According to an independent survey of financial IT investment decision makers in international enterprises, almost 60% of respondents have no overall understanding how an IT budget cut impacts their business performance or risk exposure.
The study further reveals that barely 4% determine their IT budget in accordance with the company’s actual business strategy or an IT portfolio analysis. As a consequence, more than 90% of the participants admit that they base their IT budget on industry benchmarks - as an arbitrary percentage of revenue - or simply tweak the previous year’s budget.
Another survey earlier this year showed that high quality information on IT landscapes in organizations is infrequent. A study by Nucleus Research showed that IT decision makers on average are constrained to deal with data that is on average 14 months old and only 55% correct.
The intention of the new study was to explore how financial IT decision makers are affected by the lack of reliable information. The results show that IT investment decisions are rarely based on reliable data and that decision processes are slowed down significantly by a lack of information on demand. As a result, only 30% of financial decision makers think their IT portfolios are fully aligned with business strategy and less than 14% think they can adjust them very quickly to changes in business.
Some Key Findings:
The situation – lack of information on demand:
* Less than half of the respondents (46.1 %) say they have a central system for analyzing, forecasting and measuring changes made in their IT portfolio.
* A minority of 32.5% is running standard reports to measure the alignment of their IT portfolio with current business requirements; the majority relies on ad-hoc analysis by either the IT department (32.2%) or a business department (27.5%).
* 85% of respondents do not have automatically-generated insight on the impact of a budget cut on risk exposure and business performance; one in five participants even has to wait longer than a month for the information, slowing down the decision processes dramatically.
* Only 15 % of the decision makers maintain that they have instant access to reliable information about the impact of budget cutbacks on the business performance and risk exposure.
The result – flat-rate budgeting and too little responsiveness:
* Nearly 60% of the financial decision makers do not believe that they have a clear understanding about where and how IT budget cutbacks could impact the business performance and possible risks.
* Barely 4% of the participants state that their budgeting is based on their business strategy and on an IT portfolio analysis. In contrast, over 90 % base their budget on previous year’s spending (28.3%) or an industry benchmark (61.3%) rather than their specific enterprise situation.
* Only 13.5 % can react very quickly to changes; one in five admits to reacting slowly or very slowly.
* Only 29.3% consider their IT portfolios as fully aligned; one in five concede that they are aligned only partly or even hardly.
The 10-question survey, conducted by IDG Business Research Service, canvassed CFOs and financial decision makers in large international corporations with more than 1,000 employees in August and September 2011 by phone. It was commissioned by alfabet AG, a provider of strategic IT planning and Business IT Management solutions.
The Latest
Like most digital transformation shifts, organizations often prioritize productivity and leave security and observability to keep pace. This usually translates to both the mass implementation of new technology and fragmented monitoring and observability (M&O) tooling. In the era of AI and varied cloud architecture, a disparate observability function can be dangerous. IT teams will lack a complete picture of their IT environment, making it harder to diagnose issues while slowing down mean time to resolve (MTTR). In fact, according to recent data from the SolarWinds State of Monitoring & Observability Report, 77% of IT personnel said the lack of visibility across their on-prem and cloud architecture was an issue ...
In MEAN TIME TO INSIGHT Episode 23, Shamus McGillicuddy, VP of Research, Network Infrastructure and Operations, at EMA discusses the NetOps labor shortage ...
Technology management is evolving, and in turn, so is the scope of FinOps. The FinOps Foundation recently updated their mission statement from "advancing the people who manage the value of cloud" to "advancing the people who manage the value of technology." This seemingly small change solidifies a larger evolution: FinOps practitioners have organically expanded to be focused on more than just cloud cost optimization. Today, FinOps teams are largely — and quickly — expanding their job descriptions, evolving into a critical function for managing the full value of technology ...
Enterprises are under pressure to scale AI quickly. Yet despite considerable investment, adoption continues to stall. One of the most overlooked reasons is vendor sprawl ... In reality, no organization deliberately sets out to create sprawling vendor ecosystems. More often, complexity accumulates over time through well-intentioned initiatives, such as enterprise-wide digital transformation efforts, point solutions, or decentralized sourcing strategies ...
Nearly every conversation about AI eventually circles back to compute. GPUs dominate the headlines while cloud platforms compete for workloads and model benchmarks drive investment decisions. But underneath that noise, a quieter infrastructure challenge is taking shape. The real bottleneck in enterprise AI is not processing power, it is the ability to store, manage and retrieve the relentless volumes of data that AI systems generate, consume and multiply ...
The 2026 Observability Survey from Grafana Labs paints a vivid picture of an industry maturing fast, where AI is welcomed with careful conditions, SaaS economics are reshaping spending decisions, complexity remains a defining challenge, and open standards continue to underpin it all ...
The observability industry has an evolving relationship with AI. We're not skeptics, but it's clear that trust in AI must be earned ... In Grafana Labs' annual Observability Survey, 92% said they see real value in AI surfacing anomalies before they cause downtime. Another 91% endorsed AI for forecasting and root cause analysis. So while the demand is there, customers need it to be trustworthy, as the survey also found that the practitioners most enthusiastic about AI are also the most insistent on explainability ...
In the modern enterprise, the conversation around AI has moved past skepticism toward a stage of active adoption. According to our 2026 State of IT Trends Report: The Human Side of Autonomous AI, nearly 90% of IT professionals view AI as a net positive, and this optimism is well-founded. We are seeing agentic AI move beyond simple automation to actively streamlining complex data insights and eliminating the manual toil that has long hindered innovation. However, as we integrate these autonomous agents into our ecosystems, the fundamental DNA of the IT role is evolving ...
AI workloads require an enormous amount of computing power ... What's also becoming abundantly clear is just how quickly AI's computing needs are leading to enterprise systems failure. According to Cockroach Labs' State of AI Infrastructure 2026 report, enterprise systems are much closer to failure than their organizations realize. The report ... suggests AI scale could cause widespread failures in as little as one year — making it a clear risk for business performance and reliability.
The quietest week your engineering team has ever had might also be its best. No alarms going off. No escalations. No frantic Teams or Slack threads at 2 a.m. Everything humming along exactly as it should. And somewhere in a leadership meeting, someone looks at the metrics dashboard, sees a flat line of incidents and says: "Seems like things are pretty calm over there. Do we really need all those people?" ... I've spent many years in engineering, and this pattern keeps repeating ...