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?
You don't. You fire them and outsource their jobs to India.
This guy is the head of my company's IT dept. BOFH
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
Moving to another company besides Microsoft?
Management can keep holding long meetings to find out why work is not getting done.
Look, the people you are after are the people you depend on. We install your memory, we code your apps. We run the internets, we guard you while you sleep. Do not... fuck with us.
Dear IT Professional:
Please don't change anything about the way your IT organization does business. We love the way you and your team fail to communicate; the way mindless mandates from on-high drive pointless initatives; the way the latest technology trend shifts focus from project to project like the attention span of a two-year-old.
Especially don't pay any attention to streamlining the use of hardware and software investments that you've already made. You and your team need MORE MORE MORE to get this project wrapped up on time. Have you upgraded to the newest rev of our software? Can't you just taste the new-and-improved speed of our lastest hardware?
In summary, we love the way your IT organization is today, and wouldn't change a single thing.
Yours Truly, Your software & hardware vendors
The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us. -- Calvin & Hobbes
"Our SAMBA connection is broken. Something changed over the weekend."
"Nothing changed over the weekend."
"You sure about it? Why does the AD server report it's running Server 2003 now?"
"Oh that? We tried to implement Windows Server 2003 to replace our AD server, but we backed it out."
*boggle*
That conversation was with our IT dept. In any controlled environment, things should be thought out, documented and multiple sanity checks performed. Even a dev system can impact a production system if they run on the same segment.
Now, having said that, our IT dept tends to mindlessly enforce rules without thinking about them and getting them to wake up to new technologies (e.g., SOAP, web apps) is like trying to bring around a corpse with smelling salts.
A good IT department should make sure things happen in a controlled and documented way, but should also make it as painless as possible to follow the rules. They should be proactive so if you come to them with something new you want to implement. Not only will they know what you're talking about, but have already prepared a white paper of preferred architecture for performance & security.
A really good IT department brings something to the table.
The bitter lessons of a veteran coder: http://bitterprogrammer.blogspot.com
First off, 9 months seems excessive. Very little should take longer than a business quarter.
..don't assume the issue is on the IT side I guess is the gist of it.
However, in my experience every person outside of IT and security groups has this mindset that IT groups hinder them for no real reason.
I do not doubt there is bureacracy that slows every company's process. However, the fact that you want a change made to one system now doesn't change that these IT people are responsible for the effects any change might have on an entire organization. I don't know how many times I hear "But all I want is X". And that person requesting 'X' doesn't realize that 'X' has these 3 possible security issues associated with it. Maybe it won't effect his server even if it is exploited, but that risk has to be evaluated, approved and lord knows what else.
The fact is, every change *must* go through a certain amount of bureacracy to make sure all that it could effect have taken the appropriate level of responsibility.
My best advice is work through your own internal processes to see if turnaround time can be expedited. Maybe all they need is a motivated developer type with your skills to assist in making their change control system better. Or maybe there are things you don't see. Don't assume IT folk are just pushing your stuff back because they don't like you (though that could be a factor). If you can get a 'champion' type in your IT group that can help you get your stuff moved through the most efficiently.
But in the end, it is not up to you to decide what priority your request is given over someone else's. Even a simple request should be evaluated properly and must be given priority that is likely outside the IT drone's choice... Maybe your manager/director type needs to champion your projects to get them pushed through with greater priority .
Oh, and Bill said he didn't wanna give you your ram because you ate his pudding cup.
He and others in the IT department tried doggedly to get security noticed, only to be shot down by executive management. To paraphrase the CFO and strip out the gratutious profanity, "We're a meat company. We turn happy cows into happy steaks and happy pigs into happy bacon. We're not freaking NASA. We don't need to worry about our computers like Lockheed Martin does."
Several months later a virus hits the company and the phone system, which includes all sales offices, dies. I rush and get the tools to remove the virus in every hand possible.
Ultimately, as I was leaving the company, they finally hired a security manager. This was only because of Sarbanes-Oxley, and that person was given the role of a paper tiger--no authority to change things to be more secure, but a perfect picture for blame should something go awry.
When I left, I entered another office with other politics, but it is nowhere as bad as it was there.
--Chag
I get on /. to try and escape this crap for a few minutes! Thanks a bunch!
In Soviet Russia, Chuck Norris will still kick your ass.
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!
SBC corporate (now AT&T) is exactly like this. I was a contractor building an application in 3 months. IT said that it would take up to 12 months AFTER applying for a server in NEXT YEAR'S budget. That's right, it was going to take 16 months and several layers of approval. The VP of the entire division (only 1 person down from the CEO) couldn't bust through that red tape.
Now THAT was funny... 3 months later I had a working application sitting on a shared server, and I had to go. We had about 1 week's worth of data in there, but that was almost 100,000 rows in most tables.
Behold the glorious bragging rights
Some number of years ago, I found myself in charge of a private infrastructure. We had maybe 50 servers and 400 users exchanging sensitive information completely seperate from the main, public network.
Because of the percived importance of uptime on this network, everything required mountians of paperwork. Installing and removing nodes from the domain required three administrators, setting up a new machine required a month on a private VLAN being monitored by a sniffer, memory and hard drives were obselete before they got to the customer.
Anyone who ever worked around an UPS knows how they die. They give plenty of warning. Having an UPS fail is a rediculous way to lose your backbone infrastructure.
My predicessor had done a wonderful job of installing an UPS for every router and switch in the datacenter. Problem is, both power supplies in the routers and switches were connected to the same UPS. In cases where an UPS was about to fail, he unplugged the UPS from the wall and plugged it into, you guessed it, another UPS.
He didn't do it out of ineptitude; it was done because the only option was to clash heads with the IT overlords. They would require studies about how many UPSs failed and if it failed before the MTBF, they'd want us to try and recover money from the manufacturer. They'd want contractors to come in and examine the UPS to bid on a UPS monitor and replacement contract.
In short, asking the overlords was like asking to be turked by a syphalitic bear.
So, some BOFH, overwhelmed by the prospect of repairing the power system, chose another path. He walked over to a failing UPS and simply turned it off. He was the only one with the access to turn it back on, so he had no reason to worry.
Within two hours, all in-progress meetings were cancled. The Supreme Overlords demanded from on high that this lowly tech was to get a blank check and a blank trouble ticket (approved by the Supreme Overlords) to do whatever he needed to do to prevent that from ever happening agian.
Electricians installed two seperate power feeds into every rack.
Each power supply got a seperate UPS.
Old equipment was updated.
Everything was strawberry fields and unicorn giggles after that for the infrastructure department.
Now, to answer your question: You have something that someone wants. Hold it hostage till you get what you need.
I'd rather you do it wrong, than for me to have to do it at all.
OK, by this point I have read TFA at least a few times and I still didn't find what was the good fight this guy fought. I mean he doesn't list any steps that he has taken to fight the IT department. He and his management are unhappy with the way IT department works. So just for argument sake, can I assume that you are making assumptions that may not be valid and drawing conclusions that are plain wrong?
I am not denying that this situations don't exist, but most people just whine about it, they don't do anything about it. For e.g. has this guy filed a formal written complaint to the upper management stating that the IT department is not co-operating? Has he tried forging some good rapport with the IT department? The only time any one remembers the IT department is when stuff don't work. Sometimes acknowledging that they are part of the company and their success may lead them to co-operate more. To support my argument read what the author states:
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.So apparently according to him all the bad things that are happening in the company is due to the incompetence of IT and all the good things are happening because of his development team. Gimme a break!! That attitude (treating IT department like they are 3rd rate employees, a burden) is not going to get him or any body favors.
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!
Most of the Pharma data centers i've dealt with in the last 5 years are locked down VERY tight. They have to deal with 21 cfr part 11, Hippa, SOX and a list of others issues and as such sound EXACTLY like the situation you describe. Example, in order to upgrade from MSSQL 7.0 to MSSQL2000 on a Pharma house manufacturing server requires changes to the following: Changes to the original Validation Plan Detailed Design Specs Functional Requirements Specs IP's - Installation protocols OP's - Operational protocols QP's - Qualification protocols ALL of the above operations require testing-testing-testing, a multitude of meetings and of course approvals from God all along the way. Then QA-IT-Engineering has to oversee everything. Its a very cumbersome, expensive process. This is for your-our own good. I have seen manufacturing data corrupted if this process is not followed exactly. Remember this the next time you think about the consistancy of those pills you take.
*--- Sometimes a majority only means that all the fools are on the same side. ---*
Interesting comments...
I've been in IT for close to twenty years in a couple small startups to some multi-nationals and in my own consulting business. One thing that lots of IT folks lose sight of is that IT is first a support organization within the larger organization. If the larger organization is sufficiently forward thinking, then they can (arrg, PHB-speak) *leverage* IT to be more competitive. But IT folks still have to make sure the website is up, the file server is accessible, users can login, etc., *before* you start thinking about the add-ons.
If the business doesn't want to spend money on the servers, then document what the consequences and benefits are for their decision. Don't just write that they'll have slower machines, but play Devil's Advocate and write up the business case for not adding memory.
Or, figure some way to optimize your resources so that less memory is required. This can be as simple as turning off services, or as complex as setting memory and processor caps within the virtual partition. And if you've tried all these and you're just short of memory, let them know.
In my consulting business my first goal is to keep my customers' infrastructure running. Next is to save them money versus some other consultant. Sometimes they need to spend money up front to save more down the road. Let them know if this is the case.
Here's what you do: take a simple task like adding RAM to a non-production server, and go through the entire, exhausting process in letter-perfect fashion, meeting every paperwork, audit, and permission requirement. Along the way, document every minute you spend on the process, showing exactly what you're doing, how long it took in minutes, and what requirement you were meeting. At the end, create a spreadsheet showing in careful detail that adding a $500 SIMM actually cost the company $5,000 in processes.
That spreadsheet becomes the club with which your managers and directors can beat the IT department because they're effectively offloading cost onto you at a rate of 1,000%.
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
You have quite a defeatist attitude. Contrary to Slashdot common belief, responding to challenges by quitting your job doesn't solve any problems, unless your challenge is to find a job where you don't have to think or do any real work. (In that case, you should probably go join this company's bureaucratic IT group -- they seem to have that area covered.)
In any case, the best way to get interdepartmental problems fixed is by providing rewards to both sides for working together. Short of that, you can start your own IT group or work with an outside company to get your solutions hosted. Your IT group should be a resource for you -- if they're not, you should be able to use other resources instead.
One of the managers I'm currently reporting to used to run into a similar problem at his last company. He's a 2nd level manager, and he decided that he would pay the salaries of a few people in the IT group in exchange for them specifically working on projects for his team. It worked great, and they were able to push out new releases every couple months. Before he started the arrangement, releases were taking 9 months.
In conclusion, you should give financial incentives to the other team to reach your goals: Whether it's through paying their salaries, or taking away their work by going with someone else. Unless they have an incentive to work with you, they probably won't.
my blog
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)
So, let me get this straight...
User is frustrated because request to make standard servers non-standard with a custom request in a datacenter requires paperwork and time. User is upset because IT has formal procedures for change control, service level agreements, and standard hardware configs. User doesn't get ram upgrade and posts rant to Slashdot.
User is technical, probably dual boots their desktop to non-supported OS, probably hacks computer stuff at home, probably very smart and capable of supporting five or six computers by him/herself.
IT department probably supports 1000+ machines, and that number has doubled in the last year or so while staffing has been cut.
IT department probably has 200 servers per admin and only maintans this ratio by with consistent server deployments that maintain standard configurations.
A good IT organization understands the company's business.
A good technology worker needs to learn to work with IT to get what they need. You would probably be able to request and justify 10 servers and get them in the time it takes to get a one-off upgrade
The lack of agility is maddening, because I know we are missing significant business opportunities.
Lack of planning on your part does not create an emergency on my part.
Learn how your IT organization works. Work with it.
we get no support from IT. Even senior management can't break through the barrier
Perhaps you don't see the big picture. Perhaps you don't see the corporate IT budget and where you/your team/your project is on the priority list for that budget.
I'm sure there are all sorts of IT departments, but the *good* ones understand the core business and know what's important to the company's bottom line. If your IT department doesn't understand that, then I'm afraid you're going to have to become the IT liason and teach them. Provide them with your requirements well in advance so that they can plan proper deployments. Work together so that you can understand the pain points of IT, and they can understand your hardware/support requirements and the *value* that this will provide to the company.
The IT department exists to make sure they have regular, gainful employment. They do NOT exist to make your job easier, or anyone's for that matter, who does not have direct or closelly indirect firing power over them. There are mouths to feed, mortgages to pay, colleges funds to fund, retirement to dream about.
Cynical? Yes, but also very true. The above is the root of the issue. I'll put it in the terms that IT would:
ITs job is to keep the servers running, smoothly, with as little interruption to daily work as possible. As with any complex undertaking, different users have different priorities. CxOs come first. Period. Internal needs come next (see: "servers running, smoothly," above). High profile departments are next - marketing, sales, accounting. The last one is mostly because it comes under a CxO (F - you can choose what it stands for) who is intimitely involved with the month-to-month operation, and through which everyone gets their pay checks (including previously mentioned CxOs). Development is pretty far down, as you can see. You must understand - you don't bring cash into the organization (sales), nor do your efforts directly affect the price of company stock (marketing), both of which are of top importance to the CxOs.
That does not mean that you are not essential. But you are essential in a way that is ongoing - like the janitorial staff. If they lose development, things will slowly start to degrade, but it will be a while before there is a crisis. Either way, its an expensive mess to clean up, but if you throw some cash at it, you can bring things back to livable.
Now, lets look at the flip side. If IT goes down for a day, there will be hell to pay, and heads may roll. Every IT person knows this. Anyone who has dealt with complex modern systems knows that it's a house of cards. There are so many things that can go wrong. One failure, if not just costing your job, is certainly going to make for a long night getting things back in order. That would be uncompensated overtime, remember. Also, ten years without a single failure will not make you a hero, like landing a new sales client, or scoring a great marketing campaign which lifts the stock price or sales. It will make the company think you're reliable, but boring. Bonus aren't given out for boring. One failure, on the other hand, makes you a villain.
Now, if you've made it this far, how much value is there - for the IT professional - in helping you get your job done faster. In case you've skimmed, I'll tell you: none. It's like playing russian roulette for fun. Unless you just happen to like the life-or-death thrill, or have nothing to live for, it's a fools game.
I wish I had better news for you, but if you have a large corporation, than you have an ingrained corporate culture, and IT subculture. And they don't drift your way.
Oh, I've never been in IT. They piss me off 'cause I'm an engineer and just want to get shit done, and they want to worry about making sure the CEO's internet never goes down. I've learned over the years that, in effect, that is their job. I've stopped fighting them and learned to either (a) work with them or (b) work around them. The latter is done carefully to avoid stepping on toes. Just as they are under the thumb of uper management, they like to exert their power where they can. That would be against you and me. You don't tunnel under a mountain if there's a reasonable way to pass around it.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
I work at a top 25 law firm. The CFO and a few of his traveling crew from one of the largest cell phone companies in the US was using a few of our vacant offices. We recieved a request that they needed network connectivity and a network printer if possible. We had him up and running on our public vlan with internet access and a laserjet printer in about 10 minutes. He commented that at his facility, it would take about 6 months for something like that to happen.
Beside which, what better way of making things better for those who stay? If management loses good people because of some problem, they just might address that problem.
has this guy filed a formal written complaint to the upper management stating that the IT department is not co-operating? Has he tried forging some good rapport with the IT department?
1. Formal complaint about IT to CEO. Done.
2. Forge good rapport with IT. Having trouble here, for some reason they don't seem to like me. They said something I didn't quite catch about me and the CEO.
Maybe I should have done that in another sequence?
I used to work in a *very* bureaucrat infested research lab. This is the place that firewalled "new" ssh but let the "known protocol" telnet, out... Friend of mine was running very numerically intensive spectral analysis/matching on samples. Bung in sample. Get data. Process for about 8hr. So, do last thing of the day and you've got the results next morning. Until, in the interests of a uniform computing experience *all* boxes were required to have the same basic setup and were bolted down tight. This included everything. Including the screensaver that seamlessly blended from slide to slide of the company's publicity shots. Bingo! 100% CPU when the screensaver kicks in and the analysis runs can no longer work unattended. Bummer! OK so my friend takes an old mouse, a clamp stand, a magnetic stirrer and flea, and some epoxy. Glue magnetic flea to mouse ball. Clamp mouse over stirrer. Stirrer agitates mouse. Screensaver never gets to run. Once again work can happen!
Red to red, black to black. Switch it on, but stand well back.
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.
My situation is very similar to yours. I am a tech person for a department outside of the formal IT group which sometimes seems to be inefficient and/or ineffective. However, I don't believe that IT is the enemy and tend to sympathize with them.
In my current position I've seen some of the worst behaviors (in system administration, application development, etc.) practiced by tech people outside of IT who then expect IT to automagically make everything work and clean up any messes the non-IT folk created. On the other hand, there are also times when our IT department really does drop the ball.
This has created deep-seeded animosity between some non-IT departments and IT, I think. The non-IT folk believe IT are bureaucratic obstructionists who don't know what they're doing; while IT believes the non-IT folk are disorganized, loose cannons who don't know what they're doing. Unfortunately, to some extent, I think they're both right.
That said, my best advice to you is to help IT help you. Try come to some agreement or understanding with IT and define what it is they they need in order for them to be more responsive to your needs. Respect their needs as much as you want them to respect yours.
Also, don't undermine or bypass policies and procedures defined by IT. It might seem like you can get around IT's requirements and do something your own way, but that just perpetuates the problem. If you think IT is being unreasonable with their policies, find out why their policies are the way they are. You might discover that there is a good reason for it.
Think of IT as a finite resource -- don't squander it. I've never met (or worked in) an IT department that wasn't overwhelmed with things to do. Keep in mind that any system you implement may require some amount of time and effort for IT to support and/or maintain it. And keep in mind that there is always a Y2K or Service Pack N+1 or something like that around the corner keeping IT busy. So, as much as possible, budget your IT-time wisely. And, of course, plan ahead.
You may already be doing all of this, which makes your situation a more bitter pill to swallow, in which case I'd suggest helping other non-IT departments do the same, if they're not already.
And, of course, doing all of this doesn't guarantee that your IT experience will improve. But, I think it's a case of "you catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar" and "you who are without sin may cast the first stone."
There are some exceptions, but they'll charge you more money for the flexibility. That's the other way outsourcers make you money - precisely defining the scope of work and charging higher prices for anything outside of it. Sometimes that's a Great Thing - outsiders who want to charge money are often much more willing to do what you want than insiders whose reward structure is that they're a Cost Center incentivized to cut costs. But the kinds of bean-counters who outsourced your IT department on you are usually going to prevent you from getting the extra-value services if they can.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Wait, dude, this is slashdot, I don't think you get it. You're being all rational and balanced. I admit, I was trolling a bit. You were supposed to respond with irrational vehemence. :)
The right answer is somewhere in the middle, not a bureacracy expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureacracy, and not departmental IT Lords all deploying their own solutions, Linux here, Windows there. But I so rarely hear about anyone finding that middle ground. I've seen a balance at big tech companies, but a balance of centralized and departmental IT expending 75% of their energy in a tug-of-war. The departments and divisions of a tech company can sometimes effectively fight the bureacracy because there's geeks in all corners who know what they're talking about. At a software company especially, the product teams rule, they know it, and they can fight about IT issues on even footing with the IT bureaucracy. In most other industries, the key departments don't have that advantage, so at the end of the day the IT folks make the IT choices, always making noises about collecting and meeting business requirements, but free to say "no" without much effective pushback.
My basic point was about human nature. Even if you create that balance, with a central IT plus dedicated IT staff across the organization, eventually the centralized guys win because their chief sits at the table with the other C*O's and exerts more pull, making effective noises about standardization lowering costs. It's simple corporate politics. If that CIO sees the big picture and has some humility, s/he might end up leading an organization that does the right things. More likely, even with that CIO, the IT middle management underneath will still play politics and make arbitrary rules and decisions that benefit themselves and disempower everyone else.
On another note, I never meant to suggest that a NAS from Best Buy was a good choice for any office needs. It's just that 6+ month turnaround on upgrades or new solutions is what drives people to route around that crap and starting using things like that NAS, or worse, Microsoft Access. I guess it's kind of a similar phenomenon to the adoption of the PC and M$ software in big businesses in the first place, to route around the mainframe cult.