The IT identity crisis: Why defining technology is a leadership challenge

Ray Delany
Mar 29
3 min read

Updated: Apr 17

For decades, business leaders have wrestled with technology—what it is, what it does, and how to manage it. The problem isn’t just complexity; it’s the lack of clear and consistent definitions. Executives are expected to make strategic decisions about “IT,” “digital,” “data,” “applications,” and “infrastructure” as if these are separate, unrelated concepts. In reality, they are deeply interconnected, but our ever-changing terminology creates the illusion of fragmentation.

The evolution of IT: From economic concept to corporate headache

The term Information Technology (IT) wasn’t originally coined by technologists but by economists in the 1970s and 1980s to describe the growing economic impact of computing. It was a broad term covering everything from mainframes to early software development. It was useful because it gave business leaders a way to think about investment in technology.

Then came Information and Communications Technology (ICT), a term that gained traction as digital networks—email, the internet, and mobile

communications—became central to business. The addition of "Communications" recognised that connectivity was just as important as computing power. But while ICT was useful in government and academia, the corporate world largely stuck with IT, leading to another layer of ambiguity.

The web and the rise of “digital”

In the late 1990s and early 2000s, web development emerged as a distinct discipline, often treated separately from traditional software development. This division made little objective sense—web applications are still software—but because websites were customer-facing, they were seen as belonging to marketing, not IT. In a corporate context this probably had something to do with Marketing being seen as easier to communicate with than the notoriously prickly “IT people”.

This artificial separation led to the rise of "digital" as a new category. Businesses started talking about “digital transformation,” implying that customer-facing applications (like websites and mobile apps) were separate from the underlying IT infrastructure that supported them. Some organisations even created "digital teams" outside of IT, reinforcing the idea that IT was about old, clunky back-office systems, while digital was about innovation.

The latest divide: IT vs. applications

Today, we’re seeing yet another split—this time between IT and applications. IT is increasingly being defined as infrastructure (networks, data centres, security), while software and applications are treated as a separate domain. The result? Businesses risk losing control over their technology landscape because they no longer see it as a single, integrated ecosystem.

The leadership challenge

For executives, these shifting definitions create serious challenges:

Lack of Clear Ownership – If "IT" means infrastructure and "digital" means applications, who is responsible for ensuring the two work together?
Confusion in Decision-Making – Should budget decisions be made under IT, digital, or a separate software function? Who leads technology strategy?
Missed Opportunities for Integration – Artificial barriers between IT, digital, and applications prevent businesses from creating seamless customer and operational experiences.

A more unified approach

Rather than chasing the latest terminology, business leaders should focus on technology as a whole—not as disconnected parts. This means:

Recognising that all software is IT, whether it's customer-facing or back-office.
Understanding that infrastructure and applications are inseparable—great customer experiences depend on reliable, well-managed IT foundations.
Ensuring clear leadership and accountability for all technology decisions, avoiding silos between IT, digital, and data teams.

Technology isn’t getting any simpler, but how we define it shouldn’t make it harder. By breaking down artificial distinctions, businesses can regain control and make smarter, more strategic technology decisions.