Because of a combination of market and technology perspectives, the looser approach to integration is very powerful. There are a lot of technologies available, and vendors are trying very hard to sell them. At the same time, from a technology perspective, it's much easier to integrate without having to commit to any single vendor. For example, with IBM's On Demand initiative, it's very easy to try a bunch of new technologies without being committed to [IBM]. Just couple in to what IBM is offering, experiment with [the applications], then integrate them with your internal assets.

How can a company ensure that its integration strategy is on the right track, effectively translating strategy into action? And how can a CIO push this along?

From the CIO's perspective, these should be fantastic times. Not in some ways, of course, but from a technology development perspective. CIOs have a huge number of external options, as well as an enormous amount of leverage for how to bring in those options, such as different technologies, different software applications and different consulting services.

Right now, possibly more than any other time, CIOs are in the driver's seat. They have great leverage in terms of more technology choices and getting good deals. Obviously, CIOs are under a lot of pressure to cut costs. At the same time, it's a good time [to invest in technology] because you can get more for less. From a technology understanding perspective, it's much simpler than it was before because it's easier to link different technologies.

The biggest challenge for CIOs is to prioritise what technologies to pull in. They need strong architectural expertise to figure out how the different choices fit because they are the ultimate integrators of all the external suppliers. There's a real opportunity to use this leverage right now, while the market is down, to push themselves in front of competitors that are a little too conservative. The CIO's role is primarily one of architecture and the process of integrating.

For the retail study [done for Technology Integration], we looked at the technology strategies of several large retailers in the post-Internet daze. Walgreens potentially had the most integrated strategy. The company took a little longer but figured out how to best connect new technology with its existing assets.

However, the number of organisations that went the other way and got slaughtered was huge (such as CVS, which bought and tacked on its online business externally). There is no external venture that was successful. Most - nearly 70 per cent - were reintegrated and the rest were shut down. Integrators such as Walgreens have done well, while Hail Mary passers such as CVS have not.

How does implementing and maintaining an effective integration strategy translate into competitive advantage?

Integrating internal and external assets is more conservative [than buying or starting an external spinoff]. It's more efficient. In the retail study, we measured the difference in efficiency between integration players [like Walgreens] and the Hail Mary external spinouts [like CVS], and it was enormous. Differences of 3-to-1 were easy to come by in sales per employee or whatever productivity measure you'd like to define.