Gartner defines Bimodal IT as “an organizational model that segments IT into two categories based on application requirements, maturity, and criticality.” (Gartner, 2016). Specifically, “Bimodal is the practice of managing two separate but coherent styles of work: one focused on predictability; the other on exploration. Mode 1 is optimized for areas that are more predictable and well-understood. It focuses on exploiting what is known, while renovating the legacy environment into a state that is fit for a digital world. Mode 2 is exploratory, experimenting to solve new problems and optimized for areas of uncertainty” (Gartner IT Glossary, n.d.). Mode 1 is considered “traditional” and Mode 2 is considered the new “Agile” model.

Besides the hype behind this concept and the desire to be more agile in the Digital Era, haven’t we seen this movie before? Hasn’t there always been a struggle between “development/innovation” and “operations/stability?” Besides being a spurious rehashing of old concepts, Bimodal IT also puts unnecessary structure and risk on an IT enterprise that runs counter to agile concepts and necessitates the creation of separate investment, management, and governance techniques for each category.

The balance between being a good operational custodian and being innovative and responsive to the business has been addressed many times and is not a new concept. For example, the Information Technology Infrastructure Library (ITIL) provides guidance on the proper balance in IT Operations by looking at several factors:

  • Balance between external and internal focus – A focus on internal matters risks not meeting business requirements; while a focus on external matters risks under-delivering promises to the business
  • Balance between stability and responsiveness – A focus on stability risks ignoring changing business requirements; while a focus on responsiveness risks overspending on changes
  • Balance between focus on cost and quality – A focus on cost risks reduction in quality; while a focus on quality risks over-spending to deliver (possibly) higher levels of service than is needed
  • And probably the most relevant, the balance between being too reactive or too proactive – A focus on being reactive risks being to effectively support the business strategy; while a focus on being proactive risks in (possibly) fixing services that are not broken, resulting in higher levels and cost of change.

But let’s be practical. Besides being addressed before, the specific domain of Bimodal IT is fraught with its own deficiencies. First there are specific risks:

  • Lost communication: two separate teams, with two separate goals, risks communication issues between both. A disjointed IT department not working towards a common goal may arise.
  • Culture: Any time a business tries to change the way they’ve operated for years, you’ll find some employees who want no part of it. When the IT department gets split into two separate teams, you’ll find it can create an “us vs. them” mentality and you may unintentionally segregate the workforce and create two “classes.” This can be mitigated, but Bimodal IT comes with a cost that can offset benefits
  • Confusion: Some businesses have no idea how to proceed at the job of “innovating.” Sounds good in theory, but organizations still must strike a balance
  • Transition Strategies: Once an new development is completed or an innovation is introduce, it must still be put into operation and supported. The transition must now happen across artificially created teams thereby creating an artificial (and unnecessary) barrier.

Then there are specific disadvantages:

  • Bimodal is not sustainable – The creation of artificial siloes runs counter to the innovation and collaboration required in the digital era. There will likely be different products, processes and people for each silo. There may also be Mode 1 stagnation through discouraging innovation on legacy systems. Finally, Gartner admits Mode 2 still requires a disciplined approach. This is counter to an innovative model and ironically lines up with Mode 1 principles
  • Bimodal causes stagnation – It forces organizations to deal with growing stagnation within their legacy systems when sprints and agility are over emphasized. You may have to leave a second team back in the IT office to trudge through underwhelming work deliverables
  • The problem of Mode 1 isolation — IT leadership will focus issues and ideas that face customers and business units, not issues the impact stability. Nor will IT leadership address some innovations that go directly to stability unless they are Mode 2.

So, have we seen Bimodal IT before? Yes, we have. We have already mentioned ITIL. But a review of history gives us Development vs. Operations; IT vs. Shadow IT; Mainframe vs. Client Server; and Waterfall vs. iterative/agile. Shall I go on?

Aside from being a rehashing of old principles, Bimodal is flawed in its own right. Creating additional and artificial organization structures creates risks, artificial communication barriers, two (or more) distinct cultures, and inherent disadvantages not worth the hype.
About the Author: