Slashdot Mirror
Overwhelming Bureaucracy in the IT Department?
Nedry57 asks: "I am in the somewhat unique position of being a technology worker, who lives outside of the IT department in my company (a very large organization in the US). By far, the biggest challenge I face is getting anything done due to the bureaucracy that exists, within IT. There are certain tasks (i.e. anything that happens in the data centers) that I don't have the access to do. Even a simple task, like installing more memory in a non-production server, can take nine months and massive mountains of paperwork (no exaggeration), thus costing many times more than it should. The lack of agility is maddening, because I know we are missing significant business opportunities. My management is extremely supportive and despite our excellent track record of success in creating robust/secure applications--our work has passed audit numerous times with flying colors--we get no support from IT. Even senior management can't break through the barrier. I am very interested in hearing the experiences Slashdot readers have had in similar situations." How do you get your technology work done, when your IT department is more hindrance than help?
This is not an IT-specific problem: all functional areas in large organizations are vulnerable to this sort of bureaucratic barbed wire.
Even a simple task, like installing more memory in a non-production server, can take nine months and massive mountains of paperwork (no exaggeration), thus costing many times more than it should. The lack of agility is maddening, because I know we are missing significant business opportunities.
If you know that there are real costs associated with the lack of agility, you should a) document in detail the actual losses, b) present these figures calmly and respectfully, and c) gauge the reaction from senior management.
I want to drag this out as long as possible. Bring me my protractor.
Progress and stability are often conflicting goals. IT departments generally prefer stability, and that's why your deployments have probably been so stable and passed so many audits. Developers, of course, are charged with driving progress.
The real answer if you need flexibility with regards to "non-production stuff" is to not let IT have anything to do with it at all. Create a separate sub-net if you have to to keep the non-production machines off the IT network, and a firewall between your network and theirs to prevent any viruses, or other effects, from leaking from your net to theirs (this may require having to VPN through it just to work with these machines, c'est la vie). Keep the machines in a different room than the official server room. Maintain them all 100% yourself. Then do what you need to. Anything less and you're asking IT to aid in your development, a task they're probably not equipped to do while maintaining stability.
It's not uncommon for companies to have a "developer", "staging", and "live" system setup that are all completely independent, with some established mechanism and metrics to push products from one level to the next.
E pluribus unum
I agree, let market economics do its work. Any outsourcing partner will be more than happy to upgrade your server in a matter of days. Of course outsourcing does land you with a whole new set of interesting problems (cost control!) but the net effect is positive on the whole. Flame me if you will, but there is a reason outsourcing is so popular with managers... most of the time you get a more responsive IT department for less money.
This sig is just as redundant as the rest of this posting
Sure -- if I can read between the lines of what you seem to be saying -- the chicks might not care if you're good at your work or not. But some of those mere "other men" you mention might also happen to sign your paychecks.
The guy was complaining that his company is missing significant business opportunities. Translation: The company is missing significant business opportunities that he could have been instrumental in acting upon. But he can't, because of IT bureaucracy.
OK, so it's not his fault -- but do you think that's going to matter next time he goes in for a raise or a promotion? They'll want to see all the forward-thinking plans he's executed on, and he's going to have nothing, because trying to do anything is like wading through mud.
Even worse, what happens when it's time to a round of layoffs? What justification will he have to keep his job then?
Maybe it's easy for you to just sit there and be grateful you have a job. If it is, it's probably because you've only had one or two entry-level jobs. For people who have had a job for a number of years, however, just having a job no longer seems like Goal #1. Those people start to have other ambitions -- like buying a house, for instance, or a new car, or providing for their families. Maybe you've put yourself through college. Have you put anybody else through college lately? Dads sometimes like to do those kinds of things. They're hard to do when you've spent the last five or ten years sitting at the same desk in the basement, just spinning your wheels.
Breakfast served all day!
...or just fire all of the upper and middle management in the narcissistic IT bureaucracy (you might have to barge in on them while they're jerking off to their org charts), and reassign all of the actual skilled IT staff and direct managers to the divisions of the company that they're supposed to be serving. Any arguments about efficiencies of scale are bullshit territory-marking, you can replicate much of that by centralizing procurement and licensing (but not budgets or purchasing authority!). Even if you lose a bit of efficiency, you more than make it up overall by greatly empowering divisions and departments. Costs plummet and productivity skyrockets when functional areas of the business get (only) the information systems they need, instead of forcing enterprise-wide adoption of the same adequate-for-everyone-but-powerful-for-no-one systems, or adding the same immense operational costs to every server when 90% of them need little security and no redundancy. If my creative team needs some more file-sharing space, is the business better served by me going out to Best Buy (ick) and getting a $400 NAS that I can hook up in 15 minutes (and takes my departmental IT guy 5 minutes to include in backups), or waiting 9 months for a $30K/year file server to be deployed to some server room in another time zone?
If you're building an assembly line, do you give everyone a hammer just because it's cheaper than buying different kinds of tools? Most Fortune 500 CIOs would.
When corporate information systems need to be integrated across business units or divisions, then build a development team for that, and have it report to the COO or CFO or someone else who can lean on upper management, rather than just making one centralized self-centered priesthood that controls everyone's systems top to bottom. I'm baffled that anyone can imagine how that could ever work well. That delusion requires a deep ignorance of human nature.
In a well-led enterprise, only a few of the business functions are really important, because they're central to the strategy of the business. Internal IT is never one of those functions. Yes, everyone depends on it, but IT is not really an "it". All employees have similar requirements for air conditioning and paychecks and parking lots and health plans, but IT requirements vary tremendously. Meeting those requirements is hard, and getting hard things done in a corporation requires incentive and accountability. Centralized IT has neither of those, so they say "no" instead of "yes".
Suggestion to author: Try toning down your ego, treat IT department with respect, give them credit and appreciate their work. They are the ones who save your ass when you type "rm -rf /". And ocassionaly buy them beer and lunch and see those 9 months turn to 9 seconds!
A professional turns around a job in the same amount of time, regardless of his opinion of the other person. Sounds like you're saying the IT department there at best isn't very professional.
If the IT department is having a problem with the author, then they should be bringing it up with his supervisor. I have asshat coworkers as well. I bitch about them mightily, but I don't refuse to do my job just to spite them. Then I'm in the wrong and have no room to complain.
Of course, the cost per GB of many managed SANs ends up running into the $100-200 range (per GB!). This is what leads to 50MB quotas on employee home directories. No, a well-managed SAN doesn't need to cost that much, but that is how much they cost when you buy one from the outfit that will take the CIO out to some nice dinners...
I've found there is a cycle:
1. Company has ancient central IT group populated by dinosaurs and BOFHs. Centrally run servers are underpowered and undermanned.
2. Individual business areas start putting together their own rogue IT groups, and servers spring up all over the company in every closet. The new groups are agile, but not as secure, and the process is not 100% efficient.
3. CIO centralizes the IT groups so that infrastructre is centralized and well-maintained. Costs plummet and service actually increases since the datacenter can be 24x7 monitored unlike the closet down the hall.
4. CIO discovers he can cut his budget 10% without much loss of quality. CIO gets bonus.
5. Repeat step 4 20 times.
6. Goto step 1...
If people stopped at step 3 with the right combination of central infrastructure and business-focused developers/support then you'd probably hit the sweet spot in terms of the best services and cost.
It drives me nuts to see companies that make billions of dollars a year shaving $1000 costs by undersizing server hardware, insufficiently supporting core applications, etc. IT is a force multiplier - every dollar spent in the IT group can enable all kinds of money-making in the business areas - as long as the IT spending goes to the right places. Nickeling and diming IT is like saving money by getting rid of phones at every desk...