The conclusion of the debate about IP versus bricks

Someone asked me this question: "Chris, why are still arguing?" about the debate
I have been having for the last week.  It is because one reader
fundamentally disagrees with my views about IP being the foundation of
today's bank.

I've been having it because I wanted the debate to
reach a conclusion and it has. The conclusion of the debate is that this reader thinks you should build a bank around bricks and mortar first,
and then think about technology afterwards. 

I
think you should start with customers, employees, processes and
organisation structure first, then look at how to build the optimal
technology architecture with IP as its underpinning to support those
processes, and finally build with bricks and mortar to manage the
organisation structure at the end.   

Banks are trying to do the
latter and, with greenfield operations, could do so.   Instead, due to
the fact that they started building the other way years ago, they are
having to find a path to marry the two worlds.

And yes, I'm
passionate about the bank being built around IP foundations today as,
to me, it is like a discussion about rewiring a house that has faulty
wiring or a building with subsidence.  If you had a house built in the
1920s with old-fashioned and out-of-date wiring and crumbling
foundations, then you would rewire it and rebuild it for today's
national grid.   And today that's a wireless IP grid. 

So, in
this posting, I'm going to reveal something totally different.

What's been more interesting is the blogging and social networking aspect of this debate. 

This reader is entitled to his views ... as am I.

So
I've had emails saying "Chris, stop it", "you're above all this",
"ignore him "leave it out" and so on and so forth.  Well yes, I
could stop but I didn't. Why?

(a) I like a good debate, when it's worth having;

(b) the nature of today's social internet should allow social dialogue and debate;

(c) I'm not "above anything" -
I'm just a guy with online opinions like anyone else, and the fact that
I am pretty opinionated myself puts me out there ready for a debate; and

(d) there really should not be any censorship of this debate, as that's not the point of blogs is it?

In
other words, the beauty of the internet is that anyone can have a
debate with me.  I may be right or I may be wrong.   However, the very
fact that we can have this debate online is the beauty of
blogs, social networking and the internet.

For this, I thank Tim Berners-Lee and the fantastic world of the IP-enabled 21st century.