Strategic vs. Tactical Technology

SaaS ushered in a new era of low-threshold software purchasing and use. Freemium gets us in the door with some products, and then we're hooked and sometimes can't get unhooked. Mobile brought a new paradigm of bringing one's own device and all the apps one can stand receiving notifications from. ChatGPT from OpenAI got many on the AI train. The catch for many organizations is that technology has become too tactical.

When organizations treat strategic things tactically, the result is a hodgepodge of disconnected and low-value collections of parts that don't equal a greater sum. Technology decisions and actions can't be treated as tactical while expecting them to unlock significant potential. There are corollaries in other key domains. Accounting isn't the same as strategic financial management. A bookkeeper doesn't do what a CFO does. Social media is a tactic of a broader marketing strategy. A social media person isn't a CMO. Technology should be more than the network and devices an organization runs on; a network administrator isn't a CTO or CIO.

Even when mid-market companies or nonprofits purchase and implement mission-critical software and systems such as ERPs, CRMs, and accounting applications, the purchases are frequently made in a vacuum without broader consideration of the organization's overall strategy and direction. Most technology purchases are moment-in-time decisions that are point solutions, which can get organizations in trouble when it comes to overall data management, ability to integrate, and long-term operational support. Never before has every software and system been more important to have a thoughtful and strategic perspective.

Technology serves organizations best when it is strategic, which is a significant part of the value we bring to our clients at Transform Labs. We help clients select, implement, integrate, and build technology that serves the organization's strategic objectives.

Many government agencies and enterprise companies purchase technology products and services through an RFP process with the expectation that the RFP process accounts for all of the needs and considerations, ensuring a strategic purchase is made. However, RFPs can result in tactical purchases just as often, if not more than strategic, when they become myopic and too narrow. RFPs often regress a strategic initiative into a tactical one. An RFP can never provide all of the nuance and context of a purchase's strategic value and importance. Even when RFPs attempt to include strategic references, they get overrun by the tactical aspects of features and terms. RFPs encourage tactical technology decisions and purchases, not strategic ones.

This isn't to minimize the execution aspect of tactical technology initiatives, which have to be, but to emphasize the importance of technology starting from a strategic place first. The tactical part of technology serves the strategic aspect, never the other way around. It is nearly impossible to make a tactical approach strategic without starting over.

Tactical technology creates and burdens organizations with unforeseen technical debt. Technical debt is a system, application, or schema that becomes outdated or inappropriate for an organization and inhibits its ability to operate as efficiently and effectively as it would like to. The more tactically an organization approaches technology, the more likely it is to have more technical debt sooner.

Technology can be a great multiplier for organizations, but only when done strategically and not tactically. Yes, anything done strategically takes more time and thoughtfulness, but in this case, as well as for most other things that are meaningful to an organization's success, it is worth it.