{"id":3109,"date":"2016-10-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2016-10-13T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/dev.abes.com.br\/?p=3109"},"modified":"2016-10-13T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2016-10-13T00:00:00","slug":"ti-bimodal-marketing-ou-solucao","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dev.abes.com.br\/en\/ti-bimodal-marketing-ou-solucao\/","title":{"rendered":"Bimodal IT - Marketing or Solution?"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

\t\"\"
\n\tBy Cassio Dreyfuss, Vice President of Research at Gartner<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n\tEveryone who has developed IT solutions knows the problem. For decades, organizations have used the same processes, methodologies and governance to develop all classes of solutions, from the most trivial to the most complex, those that demand urgent responses to those that can only be developed through long-term plans. Everyone knows that, whatever the processes, methodologies and governance, \u201cone size fits all\u201d definitely does not fit all solutions.
\n\t 
\n\tHowever, only recently has a solution emerged. Gartner proposed "bimodal IT", that is, to implement two different approaches to the development of solutions - which, due to an absolute lack of marketing, were called, without any originality, "Modo1" and "Modo 2". Gartner characterizes the new Mode 2 in a very different way from the traditional Mode 1 and companies must carefully choose the appropriate approach for each initiative.
\n\t 
\n\tA real Columbus egg. First, because the idea is obvious in its simplicity; then, because its implementation, like browser shipments, is anything but simple - let alone marketing.
\n\t 
\n\tCompanies are often not accurate about their expectations for a Mode 2. At one end of the spectrum, companies do not devote the necessary attention and care to implementing this new approach. For example, companies often think that because they use agile methodologies they already have a Mode 2. They don't, Mode 1 also uses these methodologies. Mode 2 is much more than that. It is a complete organizational solution, which presents an unprecedented combination of different characteristics, and needs to occupy a \u201cnew space\u201d in the existing organization, affecting it greatly in several aspects (especially the Mode 1 development area). At the other extreme, companies hope that this approach will be the key to the development of their new digital business models. It is not. A Mode 2 IT is an important component in this development, but it is only an approach to developing solutions, it is not a strategy.
\n\t 
\n\tWe have written extensively on the topic, characterizing the difference between the two approaches (see a summary in the table below). Mode 1 is the traditional approach, which all companies use. It is suitable for evolutionary and predictable solutions, often developed in planned phases that extend over time. It aims to achieve the excellence of the solution. Typical examples are found in industrial or utility manufacturing companies, where Mode 1 meets most (if not all) needs. Mode 2, on the contrary, should be the approach chosen to meet with agility and flexibility many needs (but not all) of unstable and turbulent environments, with a low degree of predictability. The approach aims to leverage the opportunity of the solution. Typical examples are in the financial, insurance or retail markets.
\n\tDifferent Approaches to Solutions<\/strong>
\n\t <\/div>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\t\t\t\tVariable<\/strong><\/td>\n\n\t\t\t\tMode 1<\/strong><\/td>\n\n\t\t\t\tMode 2<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\t\t\t\tEnvironment<\/strong><\/td>\n\n\t\t\t\tStable, predictable progress<\/td>\n\n\t\t\t\tDynamic, creative \u201cexplosions\u201d<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\t\t\t\tMethodology<\/strong><\/td>\n\n\t\t\t\tPlanned and structured development<\/td>\n\n\t\t\t\tAgile prototyping, in improvement cycles<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\t\t\t\tTeam<\/strong><\/td>\n\n\t\t\t\tTeams of technicians with formal assignments based on requirements<\/td>\n\n\t\t\t\tMultidisciplinary teams in dynamic collaboration<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\t\t\t\tProcess<\/strong><\/td>\n\n\t\t\t\tFormal, formal assignment of tasks, methodologies aimed at prescription and control<\/td>\n\n\t\t\t\tFormal attribution of responsibilities, contextual leadership, constant monitoring<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\t\t\t\tPartners<\/strong><\/td>\n\n\t\t\t\tTraditional<\/td>\n\n\t\t\t\tInnovative, \u201cdigital\u201d<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\t\t\t\tGovernance<\/strong><\/td>\n\n\t\t\t\tStrict, rule-based<\/td>\n\n\t\t\t\tLighter, \u201cgood-enough\u201d, based on roles<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n
\n\t <\/div>\n
\n\t 
\n\t 
\n\tFor fifty years, the IT organization has had the same structure. The sophisticated names of today do not matter; if we take out the \u201cpost-its\u201d, underneath will be the same boxes: Development, Operation and Support. In recent years, we have seen the fragmentation of the IT organization into several components, with the aim of optimizing each one according to a specific objective. For example, what was the assignment of a project leader in the past - requirements gathering, solution design and development - is now the assignment of three different organizational roles: business relationship manager (or BRM) , application architecture and, finally, project leader.
\n\t 
\n\tFor bimodal IT is moving in exactly that direction. Recognizing that different solutions must be approached differently, it proposes the development of solutions in two different ways. While in Mode 1 the development takes place in sequential steps (requirements gathering, solution design and development), in Mode 2 things happen iteratively (improvement cycles) and interactively (multidisciplinary groups in dynamic collaboration). In Mode 1, the objectives are adherence of solutions to established expectations of the business areas, optimization of the use of technologies and productivity of the teams. In mode 2, the objectives are creativity and experimentation in solutions, business innovation with unprecedented application of technologies and quick response to a demand or market opportunity, often poorly defined.
\n\t 
\n\tBut if the solutions are always different, why don't we radically move away from the \u201cone size fits all\u201d and define different approaches for each initiative, actually creating \u201cmultimodal IT\u201d? Large and complex projects in any area (think, for example, the Hubble space telescope) are always treated as unique ventures, but this would not be practical or economical in companies, implying unnecessary costs and management complexity. However, there are companies that already work with \u201ctrimodal IT\u201d: development of large projects in phases, improvements through scheduled \u201cmonthly releases\u201d (what would be a \u201cMode 1.5\u201d) and dynamic opportunities. For these companies, the business value with these three classes of solution outweighs the additional cost and complexity.
\n\t 
\n\tFor the vast majority of companies, classifying opportunities into two classes of solution is the right balance between the effectiveness of solutions against the additional complexity of governance, integration and cost. The important thing is to have the objectives that we want to achieve with the fragmentation of the development into two classes of solution very clear, to evaluate carefully the respective business case and to implement the additional mode of solution with focus and discipline - which finally brings us to the factor leadership. The creation of Mode 2 is an organizational change. The success of an enterprise towards the new depends on a leader who creates a vision, shares that vision with the teams and motivates them to collaborate and face the risks to achieve the intended objective. The taste of success is the best reward.<\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Cassio Dreyfuss, VP of Research at Gartner Everyone who has ever developed IT solutions knows the problem. For decades, organizations have used the same processes, methodologies and governance to develop all classes of solutions, from the most trivial to the most complex, from those that demand urgent answers to those that can only be developed [\u2026]<\/p>","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[8,19],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3109","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-artigos","category-ultimas-noticias"],"acf":[],"publishpress_future_action":{"enabled":false,"date":"2026-06-14 03:36:00","action":"change-status","newStatus":"draft","terms":[],"taxonomy":"category"},"publishpress_future_workflow_manual_trigger":{"enabledWorkflows":[]},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/dev.abes.com.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3109","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/dev.abes.com.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/dev.abes.com.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dev.abes.com.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dev.abes.com.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3109"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/dev.abes.com.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3109\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/dev.abes.com.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3109"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dev.abes.com.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3109"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dev.abes.com.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3109"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}