards and C-levels do their responsibilities sincerely and properly, and that governance expertise may truly spring up naturally, an expected if not innate ability within and not being pushed from the underground.
The governance of company's ultimate goal, growth or capital realization, must be without misapprehension to technology investment and operating facility which can make or break an overall performance momentum and production spirit.
The words and deeds behind technical facilities must be measured. Therefor dearths and mistakes, if exists, can both be detected and corrected immediately.
With technology having been set, and continuing to be, on the crosshairs of data privacy and financial control regimes, boards and C-levels can be assured by making every initiative and their modification verified by being veritably compliant. Better than allowing their organization to be dragged into litigation and will still be fined big time. The zealously nonstop innovation must be delineated by organization's values and processes in which people are guided, if not behaved, by such criteria, with their own virtues and practices to commit and deliver on their obligations, that is not to only focus on growth but also to abide by the rule of law. The ability to do the right things, first and foremost, can be fulfilling and rewarding for the entire stakeholders and may further be enabled with the following:
Security and privacy are just the few being added to the growing responsibilities of boards and C-levels. Unless it's required by law or regulation, companies' due diligence and due care may prevail and as others have done otherwise, they need not be created or chartered separately. Whether or not security and privacy, their cyber impact, will become part of the old-fashioned audit or risk management team, what will matter is how such disciplines will contribute to the organization's obligation and business success. It reinforces the job by those limited designations in technology which is always left to employees.
To convey one's business objective is not enough especially when it comes to technology-operating suitability, which is confronted with the necessities of efficient procedures, customer satisfaction, regulations and international standards compliance. This is not to simply operationalize the technology to facilitate the business processes and which improvement might be scrimpy, attended by increasing employment of people designed with very limited value to the organization due to job specialty application qualification.
That's where a lot of questions about the real purpose of technology begins.
Technology is supposed to be dependable and trustworthy, that practices, processes and policies must be reviewed, and grappled even, for continuous validation of effectiveness and improvement with which it can be a representation of technological composite for, and at the most, interweaving the perfect economy for the future of the enterprise and the people around.
We can help the boards and C-levels do their responsibilities sincerely and properly, and that governance expertise may truly spring up naturally, an expected if not innate ability within and not being pushed from the underground.
The governance of company's ultimate goal, growth or capital realization, must be without misapprehension to technology investment and operating facility which can make or break an overall performance momentum and production spirit.
The words and deeds behind technical facilities must be measured. Therefor dearths and mistakes, if exists, can both be detected and corrected immediately.
With technology having been set, and continuing to be, on the crosshairs of data privacy and financial control regimes, boards and C-levels can be assured by making every initiative and their modification verified by being veritably compliant. Better than allowing their organization to be dragged into litigation and will still be fined big time. The zealously nonstop innovation must be delineated by organization's values and processes in which people are guided, if not behaved, by such criteria, with their own virtues and practices to commit and deliver on their obligations, that is not to only focus on growth but also to abide by the rule of law. The ability to do the right things, first and foremost, can be fulfilling and rewarding for the entire stakeholders and may further be enabled with the following:
- Boards and C-level responsibilities, subject significant with compliance to laws and regulations;
- Presence of leaderships' vital know-how or impact to organization must be extraordinary or zero, none at all;
- Leaders affirmative decision-making capacity and effect in rigorous demand in oprations;
- Leaders and operators bridging strategy, on understanding and execution without gap of commercial-technical-and-environmental policies;
- Leaders, operators, and employees' desire and aspirations;
- Continuing human capital development, with commitment to perfection always otherwise they just cannot be differentiated from those with directions almost at nil or haphazard.
It's with the boards, C-levels, team leaders and expert members that expectations, requirements, goals and successful conclusion must be elucidated.
When is a uniquely formulated criteria going to be reflective of our very own culture, and that innovation shall continue without the usual stumble, at all? With technology on the forefront of societal progress, it happens no matter what! The answer is dependent on the realities, and they must stay the same. It must happen without problems.
What if you can see everything and you only need to deal with a small formation of practitioners leading the waves of operating activities? Shall they be reduced even further which is often caused by a highly competitive human resource landscape and the quality of output doesn't deteriorate? That is authoritatively strategic, if the answer is yes and it must be seriously pursued. It is effective and efficient for the entire organization, which is very favorable to shareholders, management, employees and the society as the ultimate stopping point.
The best of reasons and actions for technical facilities are all here for the most senior business leaders and decision makers. We @𝖎𝖈𝖑𝖆𝖘𝖘𝖊𝖉 have advised and worked with these people in small and big companies alike and we have been a huge help to them as ever. The clarity in the job and the result we produce is magnificent that's why we are repeatedly being engaged by them, sometimes only changing the texts of the contract if so, necessitates it. Constant change suits them to almost the perfectionist as they can be.
When is a uniquely formulated criteria going to be reflective of our very own culture, and that innovation shall continue without the usual stumble, at all? With technology on the forefront of societal progress, it happens no matter what! The answer is dependent on the realities, and they must stay the same. It must happen without problems.
What if you can see everything and you only need to deal with a small formation of practitioners leading the waves of operating activities? Shall they be reduced even further which is often caused by a highly competitive human resource landscape and the quality of output doesn't deteriorate? That is authoritatively strategic, if the answer is yes and it must be seriously pursued. It is effective and efficient for the entire organization, which is very favorable to shareholders, management, employees and the society as the ultimate stopping point.
The best of reasons and actions for technical facilities are all here for the most senior business leaders and decision makers. We @𝖎𝖈𝖑𝖆𝖘𝖘𝖊𝖉 have advised and worked with these people in small and big companies alike and we have been a huge help to them as ever. The clarity in the job and the result we produce is magnificent that's why we are repeatedly being engaged by them, sometimes only changing the texts of the contract if so, necessitates it. Constant change suits them to almost the perfectionist as they can be.