Slashdot Mirror
Is the IT Department Dead?
alphadogg writes "The IT department is dead, and it is a shift to utility computing that will kill this corporate career path. So predicts Nicholas Carr in his new book launched Monday, "The Big Switch: Rewiring the World from Edison to Google." Carr is best known for a provocative Harvard Business Review article entitled "Does IT Matter?" Published in 2003, the article asserted that IT investments didn't provide companies with strategic advantages because when one company adopted a new technology, its competitors did the same."
SIGSEGV caught, terminating
wait... not that kind of sig.
Now that all dairies use it, pasteurization doesn't give any dairy an advantage over any other. Clearly, pasteurization is dead.
Step into a huge movement. Don't Tread In Me.
As long as IT is considered a mystic black-art that anybody who 'knows-computers' can do then it will never receive the respect that it deserves. All IT jobs should be considered on the same "Skilled Trade" tier as plumbers, welders, electricians, etc. As long as the PHB thinks that his son Johnny has a computer so anybody can do this job, then it will always be a dead-end position.
There should be a registered apprenticeship, and it should take years to finish. The Certification schools should all be closed down and only true colleges and universities be registered to offer the courses.
If any boss thinks that you could be replaced by a student for $10.00/hr, then there is no respect.
"The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." ~Plato (427-347 BC)
"Business units and even individual employees will be able to control the processing of information directly, without the need for legions of technical people." Sure, Users are really likely to be picking up those skills themselves real soon. It will happen the same day they all remember ctrl-c is copy, and ctrl-v is paste. I won't hang up my pocket protector anytime soon.
Engineering didn't matter, because, hell.. Once one person started using the wheel, everyone did, so what was the advantage in anyone having it?
Though really, it's more like the public transport system. By rights, it should be cheaper and more efficient if everyone used the mass transit system, and we all hopped on busses and trains run by large commercial entities with a monopoly on all transport.
Reality, on the other hand doesn't quite work that way. There are a lot of places that will simply want their own stuff (hey, you control your building and your servers a lot more closely than putting them in a big datacenter, and hey.. What about when your building loses external network connections?).
The world is a diverse place with a lot of different cases. And any company that trusts their lifeblood to another (storing in one datacenter) trusts a little more than they really should.
The IT department, even in the world of datacenters, will still be there. Same as facilities departments, same as every other department, just the role may shift a little.
I think the book's author missed a step in his logic. The centralization of power utilities didn't obsolete electricians. IT departments will become more like electricians, helping companies deal with localized problems and building local infrastructure. Application service providers will not take over all datacenter functions, and as long as end users are proud of their technological ignorance, local support will be absolutely necessary. Now, this may mean opportunities for more independent service providers and a new round of technological entrepreneurialism, but not the death of the IT professional.
Of course PCI specs could change or your company/the industry decides to move away from PCI. Then the problem is right back.
Regardless, this guy is only partially correct.
Correct: Computing data is similar to electric power generation in that it will be increasingly centralized.
Incorrect: The jobs are just gonna disappear.
In his example, he forgot that there's not just one guy running the power plant up the street. He also forgot the need for power strips, backup generators, batteries for portable goods, stores to sell the batteries, power strips, etc, and of course, your friendly neighborhood electrician.
In other words, yes, there's a shitload of centralization, but it still takes a lot of jobs to get electricity into the consumer's hands. Computing will be no different.
Good point. One thing that also bugs me a little after reading TFA is that even tho a new technology may be adopted by all competitors it is not always evenly and consistently adopted. Some competitors utilise new technologies better than others. The IT world is full of examples of this. Technology is not the key... it is how *people* *use* and *implement* technology that drives up productivity.
However, support functions and basic networking would be a lot harder to ship off to a third party with marginal personal interest in the multitude of operations they would be supporting. Disagree? Then I give you EDS and their infamous Navy IT services contract, and countless other examples.
If you never make mistakes, it's probably because you're not doing anything.
The problem with outsourcing things like the IT department is that as long as it's part of the business the IT people is "always" there - and they can do some other minor jobs too if they have time. And usually problems are fixed relatively fast. (but not always documented)
In an outsourced environment the user has to log a case and then wait for the outsourced IT department to pick it up. This IT department is probably reduced in personnel compared to the business IT department which means that there will always be a queue. And when the outsourced IT department guy finally shows up he can take a look and say - OH! - That's not an IT department problem - that's a XXX problem and we don't do these... Usually the outsourced IT departments are drained of competence too so you will get the guy with maybe some obscure MS certification but no experience in the business to try to solve your problem.
And it doesn't matter what your agreements with the outsourcing company says - the competence goes down and the overhead of the operation goes up when you outsource.
As a result - don't try to measure your IT department by the means of productivity on their part. If you see them sitting down relaxing - relax - there are no problems. If you can't find them - start to worry. If they are running like hell - it's panic time. See the IT department as the fire department for computer management - they may show up from time to time to do some proactive work. Proactive work usually doesn't look like much - but it may actually make a difference when something happens because at that time they probably know every corner of the building better than most people.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
While you _did_ mention proactive work, I don't think you give it enough credit.
Proactive IT work is the difference between having guardian angels watching over your company
In my experience, companies that use IT 'vendors,' the out-sourced IT departments, are the ones that have to call 'IT' when something's on fire. Companies with IT departments
IT Departments are likely to make everyone pissed because your email will be down for a few *_MINUTES_* (!ZOMG!! not My EMAIL!~!%!)
IT Vendors are likely to "save the day" after everyone's email has been down for a day and a half ("Thank you, fireman!")
Outsourcing is basically a gamble on the truth of the following inequation
R + I > R + P + O + E
R = Required: Cost of work required to do the job in the best way with maximum efficiency
I = Internal: Extra cost due to effort required by Internal staff to accomplish task due to incompetence or inexpertise
P = Profit: External party's (outsourcee) required profit to do the work. ie. The contractor's cut.
O = Overhead: Extra management cost of outsourcing for both the outsourcer and the outsourcee.
E = External: Extra cost due to effort required by External (outsourced) staff to accomplish task due to incompetence or inexpertise
In other words you're gambling that the company you're outsourcing your work to is so much more competent than your own people that even after they've made a handsome profit and after you've paid the overhead to manage the relationship you'll still be ahead paying for the outsourcee's solution.
Now sometimes outsourcing is a good gamble. For example economies of scale in manufacturing mean you'd never ever want to produce 100 office staplers yourself. Forget for a second that your core business isn't making staplers, think of the cost of tooling when producing 100 vs 10 million. Similarly for software no company is going to write their own word processor when there are feature rich off the shelf packages out there.
However for most custom work where a business wants to and is large enough to do things their own way, even if it's not your core business, unless you're going to leverage external expertise (or a code base) that you don't have in house or won't need for long (and therefore can't afford to hire and manage) P + O + E will be much greater than I. Unless of course your in house staff is nonexistent or so brain dead it needs to be replaced.
I understand that I've oversimplified above, but what I don't understand is why people high up in the decision making structure in big business don't understand it even this well. It shouldn't require huge textbooks and research to understand this.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer