Slashdot Mirror
Lack of Innovation in IT Holding Companies Back?
bednarz writes to mention that Google's Dave Girouard, manager of enterprise business, is blaming a "crisis" in IT and the "insane complexity" of technology, among other things, for the lack of innovation that could allow businesses to grow. "A lot of things that people think of as core IT functions need to disappear into the ether so that the IT organization can properly focus on the value-added [activities]," he said. "Information security, as critical as it is, needs to be taken care of by organizations who live and die by it, who invest the money, time, resources and staff. Why should every company in the world have to build up their own expertise and have to maintain servers and provide security?"
See any serious problems with this story? Sure! "Lack of content" springs to mind.
A company buys enormous data centers, the kind one might use to farm out a business' IT infrastructure needs, and then that company promotes... farming out business' IT infrastructure needs! Whaaa?!
stuff |
IT organization can properly focus on the value-added [activities]
Yeah, I could see your point - if you define the function of IT that way. Most people out there though, don't. They see IT as the tech problem-solvers in the business. Fix that computer, hook me to such-and-such across VPN, get rid of my spyware.
If you want to have a group of guys doing value added activities, hire some engineers or more IT staff and define their job responsibilities that way. And once you do, don't bug them with other stuff. If they're supposed to be idea guys, let them do that and that only. Don't interrupt them with your secretary's spyware problem.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
The Federal Government, which pays for most of the innovation in the US (directly through r&d contracts, or indirectly through grants) has cut back on its tech spending to free up money for the war.
Best Slashdot Co
The way I see it is that you have trade offs. You can make things "simple" like Microsoft does by having software that makes assumptions about what you want to do. If you have minimal and non-specific needs, then you won't have much of an issue. You'll also be able to get away with less skilled workers to accomplish your basic goals. But if you want to do something very specialized and the assumptions don't support it, then that approach will get in your way. And your less skilled workers will become a detriment if you need to move to something a bit more complex.
On the other side of the coin you have other OSes (*nix OpenVMS and others) that have a good deal more flexibility in terms of allowing you to do virtually anything. But this will require more skill in your workforce and natually more complexity. There is not currently a way to have less complexity and a high degree of flexibility and power. There just isn't. Even Microsoft is learning that lesson as they add PowerShell (previously Monad) to Exchange 2007. They've finally seen the light that what you really want is a set of powerful and small tools that do one job well (the CLI) and then you layer your "ease of use" on top of that. So I expect that future MS products will probably earn the gripe of being "complicated" by less skilled people who entered the IT industry in the 90s as paper MCSEs.
There's no way around it. Computers ARE complex machines and they become even more complex when you want to do something really unique and innovative. This is why there is no equivalent of Exchange on the Mac OS Server platform. Zimbra is about the closest thing and it's not exactly friendly. But if you're a real IT guy, that's not a problem.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
- Servers, e-mail, security, and whatever else "Google Apps" offers now or in the forseeable future is a small portion of any company that has any kind of serious IT going on. Most companies have a lot of custom apps, or at least highly-customized "off-the-shelf" solutions. I don't see Google offering a solution to reduce costs in that area.
- Any cost savings from outsourcing will not translate into increased corporate R&D. The PHBs and bean-counters will just give themselves raises.
- The PHB raises are not just because of greed, but because "forward-looking" on today's Wall Street means the next quarter -- thus no R&D.
- The biggest barrier to innovation is corporate culture. The Google exec even touts that as a benefit within Google, but fails to mention it as a barrier in companies other than Google. I still remember the first time many years ago that I made what I thought was an innovative suggestion within a Fortune 500 company, and then hearing the response, "that's nice to have," and feeling flattered. Only a few minutes later I came to realize that in corporate-speak "nice to have" really means "not nice to have" because "nice to have" is meant to mean "it's nice to have but not needed to have, so we won't be doing that".
- Sarbanes Oxley. Nothing much else happens in the IT departments of publicly traded companies these days except for SOX compliance.
- Innovation is easier when everything's in house. Having servers, e-mail, security, etc. outsourced creates barriers to deep integration and high degrees of customization.
Despite the wrongness of the Google exec's assertion, it will be well received by PHBs because they'll get to cut costs while simultaneously pretending to be in favor of innovation.Why should every company have an HR department? Why should every company have a payroll department? Why should every company have to maintain an accounting department? Why should every company have to maintain upper management? Why should every company need people to work in them, or janitorial staff, or mail rooms, or anything?
Lets start with payroll. You can, and probably should hire someone else to do that. A company like PayChex wiill figure all that out. All you need is a bookkeeper to compile everyones time sheets and record time off. Payroll companies figure out the tax withholdings. As far as all the other administrative functions of HR like benifits, seek out a company like http://www.alcottgroup.com/. My last job used them and as a result were able to offer multiple health care plans, multiple credit union memberships, and the oddball benifits of cruise discounts and cheap gym memberships that one expects from a large company. Yet they had only 100 employees.
Now lets look at janitorial staff. The only job I ever had without an outside cleaning staff was in a factory with a large supply of low paid unskilled employees. Generally a part time handyman on payroll will handle the odd jobs and a cleaning company empties the trash cans and vacuums each night.
As far as accounting, in a large company you need a CFO and the full hierachry of accounting people. In a smaller company you need a book keeper or two, and the owner can be the comptroller. Hire an outside accounting firm to act as your CFO.
The point of your company is to do something that other people need or want. You then get them to gtive you money in exchange for fufilling these wants and needs. Accountants and janitors are means to an end unless you're a CPA or a cleaninhg service.
All that being said, it might be advantageous to insource some things. For example if your dealing with complex cash flows and large amounts of money, you probably need an accounting department. If you have alot of office and plant space, you might benifit from internal facilities people. If your a very web centric business you might want inhouse IT, development or both. Quite frankly, that is becoming less and less of an issue.
so executives no longer have to be tied to the office: they can just make three decisions per day, then head off to play golf.If there in sales I sure hope their playing golf with clients. If you can get your business down to three decisions a day, that great. Start another business, create more jobs.
--- Justin Dearing http://www.justaprogrammer.net/ We're just programmers.