Slashdot Mirror
Tech Vs. Business?
An anonymous reader writes "I've recently found a spot in a large company, and I'm noticing that here a lot of people on the technology side are very anti-business. Tech makes up about 40% of the total line of business staff, but the whole LOB is only a tiny percentage of the larger company in the financial industry. I personally haven't seen this before in prior jobs, but I'm told that this animosity is commonplace. So I come to Slashdot to find out if others have experienced this adversarial relationship between business and tech, and if so, what was the effect on the overall success of the business?"
And frankly, we don't really have any dealing with the IT department, outside of them wanting to order this, upgrade that. And them occasionally coming up to fix something.
Not the closest relationship.
If each mistake being made is a new one, then progress is being made.
I'm serious when I say the company I work at is more anti-tech then its tech department is "anti-business". People hate change, simple as that. Fortunately time takes care of those people, albeit slowly.
I view my users as just that, users. I support them. They do their job. They support me financially. I appreciate and recognize this symbiosis. Without them I wouldn't have a job and without me their job would be all but impossible.
IMAGE VERIFICATION IS EVIL!
I think the single biggest reason for the conflict between Business and Techies is one of motivation. Those on the business side are typically there to make stupid amounts of money. The technology is there to make money, end of story. On the other side of the coin, is the techies who are there to do "cool shit" and generally have fun and learn. While the money is nice, and they usually wouldn't do the work for free, it's not the primary motivation. This leads to the natural collision of worldviews. The techies want to do cool stuff, get it done right, and then maybe sell it. The business folk want to get it out the door for as littl emoney as possible.
...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
As IT people, we look at the world logically; we know that if A follows B and B follows C then A must also follow C. We know that if the user wants to view the balance on an account, they bloody well better have the account number before viewing it.
But business people don't seem to have that same view. We assume they aren't interested, or that they're illogical when they say "why do I have to enter the account number to view the account balance?"
The problem I find is usually one of language. For example, in the question above I figured out the business person wasn't being ignorant of the need for an account number. They simply wanted to *scan* it, not *enter* it. To us IT people, there's absolutely no difference how the number gets into the system, but to them that difference seemed so great they had to point it out that they never wanted to *enter* it again.
Yes, there are obstinate and stupid people out there, but not everyone with those questions is either. And the moment we respond to a question like the one above with a groan or a "duh!" comment, we do become condescending and anti-business. The best way to deal with these questions is to keep the dialog from degenerating. Rephrase the question, restate your problem with their assertion, and get them to confirm it again. Something such as "well, we need the account number before we can show the account balance, so where do you want us to get the account number from?"
Keep the discussion friendly, don't get patronizing or condescending, and try not to sound like Scotty ("I canna' break the laws o' physics!") Try hard to discover the real root of their issue. It's critical to treat them like peers, and not talk down to them. Remember that they must bring some value to someone in the business, so try to respect that. And yes, sometimes it's harder than others, and sometimes it's just never, ever going to sink in. Try bringing in other people to moderate the discussion, or to bring alternate suggestions.
John
after all if a company is going to smelt aluminum they don't go around building an atomic power plant to run their smelters, they find a cheap source of electricity preferably reachable by major shipping lanes, and let the utility company worry about where the power comes from.
Minor nitpick unrelated to your argument: A lot of aluminum smelting plants and large paper mills have their own power generation facilities or have entered into some sort of co-op for generating the power they need rather than paying a power company.
There's no place like
...like it hasn't been tried before?
Nice try, but the downsides include:
Cost - not cheaper over the long term
Consistency - who is your go to guy/gal? I dunno, I think he's just been replaced
Uptime - hey our server's down, let me call - wait, how much does this contract dude cost after hours?
Quality - The contractor said Apu Nahasapimapedalan knows exactly what he's doing, and they're only charging $200/hr. I don't think he speaks any English though.
Overpromising - Well, anyone that's worked in IT for any length of time and has worked with an outside firm knows what I'm talking about here. 'Nuff said.
Those are just off the top of my head. If you're talking about a network admin or something along those lines, complete outsourcing may work for very, very small offices, but when you get over, maybe one person, you really need your own.
If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
I actually had a similar experience doing software projects for an engineering firm. Despite their strength in electrical engineering, they had the delusion that software is "easy" - because they'd all written a few programs - so when I was given a task and completed it, without fuss, a few months later, they thought little of it. Another programmer, with a background in engineering, was always have problems, and slipping, because of "unforseeable" problems with software tools, and interfaces. As he first of all ranted about his problems, then fixed them, I could see the bosses thinking "there's a real programmer". :).. Eventually they booted me, kept him, and have continued to have "unforseeable" software problems.
So, it's not just "business"!
I'm a software visionary. I don't code.
after all if a company is going to smelt aluminum they don't go around building an atomic power plant to run their smelters, they find a cheap source of electricity preferably reachable by major shipping lanes, and let the utility company worry about where the power comes from.
Actually, they usually build the smelter near an existing plant, or where one can be built. Aluminium is refined electricity, basically.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
"spacious reasoning"? :) Reasoning that has lots of room for expansion? :)
I think you meant specious.
I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
"My business boss is not good at connecting the dots between cause and effect. He is not a logical thinker yet thinks he is."
Sounds like you may want to grab one of those books about personality types and how to deal with them.
Shai Schticks:"You don't make peace with friends, you make peace with enemies"
Maybe it's just natural, but to me there is a dichotomy between business and operations in most companies today and fosters ignorance in both directions. Managers in most companies haven't a clue how things are done in the operational side, and to some extent the same is true in reverse for the operational people.
My theory is that this is almost solely attributable to the general lack of ownership in business today. Almost everything is corporate now - even the managers don't own the place. When the owners leave, so does the clue-train. The tech's may still know how to operate things so the customers still remain happy, but its a long shot if the non-owning managers will ever have a clue beyond who they're trying (this week) to sell out to. They just pray that sales or ops (or both) doesn't melt down before they sell out.
-Matt
Maybe I was lucky, but more than a dozen years delivering major financial market projects and our project managers were always the good kind you describe above and the client always understood the time (and sometimes money) impact of Changes.
HOWEVER, this was because we had, by this time, always established the trust between client and IT provider that meant;
a) If we say "that's hard/expensive" it's because it is "hard" or "expensive"
b) We did everything the client wanted to the extent that it did not compromise the success of the project. Success is a great motivator for the most flakey of clients
In addition since we were an outside vendor (not just an internal IT department) we had the luxury of using price to focus the mind of those that would otherwise be changeable.
What is intersting is that many of the clients in question had professional project managers themselves and despite the trials and tribulations along the way it was always a case of everyone being aware of what was necessary to get the project over the line.
These project invariably would make front page news in the country in question in the event of a failure (finance pages at least :-) so the incentive was high.
I think that is the key. Incentivise everyone to get the project live and it becomes more feasible that the project will succeed
"The first thing to do when you find yourself in a hole is stop digging."
Homer: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm.
Lisa: That's spacious reasoning, Dad.
The word you were looking for is specious.
computers are still relatively new, and eventually you won't need a whole staff of IT gurus to keep a network up and running, when a basic desktop computer can get rid of every moving part, there is less to replace and maintain, thus less IT workers needed...
Cars are relatively new, and eventually you won't need a whole staff of .... No wait that doesn't work. We have mechanics.
Plumbing is relatively new, and eventually you won't need a whole staff of .... No wait that doesn't work, we have janitors and if they can't fix it we have plumbers. Oh and plumbing is old
Electricity is relatively new, and eventually you won't need a whole staff of .... No wait that doesn't work, we have electricians.
Science is relatively new, and eventually you won't need a whole staff of .... No wait that doesn't work, we have janitors and if they can't fix it we have scientists.
Do I need to repeat with other professions? Anything that requires specialised expertise will require professionals. It has nothing to do with how new a field is. It has to do with the knowledge to operate in the field not being common knowledge. It has to do with how badly things go if they go wrong.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
So you've never had a hard disk failure, or a problem with a CD/DVD drive?
The parent post means when the hard disk etc are replaced with flash memory or something similar.
America, Home of the Brave.
Are you going to feed it, take it for walks, and pay for their vet appointments???
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
The power company supplies exactly the same product to every one of their customers. And the product never changes.
Not true at all. The power company can deliver single-phase or three phase power, with many different voltage & current options.
The power company can deliver power with different quality ratings (hospitals usually get cleaner & more reliable power).
Once a customer gets to a certain size the power company will negotiate with you to charge not just based on usage but based on time-of-day, peak load and how often you hit that peak load.
Once you get to a certain size the power company will give you a discount if you agree to reduce your usage on short notice.
I have been the director responsible for IT in a mid sized company, and we explored these options. I have a strong tech background.
The problem is there are three types of contractors
1. Cowboys. These will quote a very low rate. The job usually won't get done. The cost of fixing the mess will be astronomical.
2. Honest small firms. These will quote a high rate, and want everything nailed down ahead of time as to what is and is not their responsibility. Usually the business doesn't pay enough attention to this - in fact, usually doesn't know in advance what it wants, and then gets upset when the contractor says 'Well, you agreed to this deal". AS far as the business is concerned, this is exactly the same as not getting the job done.
3. The big boys, usually associated with auditing firms and the like. These guys charge obscene amounts of money, far far more than having your own IT staff. But they will be nice and respectful to business people, and always have front men in suits with lots of graphs and powerpoint presentations. They also usually won't get the job done, but will be able to convince management that what they got was even better.
Now of course there is outsourcing to India. This is usually an amalgam of 1 and 3.
It really depends on how the Tech people treat the other workers...
We really want to sit down and fix the problem without anyone bothering us, however people wan't to be informed on what is happening, even if they understand it or not. I tend to get along quite well with the non-techs here is the process.
They come to you for a problem...
If you treat others like stupid jerks they will treat you the same. You are working together don't try to be superior to them, try to be their equal with the goals of supporting their work. For most companies IT isn't the goal it is to support the goal.
There is also a budgeting problem with IT. Most companies have IT classified as a cost center in the organization. That means you it is considered an expense with the goal to keep costs down. You need to keep that in mind when you make decisions. It will take a lot of work to move IT from cost center to a point where you can prove that investment in it as a positive effect in the companies bottom line. Most IT departments are very bad at this. First the anti-business mindset, prevents the expansion of development of Decision Support Systems or BI systems, Being proactive to use IT to solve problems in the business, not just work with the CIO or CTO but with the COO (Chief Operations Officer), you will be suprized how many Computer Science Concepts are in Business Process Management, just the names change.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.