Microsoft criticises single-platform strategy

Microsoft said this week that companies with a single-platform IT strategy would spend more on maintenance in the long term.

Commenting on a report into lack of alignment between IT and business, released on Tuesday, Matt Dunstan, application platform group manager at Microsoft, said the use of single, legacy monolithic platforms, such as Unix, reduced the flexibility of IT departments and prevented them from being able to meet the needs of the wider business.

"Bets made in the past constrain [IT departments]," said Dunstan. "We talk a lot about agility and wanting to respond in business but, when a company needs [an application], the IT department is more or less saying: "No, it doesn't fit with our strategy" or "Yes, but it will cost this much and take this long."

Dunstan criticised the Unix platform, saying that "10 years ago mainframes were Unix-orientated. In most organisations now, between two thirds and 75 percent of the IT budget is spent on maintenance and support, which doesn't leave a lot to work with to add value".

The SAP platform was also criticised by Dunstan for not being flexible enough. "I work with SAP customers, and have conversations with them about how they can use the Microsoft platform to extend their SAP function -- it's faster and cheaper for people to do that outside of SAP than in SAP."

But Dunstan denied that Microsoft itself had sold its share of platforms that could be regarded as monolithic. "Most core business systems are running on older platforms, not necessarily Microsoft. Customers who jumped on in that time have upgraded, and are running on current versions of Microsoft," he said.

When questioned on why standardising on legacy monolithic platforms, such as Unix, was bad but doing the same thing on a modern platform, such as Windows Server 2003, was a good thing, Dunstan denied Microsoft was being self-serving.

The survey of 200 companies with 500 or more employees, commissioned by Microsoft, revealed that fewer than half of the IT directors in the organisations sat on the board.

Dunstan said that the lack of IT representatives on management boards was "indicative of a disconnect" within businesses.

"It is worrying and symptomatic of a tension that has existed in the industry for quite some time," Dunstan said. "IT is still struggling to get relevance in some organisations -- it's a problem IT departments continually struggle with."

Those organisations where IT directors were on the board tended to see IT as a strategic asset to be used to their advantage, whereas, where there was no board representation, IT was seen as an impediment to be overcome, in some cases.

"In some businesses, IT budgets are continually cut; IT is held at arms length," said Dunstan. "IT is seen as a necessary evil. [However] in some businesses, IT is central to operations and how the business differentiates itself in the market. Those organisations understand you need IT to do the mundane things, but they're also using IT to mine the customer base to get an edge."

The lack of harmonisation between business and IT departments is exacerbated by political factors, the report added.

"Most [IT departments] would like a closer relationship with the business, but say they are hamstrung by political alignment -- who are your allies in the business and who are not," said Dunstan.

Tom Espiner reported for ZDNet UK from London