Referring to Prof. Prabhu Guptara's report, published in June 1998, most of the world's companies are in danger, as their leaders are quite often IT-illiterate and have a deep mistrust of anything related to IT. This is often manifested in the increasingly popular trend to outsourcing of IT issues.

Studies show that no more than 1% of IT projects ever produce the desired product within the planned timeframe, which only adds to the general distrust and dislike of IT issues. As Computer Philosopher Douglas R. Hofstadter puts forward, "every software project lasts twice as long as planned: even when this extra time-span is included in the initial planning, the projects still last twice as long."

IT projects are often characterised by an extremely high level of complicacy and difficulty. They are unique and they create innovations which tend to be too much for most people involved. In addition,

• IT projects are often started with unclear goals and unrealistic time-frames
• the goals are not sufficiently oriented around future needs
• IT is only used as a tool to automate existing solutions and not as an enabler of new business processes
• the management cannot effectively handle the complex dualities like top down v. bottom up, central v. decentral and short term v. long term
• IT problems are often not the cause of organizational distress, but a sympton, just as a fever is a sign of infection or malignancy or other systematic disturbances in human bodies. To cure the fever and miss the pneumonia is harmful and potentially fatal. The same might be true for organizational problems or worse, strategic errors, which are not recognised as such and not adressed

The complexity of a system is usually marked by it's size, uniqueness, geographical location, level of networking and it's dynamics. The difficulty lies in grasping the entire picture of such complex processes, especially in relation to future needs. As one speaks of the "reality model" being a simple faculty of a human perception, it is impossible for a single person to grasp the model in its entirity, which quite often leads to mistakes. Prof. Dietrich Dörner from the Max-Planck-Institute in Berlin, has proven how easily  mistakes  creep into such situations. These are quite often preprogrammed:

• we act without a sufficient situational analysis
• we do not identify the goals accordingly
• we do not identify a conflict of interests
• we fail to form clear priorities, or we set the wrong one’s
• we get tied up in the wrong details of a project
• we ignore the given process-path
• we do not take account of side-effects
• we do not identify mistakes due to our own "reality model" (and if so, then usually too late)
• we do not see problems coming up
• we ignore the difficult problems, or delegate them to someone less capable of handling them
• we flee into hyperactivity
• we allow ourselves to be permanently distracted by new information
• we solve the problems we can instead of the ones we need to

The traditional top down school of thought is based upon our desire for structured, organised hierarchies. Traditional systems call for a strategic planning stage, followed by budgeting and tactical delivery whereas IT planning is derived from the strategic planning process.

Although this planning appears to be logical, it does not always lead to the desired results. According to Prof. R.H. Hayes of the Harvard Business School, those businesses who invested a lot of time in strategic planning are often farther behind their competitors who left out this phase of the planning. Hayes believes that the following points are often responsible for such fatal defects:

• A belief in the stability of the influences affecting the business

• The belief that the resources required are either at hand or can be bought at the relevant time

• The concept, that the responsibility for the project lies on the shoulders of the top management

• The belief that the traditional military concept of generals setting goals, ordering resources and controlling the troop movements, still is effective.

Hayes questions these beliefs and concepts, comparing the modern business world more with a jungle, than a desert, where the traditional techniques of warfare would be difficult to adapt. The term guerilla warfare would be more suitable. Guerilla warfare strategies are based on the thesis of resources-paths-goals as a wide range of skills are built up, without knowing how these can be best applied. Officers on the battlefield must have the ability to react to chances and opportunities as they arise. This philosophy, according to Hayes, needs a set of guiding points or a "compass" with which to guide the company long-term. Advantages are created by making better use of sudden changes in the market and being able to react immediately. This combines the ideas of "top down" and "bottom up" as the "compass",  set by senior management, while the opportunities upon the way are identified and grasped at the junior levels.

There is no tried and tested answer to this question. The pendulum swings backwards and forwards, as the change from central mainframes to decentral servers and back to central servers demonstrates. Nowadays the following areas should in most cases remain centralised:

• architecture (technical and applied)
• platforms and middleware
• communications-infrastructure
• network-management
• security infrastructure
• IT business concepts
• system management
• customer database
• HRM
• accounting and controlling
• risk management
• gateways to the outside

This can be compared to a building plan, ensuring that each plot, although individual and selfcontained, is a part of a structured, urban environment.

In opposition to the Shareholder-Value mentality of many modern day enterprises where capital plays a central role, tomorrows’ companies, such as Microsoft or Yahoo, will be basing their business upon knowledge. In this light, staff become the most important resource for a companies' success.

The top level of a company must be made aware of the importance of the development of IT. The traditional ideas of "top down" must be left behind, while new ones need to be created to combine the "top down" with the "bottom up" with orientational aid from such tools as a organizational "compass". Such static methods as the hierarchical decomposition are to be disposed of, as cyclical models are more appropriate in a complex and rapidly changing environment. This does not make the process any easier, and it is therefore important that all parties seek less complex solutions and are willing to split up their projects into manageable pieces.

The willingness to listen to IT-related problems must be increased, as many of these problems are not simply IT-related but have their roots in other areas (without being an excuse for mistakes and weaknesses in the IT field).

The performing members of staff will increase in importance especially in the IT area because enormous differences are noticeable in this field. The development of a crew with above-average capabilities needs the highest attention, as the distribution of interesting tasks and rewards can be said to be the best motivators. To effectively attend to the problems encountered in the field of IT, an adequate level of IT competency must be attained at the senior management level. This should be enhanced with relevant workshops concerning future trends in IT and their effects on socio-economic structures. Once IT is fully integrated into the business leadership, it can take up it's full role as an important success factor, of which the company can be proud.