Send to Kindle

I just got a new perspective on the “or” versus “and” debate (thanks Mir!). To seek a win win agreement, negotiators try to convert the “or” to an “and.” Meaning, how can both parties get what they want? “Grow the pie and not divide it,” is the maxim.

How about a “sequential ‘and’?” Here is an example. In organizations that depend on measurement, metrics, and reports, there is often a clash between centralized reporting driven by IT and decentralized reports driven by the business. IT prefers the control over data and reporting, and that needs to be true for all business processes governed by SOX. However, such reporting tends to have longer project life cycles and cost more, justified because the consequences of errors are high (e.g. executives go to prison for falsehoods).

For reporting that is transitory, meant to answer a question, or take a decision, the cost needs to be lower. More important, the speed of delivering information is critical. To prevent duplicate efforts (and hidden costs) by business teams that create a “shadow IT,” all parties need to agree that reporting undertaken outside IT will take place from an agreed upon data source (A Single Source of Truth), the business rules will be published (open and transparent), and the numbers will be verifiable and the methods used will be repeatable. If the reports become “stable” and required over and over, they will be turned over to IT, who can now shorten the project life cycle, because the requirements are so clear.

This is an example of a “sequential ‘and'” because the events take place one after the other, and not simultaneously. In my mind, an “and” solution required both parties to get the benefit at the same time. Once this restriction is lifted, but the win win aspect is retained, the possibilities increase!