Refer to The Adventures of an IT Leader and consider some of the challenges Barton is facing with respect to cost and value of IT; as a Reply to this message, please discuss the following:
Based on my experience it seems that IT funding happens in one of two ways. There is direct IT spend that relates to IT specific projects, for example the website, a new platform for clients, or backend upgrades that IT is choosing to pursue (part of IT strategy/planning). Then there is IT spend that comes from specific groups or departments for specialized projects. As an example there are a number of changes/systems upgrades on my departments wishlist for the tools we utilize daily, but this specifically depends on OUR budget for IT. So if our IT budget shrinks, or has to be reallocated to a more pressing project, it means we do not have the funding to "hire" IT to work on our project. This has benefits and problems. The biggest benefit is it does create a more aligned strategy between us (the business) and IT - we're working together on the project, explaining what we need and how we use it. This means there is strong collaboration, and the folks in IT will let us try versions of the website/program early, we can contact them directly if we find any bugs or if there is anything unusual or things that don't make any sense. The problems arise, however, when something is rolled out, but then we no longer have funding to keep supporting or maintaining it, so suddenly folks are assigned to something different and bugs end up not getting fixed. This isn't really a problem with IT as much as it's a problem with the way the funding system is designed. That being said for something like our main website that clients use seems to get a tremendous amount of funding and always be in a state of updates or fixes. Presumably this type of project has it's own budget and is a much higher priority for the business, thus even something minor that doesn't necessarily need changing or fixing is still a high priority.