2024 Is An Inflection Point For IT Services
7 mins read

2024 Is An Inflection Point For IT Services

2024 Is an Inflection Point for IT Services


We are now in the digital world with operational platforms. In the platform world, looking for stability in processes no longer works because platforms collapse business processes to align with improving the user experience and objectives and key results (OKRs), thus creating new value. Consequently, in IT, we are at an inflection point, a point in time where the attention for IT or IT services is moving away from building out infrastructure and moving to achieving demonstrable business value.

Companies are looking to make small, focused investments with more concrete value. They want to know if they will get value from an investment immediately or soon.

I have been in business since 1982. We go through these pendulum swings back and forth. We democratize technology and business. People gain more control. IT gets recentralization, and it gets out of control.

Recentralization modernized IT, and CIOs and CTOs exercised more influence. Then the pendulum swung back to be more democratized. Over time, although the pendulum swings back and forth, the overall arc of history moved technology more and more into the domain of the business executives.

Business executives now must be more and more technology savvy, both in terms of understanding it and understanding how to deploy it and how to manage in that environment. They must become more hands on as to what technology to use, how to use it and how to incorporate it into how they execute their responsibilities.

What Is Driving The Change?

It is important to understand why IT is becoming more business aligned. It goes back to what I refer to as the “three digital laws.” In a world with high digital density, there is an intimate relationship between business and the tech stack. So, everything is becoming more business aligned.

“Business aligned” means that the people responsible for getting business done or with the responsibility for a function now hold technology or technology expenditures to look at them through a more practical lens. This creates an integrative platform between operations and IT.

The people making the decisions around technology are more heavily influenced by the non-technical people – the business people. They are increasingly less interested in theory or long-term investments and more interested in practical, quick solutions.

This fits in well with the software agile methodologies – it takes many years to break the journey down into a series of milestones and sprints, get something done, get value from it, and then move to the next sprint.

We have the same philosophy now being adopted by the business. They are impatient to get the results they want. They want concrete results. But they gate their progress. Rather than having having a two- or three-year plan, they have a two- or three-year vision with plans for the next set of sprints. They are willing to iterate over time and move forward on a journey. It is almost as if they are adapting agile principles developed in technology and now adapting them to business.

What that’s doing, though, is reverberating back into technology. Now you have the business budget holders exercising more power, more influence, and more direction. They are unwilling or less willing to undertake foundational building – big, huge projects that take many months, many years. They want to make short-term investments that create demonstrated value and then build on that value as they move forward.

Fundamentally, that means the relative decision-making power is sort of sliding back towards the business away from the CTO / CIO, who have been given in the last few years large quantities of capital to broadly modernize and move into a more digital state and IT architecture.

Now we are shifting to the people on the business side saying they are taking over that journey and exercising more direct influence on what is to be done, and with what vendors.

That has a downstream effect on corporate purchasing of IT architecture and on how both tech and tech services firms go to market and who they sell to.


There are both short-term and long-term implications to the tech stack and the tech services organization needing to converge to become intimate with the business operations.

Those who are in the tech services organization or the third-party vendors in their business suggest that companies will need to become far more disciplinary in their skill sets. Rather than just bringing cloud expertise or AI expertise, they need to bring domain expertise, consulting skills and change management skills. They need business skills because they increasingly will need to solve business problems, not just technical problems.

Many of the tech services firms may need to move from thinking of themselves as the custodians of technology to now being the agents of change. As they do that, they must broaden their skill sets and capabilities as technology becomes more intimate to the business if they are going to successfully operate in that environment. At the same time, the business will have to broaden its skills to include more technology awareness, knowledge, and capability.

If a company moves into this environment, whether it’s an AI environment or just a mature digital environment, the multidisciplinary approach is likely something the company will need to expand.

That is one set of implications. Another set of implications is the need for continuity of talent. The more intimate the relationship between technology tech services in the business becomes, the more necessary it becomes to have continuity of talent.

Most companies’ current structure is one of specialization in moving specialists in to do discrete work. They need to reexamine that and potentially build a bigger bench of people who are less generalists and are very specific to a business function and its technology. They may have a broader set of technical skills but be more focused in going down a specific functional or business journey.

A final implication is how to pay for talent. In theory, as a company introduces more automation into its environment, it would result in fewer people. But those that remain are more capable. They need to be broader, deeper, better thinkers.

Automation eliminates routine work and amplifies the complex work. Everywhere we at Everest Group have looked at this, we see the talent pool rotate into a smaller but more highly paid, more capable team. Thus, a company needs different talent management strategies and expectations.