The standard of performance for symphony orchestras is that of sound. If they sound good, they are good. Of course, symphonists don't dress shabbily, but any group of relatively civilized individuals could be dressed up to look good in black tie and tails. Anything that gets in the way of perfect sound is immediately eradicated from their world--mostly because the musicians, the conductors, and the other individuals supporting the effort have total control of all elements necessary to bring about a perfect result. Copyists do not stand in the way. Accountants do not stand in the way. Stage hands would not dare stand in the way.

 

The standard of performance for economic institutions is individual and group performance. Do the people of the organization routinely muster the resources at their disposal for the betterment of their customers and other constituents and supporters? Can the overall system capture the best ideas generated from within the organization--and from its partners and agents--quickly, effectively, and at reasonable cost? Not only should such a standard of performance be applied to static requirements, but with regard to changing, dynamic organizational behavior. Can the organization turn on a dime without compromising its future and unduly stretching its resources? This is most important with regard to global, international firms engaged in complex, changing markets.

 

How should computer systems be judged in this regard? Should they be viewed based on architectures, interfaces, sophisticated design tools, and elegant solutions? Quite frankly, who cares about the latest technical feat? The proof is in the pudding--does it help us manage better? If a system supports, allows, and assists the institution in the process of continually changing and improving--then it is good. If it doesn't, then it will probably not stand the test of time.