Why I.T. Matters

initial argument was silly by grub · 2004-05-28 09:13 · Score: 5, Insightful

Of course I.T. has value, just because everyone has it doesn't make it worthess. Imagine a new startup that didn't have email and web access resorting to faxes, snail mail and the library for all its research. They'd be out of business in no time.

I can't imagine Henry Ford saying "Horseless carriages have no value because everyone has them."

--
Trolling is a art,

Re:initial argument was silly by John+Hurliman · 2004-05-28 09:45 · Score: 2, Insightful

Plenty of businesses get by without the latest technology. Are you saying a restaurant is going to fail because they don't have a website? I'd be more inclined to say a restaurant will fail because they invested too much in a new computer system that is prone to failure and frequent tech support calls, and requires a learning curve for new employees.
Re:initial argument was silly by pipingguy · 2004-05-28 10:22 · Score: 2, Insightful

Imagine a new startup that didn't have email and web access resorting to faxes, snail mail

Please define "startup".

Not all business are IT-dependant.
Re:initial argument was silly by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-28 10:23 · Score: 0

You are thinking in typical IT worker. Most of the "startups" are not in a tech area.

Imagine a small town with 6,000 inhabitants. You answer an add in the paper (using an old typewriter) that you will pick up the trash in town for 120,000$ for the year, payable 1/52th per week. You negotiated in person an option on a used truck, it's yours if you get the contract.

You win the contract and start driving; your son and brother-in-law throwing the trash in the truck.

Of course it help if you have 250 trucks to place GPS on all of them and make sure they follow the most efficient path according to the 'traveler salesman' algorithm your computer calculated! But you don't HAVE to, and for some business type limiting the IT can bring down costs!
Re:initial argument was silly by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-28 11:12 · Score: 0

He is probably right, you know. IT has become nothing more than a 'frame-of-reference tool' that can be used to produce other tools and answer questions/solve problems. The question is always: how good are you at matching your skills and solutions to the client's needs ... and in a way that they understand?

The challenge is massive -- We are charged with providing answers to nebulous questions, and also explaining them in terms that fit our customer's "frame of reference". Of course, there is the frame-of-reference problem: "If the only tool in your bag is a hammer, then you approach every problem as if it is a nail." The customer cannot tell if the problem is an exposed nail or just some smelly matter right in the middle of their walkway. Use a hammer on smelly matter and - well - you'll quickly smell up the works!

It's up to us to work with our client (no matter who they are) and be the expert on what tool works best. That means we all have some PR improvement to do before customer perception of things will change.

It's all up to us: If we choose to present companies with more illiterate or one dimensional tools, then we further promote the problem and limit how much good can be done with technology; if, instead, we help companies use better and more effective tools, then we have advanced the position of technology ... for them and for us. I work with companies to provide them a vision two years down the road: I explain what they can do with this from now until then, and also how it can be built upon as needed.

We all know the score: technology provides its own usefulness depending on how much we improve our customers and companies. We have to make sure that OUR numbers can be translated into numbers that the CUSTOMER understands. If you can't do that, then learn to do it, get out of the business or hire someone who can! Until you can do that, you are going to be ineffective to your customer ... and you will promote the perception of valueless IT people and solutions in the process.
Re:initial argument was silly by drinkypoo · 2004-05-28 11:56 · Score: 1

This post looked really great with your sig on it. "Not all business are IT-dependant. I breed prizewinning clams." (This is why I have &ltTT>--
at the beginning of my sig...) But let us consider the example of a business without information technology. Can you truly come up with an example of one business that cannot benefit from the use of computers? Is there any business that does not need to manage its money? This one thing alone is enough, to me, to warrant the use of a computer.
Even if what you're doing is keeping track of the pedigree of bivalves.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:initial argument was silly by big+tex · 2004-05-28 12:37 · Score: 1

Back to the initial argument - IT has hit a point of innovation stagnation for many things.

I'd venture an old pentium running peachtree is not an IT "deployment".

--
I think I need a new sig here.
Re:initial argument was silly by pipingguy · 2004-05-28 13:38 · Score: 1

Can you truly come up with an example of one business that cannot benefit from the use of computers? Is there any business that does not need to manage its money?

I'm pretty sure that there are many examples of businesses not requiring IT in order to exist and function. Your example (money management) is a good one, but payroll and related accounting functions have been computerized for a long time. That's not to say that it's not valuable; my point is that traditional businesses will still function with or without IT.
Re:initial argument was silly by nathanh · 2004-05-28 14:08 · Score: 1

Plenty of businesses get by without the latest technology. Are you saying a restaurant is going to fail because they don't have a website?

Any restaurant that doesn't have EFTPOS, electronic credit services, and telephones, is certainly starting from a bad position.
And many restaurants have electronic inventory systems, fax machines for ordering new stock, electronic payroll systems, electronic accounting packages to manage their cash flows.
And many of the competitive restaurants around my town have now invested in PDAs instead of paper notepads. At first my friends and I thought this was stupid ($200 for a PDA vs $1 for a notepad and pen?) but on reflection it's not that dumb. The PDAs are wireless. Any amendments to the menu (eg, "we're out of chicken") are right there on the PDA. The orders are beamed directly to the kitchen and have a time set against them so the chefs can prioritize their meals. And the bill is always perfect. The PDAs make sense.
So sure, restaurants mightn't need websites, but they are investing in the latest technology.
Re:initial argument was silly by Random_Goblin · 2004-05-28 14:26 · Score: 1

you're begging the question by assuming that the low tech solution wins the contract.
An advantage of the higher tech solution is that you can more acurately calculate your costs, operate more efficiently and win the contract at $100,000
one of the key problems in business is making sure you're profitable. And your supposedly simple problem of garbage collection, is actually much more complex than you seem to think.
Fine if everybody uses the same tools to solve the problem you do, (and therefore has the same costs),bit of a bugger if they are using a more efficient model, (and therefore undercust you every time)
Re:initial argument was silly by Pseudonym · 2004-05-29 16:40 · Score: 1

Did you read the original article?

The Harvard Business Review article did not claim that IT was unimportant. The main gist was that IT is not a strategic advantage to the typical business, though it once was. The reason is that everyone has it these days. It's no more a strategic advantage to your business than electricity is.

The author then argued that because everyone has it and everyone needs it, and it's not a strategic advantage, it follows that is a risk. Because it's something you have to have, and it's not a strategic advantage, it follows that the biggest concern is not having enough, but rather keeping an eye on costs. He questioned, for example, the wisdom of putting the IT guy (the confusingly-named "CIO") on the board of directors.

While I'm not defending the original article, the business environment in which it arose has given rise to two main things in US business, both of which are designed to try to minimise business risk in IT: Outsourcing, and open source.

--
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});

IT by An-Unnecessarily-Lon · 2004-05-28 09:16 · Score: 3, Insightful

Will always drive the world. Not always in the spotlight but will control almost everything. From cave men to now Information and Technology have always been the way to advance. Always will be.

Re:IT by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-28 09:19 · Score: 1, Insightful

Except that "IT" as such is only "information technology" by virtue that other people provide the information that travels through well-understood technology.

When I think IT, I think of a moron with only a high school education or worse, a certificate from some certification program, and an attitude.

Ladies and gentlemen, you are the plumbers of the future. Congrats! I hope skipping college has worked out for you.
Re:IT by LilGuy · 2004-05-28 09:55 · Score: 5, Insightful

There's nothing wrong with plumbing. Those guys get paid rather well and they don't have to do jack.

--

You're nothing; like me.
Re:IT by LilGuy · 2004-05-28 11:25 · Score: 1

Oooooh boy, someone's daddy dropped out of college.

For the money they don't do jack. Getting paid $14 / hr for installing a few pipes and fixing leaks ain't too shabby compared to putting up houses at $6 / hr.

--

You're nothing; like me.
Re:IT by Cro+Magnon · 2004-05-28 15:11 · Score: 1

Well, you're always welcome to clean up your own shit. Personally, I'd just as soon pay someone else to do that kind of shit.

--
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.

wow. by abscondment · 2004-05-28 09:16 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Yeah, this is great stuff! We should all go back to typewriters; that was the zenith in the flight of technology.

My father's response to Carr's article by Morganth · 2004-05-28 09:17 · Score: 5, Insightful

My father's been in IT since the beginning (about 30 years). Here's what he had to say about Carr's article (from my email archives):

---

This is a horrible article in many more ways than I thought.
The author is fundamentally wrong, and I intend to prove why.

The foundations of his "fundamental error" can be found early on in the article, when he draws a parallel between IT and various other "things" (telegraph, engines, etc.). Go check it out, neatr the bottom of the second page (page 6 in the original HBR pagination). In the attached PDF, you'll see my yellow highlights, and my annotations, which summarize my objections to the article.

Here's the fundamental error. The parallel he makes is not valid at all. You can tell by observing that the author's examples (steam engine, railroad, telegraph, telephone, generator, internal combustion engine) do NOT fit his argument AT ALL - because they are NOT in any way similar or comparable to IT.

First off, those examples are NOT technologies. They are instances, mere temporal "instantiations" of some technologies. Second, when you look at his numerous examples, you can see that they are merely milestones - some of the many - that have characterized the development path of just TWO technologies: the technology of transportation, and the technology of communication. And you also realize that each new milestone in that list DID represent strategic competitive advantage, regardless of the ubiquity of the two underlying technologies (which have been around nearly forever).

In a very real sense, then, it is RIGHT THERE that the author begins to unwittingly undermine his own argument:

If it is indeed true (as it is, and as he himself later states) that each of those milestones DID create strategic advantage for early adopters and smart or insightful users (key detail, please take notice: for early adopters and smart or insightful users) -- it then follows that there IS ample historical proof of the great long-term strategic value that is inherent in communication technology and in transportation technology. The ubiquity of those technologies is an irrelevant issue, it is entirely besides the point. People have ALWAYS had some form of transportation and and some form of communication. But that dosn't mean that each of those technologies "doesn't matter". Quite the opposite, they both DO matter a lot. But what evidently must matter THE MOST, self-evidently for me but apparently not for the author, must be the FORMS they take, the HOWS of the ways in which the techology is being UTILIZED and/or EXPLOITED, which ultimately boils down to that key but little-noticed clause about early adopters and smart insightful users!...

When everybody walked, the first wheel made a key difference.
When everyone had wheels, the first horse made a key difference.
And so on, and so forth...
But that's precisely what the author FAILS TO SEE in the proper light, even though he often uses examples that suggest precisely the opposite of his conclusions.

Through this fundamental initial error of perspective, the author's whole viewpoint is fatally skewed and blindsighted throuhgout the article. From the shallowness of this initial analysis, and from the appalling intellectual superficiality of these fundamental non-sequiturs which are put forth as his basic premises and laid out up front as keystones of his whole perspective -- the author ends up drawing even more fallacious and yet VERY DANGEROUS conclusions.

His conclusions are dangerous to the innumerable run-of-the-mill, middle-of-the-road, mediocre managers everywhere, who are not mentally equipped to catch this fundamental ERROR in the author's argument, and who therefore will be lulled into BELIEVING the author's conclusions.

I maintain that these managers, and their businesses, will be SWEPT AWAY INTO OBLIVION, just as they've been in the past, by those other and much more sharp-minded managers who don't believe this bullshit for a mi

Re:My father's response to Carr's article by andalay · 2004-05-28 09:21 · Score: 1

Your dad cusses with you? Nice!
Re:My father's response to Carr's article by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-28 09:27 · Score: 0

Here's the fundamental error. The parallel he makes is not valid at all. You can tell by observing that the author's examples (steam engine, railroad, telegraph, telephone, generator, internal combustion engine) do NOT fit his argument AT ALL - because they are NOT in any way similar or comparable to IT.

How can telegraphs and telephones not be similar or comparable to IT? They are IT.
Re:My father's response to Carr's article by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-28 09:39 · Score: 0

They are "instances of" IT. A car is not comparable to "transportation tech". It is an implementation of transportation tech.
Re:My father's response to Carr's article by rockclimber · 2004-05-28 09:46 · Score: 2, Insightful

The question is: Is IT still developping or are we at a point where we cannon go possibly any further/ get better. If we are (A) at the point where the only possible advance left is to recode all bloatware to make it faster and no other room for improvement is left, the article your father dislikes slightly might still be right (just because IT was allways developping, does not mean it will continiue to do so for ever).
If however, huge advancements like in the past are still possible (B), IT is not Dead, it will allways hold profits for the smart and intelligent, and your father is right. I tend to beleive that B is the case and we're not (yet) at the climax of IT, but the near future will bring nice advancements (quantum Computing etc.) and profits to some

so I think your father is right.
Re:My father's response to Carr's article by Jeff+DeMaagd · 2004-05-28 15:06 · Score: 1

I do agree that poor management is a cancer on modern society.

One thing that must be kept in mind is whether a new techology is being adopted for its own sake, or if it will provide a true competitive or societal advantage. Faxes improved on mail, and emails improved on faxes, but mail, email and faxes are all still necessary. Currently, there few technologies that provide such a leap forward to abolish the previous standard but the next few years may hold something new.

Innovators don't always win, sometimes it takes several iterations of a product for an idea to really take hold, and by then, the innovator's company is long gone. The first to market doesn't always win in the long term either.
Re:My father's response to Carr's article by Stu+Charlton · 2004-05-30 03:30 · Score: 1

Your father is a smart man.

1. innovation drives the economy
2. analysis (risk management & number twiddling) is not synthesis (strategy & innovation)
3. read more Peter Drucker.

That's pretty good advice.

--
-Stu

Outsourcing... by WwWonka · 2004-05-28 09:17 · Score: 3, Funny

Why I.T. Matters

Shhhhhhhh.....I.T. flew out the window!

Taken for granted.... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-28 09:17 · Score: 0

I.T. infrastructure is just so ubiquitous within businesses now that it's taken for granted, like the telephone or electricity. Just because it is so common does not mean it is useless.

Golem by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-28 09:17 · Score: 0

funny how we are all slaves to the glass box egh ?

Re:Golem by PHP+Wolf · 2004-05-28 09:27 · Score: 1

funny how we are all slaves to the glass box egh ?

I welcome this glass box as my master

--
Double Compile
Re:Golem by Fred+Foobar · 2004-05-28 09:39 · Score: 0, Redundant

I, for one, welcome our new glass box overlords. :-)

--
It was a really good paper.
Re:Golem by PHP+Wolf · 2004-05-28 09:48 · Score: 1

I, for one, welcome our new glass box overlords. :-)

Ah, I hate people who misquote things, and I myself have just misquoted the Simpsons.

For the shame brought to my family's name I will now impale myself on my glass box overlord.

--
Double Compile
Re:Golem by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-28 12:37 · Score: 0

I will now impale myself on my glass box overlord.

Throw a rock through the glass box. Then you can impale yourself on one of the shards.

Hope that helps.

Whew! by SociallyInept · 2004-05-28 09:17 · Score: 5, Funny

For a while there I thought my degree was useless! Sure wish I hadn't turned down those jobs because they were not strategically sound though...

Re:Whew! by isoxexy · 2004-05-28 09:22 · Score: 1

Me TOO!! I thought for a second I was going to have to scrap my CS degree for a Business Admin degree.

--
"I couldn't come up with anything clever." -Me
Re:Whew! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-28 09:38 · Score: 0

Ha, you just keep pretending that you have a job. If by some strange accident you do, I know a guy in India who has something to say about that.

IT matters by Trigun · 2004-05-28 09:17 · Score: 5, Insightful

Solely for the fact that if your competitor has it, and you don't, he's not your competitor, he's the guy who just beat the crap out of your bottom line.

Re:IT matters by Altus · 2004-05-28 09:45 · Score: 1

Becoming a nation of services and intellectual property?

Where the hell have you been?

--
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
Re:IT matters by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-28 11:50 · Score: 0

And, once all the US has is bits of paper stating they own ephermal nothings (I"P"), countries that actually still make stuff will come along and kick the US's ass by simply declaring I"P" null and void...
Re:IT matters by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-28 11:53 · Score: 0

And, once all the US has is bits of paper stating they own ephermal nothings (I"P"), countries that actually still make stuff will come along and kick the US's ass by simply declaring I"P" null and void...

Reminds one of: http://www.gonewiththeworld.com/

IT hasn't lost its value by October_30th · 2004-05-28 09:18 · Score: 5, Insightful

IT hasn't lost its value. It has just become more of a blue-collar job.

--
The owls are not what they seem

Re:IT hasn't lost its value by Trigun · 2004-05-28 09:23 · Score: 1

Low end IT has become a blue collar job. The network design, project management, software engineering, database administration, and other specialized aspects will be more than blue-collar. The helpdesk, repair, and maintenance skills will be abundant enough to not require PhD.'s
Re:IT hasn't lost its value by October_30th · 2004-05-28 09:29 · Score: 1

Indeed. As I said, IT has become more of a blue collar job.

--
The owls are not what they seem
Re:IT hasn't lost its value by spacecowboy420 · 2004-05-28 09:53 · Score: 2, Insightful

Right. See, being the IT guy at my company is sooo Blue Collar. Any blue collar "plumber" can migrate from windows to linux - mail, domain, file servers, printers, cvs, webservers, internal dns without a second of downtime. That is what a developer does when his Tomcat server takes a shit, he calls some blue collar IT guy to fix it. riiiiight. Not to mention that I have to not only know how to administer the server, I have to be able to program Java at least on some basic level to understand how to make it work. Any blue collar "plummer" has the ability to fix not only the plumbing, but any other problem a structure may have. While we're talking IT, what IT guy worth his salt doesn't know how to program at least in perl or some sort of "scripting" language. Maybe my responsibilities go beyond the average IT guy, but I hardly find any of this blue-collar or outside the scope of IT.

Blue-collar where I come from means mostly manual labor. Yes, there is a base of knowledge, but it doesn't have the range of demands that the IT guy must/should know. A plumber knows the plumbing well, just don't ask him to hang drywall, work on your electrical stuff or fix your ac. You can ask your IT guy how to put a formula in Excel or setup lvm on your linux server. And make it ALL secure. Yeah that's "blue-collar" - like a plumber or a truck driver, pretty much the same.

--
ymmv
Re:IT hasn't lost its value by October_30th · 2004-05-28 09:57 · Score: 1

Blue-collar where I come from means mostly manual labor.
Like the click-and-point management of a Windows NT/W2K/WinXP domain of our department?

--
The owls are not what they seem
Re:IT hasn't lost its value by cfadam · 2004-05-28 10:40 · Score: 2, Insightful

Sure its blue collar, being an IT Guy is more like being a General Contractor.. they're "jacks of all trades, masters of none".

The skills you listed are what I consider "standard IT", these are baselines any "real" IT professional should know. White-collar IT will continue to be specialized skills like DBAs, architects and engineers.

Any mechanic can change your oil but you take your porshe to a porshe mechanic for servicing, the specialization is the difference.
Re:IT hasn't lost its value by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-28 10:41 · Score: 0

If you're only clicking and pointing, you're *not* managing your Windows Domain.

Think about it... and good luck with that.
Re:IT hasn't lost its value by big+tex · 2004-05-28 10:56 · Score: 3, Insightful

OK, first off, no fair lumping plumbers and teamsters together. (How's a teamster like a refrigerator? Shut the door and the lights go out.)

See, all of your things you can do ("formula in Excel or setup lvm on your linux server") are not as far apart as you might think. I bet the plumber can hang drywall just as well as you can program Java, if not better.
Hell, I'll take your downtime and raise you a sprinkler system. No contest on reliability there.

--
I think I need a new sig here.
Re:IT hasn't lost its value by hazem · 2004-05-28 11:32 · Score: 1

While "blue collar" often means "manual labor", a better way to think of it is that a blue-collar worker tends to be a replacable unit. In the plumber example, you can pretty much interchange them, as long as they are both certified. Of course, some have specializations, but for the most part, any certified plumber can handle your plumbing problem.

Likewise, as computers and networks become more ubiquitous, the skills become more standardized. As the skills become more standardized, the people who perform them become more interchangeable. In that sense, IT is becoming more "blue collar" because the people doing it are becoming more interchangeable.
Re:IT hasn't lost its value by drinkypoo · 2004-05-28 12:05 · Score: 1

Blue collar how? Outside of a major colocation center where you might actually need a fork lift driver, most IT workers are employed in a suit and tie environment - though some of them are lucky enough not to have to wear either.
On the other hand, you can hire peons at near minimum wage to do most of your PC support tasks. Sometimes they're called interns. :)

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:IT hasn't lost its value by Dun+Malg · 2004-05-28 13:24 · Score: 1

OK, first off, no fair lumping plumbers and teamsters together. (How's a teamster like a refrigerator? Shut the door and the lights go out.)
OK, that joke went right over my head. As an electrician, I'm always looking for another teamster joke, but this one makes no sense.
How many teamsters does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
Four. You got a problem wit' dat?

--
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
Re:IT hasn't lost its value by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-28 14:16 · Score: 0

If you think that click-and-point is your idea of manual labor, then you clearly don't know what you are talking about.
Re:IT hasn't lost its value by big+tex · 2004-05-29 00:44 · Score: 1

OK, so you are lining out Mr. teamster for the day - "we're loading over here, dump site is down the road, past the second gas station, big yellow sign, got it?"
He gets it, seems lucid, but the moment he shuts the door it's like Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Tard.

The joke does loose a lot in delivery, though.

--
I think I need a new sig here.
Re:IT hasn't lost its value by big+tex · 2004-05-29 00:49 · Score: 1

Blue collar does not equal manual labor.
Besides, dress code is the worst thing to gauge this on - strippers are blue collar workers.

They got the best dress code ever.

--
I think I need a new sig here.
Re:IT hasn't lost its value by Kaboom13 · 2004-05-29 04:58 · Score: 1

Besides, dress code is the worst thing to gauge this on - strippers are blue collar workers.

They got the best dress code ever.

I'd like to see you try to walk in stripper clothes (wait, no I wouldn't) before you comment on their dress code.
Re:IT hasn't lost its value by drinkypoo · 2004-05-29 05:00 · Score: 1

There are male strippers and they are mostly wearing easy to remove outfits and comfortable shoes, or some kind of boots. (You know, construction, fire, cowboy, etc.)
If I had a finely tuned physique I could think of worse jobs than waving my wang at roomfuls of drooling women. But as Mix-a-Lot says, I don't, cause I drink much brew(brou?)-ha. (ha!)

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"

it might matter if... by aramith · 2004-05-28 09:18 · Score: 3, Insightful

More people actually learned about the technologies used instead of just blindly assuming what they use is good. Maybe if more people learned instead of just being a paper MCSE, IT would matter more.

Re:it might matter if... by Aceticon · 2004-05-28 21:45 · Score: 1

More people actually learned about the technologies used instead of just blindly assuming what they use is good. Maybe if more people learned instead of just being a paper MCSE, IT would matter more.

Actually it's completly the other way around:
- People shouldn't have to worry about the technologies that they use.

For a company to strategically differenciate itself from the competition it needs to cut costs, improve performance, increase efficiency, detect trends early and act on them swiftly, provide an improved customer service and more.

IT is but a tool here. And as powerfull a tool as IT is, it can't just by itself make a company successful - a lot of other things are required.

Companies don't care about technology. They care about improving they're business processes to get a competitive advantage.
- Is it with a Windows NT machine running Exchange Server
- Is it by figuring out that their organizational chart is unbalanced
- Is it with a Java Web Application on Tomcat; is it by adding a second factory machine to remove the bottleneck on the production line
- Is it with a set of Perl scripts
- Is it by fine tunning the market segment that the sales forces should concentrate on
- Is it a MySQL database ... it doesn't really mater.

The big questions from a company point of view are:
a) How much will it cost me (both now to make it happen and later to keep it going)?
b) How long will it take to make it happen?
c) What improvement(s) will it bring?
d) Is it worth it?

"What technology it is?" is only important as part of figuring out a) and b).

Going back to the whole strategical differenciation part of this article - improving business processes by deploying IT solutions in the right places can provide a strategical diferentiation. However, it's not the specifics of the technology that provide the big advantages - it's knowing the right places where to deploy the techonology, the right uses to deploy it to and even more important when to use IT and when not to use it.

You are missing the point by sirianni · 2004-05-28 09:19 · Score: 4, Insightful

Not that I agree with the initial argument, but I believe the point is that it does not have *strategic* value. For example a business does not try to get ahead by providing a better delivery service to its customers, it simply uses UPS or FedEx. That is to say, delivery or fulfillment has no strategic value, its not a differentiator in the marketplace.

Re:You are missing the point by happyfrogcow · 2004-05-28 09:27 · Score: 4, Insightful

But IT does have a strategic value to UPS and FedEx, two companies whose product is not at all IT related. So they try to get ahead by leveraging IT... scanning codes on packages, automatically updating databases, end users querying those databases.
Re:You are missing the point by LostCluster · 2004-05-28 10:00 · Score: 1

Yes, but the business that tries to cut costs by using USPS in place of UPS/FedEx is running a big risk, because their competitors can ship faster and more reliably than they can.

Running behind the market standard that everybody else is using is a differentiator in the marketplace. Just because there's a 48-way tie on an issue doesn't mean it's meaningless... all 48 need to keep themselves up at that level or they'd be at a huge disadvantage.
Re:You are missing the point by ZoneGray · 2004-05-28 10:10 · Score: 4, Insightful

IT is important to FedEx and UPS, but few people will choose one or the other based on technology. More likely, some other factor will be more important.... lowest price, who has the nearest dropff, which one screwed up on you.

Likewise, technology doesn't give either one a cost advantage over the other, they're both pretty equal.

Five or ten years ago, things were evolving so quickly that a company that was year ahead of the curve had a huge advantage over a company that was a year behind the curve. Now, in most (but not all) industries, technology has evolved to the point where all companies in a certain industry are on roughly equal footing. In that sense, the original "IT Doesn't Matter" article is spot on. Of course, IT does still matter, but you now have to be a lot more selective and realistic about the returns.
Re:You are missing the point by happyfrogcow · 2004-05-28 10:24 · Score: 3, Insightful

Just because you are on equal footing doesn't mean your at the top of the mountain. Maybe you can rest and catch your breath, take a look around to see the best path to the top. But in a minute your competition will start climbing again so you better as well.

but few people will choose one or the other based on technology. More likely, some other factor will be more important.... lowest price, who has the nearest dropff, which one screwed up on you.

Of course! technology should be transparent to the end user. Things should just improve for reasons unknown to them. UPS should be trying all sorts of things to try to keep my business. So how will UPS know where to put their next new drop off without data gathered? won't a conveniently placed drop off reduce your expenditures, helping to keep prices lower?

IT is not a commodity. That the wrong word to use. It's a neccesity. All commodities are not neccesities and vice versa.
Re:You are missing the point by big+tex · 2004-05-28 10:42 · Score: 1

But is USPS slower / more expensive because they have worse IT, or because they employ more full-time workers and don't offshore anything?

Bet it's not the IT.

--
I think I need a new sig here.
Re:You are missing the point by ronsonal · 2004-05-28 10:44 · Score: 1

USPS in place of UPS/FedEx is running a big risk, because their competitors can ship faster and more reliably than they can. Not true in all circumstances. Nor is it true that USPS is cheaper. The network of coverage for USPS in nearly 100% domestically, something that can't be said of its competitors. The point being, if you need the best service, you don't just use one company. You use all 3.

--
Your Mom
Re:You are missing the point by drinkypoo · 2004-05-28 11:52 · Score: 1

IT is important to FedEx and UPS, but few people will choose one or the other based on technology. More likely, some other factor will be more important.... lowest price, who has the nearest dropff, which one screwed up on you.

For UPS and FedEx, IT is a way to improve their price, dropoff locations (or handling pickups), and avoiding screwing up on people. The company with the better handle on IT is going to be more efficient.

Usually it's only smaller players who are chosen because they utilize a specific technology, like when they support Linux and they get chosen on moral grounds. But, a company which has a more on the spot IT department will likely have their other ducks in a row as a result. IT is the road down which information travels and if it is not smoothly paved it may end up out of sorts, or not get there at all. Since basically every business lives and dies by having accurate information, IT is absosmegginglutely critical.

None of this is to say that spending more money on IT necessarily provides any increase in revenue, but to not keep up with the rest of the world means someone smarter than you is going to kick your ass. I'd say that's pretty strategic :)

If IT didn't give one or the other a cost advantage, they wouldn't be doing it. The fact is that if one of them had neglected their IT run-up and the other hadn't, the one that had neglected it would find itself unable to do business for anywhere near the same cost and price themselves right out of the market.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:You are missing the point by Maserati · 2004-05-28 12:27 · Score: 3, Interesting

Oh yes people do choose a shipping company based on their IT advantages. The features available for managing 20 people routinely sending FedEx shipments, each with their own billing codes, address books, tracking number lookups etc. are very important. We've recently added an admin account and 50 user accounts to our FedEx account. If they couldn't provide a way for managing all this activity we'd find an overnight provider who can.

We're an ad agency, naturally we're weird, but we can't be the only industry who looks to IT solutions to make our lives easier.

--
Veteran, Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force, 1992-1951
Re:You are missing the point by Dun+Malg · 2004-05-28 12:31 · Score: 1

IT is important to FedEx and UPS, but few people will choose one or the other based on technology.
No, but I'd choose either of them over the US Postal Service based on their use of technology. Ever tried to track a lost USPS package? Fergit it.

--
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
Re:You are missing the point by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-28 13:37 · Score: 0

Likewise, technology doesn't give either one a cost advantage over the other, they're both pretty equal.
This is not true at all. There are still lots of ways to utilize IT to cut costs at both UPS and FedEx. More advanced tracking technologies are an obvious candidate. Right now the customer can track packages as they move between facilities. However, the current systems only provide rudimentary capabilities for tracking packages within the facilities for the company itself. If a package gets stuck somewhere, if it goes to the wrong outbound dock, if it is loaded on the wrong truck, if a priority package is misidentified, the company loses money. Finer grained tracking has the potential to greatly reduce all of these problems. That is why both FedEx and UPS are looking into better tracking systems.
Re:You are missing the point by ericspinder · 2004-05-28 14:00 · Score: 1

While I agree with your conclusion, about being "a lot more selective and realistic about the returns". I have to disagree with...

Five or ten years ago, things were evolving so quickly that a company that was year ahead of the curve had a huge advantage over a company that was a year behind the curve
What about Google, they were a 'late' entry into the seach market business, and yet look at them now. One of the biggest problems with the 'bubble mentality' was that people thought that IT itself was the strategy; In reality it never was, except in the minds of Wall Street. The 'brass ring' goes to companies which correctly leverage IT, included new technologies. Being first to market with an idea can still help, but I believe the being "Best to Market" is what companies need to shoot for.

--
The grass is only greener, if you don't take care of your own lawn.
Re:You are missing the point by NateTech · 2004-05-28 18:45 · Score: 1

All this mountain climbing B.S. -- the answer to most business problems is right in the word business... Busy.

Get busy, stay busy, do what your customers want, and knock off all the silly rah-rah crap about "Reaching the Peak" or "Summiting the Goal" or whatever... it turns off a lot of people on your staff just as much as it energizes others.

All most normal people come to those big corporate rah-rah meetings to hear are two things:

1. Are we making money?
2. Where the after-meeting food is.

Who wouldn't love to walk into a business meeting like that. That's true business. The rest of it... wasting everyone (including the speaker's) time.

--
+++OK ATH

Strategic value of Oxygen? by G4from128k · 2004-05-28 09:20 · Score: 5, Interesting

I believe Cisco (aka the Bandwidth Growers Association) likens enterprise IT fabric to oxygen -- its just something you must have to keep the business running. Like oxygen, IT is now taken from granted.

For myself and my wife, we could not do what we do or earn what we earn without the Internet or our Macs.

--
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.

Re:Strategic value of Oxygen? by GrassMunk · 2004-05-29 03:31 · Score: 1

This is so right. Everyone bitches about the cost of the new mail server but if the old one failed and it took a week to get email back this whole place would be a shitstorm.

I guess.... by xenostar · 2004-05-28 09:21 · Score: 2, Insightful

...neither of them know that part of IT that handles support of a company with 200+ windows 95/98 computers.

Re:I guess.... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-28 09:46 · Score: 1, Informative

That hurts.

In a somewhat related idea, how many people have gone with a lightweight install...possibly Linux-based desktops where all the data/accounting/CRM/etc. were done with web-based apps using something like java/jsp? (or LAMP if you think it's ready) Technically, all the stuff can be done from a web browser (Firefox) and most everything handled server-side.

With the open standards, you can have your jsp create OO.org files for mail merges, reports, spreadsheet files with pertinent data, mailing lists, fax lists, etc.

Thus those win98 boxen can get a facelift with Linux, still be functioning with e-mail and web. No real need to do the 2yr (or even 5yr) upgrade cycle. Yes, there's an initial cost in the other infrastructure, but in the long run, I see cheaper TCO...in maintenance alone!

Ginger by nearlygod · 2004-05-28 09:21 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Are we talking about Ginger here?

--
The Tools Of Ignorance wanna be a tool?

commodity IT is no longer a strategic advantage by andalay · 2004-05-28 09:23 · Score: 5, Insightful

but not having IT is a strategic disadvantage

Re:commodity IT is no longer a strategic advantage by happyfrogcow · 2004-05-28 10:10 · Score: 2, Insightful

What is commodity IT? what part of IT is a commodity? a web site? end user support of whatever your product is? internal support? fast network connection? 99.999% uptime? Desktop Computers?

IT is a commodity only until you take a look at the individual peices of your IT infrastructure and look at them more closely, instead of from an abstract point of view.

Commodity:
In the original and simplified sense, commodities were things of value, of uniform quality, that were produced in large quantities by many different producers; the items from each different producer are considered equivalent.

The only thing in my list that might be construed into a commodity is a desktop computer. But that is reaching. A Mac offers somethings that Windows doesn't, which in turn offers something that UNIX doesn't offer, which in turn offers something that Mac's don't offer. It's like rocks-paper-scissors, in a way. Except that if you don't analyze your needs you'll be screwed. Either by over spending or underestimating your needs. If computers were a commodity, you could buy any one and they would all do the same thing, with the same effectiveness

(like wheat, i can buy a bushel of wheat from any vendor and the wheat will do the same thing even if i were to buy it from someone else. computers? not so much)
Re:commodity IT is no longer a strategic advantage by andalay · 2004-05-28 18:48 · Score: 1

What I meant by commodity IT was that all similar companies will have more or less the same IT infrastructure. They will have an intranet, they will have a mail server etc and you can more or less swap out (NOT EXACTLY!) the infrastructures. In fact, there are people that specialize in setting up IT for companies with similar needs, hence commoditization of that class of IT.

That is why back office IT skills (commodity) are transferrable across vertical industries but domain specific IT skills (specialized) are not.

Btw, when is the last time you bought a bushel of wheat anyway? :)

Of course... by Otter · 2004-05-28 09:23 · Score: 1

... "the inventor of the Ethernet " is a venture capitalist. Certainly the rapid adoption of new technology makes a huge difference -- to his wallet, anyway.

Incidentally, you've got to love how Michael adds a second sentence to the submission explaining what "Does IT Matter?" means in this context, and half the people posting don't seem to have bothered to read even that!

--
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...

Re:Of course... by mmss · 2004-05-28 09:45 · Score: 2, Informative

Can you remember the days when ATM was THE future of network? Now it's faded into a niche market. My company believed in ATM. Later it expended a lot of money to replace its ATM technology with FastEthernet, because the ATM vendors started to get out of the ATM market.

The adoption of new and non-consolidated technologies is a risky business. A company should do that just if it really matters.

If everyone can buy the same technology where is the advantage? In the deep pockets required for someone to try every new toy? The advantage is not in the IT, it is in the way it is used. The best and expensive guitar doesn't turn a mediocre guitar player into the best one.

The swing of the pendulum by JessLeah · 2004-05-28 09:23 · Score: 5, Interesting

My boss is a non-techie managerial type. (This is scary, as I work for a Web site.) She told me, to my face, within a week of starting work there, that "the dot-com bust was the fault of you techies." She makes no bones about the fact that she hates techies, and blames them for people like her losing lots of money during the dot-bomb.

The problem is the incredibly facile mindset of the typical manager. All they think about is profit. As a result, they think of trends, technologies, even people as "a good way to make me money" or "not a good way to make me money." That's about all they see in anything; it's a sort of managerial binary.

For a period, during the dot-com era, computer geeks like us lived like rock stars, because the Powers That Be in the business world had become convinced that "geeks are human money machines"-- that "IT" (let's face it, "IT" is just a corporate way of saying "computers and computer geeks, as they relate to business") existed to help fill their coffers, and that a computer-- by definition!-- was a machine to make rich people richer.

Then came the dot-bomb, and now the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction (as it always does, humanity being what it is). Medium-sized businesses hire one or two techies, who are inevitably terribly overworked, to manage their entire "IT infrastructure" (read: anything involving digital technology, which means computers, network cables, routers, hubs, switches, "smart phones", PBX systems, Palm Pilots, Game Boys...) company-wide. Geeks are seen almost as traitors-- since we "failed" to make the rich folks richer. (Of course, it was their silly notion that geeks would make them rich in the first place-- but, of course, part of the mindset of a manager is to never blame themselves...) As a result, companies are under-hiring in terms of number of geeks per end-user, and to some extent under-buying in terms of computer expenditures per seat. Plain and simple, computers are seen as "something that won't make us money".

I've been saying (perhaps a bit too optimistically) for years that eventually, hopefully, some smart businesspeople (oxymoron?) will figure out that the IT budget, like everything else, works best in moderation-- that is, neither hiring geeks by the dozen because "they'll make us the next amazon.com" nor laying off all but one geek since "they failed us!". Hopefully, this will happen some day... but I won't hold my breath.

--
Honey, I shrunk the Cygwin

Re:The swing of the pendulum by Otter · 2004-05-28 09:33 · Score: 2, Interesting

The problem is the incredibly facile mindset of the typical manager. All they think about is profit. As a result, they think of trends, technologies, even people as "a good way to make me money" or "not a good way to make me money."
Huh? The question here is whether an emphasis on cutting-edge IT makes businesses more profitable. What else factors into that besides profit?

--
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
Re:The swing of the pendulum by Fulcrum+of+Evil · 2004-05-28 09:41 · Score: 2, Insightful

The question here is whether an emphasis on cutting-edge IT makes businesses more profitable. What else factors into that besides profit?

The point he was making (let me restate it) is that treating everything solely on its ability to make money for you (usually in the next quarter) is a sure way to lose money. I think that matters a fair bit when you're trying to turn a profit.

--
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
Re:The swing of the pendulum by JessLeah · 2004-05-28 09:43 · Score: 2, Informative

I am a "she", not a "he".

--
Honey, I shrunk the Cygwin
Re:The swing of the pendulum by Fulcrum+of+Evil · 2004-05-28 09:53 · Score: 1

Sorry Jess, but English has no specific neutral noun, hence 'he'.

--
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
Re:The swing of the pendulum by Nephilium · 2004-05-28 10:01 · Score: 1

But treating everything on its ability to make money is what a business does... (Not necessarily just for next quarter...) But businesses also have to realize two simple rules:
1) Time does equal money, if you can speed up a system (take order processing for example) to take a tenth of the time it used to... you've made money. Those people processing orders can move on to the next thing faster.
2) Keeping your systems up makes you money (or rather causes you not to lose money)... especially if you have something critical. If you don't have the people to maintain it and keep it up, you're in trouble. (There was an article I remember seeing talking about the care and feeding of your hacker... it referenced keeping enough geeks around as a type of insurance...)

Nephilium
Pacifism is a shifty doctrin under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay--and claims a halo for his dishonesty. -- John Joseph Bonforte in Double Star
Re:The swing of the pendulum by nelsonal · 2004-05-28 10:04 · Score: 1

We at /.ers are still adjusting to the strange new creatures who have recently entered the site.
I haven't read the original book, but I have read several exerpts and summaries of it, and combined with what I've seen of the business world you described managment's sorry state quite well. It seems like IT is a resource (nothing more or less) that can be combined with most businesses to make them more effective. I don't think that many people will argue that much of Wal~Mart or Dell's success can be attributed to anything other than useful IT deployment. However, most of their competitors just look at what the IT leader has done/is doing and try to buy the same IT systems (Siebel CRM, Oracle DB, PCs on every desk) with little thought about the ways the competitor is using the IT.
In a silly example, it would be similar to FedEx watching UPS complete a hypothetical transition to biodeisel and deciding that they must do that as well but not look into how biodiesel is different from gasoline and adjust their infastructure or operations. The implimentation will fail but biodiesel will be blamed not the lack of planning or research. It sounds silly in that case, but look at the effort HP and compaq before took to try to sell computers over the internet without looking at all the other things dell does better than them. For many years they didn't sell custom built PCs it was just the same models you got in the store at the same MSRP, but this way they could tell their shareholders they were pursuing a direct solution (and later report back that the direct solution was not the HP way). It reminds me of the 1980s the GM chairman blamed his market losses to Japanese automakers on a lack of robots, so GM spent billions on automating their factories and continued to lose market share trying to sell crappy cars people didn't want (now built with robots!)

--
Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
Re:The swing of the pendulum by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-28 10:35 · Score: 0

Pee-ville? I bow down to your superior command of the language.
Re:The swing of the pendulum by Fulcrum+of+Evil · 2004-05-28 10:43 · Score: 1

Sorry Fulcrum of Pee-ville, but I think you mean "pronoun", not noun.

Looks like someone needs to work on their people skills. Or do you want to build websites forever?

--
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
Re:The swing of the pendulum by jwsd · 2004-05-28 11:08 · Score: 2, Insightful

Your boss is not a typical manager. There is still hope. Bail while you can. Don't let her break your spirit.
Re:The swing of the pendulum by justins · 2004-05-28 12:16 · Score: 2, Insightful

some smart businesspeople (oxymoron?)

Not an oxymoron, and by saying so you sort of perpetuate the whole silly techie/businessman divide. Of course you DO have a legitimate gripe. :)

The thing to keep in mind is that few people in any profession are very good at it (or sadly, have an honest interest in getting good and staying good at it), that goes for both technical work or management.

Pretty much the only answer to:

"the dot-com bust was the fault of you techies."

is to point out that all those "techies" reported to management, and any decent manager takes a large portion of the blame for a failure.

--
Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga
Re:The swing of the pendulum by JessLeah · 2004-05-28 12:23 · Score: 1

When the techie is simply doing what the manager asks for, any decent manager takes all of the blame for a failure.

--
Honey, I shrunk the Cygwin
Re:The swing of the pendulum by Jeff+DeMaagd · 2004-05-28 15:14 · Score: 1

Moderation is an excellent idea.

That said, for the typical corporate desktop, is there anything being done now on a 3GHz computer that couldn't have been done on a 300MHz computer five years ago? There will always be the unusual needs, but they are catered to on a case-by-case basis, such as heavy workstations for the engineering group and so on.

It just seems wasteful for a company to replace all their computers every three years when they could do it every five years. I can see justifying it on a department-basis if they need to use particular new piece of software that won't run so well on the systems it has.
Re:The swing of the pendulum by justins · 2004-05-28 15:57 · Score: 1

When the techie is simply doing what the manager asks for, any decent manager takes all of the blame for a failure.

It's important to keep in mind that the "techie" might be doing what the manager asks for well, or doing it very badly. Worker bees aren't automatically blameless when they screw up simply by virtue of their lowly position in the organization.

To put it another way, when you start assigning blame there's usually plenty to go around. People both succeed and fail as a group, most of the time anyhow.

--
Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga
Re:The swing of the pendulum by Billly+Gates · 2004-05-29 14:16 · Score: 1

But their is no innovation left. Only maintance.

So I have to agree with the manager. It brings no profit! Any old system today can run word and excel fine and with the y2k bug gone they have modern software already running.

Unless of course something new comes out that can make them money it should be viewed upon as a cost center.

They will still use IT of course. Only to run what they have to keep things running smoothly. This is how it should work.

The .com did increase their profits and flexibility for things like intranet sites but all the businesses today use them.

--
http://saveie6.com/

Imagine a cat with a piece of buttered toast... by HungWeiLo · 2004-05-28 09:24 · Score: 3, Funny

taped on its back...

I.T. needs full-of-security-holes OS for job security.

Microsoft needs clueless I.T. people to buy their products.

Ad nauseum...

--
There are a huge number of yeast infections in this county. Probably because we're downriver from the bread factory.

Re:Imagine a cat with a piece of buttered toast... by droid_rage · 2004-05-28 09:53 · Score: 1

Not that's it's terribly relevant, but most IT folks don't need to spend large amounts of time patching systems to stay busy. In fact, in my facility we spend far less than 5% of our time patching or recovering from infection annually, and would be plenty busy without it.
Re:Imagine a cat with a piece of buttered toast... by happyfrogcow · 2004-05-28 09:57 · Score: 1

oh my delicous buttery cat! how i love to lick your greasy fur!

<homer>Mmmm, buttery cat toast..</homer>

Without IT... by rtilghman · 2004-05-28 09:25 · Score: 2, Insightful

None of us would be able to lose our jobs to foreigners willing to do teh work for 25% of the pay and none of the benefits!

THANK YOU DARPA! ;)

-rt

Re:Without IT... by ftide · 2004-05-28 11:08 · Score: 3, Insightful

This recent trend of increasingly blaming foreigners for rapid outsourcing is exaggerated. Blame the corporations who will sell out anyone to streamline profits for CEOs.

I've noticed a conspicuous absence in people mentioning open source here, strange given Linux server use is up about 30% this quarter. It seems a lot of slashdotters have fingers in proprietary programming and open programming pies. Not that this is a bad thing.

Slashdot should come up with a scale or ratings system with a moon as an icon signifying the quantity + quality of tech topics in crescent, half, three quarters and full moon chunks. Topics represent either the light or dark side, open code and hidden code respectively. To expound on software architecture differences there can be a series of moons each with a classification.
Re:Without IT... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-28 11:55 · Score: 0

I blame software patents, actually - Large IT service provider companies can "outsource" to India, safe in the knowledge that I simply cannot set up a native company to compete with them as they can just shut me down if I operate on US soil - despite the higher wage costs, I'm pretty if it weren't for the ever-present threat of software patents, I could compete with indian labor.

Cost by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-28 09:26 · Score: 0

but do people take for granted that maintaining and supporting that IT is actually more costly than the price of the equipment itself ?

I think there is still a lot more work to be done

Oh yeah, blame the management by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-28 09:26 · Score: 0

Oh yeah, blame the management and think that IT as an industry really is something special.

What an ultimate cop-out.

IT used to be bleeding edge. IT used to be high-tech. IT used to be high-tech magic to which only the annointed had access.

Today IT is being outsourced. Today universities spew out masses of IT "experts" even if the job markets are already saturated. Today being an IT expert means that you know Java, can hack HTML and do bullet-point presentations for your managers.

IT is dead. Get over it. Go for something new instead.

Re:Oh yeah, blame the management by bryanp · 2004-05-28 09:46 · Score: 1

IT is dead. Get over it. Go for something new instead.

Tough job market for you too, eh?

--
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." Col. Jeff Cooper
Re:Oh yeah, blame the management by Fulcrum+of+Evil · 2004-05-28 09:50 · Score: 4, Insightful

IT used to be bleeding edge. IT used to be high-tech. IT used to be high-tech magic to which only the annointed had access.

Still is. Just because Joe Schmoe can install Oracle on a box for free doesn't make him a Data Warehouse expert, and it doesn't mean that he's capable of implementing an enterprise wide inventory management system.

Today IT is being outsourced. Today universities spew out masses of IT "experts" even if the job markets are already saturated. Today being an IT expert means that you know Java, can hack HTML and do bullet-point presentations for your managers.

Boo hoo, management is blind to the value of having workers that understand their business and can communicate with their clients and this somehow means that IT experts are worthless. Bitter much?

IT is dead. Get over it.

It's not dead, it just smells funny. You can still make a pile of cash - just convince a business that you can either increase their bottom line or lower their costs.

--
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
Re:Oh yeah, blame the management by Morganth · 2004-05-28 10:26 · Score: 5, Interesting

Today being an IT expert means that you know Java, can hack HTML and do bullet-point presentations for your managers.

Wow, you don't really get it, do you? It's precisely this kind of thinking that has allowed IT to be outsourced. The thinking that anyone who knows Java and can write HTML is good enough to be an IT worker.

If you had actually read my father's response, rather than skimming it and getting angry that it criticizes the Managerial Class (of which I assume you are either a part, or at least aspite to be a part), you'd realize that he has a much higher standard for what an IT worker should be than you do. Yea, the job market is saturated with "supposed" IT workers, but that doesn't mean it's bad for people who actually know what they're doing. Incompetent people used to be able to get well-paying jobs by just knowing Java. Now you have to prove that you are smarter than that. A lot of supposed IT workers just have money signs in their eyes. I think outsourcing is a bad idea, but I also know that the people who will suffer most from it are the people who don't deserve IT jobs in the first place.

I tend to agree with another /. poster who responded to the article reporting a lower enrollment in Computer Science by saying, "Good, now the people who actually care about Computer Science will be the only ones who get degrees." Computer Science, like Business School, was, in the last 5 years, too often the place you'd find money-hungry asslickers who don't care about anything (i.e. have no passions but the green).

IT workers are not "I know Java and HTML" morons. Real IT workers are people who can integrate computer systems and make a business run smoother. The truth is, real IT workers should be able to design and implement the systems from scratch, but should know when not to in order to save the business time and money.

I find it easy to blame even your assertion on management. Managers hire IT workers. But because the managerial class is not defined by competence, managers don't know the criteria on which to evaluate IT workers. So they hire morons. Morons fill the IT ranks, and suddenly IT gets redefined by people like you as "knowing Java and 'hacking' HTML." The smart IT workers become irrelevant in manager's eyes, because they don't know hot recognize IT workers as "smart."

So yea, blaming management sounds about right to me, actually. Even for this.

(Disclosure: Personally, I don't plan to go into IT, at least not permanently, though I am pursuing a computer science degree...)
Re:Oh yeah, blame the management by Tablizer · 2004-05-28 11:40 · Score: 2, Insightful

management is blind to the value of having workers that understand their business and can communicate with their clients and this somehow means that IT experts are worthless.

If we are worthless in the eyes of the people who pay us, then we ARE de facto worthless. What you think of your own worth does not matter.

Companies do not value domain knowledge in IT workers much for whatever reason. I have not figured out why, but it seems to be the case.

--
Table-ized A.I.
Re:Oh yeah, blame the management by Tablizer · 2004-05-28 11:45 · Score: 1

Incompetent people used to be able to get well-paying jobs by just knowing Java. Now you have to prove that you are smarter than that.

You mean smart enough to bypass Java? :-)

--
Table-ized A.I.
Re:Oh yeah, blame the management by Tablizer · 2004-05-28 11:48 · Score: 1

(Disclosure: Personally, I don't plan to go into IT, at least not permanently, though I am pursuing a computer science degree...)

Um, why? If it is a hobby, then learn it on your own without the expense and hassle of teachers.

--
Table-ized A.I.
Re:Oh yeah, blame the management by Billly+Gates · 2004-05-28 14:02 · Score: 1

The problem is management is not always up to speed.

IT is worthless because they said so. This is the paradigm in today's economy.

It always shifts and yes IT is looked upon as a cost center in red ink at the moment, hence why India is attractive.

Many businesses already upgraded their 20 old systems during the y2k bug so now they are done upgrading for awhile since their circa 2000 systems are fine.

--
http://saveie6.com/
Re:Oh yeah, blame the management by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-29 02:21 · Score: 0

The problem IS management. More specifically, the problem is the budget office.

The goal of a responsible IT worker is to economically implement technology: use technology to make the company more efficient and the COB decreases.

Unfortunately, budgets are not based on merit. In fact, they are formed inside the Cone of Paradox. Rather than rewards for saving company $$ and prudent spending (i.e. raising a budget after demonstrating responsible spending habits), IT, along with every other dept. that lowers COB, is punished with a lower budget for next year. It's as if management believes "If they didn't spend the money, they obviously don't need the money. If they did spend the money, we certainly can't cut the budget!"

Every manager makes an effort to spend the entire budget lest it be cut the following year. Everyone is fighting for a bigger piece of the same pie.

Unless you're spending contributes directly to bottom line, it is very difficult to steer clear of the axe.

Thus, technologically unsound upgrading strategy (or lack of strategy) has become the basis of self-preservation.

Insert cliche about mgmt. here.
Re:Oh yeah, blame the management by GrassMunk · 2004-05-29 03:14 · Score: 1

For the record I can attest to this. I went to the University of Waterloo (not CompSci, Arts but transferred out after first year to another school). And a lot of my Dorm mates were in computer science. I started at the very height of the boom 1999-2000. Incidentally I've always liked computers. That's why I transferred to another school to take compsci. Anyway, back to my point. There were a lot of people in compsci at waterloo seeing as it's known (in Canada at least) for its computer science courses. But here's the kicker: Many of the people I spoke with didn't like computer science. In fact some outright hated it. But they had the grades in highschool (92% and up) to get into compsci at waterloo. They would say that they went into compsci because there were lots of good jobs and people got paid really well. It was quite discerning to be fixing peoples computers who knew jack crap about them. (Like someone who's printer didn't work, it didn't have a USB or parallel cable, she just figured plug it into the wall, install drivers, print!). I always thought you went to university to do something you liked. But here I was on a floor of people (not all, some actually loved computers and Linux and warez etc etc and others were in different programs) who were in one of the top schools for computer science, leading the way for computational studies and they couldn't get on the internet because the network cable wouldn't fit into their modem. It was just a means to an end for some of them. Just a training course for their job. That's not why I left. I left because I wasn't good enough in math to take computer science there but knew that that's what I wanted to do. I like programming and all that jazz(!) so I liked taking the courses. But still to this day it makes me so angry that there are people who decided one day to take computer science because the money was good. There's another IT archetype I hate. The "I'm no longer going to drive this bus, I'll get my MCSE and make real money" IT Professional. Those to me are the people who make up the bulk of IT these days. Sure they know things. They know how to solve IT problems, so long as its in the book. They know how to setup an SQL server so long as it's MSSQL. Do they know the fundamentals? Maybe, but do they care? Do they know what it means? Do they try and think up new solutions to their current problems? These are the ranks of IT. These are the people who were hired like MAD during the boom and populate every IT workshop. These are the people who know enough to help out and have enough work experience to land another job. They may have 5 years experience at company XYZ. Does that translate into a good IT worker? To HR and management it sure does. The MCSE's don't really care past what they did to get their job. Learn asp? Work better pay for the training and certificate. Learn Linux? Work better pay for that as well. Maybe I'm abnormal. Maybe I thought I'd see IT as a place where everyone would like computers and be interested in shaping them to mould the rest of the business. Maybe I thought IT would be filled with people who are interested in new and emerging technologies to better help the rest of the company. I don't know what I thought. But I sure as hell didn't expect to get out off school to see IT shops full of sheep. IT Shops full of people just trying to make a buck and squeeze the last drop out of the company before they leave. IT offices with people who could care less about simple IT principles and more about making sure they get their 1 hour scheduled lunch break. I can't even begin to explain the level of fear some of the people have here with regards to Linux. Why? Not because it's worse than the MS counterpart. Not because it's slower, more CPU intense, has a higher (if you believe the advertising) TCO. But because it might mean loosing out on watching American Idol for one night to learn ipconfig == ifconfig or that ls == dir. I actually fear for the IT shops all over the Americas. Yes they're run by Management who took a 5 day 'course' on how to be a goo

Who Cares... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-28 09:27 · Score: 0

what this authors opinions are...

Even if the slashdot community disproves this article into oblivion, nobody will have a better chance of finding an IT job anyway.

We all Know that "IT" Matters but... by beatleadam · 2004-05-28 09:28 · Score: 3, Insightful

Our earlier story summarizes the original claim: that there's little to be gained by staying at the forefront of technology.

This really is the crux of the matter.

Technology/I.T. Matters. Always has and will always be that way, but where do you want to be placed on what could be called a Yardstick of inovation/money expended to stay at the "Tip of the Spear" ?

--
I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours. -- Hunter S. Thompson

Of course it matters. by Mr.+Bad+Example · 2004-05-28 09:28 · Score: 4, Funny

I mean, something's going to inevitably crush my soul sooner or later. It might as well be something that I can make money doing.

IT matters by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-28 09:29 · Score: 4, Insightful

but it is going away, as the US is rapidly becoming a nation of services and intellectual property.

Carr doesn't Matter by AchilleTalon · 2004-05-28 09:31 · Score: 1

so, next...

--
Achille Talon
Hop!

Think about it this way: by abscondment · 2004-05-28 09:32 · Score: 5, Insightful

IT in and of itself is quite useful. Our world is quite locked in to using technology.

Some modern improvemnts, however, are of little strategic value (to the vast majority of customers).

Take Microsoft's updates to Word in the past years. The significance of the updates in Word from Office 2000 through XP to 2003 is little to none. Thanks to backwards compatibility, I can run an old Linux box to serve websites, and it won't matter that the technology is from 1998 (assuming I secure the machine).

I wouldn't say innovation is worthless, but a lot of IT has become maintaining unecessary updates.

IT doesn't matter anymore?? by PHP+Wolf · 2004-05-28 09:34 · Score: 5, Funny

Well, crap! If I.T. doesn't matter anymore, and they're throwing it out, I won't know how to do anything useful professionally.

Time to go into politics, I guess.

--

Double Compile

Carr's article speaks more to the past by Unnngh! · 2004-05-28 09:35 · Score: 2, Informative

If business executives follow Carr's advice, who will provide innovation's test beds? How will new technologies find their markets?

Some businesses need to ignore Carr's advice. Those who can afford it. I've seen (mostly during the .com boom) small companies invest ridiculous amounts in bleeding edge technology when they should have been focusing on building a viable business. Carr's article points out a lot of the faults that led to where we are now. He should be heeded.

Metcalf seems to talk around this point and I don't think he did a very good job debunking. IT _is_ moving ahead, but I don't feel that anyone has a good grasp on where it's going.

Re:Carr's article speaks more to the past by hung_himself · 2004-05-28 09:46 · Score: 1

I've seen (mostly during the .com boom) small companies invest ridiculous amounts in bleeding edge technology when they should have been focusing on building a viable business
Forgive me for being cynical - but I thought that spending ridiculous amounts of money was their business plan.

No point in being at the forefront? by kdougherty · 2004-05-28 09:36 · Score: 1

You should always stay current. Being current means marketing. If I were applying for a new job and knew all the newest technologies I think I would have a better chance of being hired than someone that wasn't current. It shows your desire to learn and continue education, as well as comprehension of new standards.

--
The best way to predict the future is to invent it. -Alan Kay

IT's infrastructure by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-28 09:39 · Score: 3, Insightful

A business can make wise or foolish investments. IT is no different. Like many other things, the value of IT is often hard to quantify.

I suspect that, unless a one has a really clear idea of how to benefit from being at the cutting edge of IT, it is better to be conservative. Being at the cutting edge can consume all of your time, not to mention money. Is the extra profit worth the effort? If your business is making widgets, concentrate on the widgets and buy just enough IT, no more.

Running Shoes by ztirffritz · 2004-05-28 09:39 · Score: 0, Offtopic

A bunch of hunters go north to hunt bear. On the first night they are camping and a bear raids their camp and begins destroying tents. Hunters are running everywhere trying to get away. One of the hunters sits down and begins putting on his running shoes. His tent mate says "What the heck are you doing!?!" to which he replies, "I don't have to out- run the bear, I just have to out-run YOU!"

--
Why doesn't anything interesting happen when I have mod points?

Re:Running Shoes by ztirffritz · 2004-05-28 09:46 · Score: 1

My point is you use whatever tools you have to out-run your competition. IT is important, and it is imperative to stay ahead of your competition, but not without thinking about what is going to get you there.

--
Why doesn't anything interesting happen when I have mod points?
Re:Running Shoes by Lord+Kano · 2004-05-28 10:03 · Score: 1

You really just butchered an otherwise fine joke.

LK

--
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano

Right by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-28 09:40 · Score: 0

I, for one, welcome our new glass box overlord.

Why I.T Matters... by SuperGillies · 2004-05-28 09:41 · Score: 1

Why w.h.a.t matters?

--
sig not found. please replace sig.

Really? by Lord+Kano · 2004-05-28 09:42 · Score: 2, Funny

echnology Review has an interesting story from the inventor of the Ethernet...

Al Gore, is that you?

LK

--
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano

uh? by golgafrincham · 2004-05-28 09:44 · Score: 2, Insightful

Harvard Business Review has 243,000 extremely influential readers. So if it publishes an article saying that information technology doesn't matter, then an awful lot of important business leaders are going to believe it

this means two things:

a) an awful lot of important business leaders are unable to read a magazine (or has it printed on it's front "TRUTH"?)

b) we need an awful lot of new important business leaders. pick me, i've got a mind on my own.

--
beer as in "free beer"

Re:uh? by rockclimber · 2004-05-28 09:55 · Score: 1

b) we need an awful lot of new important business leaders. pick me, i've got a mind on my own.

and still you'll be influenced what you read.
if your main information source is slashdot for a month, you'll get a different mindset, than if you read the economist and harvard business review for a month.

dont beleive me? try it out

Media HAS Power
Re:uh? by genner · 2004-05-28 09:57 · Score: 1

"b) we need an awful lot of new important business leaders. pick me, i've got a mind on my own." This is why you never be a administrator. In corporate double speak they would say your not a "team player".
Re:uh? by nelsonal · 2004-05-28 10:08 · Score: 1

The Economist is far to logical and untrendy to be fully expose you to the management mindset, go for BusinessWeek and the HBR. Not that you shouldn't read the economist, but they tend to step back from trends and look at the big picture a whole lot better than the other two magazines.

--
Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
Re:uh? by golgafrincham · 2004-05-30 12:28 · Score: 1

This is why you never be a administrator. In corporate double speak they would say your not a "team player"

nay. c*os that think like that do not lead sucsessfull companies (except ms, but ms's job is to BE the exception, someone's got to prove the rule).

--
beer as in "free beer"

Information is why IT Matters by stumbler · 2004-05-28 09:50 · Score: 5, Insightful

I find the discussions around I.T. amusing as I see concern about electronic voting, privacy, file sharing, and IP become the focus of new laws and protests.

I.T. is, at it's heart, technology enabling the collection, storage, retrieval, analysis and control of information.

(This is used to make decisions --- predictive as well as reactionally, as well as manipulate the 'ugly bags of mostly water' who's only connection to this would is via a hand full of easily confused primitive senses, and a questionable ability to accurately remember and/or interpret the data that they provide.)

He who controls the data, could appear to control the world!

I.T. will stop mattering when information stops mattering. As long as information provides power, those in IT have nothing to worry about.

Yes, but prove it by xyote · 2004-05-28 09:52 · Score: 1

Business is a weird little ducky. It's not like you can show empirically that businesses that invest more in X do better. A lot of funny stuff going on. If I had to pick one area where you could say businesses get the best ROI for their investment, I would have to say it's lobbying. If fact if there was a mutual fund based on lobbying, I invest heavily in it myself. Actually, that's not a joke. There is such a thing as lobbying for individuals. They get tax loopholes out of it.

Re:Yes, but prove it by stumbler · 2004-05-28 11:32 · Score: 1

Your right, investing in more IT is simply investing in capability (in a best case senario.) But that does not create ROI. Intelligence use of information, in part, creates ROI.

Not investing in IT lessens the chance that one will have a chance to leverage information for ROI purposes.

So, say you do lobby? Without IT how do you know what to lobby for? Say you get a tax break, how do you calcuate how much? How do you know if it's really a break, or if the costs are hidden? IT provides the tools to (among other things) analyze the information.

Just thoughts!

IT is a means, not an ends by MikeMo · 2004-05-28 09:53 · Score: 4, Insightful

Smart business people realize that IT is an important enabler in their businesses, but IT should never be looked at as a differentiator or strategic advantage in and of itself. IT can be incredibly important, but only inasmuch as it furthers the other goals of the business.

A good example is Walgreen's. They decided, some time ago, that they were going to be the most user-friendly, convenient drug store on the planet. So, they implemented a far-reaching, ground-breaking IT infrastructure that allowed the stores to all share prescription information - way before the Internet was ubiquitous. But, it was only part of their efforts to be really convenient. (Another part was to always be on a corner, but I digress.)

That infrastructure was important to achieving the goal of being a convenient drug store, but the technology itself was not the real differentiator or the goal. The goal was to make it easy to pick up your prescription at whatever store was conenient at the moment.

The problem with the dot-bomb era was that the technology was the goal, not merely the vehicle.

Stay with the pack... by LostCluster · 2004-05-28 09:57 · Score: 4, Insightful

There might not be much of a reason to have the latest and greatest in technology. But, here in 2004, if your business hasn't figured out how customers can send you orders over the WWW yet, you're lucky to still be around.

If your competitor has better inventory accounting or demand prediction than you do, they're going to be able function better than you do, and eventually that deficit will come back to haunt you.

Being on the cutting edge gives you the risk of being burned by bad tech... but falling behind the curve is a certain path towards failure.

good news ...let all the systems crash and burn .. by Mr+Very+Angry · 2004-05-28 10:00 · Score: 1

I'm all for letting people believe that IT doesn't matter for the next couple of years... let all the systems crash and burn ... it'll mean treble money for the IT folks when they realise their mistake!

I'll tell you why IT matters... by painehope · 2004-05-28 10:04 · Score: 2, Funny

it keeps people like me from stealing your TV.

--
PC moderators can suck my White pierced, tattooed dick. If you think pride == hate, s/dick/Aryan meat mallet/g.

Some of IT matter, some of IT do not. by takasuz · 2004-05-28 10:04 · Score: 2, Interesting

In the early stage of its development, every technology provides profits to those who have it because it makes a differece to those who have not. But you need an investiment and that particular technology may not last long enough to compenstate the investiment. So the question at this stage is if the investiment can be justified against the risk. Naturally, there is no clear answer to the question.

Unless you have monopoly on it, eventually the technology becomes ubiquitous and you can no longer expect a gain by making the difference. But at this stage, the technology is a must. So you need to have it regardless you like it or not. So the question at this point is how to maintain the technology with a minimal cost.

The so-called IT involves various different technologies. Some are in their early stage, and some in the ubiquitous state. So it is wrong to make a disucussion using such the broad concept term. Some of IT matter, some of IT do not.

Metcalfe is right? by PetoskeyGuy · 2004-05-28 10:05 · Score: 1

Does this mean the internet is going to collapse?

You will not be picked. by Duhavid · 2004-05-28 10:05 · Score: 1

Simply because you have a mind of your own.

Havent you been paying attention? :-)

--
emt 377 emt 4

Ahh! You're saying IT! by 3)+profit!!! · 2004-05-28 10:06 · Score: 1, Funny

Ahh! Now I'm saying IT! Ahh! Now we're all saying IT!

The funny part is that your boss is an idiot... by rtilghman · 2004-05-28 10:08 · Score: 3, Insightful

That's the argument made by the business "no creativity/technology ability" plebes who sucked off the internet boom like leeches and fled into thr night light vampires at the first sign of daylight.

The TRUTH is that the US business world saw some potential to make money off of the technological innovatgions coming out of Silicon Valley in the early 90s. Without thinking it through they threw massive funds into the soup, attracting totally incapable morons looking for a buck, and then when those idiots presented outrageous skyscrapers of cards to these "investment geniuses" they gave them MORE MONEY (think of bike messengers delivering $50 rolls of toilet paper here).

Now were just insulted, but THEN these morons toss the "slow and steady" tech-heads who WERE building solid business and plans to teh wind in favor of the "profit RIGHT NOW" IPO craze of the end 90s, building illusory value at an astronomical rate in the search for a buck.

You tell your boss that if she doesn't like making a living off the back of the ideas of people 10x more intelligent, innovative, and creative than she is she can go join P&G with the rest of her ilk.

I hate nothing more than idiots who make outrageous arguments with zero evidence and even less understanding.

-rt

Some IT does matter, some doesn't by gbulmash · 2004-05-28 10:09 · Score: 4, Insightful

Despite the question's polarizing phrasing, the real issue seems to be "how much should you budget for IT this year?"

If you have a small business, are you going to have a competitive advantage against your competitors by upgrading every seat from 10/100 ethernet to 10/100/1000 ethernet? Do you need to upgrade everyone to the latest version of MS Office? How many old CPU's need to be replaced with new ones? According to 3com, Microsoft, and Intel, the answers are "Yes", "Yes", and "All of them". According to others, the answers are "Maybe", "No", and "Depends on how old each one is".

--
Start a happiness pandemic

James Ellroy on Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-28 10:10 · Score: 0

IT used to be bleeding edge. IT used to be high-tech. IT used to be high-tech magic to which only the annointed had access.

James Ellroy, is that you?

At the same time by FreeLinux · 2004-05-28 10:13 · Score: 4, Insightful

Large and successful restaurants rely heavily on IT. Many large restaurants and increasing numbers of smaller ones do have web sites. The sites give directions to their restaurants, menus and even the abillity to place orders for pickup and sometimes delivery. I'm not talking pizzas here, I'm referring to all sorts of restaurants including upscale seafood, French, Italian and many more.

But, even without websites, the large and successful restaurants still rely on IT. They use IT to manage their books and their staff. They also use it to manage their inventories, making sure that they have sufficient quantities of lettuce and steak at all times. They use IT to manage the ordering system and the billing system. They even use it to manage the crowds by way of table charting and remote paging systems.

Restaurants rely very heavily on IT and the successful ones would not be successful withou IT. Just have a look around when next you are at McDonald's. Try to imagine operating McDonald's corporation or even a single franchise without IT.

Sure there are some hold outs, mom and pop operations that do OK (well enough to support two people) without IT. But name a restaurant that can seat 400 people that doesn't rely on IT. Name a chain that doesn't rely on IT. I'm often amazed to see more and more small mom and pop restaurants that are using IT to automate various processes in their business. It is a strategic advantage for them because without it, they would go out of business.

Re:At the same time by NoMaster · 2004-05-28 14:56 · Score: 1

Your mention of McDonalds is interesting. I did some work in a McDonalds franchise the other day and the manager was telling me about their predictive order/cooking system - basically, the system that tells them what to cook and when, for the traffic expected in the next 10 minutes.

With this system running, waste runs at around 1~2%. If the system fails, a good manager can keep waste down to 5~10%. If the system is down for a few hours, that difference is enough to wipe out that days profit.

Tour buses full of people stuff up the system too. As he said, his recurring nightmare involves a bus full of elderly tourists all wanting no pickles, extra cheese, etc ;-)

--
What part of "a well regulated militia" do you not understand?
Re:At the same time by John+Hurliman · 2004-05-30 09:24 · Score: 1

They wouldn't go out of business. You act like the entire world was at an eager standstill for thousands of years until the first computer network was invented. Sure technology has given businesses an advantage, but lots of companies are missing the point that technology in business is there to make your assets work more efficiently, and streamline your operating cycle. Too many people get caught up in the "oooh shiny" factor, and don't do the calculations on whether their investment will ever make a return.
Re:At the same time by Hognoxious · 2004-05-31 00:38 · Score: 0

Restaurants rely very heavily on IT and the successful ones would not be successful withou IT. [...] Try to imagine operating McDonald's corporation or even a single franchise without IT.
McDonalds is a restaurant?

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."

it's true, the mba's have moved in by mevo · 2004-05-28 10:15 · Score: 1

and that is the sign of why IT is past. sure, innovation still happens but it still happens in cars too. it goes like this, the beginning is filled with immense amounts of innovation, nearly everyone in the industry are the techs, they run the show, businesses can't even afford a secretary, let alone a business manager. over time, an infrastructure is built, all the critical pieces are being put together for the masses to actually accept and embrace it, just the functionality mind you, not that they actually use anything. as some technologies start to take off, the business people, the less technical, the ones that care more about money then actually doing anything, move in. the technical guru's have less and less impact, they move on to something else, either early if they get so disgusted they can't take it anymore, or later by being forced out because they're not up to speed with the jones on the latest style (whatever you want to call it) of powerpoint. any technical people still entering the field do not come from homegrown great ideas throwing all caution out the window, but rather types from the elite institutions that have taken the safe way the entire time and just happen to have the right background/connections and wham, instant hit. later on, the next phase, even the business types get moved out and are replaced by just the core functions of billing and customer support. all new markets are gone, it becomes a legal monopoly with absolutely no hope any new entries, and no reason for it, for a long time. and then it starts brand new with something else. in between are large and vast dark periods for everyone involved.

Don't RTFA - here's why by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-28 10:36 · Score: 3, Funny

I know most people won't RTFA, but here's a reason to feel smug about it:

Nowadays, Metcalf is just a tool. When he had a column or two, he kept predicting that the internet would "collapse" due to too much traffic "any day now." He used that theory as a justification for per byte metering. Despite proving himself wrong over and over, he never gave up on this prediction (or at least he didn't give it up before I gave up reading his columns).

He also liked to refer to Open Source as Open Sores on a bunch of "hippies." The guy is a dinosaur. Also, clearly not very smart in the business acumen department either, 3com was essentially stolen from him.

Bob Metcalfe!? by autopr0n · 2004-05-28 10:36 · Score: 4, Funny

Wow, if B.M. says it, it's probably false. Remember, this is the guy who claimed that Linux (and "Open Sorse" software) would fail.

Although his most amazing prediction was that the internet would never catch on, because it would be too difficult to find pornography. I kid you not. His reasoning was that people would flood the net with discussion of online porn's legality, thus making legitimate porno impossible to find. (I wish I could still find the link, ah well. This was back in the day when the Communications Decency Act was being debated)

Well, anyway I'm proud to do my part to help keep the internet running :P

--
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.

Re:Bob Metcalfe!? by Bluelive · 2004-05-28 12:56 · Score: 2, Insightful

Its also a thing of perspective, from his its true. Hes seems to be all about making big money, for big manager types. OS has mostly failed those types, and the pushers of OS are happy for it. (unless your IBM) Same with this story, IT doesnt seem to be a sure fire way to get a lot of money going through the company these days, so its useless from their point of view.

Why IT doesnt matter. by t_allardyce · 2004-05-28 10:37 · Score: 1

IT is really over-rated, they said they would have to redesign cities and crap but really whats the point? are we really too lazy to just get on a bike instead? if your that lazy your probably gonna want a motor-bike or car so you can actually sit down i dont see any reason why IT matters i dont think its going to be adopted much outside wearhouses and afew companies (that dont have stairs).

--
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.

Again, you are missing the point by sirianni · 2004-05-28 10:49 · Score: 1

The original poster's reasoning was that IT still has value because "Imagine a new startup that didn't have email and web access resorting to faxes, snail mail and the library for all its research."

Obviously IT has value in and of itself. The argument that opponents are trying to make is that IT does not have *strategic* value - in other words it is not a differentiator. *I am not saying I agree with this argument*. But just saying that having IT is better than having no IT at all does not prove that IT is a differentiator for companies and that it is strategic.

That was the point of my analogy to a company's use of a shipping service as a non-strategic decision. My point has nothing to do with how UPS or FedEx uses IT, i was just using shipping as an example of a non-strategic area for a business (the business itself, not FedEx or UPSs business).

According to the first poster's logic, since a company could not operate without a bathroom, a bathroom is of strategic value.

Re:Again, you are missing the point by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-28 11:38 · Score: 0

just a bystander...

but this is all non-sense.

strategy encompasses many smaller facets and tactics as well.

no one in their right mind thinks that IT is a strategy in and of itself. (when it's not your primary product or service)

a smart business strategy focuses on one's product or service, but equally pays attention to supporting "casts".

e.g. your I.T. infrastructure, your work atmosphere (do you have enough bathrooms), your shipping services (are you getting rock bottom cut-rates from fedex like newegg?)

i think you have no point sirianni, and the one you feably put forth was explained like shit.
Re:Again, you are missing the point by sirianni · 2004-05-28 14:48 · Score: 1

Congratulations for demonstrating a basic understanding of the fundamentals of the argument above and beyond the "imagine running a business on typewriters" rhetoric.

The point is that an entity being useful in and of itself proves nothing about its strategic value.

Re: do CAPS CONVEY ANY ADDITIONAL MEANING? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-28 11:22 · Score: 0

The OP seems to think that CAPITALIZATION IS USEFUL, whereas for most of us, it is merely A DISTRACTION from the main question, namely, when the f*** will the geeks RISE UP AND ELIMINATE the managerial class (or send them all on a spaceship trip to a Class B planet).

Over Your Head, But That Was The Point by edad3 · 2004-05-28 11:50 · Score: 1

The point of the original article is not that IT lacks intrinsic value, but that it has no strategic value- that is different. 1. Pouring money into an IT dept does not insure advantage. 2. Most suites in use today are not proprietary- everyone has the same technology available to them- again no strategic advantage. 3. Lastly, he wanted people to get tripped up on his thesis and confuse strategic value with intrinsic value, and get all flustered. You are the reason he got a book deal, and hopefully it will continue to provoke more discussions like this that get people to examine the concept of strategic value.

No, wait... by bigberk · 2004-05-28 11:53 · Score: 1

A part of me wants to see the business world forget how important "IT" is -- network infrastructure, services, and especially security. After that point I'll guess 5 more years of survival for the US economy. Then, at the last moment, they call us back in because they realize they have nothing without networks. That's when we get top pay.

Okay, but then.... by Tablizer · 2004-05-28 11:58 · Score: 2, Interesting

....what *is* the Next Big Thing?

--
Table-ized A.I.

Re:Okay, but then.... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-28 16:45 · Score: 0

Biotech.

Things have been building in that industry for a long time, and it is a market where startups can be tremendously successful (and competitive against heavyweights). The VC folks seem to be throwing a lot of money that direction, and it has been rumoured as where Bill Joy was headed when he left Sun.

Given the cycles that the world economy goes through, expect this to be a big bubble around the end of this decade.

Metcalf Hates Linux/OSS by rarewire · 2004-05-28 12:08 · Score: 1

He deridingly calls it "Open Sores". Not sure why does he hate Linux / OSS.

Metcalfe's credibility by writermike · 2004-05-28 12:16 · Score: 1

I like Ethernet. It's been good to me (, Howard), but didn't Bob Metcalfe predict the death of the Internet in 1996 and then later say he didn't say it? It's a shame that one foolish prediction can dull a shining star, but I find myself filtering what he says through that old prediction...

m

--
If Nalgene water bottles are outlawed, only outlaws will have Nalgene water bottles.

Re:Metcalfe's credibility by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-28 14:33 · Score: 0

"and then later say he didn't say it?"

Nope actually he took it back, admitted he was wrong and with much pomp and circumstance ate his words after blendering them up real well. I saw it that very day and thought he was going to be a great writer doing great tech columns but alas he had jumped the shark.

Not magic bullet anymore by mabhatter654 · 2004-05-28 12:27 · Score: 3, Insightful

The real issue is that IT is not the magic bullet anymore. The "Ivy League" schools really have caused much trouble with business trends in the last 40 years. They always are searching for "magic bullets" when they should be looking at the over all picture. IT is useful just like accounting, engineering, plumbing, electrical, and landscaping...it's jsut not flashy anymore!

The days of purchasing $1 million dollars of Cisco routers is over for all but the very largest businesses. I really like the plumbing analogy to IT. After all, anybody can go to the local Home inprovement store and get a whole house full of plumbing for a reasonable price...but making a WORKING plumbing system is an entirely different story!!!! Plumbing is unique to your home, terrain, and personal needs. While there are standards for pipe sizes and fittings each person's home is different, so the job will always need to be "personally" done. Plumbers make good middle-class money...there's nothing wrong with that, those are the type of jobs we need in the gobal ecomomy.

IT is also like accounting though. The REAL issues with IT are not fighting the latest virus or configuring expensive routers, the REAL VALUE in IT is properly matching hardware and software to the goals and needs of the company!!! IT has to start demonstrating real value to the company!!! The "boys with toys" stage is over and it's time for IT people to start understanding HOW a business works and Why they need IT, not just installing cool toys.

Of course the real issue is that these "harvard business school" guys teach everything in knee-jerk reactions, not moderation...look how they missed the focus on quality performance in the 70s and 80s. The same half-assed, it's-not-makeing-us-rich-now group think is back in action all over again! The problem is that YOUR boss is going to read this trash with the same "focus" that we'all have for slashdot! Those "brilliant" executives are really no more intelligent or independant thinking than most slashdoters..it's just a "richer" club.

Clearly not a student of history... by Genda · 2004-05-28 12:37 · Score: 1

It doesn't even take a student of history, to notice the extremely long line of empires countries, and businesses that thought this way. Almost to an item, these institutions no longer make a difference in the world, those few that still exist. What has been suggested can best be summed up as an express line to the fossil record.

* Spain sat on it's haunches canabalizing it's merchant class, while France and England grew technologically. Ultimately England and France ate Spain's lunch... nothing interesting has happened in Spain since Torquemada.

* China stagnated while Japan advanced... boom, China got smacked.

* American steel refused to retool and reinvest... Germany and Japanese steel makers rolled right over the top, and now American steel is a novelty item.

The floor is littered with the dead and dying bodies of hundreds of companies over the last 4 years... only a blind man could miss the common threads that mark the one's still alive and thriving. Good people, Great leadership, and superior technology. Anybody suggesting that now is a good time so catch one's wind and let the guys in the lead take the lions share, is either in serious need of new medication, or is so differently clued as to make me wonder if extraterrestials might be among us... Call Mulder... he's gotta see this.

Genda

Re:Clearly not a student of history... by Fulcrum+of+Evil · 2004-05-29 01:43 · Score: 1

American steel refused to retool and reinvest... Germany and Japanese steel makers rolled right over the top, and now American steel is a novelty item.

US steel production is at the same level as it was in the 70s. How is that a novelty item?

--
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"

I hear that by eraserewind · 2004-05-28 12:42 · Score: 0, Redundant

I hear that electricity doesn't offer a strategic advantage anymore these days either.

Preaching to the choir, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-28 15:28 · Score: 0

This is preaching to the choir, but I'll go ahead anyhow.

Companies that think that the IT solutions are "old" simply never got the benefits that were available, and probably got burned during the dot-bomb bubble.

On the other hand, there are a lot of companies that don't need any more convincing. They've seen the results, they may not understand the technology, but already understand that this is technology they can't live without.

I work for an Ad Agency, not a tech company, and we have INCREASED development budget for strategic IT tools. If you know how to use technology, you want more. If you did it just for the sake of IT (because it was the fad) you probably don't want to lose more money.

In our office, there are so many things that were simply impossible without technology, forefront technology, that our executives have learned to look at what the end-results are capable of, and not the technology itself. This is the way it SHOULD be. When you build a house or building, you want to know what it's gonna be like. Not the process or what kind of fancy materials or forefront technology is used, since that really doesn't concern the buyer.

I'm sure there are a lot of companies that don't need the bleeding edge, but there are a lot of companies that can get an advantage from utilizing the cutting edge. Genetic Algorithms, Neural Networks, Agent based Modeling and all have very good results if you know what you're doing. And there are companies that specialize in this area, which produce VERY good results. I know first hand of a company (that I work with) which originally planned on cashing in on the dot-bomb bubble, but never got the chance. They changed their mission, and are now offering some of the best solutions. Hard work, but it pays. They're gaining more customers by the day, which is a gain for them and somewhat a loss to us. ;-)

Technology is a TOOL, and as soon as more people recognize this, the better. You need someone that understands how to actually USE this technology. What I've seen is too many techies only understand the technology and not the business logic behind it. I don't blame them either. The problem is that companies expect the techies to just magically create the solution, and this just doesn't happen. For buildings, you need an architect AND a carpenter. In many cases in the IT world, you see clients that expect the carpenter to become an architect, and this just doesn't fly. You end up losing more money than ever.

But really, the whiners can whine as much as they like. The winners know better.

IT does matter if done right... by adam872 · 2004-05-28 15:34 · Score: 2, Insightful

To my mind, there are four areas where IT projects can help the enterprise:

- Reducing costs, by reducing things like utility/communications bills and headcount, replacement of expensive technology with faster, cheaper alternatives and generally lowering TCO. In other words reducing the cost per unit of work.
- Increasing enterprise efficiency and productivity, by enabling increased output with the same size labour force.
- Enabling the enterprise to take advantage of new opportunities in the market place, with some new technology. In other words, allowing some new process to occur that opens up new revenue opportunities.
- Mitigating risk by allowing compliance with regulatory bodies or increasing security (thus protecting things like intellectual property etc).

Any new IT project has, IMHO, to deliver on at least one of the above, preferably several of them. I have worked on successful projects that have had or more of the above characteristics (e.g. building high performance computing environments that allow interpreters of seismic data to produce more accurate drilling decisions more quickly) and others that were failures because they had none of the above. At the end of the day, it is up to we IT professionals to demonstrate added value when going cap in hand to our respective employers asking for money.

As for the original authors contention that the competitive advantage has gone out of IT, what rubbish! We haven't even scratched the surface of what is possible with IT. After all, the science has only been around for half a century. Did Ford or Boeing decide that nothing more could be done after the Model T or 707? Of course not, those visionary companies knew that those achievements were just the start. It is in our nature as humans to want to push the envelope and make things bigger, better, faster and cheaper. IT will be part of that process for some time to come.

I thought you were a complete Quack by themusicgod1 · 2004-05-28 16:36 · Score: 1

but what you have to say may very well be truer than you know. you've earned a special place in my quote databases. mod parent up.

--
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.

The "particular piece of software" by JessLeah · 2004-05-28 17:09 · Score: 1

is called Windows XP, Office XP, etc. etc. etc......

--
Honey, I shrunk the Cygwin

I think it matters, but by PotatoHead · 2004-05-28 18:09 · Score: 1

many people have been duped about how and why it matters exactly.

How many companies continue to pay for the same damn software year after year, even though the stuff they are using today will do the job just fine?

Do those new features really address core problems?

All of this spending trades people for pre-packaged solutions. This is a mistake in that everyone uses them, nobody is totally happy with them. (one size fits all problem)

I have been watching OSS for years now, waiting for more companies to "get it". They can hire people who can assemble good solutions to tough problems out of thin air. Those same folks can be around year after to year to make it specifically better for their business, not just all businesses.

You won't find your strategic advantage in a box, even though the company that sells it says you will.

--
Blogging because I can...

Silly because it's MIT wit vs Harvard lard by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-28 18:43 · Score: 0

Harvard lard Curr arg... *untwisting figers* arguments makes contradiction.

While many IT advantage of big corporations may have been faded a bit since competitive market creation, lower manufacturing cost, wider usability of automated applications and submergence into our daily working environment, Curr contradicted himself by writing his article on his computer which will be outdated and upgraded within a year or so.

How about Harvard Lard Curr write something useful about its own school's tuition fee which includes aka "Dead IT" usage cost on every student's tuition bill? --- Here they come to snuff the rooster Yeah here come the rooster, yeah You know he ain't gonna die

Incapable IT executives by BillsPetMonkey · 2004-05-28 22:10 · Score: 1

have something to do with it too.

I think they wish IT wasn't important mostly because they don't really understand it.

--
"It's not your information. It's information about you" - John Ford, Vice President, Equifax

Re:Oh yeah, blame the management OOPS! by GrassMunk · 2004-05-29 03:24 · Score: 2, Insightful

OOPS! Forgot to change Formatting Type on the last one
For the record I can attest to this. I went to the University of Waterloo (not CompSci, Arts but transferred out after first year to another school). And a lot of my Dorm mates were in computer science. I started at the very height of the boom 1999-2000. Incidentally I've always liked computers. That's why I transferred to another school to take compsci.
Anyway, back to my point. There were a lot of people in compsci at waterloo seeing as it's known (in Canada at least) for its computer science courses. But here's the kicker: Many of the people I spoke with didn't like computer science. In fact some outright hated it. But they had the grades in highschool (92% and up) to get into compsci at waterloo. They would say that they went into compsci because there were lots of good jobs and people got paid really well. It was quite discerning to be fixing peoples computers who knew jack crap about them. (Like someone who's printer didn't work, it didn't have a USB or parallel cable, she just figured plug it into the wall, install drivers, print!). I always thought you went to university to do something you liked. But here I was on a floor of people (not all, some actually loved computers and Linux and warez etc etc and others were in different programs) who were in one of the top schools for computer science, leading the way for computational studies and they couldn't get on the internet because the network cable wouldn't fit into their modem. It was just a means to an end for some of them. Just a training course for their job. That's not why I left. I left because I wasn't good enough in math to take computer science there but knew that that's what I wanted to do. I like programming and all that jazz(!) so I liked taking the courses. But still to this day it makes me so angry that there are people who decided one day to take computer science because the money was good.

There's another IT archetype I hate. The "I'm no longer going to drive this bus, I'll get my MCSE and make real money" IT Professional. Those to me are the people who make up the bulk of IT these days. Sure they know things. They know how to solve IT problems, so long as its in the book. They know how to setup an SQL server so long as it's MSSQL. Do they know the fundamentals? Maybe, but do they care? Do they know what it means? Do they try and think up new solutions to their current problems? These are the ranks of IT. These are the people who were hired like MAD during the boom and populate every IT workshop. These are the people who know enough to help out and have enough work experience to land another job. They may have 5 years experience at company XYZ. Does that translate into a good IT worker? To HR and management it sure does. The MCSE's don't really care past what they did to get their job. Learn asp? Work better pay for the training and certificate. Learn Linux? Work better pay for that as well. Maybe I'm abnormal. Maybe I thought I'd see IT as a place where everyone would like computers and be interested in shaping them to mould the rest of the business. Maybe I thought IT would be filled with people who are interested in new and emerging technologies to better help the rest of the company. I don't know what I thought. But I sure as hell didn't expect to get out off school to see IT shops full of sheep. IT Shops full of people just trying to make a buck and squeeze the last drop out of the company before they leave. IT offices with people who could care less about simple IT principles and more about making sure they get their 1 hour scheduled lunch break. I can't even begin to explain the level of fear some of the people have here with regards to Linux. Why? Not because it's worse than the MS counterpart. Not because it's slower, more CPU intense, has a higher (if you believe the advertising) TCO. But because it might mean loosing out on watching American Idol for one night to learn ipconfig == ifconfig or that ls == dir. I actually fear for the IT shops all over the Americas. Yes th

IT can be the death of restaurants... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-29 12:05 · Score: 0

The whole point of a restaurant is to have a totaly faulty inventory system that only reflects 1/3 of the real activities for when the taxman comes. A godd restaurant will take cash, paper towels and limit on washables and other way the IRS can track you. Of course you do not tell the employees that, but they too enjoy working in the dark and hate checks. That's the main purpose in opening such a business, non tracability and try to cover your expenses so they don't look like generate that much. Most restaurant owners in the world have tons of cash they don't place in a bank and spend abroad.

I personally blame y2k by Billly+Gates · 2004-05-29 14:11 · Score: 0

We have 2 notions here.

1.) IT is essentiall like oxygen

2.) It is commidity and dead.

Both are true.

Even the shittiest and oldest systems in use today are fine running Excel and Word. Also many medium and large businesses upgraded their systems from the 60's and 70's in the y2k scare.

After the upgrading managers like your boss looked at it as "Ok, we spent 30 million upgrading everything and now we need to spend more"? Also companies hired more workers to fill in the gap to rush out the fixes and provide their companies internet and intranet sites during the .com.

Its time to let these people go. The IT recession started from the end of the y2k bug in my opinion more then the .com.

The .com followed as a result.

THe problem is a database today is almost as powerfull as one bought in 1999 for the y2k problems.

Unless a new technology can come out it will remain in this pessimist and much deserves bottom line. We need innovation. Its not here. Innovation is happening all in wireless now. The cell phone companies will be the ones who will be making the bucks.

If we can't increase the bottom line then we are commodities only maintianing the old systems in place.

Tell you boss this and she would agree.

--
http://saveie6.com/

Re:*You* are missing the point by Hognoxious · 2004-05-31 00:28 · Score: 0

That is to say, delivery or fulfillment has no strategic value, its not a differentiator in the marketplace.

Yesterday's differentiator is tomorrow's requirement. Or, to put it another way, its presence might not win you the game, but without it you don't even get to the stadium.

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."

the ethernet? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-31 00:53 · Score: 0

Did he invent internets too?

191 comments