Earlier in my consulting and research career, especially in the early-1980’s to mid-1990’s, an IT organizational construct typically called “The Information Center” became popular in medium to large enterprises. The philosophy behind the Information Center (IC) could be captured in a single phrase, “teach them to fish so they’ll feed themselves for a lifetime.”
IC’s comprised a small group of IT professionals (typically between 3 and 15 in number), a suite of tools (e.g., so-called “4th Generation Languages” such as Focus, Ramis, Nomad, and analysis/reporting tools, such as SAS and SPSS) and, especially early in the IC movement, a place for end users to go to get access to these tools and the mainframe computers they ran on – often a room with computer terminals, reference materials, a printer or two, photocopier, and so on.
The forces that led to the popularity of the IC were:
-
Demand by end users for information that was effectively “locked” in computer files and systems. Remember, back then, relational data bases were not common and many computer systems were batch processes with data stored on computer tapes. Yet a great deal of money and effort had been spent creating and deploying computer systems to process transactions – a ton of data was being captured, and end users (the term of the day) wanted to analyze and make decisions based upon that data.
-
IT organizations were overwhelmed by requests, and most suffered a multi-year backlog – if you went to someone in IT with a request to run an analysis of last month’s sales performance, you might well be told, “We can get to that in 28 months – can you wait?” I recall in those days Data Processing Managers (as CIO’s were then commonly called) often touted their application backlogs as badges of courage – “See how popular my department is!”
-
Powerful end user computing tools such as Focus and Nomad, and languages such as APL were becoming available – many of these first offered through time sharing services. The attraction here was that you did not have to deal with the Data Processing organization, you could pay “by the drink”, and the time sharing services provided training and support. (If this sounds similar to today’s emerging Software as a Service [SaaS] phenomenon, it did share some important characteristics.)
-
Internal computing power was getting cheaper as mainframe price/performance improved, and as cost of computer terminals came down.
So, in many respects, the IC was a response to emerging business demand (for information, reports, small systems) and evolving IT supply (tools, processing capacity). I’ve talked before of the coming business-IT convergence, and IC’s were a very primitive form of convergence.
The good news/bad news of early IC’s lay in the fact that the end user literally came to a center. This afforded the IC a measure of control and supervision over end user computing. It even afforded a measure of reuse, commonality, and integrity - “Hey, Fred, I see that you’re trying to build a pricing model in APL. Anne was in here last week doing something very similar – let’s use that as a starting point.” (Not that APL was well-know for its reusability characteristics!) Or, “Bill, I see that you want to create a sales commission system. Susan was looking at monthly sales last month, and we had Data Processing create a sales data extraction routine that loads a Focus data base every week. I think you can use the same data base.”
The bad news of the early IC model was that the end user had to leave their office and go to the center – perhaps even have to book time on the terminal, or hope that there’d be terminal available. So, when PC’s came along, end user tools got even easier to use (Lotus Notes, Excel, Access), and the IC had created its own backlog (”I can find a terminal for you at 7am on Monday in 3 weeks time!”) personal computing really took over from IC end user computing, and today’s “shadow IT” phenomenon was born (or, at least, exacerbated).
I believe that IT circa 2017 is all about “end user computing”, though with an important collaborative and cross-enterprise twist. Level 1 and Level 2 IT is creating an “infrastructure” of capabilities that automate and model the enterprise. Level 3 business-IT maturity is about unlocking this incredibly rich and valuable asset and putting it back into the hands of the people that can best leverage it. It’s also about business analytics and the power of number crunching to drive business decision-making. Perhaps it’s time to look back at the Information Center, dust off the ideas and practices that worked and bring them into Web 2.0 time!
Filed under: Demand Maturity, IS Management, IT Infrastructure, IT Management, IT Maturity | Tagged: application backlog, end user computing, Information Center, personal computing, shadow IT


Your post brought back fond rememberences of past data problems I dealt with as a FOCUS guru. I documented them in a post on my blog. Here is my conclusion:
“At the heart of the matter then as is now is understanding the context and meaning of data resources, organizing those services that provide access to data, and designing some sort of architecture to minimize bad data in the first place. This has been, is currently, and will always be the big issue in self-service of information no matter what other technology changes take place.”
Great point! I wonder how that issue changes as we move from a world of highly structured and indexed data, to more of a tag based approach?
As a manager of an IC in the late 80s, I revelled in the ability to provide business users with a window into new technology and how it might be used to solve business problems. The mistake that was made then, I believe, still exists today. The IC was staffed with people who knew the technology well and were able to articulate capabilities. However, IC staff knew very little about the business problems faced by their users.
Fast forward to 2008. IT staff are necessarily focused on technology, IT operations and capabilities, but are not savvy about business issues. Moreover, they are not invited to participate in business processes or sought out for their views on how the business might change to take advantage of capabilities.
A great example is DB2, which is nearly 30 years old. When it was introduced by the IC I managed it was heralded as a great step by business. Since then many database tools have been offered and the technology has progressed. However, the problem then, as now, was that business users resisted pooling their knowledge to define and standardize data, preferring to operate in isolation of one another from a data point-of-view.
Business users are a lot more technologically knowledgeable now, so you would think that they know better how to get the best out of business data. Don’t bring back the IC until business users can figure out what they want to do, and then make sure that business expertise is included in the mandate.
Great comment, Cindy, thanks! You are absolutley correct. One way I’ve talked about the future of IT is the notion of ‘business-IT convergence’ – i.e., over time, the business becomes (and we IT professionals must help them) more IT savvy, and IT becomes more business savvy. Anything we can all do – business and IT professional – to achieve this is for the good. There used to be a hard, wide, high ‘wall’ between business and IT. The Information Center was an early attempt to break through that wall. As you note, there were important lessons learned from that attempt – we can learn from history – from what worked well, and what did not!