Slashdot Mirror
Why "Running IT As a Business" Is a Bad Idea
snydeq sends along a provocative piece from Infoworld, arguing that the conventional wisdom on how IT should be run is all wrong. "Bob Lewis dispels the familiar litany that 'IT should be run as a business,' instead offering insights into what he is calling a 'guerilla movement' to reject conventional 'IT wisdom' and industry punditry in favor of what experience tells you will work in real organizations. 'When IT is a business, selling to its "internal customers," its principal product is software that "meets requirements." This all but ensures a less-than-optimal solution, lack of business ownership, and poor acceptance of the results,' Lewis writes. 'The alternatives begin with a radically different model of the relationship between IT and the rest of the business — that IT must be integrated into the heart of the enterprise, and everyone in IT must collaborate as a peer with those in the business who need what they do.' To do otherwise is a sure sign of numbered days for IT, according to Lewis. After all, the standard 'run IT as a business' model had its origins in the IT outsourcing industry, 'which has a vested interest in encouraging internal IT to eliminate everything that makes it more attractive than outside service providers.'"
He actually hit the nail to head with this. This is the thing most people working with IT or geeky professions miss, and why they think everything free and such is so great movement. Business DOES NOT work on mere technical things. Nothing in the world does.
This all can be really put into one line: People don't care what you do. People care about results of what you can enable them to do. If you provide that, great! If you dont and jab about "better ways" to do things while costing time and money, then.. sorry, but bye bye.
As a more slashdot friendlier terms, do you really care how a pizza place makes your pizza? No. You only care about how good it tastes when you eat it.
I work for a large insurance company in the UK. I'm a 'senior developer' if you like. One of my biggest gripes? The notion that work on the website - for a purist such as myself (and web designers and editors that also work on the site) - is subject to zero requirements, the 'customers' want everything for nothing, time-based 'estimates' that are taken as the law of the land. Every approach the customer wants you to implement is never in the right frame of mind for how the web works (noone understands the medium in which they're presenting to the customer outside). Your work is governed, oriented and OK'd by people who have no interest in how to do things properly. Fat-cat bosses who think their 10 years experience in Fortran 30 years ago makes for true understanding of how a website should work. Their way, no matter how stupid it seems to you the unenlightened one, is the right way. Trust me, I'm a fat-cat!
What ends up giving way? Quality. And it pisses me off. I can't do my job properly. Code reviews, unit/mock/functional testing, analysis, UML *all* have to give way because of all the above and just to get it out on time. Maintenance costs increase, but as long as it's out of the door it's OK. Would you build a house without blueprints? Would you remove an accountant's calculator from their desk because *you* don't work that way? Nope. [Excuse the crude analogies, they still get the point across]
The following sums it up well:
I've always hated this is approach to web development and steering change on websites. It's backwards. Archaic. Frustrating.
ilovegeorgebush
I actually went and read the article (I know as a /.er, I'm not supposed to, and I apologize). The whole thing sounds like a cheap excuse for providing even LESS customer service than IT departments deliver already (and most IT depts I've worked with have already been FAR from customer-friendly). When I'm working on an important project, and need a critical piece of software or hardware upgrade, I certainly don't expect IT to drop everything and come running immediately. But I damn sure don't expect them to tell me "Sorry, but we don't answer to you as an individual anymore--we have our own grand plan now and, if you want an upgrade, you'll have to present the big picture at next year's board meeting. We don't install specifics."
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
While I do agree that running IT like a business is often not the best way to go about it, some of the things said in the article are simply bizarre. For example, what does this even [b]mean[/b]:
Instead of reacting to users, he should be their peer. Primarily, I asked him why he didn't transition from building Web apps to instead creating a solution using cloud technology and true mobile devices like BlackBerrys, iPods, and emerging tablets. He could offer a better solution, at about a quarter of the cost.
While buzzword compliant it doesn't really mean anything.
If you run a factory, that's true. In almost every other business, it's not.
IT makes 90% of what goes on in a modern company possible at all. ERP, CRM, CMS and about three dozen other "tools" are as vital to a company today as hammers and workbenches were to a craftsman hundreds of years ago. Janitors aren't. They clean up and we don't want to miss them, but they don't run the company.
IT isn't the brain of most non-tech companies, but it certainly is the heart - it keeps the blood/information flowing through the veins/channels. Going even a few hours without it is noticeable in most companies, IT going down for a day is the corporate equivalent of a heart attack.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Posting anonymously for my protection. As a long time sysadmin and somone who provided phone based tech support for a couple years as well, I hate the whole IT a business thing. Whenever I hear a manager say something like "we're here to serve the customer" and they mean other employees, it tells me that the manager fundamentally doesn't understand how good IT practices work. As a sysadmin, I'm supposed to have the power to tell a co-worker that the password they are using is too weak or that they need to use this program instead of that. Or that we can't do what you want on the server or network because its too insecure. They shouldn't have the right to override the technical decisions of people with more experience with them. Especially when it comes to security.
Employees are not customers, they are employees. They are paid to do their job and follow the rules. If they can't, they should be let go.
The article highlights the flaws of poor communication skills, attributes these flaws to "IT as a business", and then suggests a new method...which is just as susceptible to communication flaws.
I dig what they are trying to say, I really do. But it's nothing new, and certainly nothing beyond what we already have.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
Bob Lewis dispels the familiar litany that 'IT should be run as a business
IT is a service, a service that makes your business run better. And the better that service is shaped to your business, the more adapted to how you work, the more efficiently your business operates. The biggest payback from IT is saving money. A dollar saved is better than a dollar earned. A dollar saved is pure profit. A dollar earned you have to subtract the cost of overhead and doing business.
Too many times IT people operate from a perspective that's more religion than service. The time to upgrade to Windows 7 is not when SP 1 comes out, it's when upgrading saves the company money. A service mentality does not try to force-fit technology where it doesn't belong. Maybe not everyone in the company needs Windows 7. Maybe the call center can use Ubuntu workstations, maybe the graphics departments work more efficiently with Macs. A service mentality focuses on what works best for the company and saves money, not what your technical people know and where they've invested their training. Yet I see that a lot. Not what works best, but what the techs know. Their expertise limits their technology choices instead of expanding them.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Ideally, as someone who isn't in IT but uses technology, I like to think the IT guys are on my side. If something is broken, and I can't fix it myself, or something could be better and I can't improve it (due to lack of knowledge or resources or access), they're there to help me out. Setting up IT "as a business" fundamentally changes this way of thinking about things, though. My group then sees IT as a cost center: we want to use as little of their stuff as possible, or we might get billed for them doing stuff for us. IT sees us as customers to whom a bunch of crap can potentially be sold, generating revenue for their IT business.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
I'd say in general that outsourcing anything sucks. I suspect the only exception is if the business is very small - too small to occupy at least one full time person. After that, you're better off bringing it inside, whatever the role.
Most of the things he complains about would be bad practices for any business. How can a business keep customers at arm's length and expect to have a good relationship with them? How can a business let its customers completely dictate how they do their work? If you run a business, you are responsible for keeping it sustainable, and sometimes that means you have to say no to your customers.
Do you drop your trash on the ground wherever you please? Why not? You are far more important than the janitors, both by title and salary.
Why not let the janitors follow you around and clean up after you as you constantly change their job requirements? YOUR job produces the revenue for THEIR salary, right? They should accommodate your wishes at all times.
Oh, wait, if you did that, you'd just be an asshole. The amount of extra babysitting you'd require from the cleaning staff means other coworkers aren't getting the support they need.
Your petty "IT are just janitor schmucks" attitude is self-centered, narrow-minded, and utterly detrimental to the company as a whole. All you amount to is being the jackass that never flushes toilet 'cause he's too important.
I personally try and produce code that meets and exceeds the business requirement, and does so within the time-frame set by the business. The problem, I think is that software engineers, in general, are a bunch of perfectionists, and we like to hold off announcing a 'final version' until the last possible moment. (Google Mail was in beta for how long?)
What I have come to realize, though, is that it is not just the IT departments that feel this way. In general, there are some people in every department, of every company that belive that their performance would improve if only they had a greater measure of self-determination. Perhaps the number of people who feel this way is highest in IT, but it is certainly not exclusive to IT.
So what it comes down to, I feel, is that we are slowly drifting towards a business culture where the individual has more control over their job, and where sucess is measured by job satisfaction instead of economics.
At least, that's the direction I hope we are heading in.
The whole thing sounds like a cheap excuse for providing even LESS customer service than IT departments deliver already (and most IT depts I've worked with have already been FAR from customer-friendly/b>).
The whole point is that you're thinking about it the wrong way. There should be *NO* "customer" anything.
When I'm working on an important project, and need a critical piece of software or hardware upgrade, I certainly don't expect IT to drop everything and come running immediately.
What you *should* expect is for IT to be a part of the project from the beginning, rather than just being asked to provide something after the fact. They don't need to "come running" because they're already there.
Interesting article. From what I have observed over the past few decades, there has been a steady growth in ideology in business schools and economics departments. These ideologies are usually simplistic models or sets of ideas that are supposed to be broadly applicable. Many of these ideologies have come and gone like fads. Many of them, while useful, are not axiomatic. Business school graduates often treat the "management" skill-set that they learn in school as broadly applicable to any field. Thus, MBA graduates may move between extremely diverse positions. I know of one that went from managing a train manufacturing plant to managing a food manufacturing facility. Because he had no previous experience with working with food, he faced significant difficulties both in making the food plant operate smoothly, and in making a profit. He didn't have a clear idea of where he could cut within the operation without endangering food safety. He lacked both detailed knowledge of production methods, and had a poor understanding of scientific principles. Under the ideology of business school, this person's management skills should have been directly transferrable between many different fields. The reality on the ground was quite different
In the case of the topic at hand, it seems to me that one particular model, consisting of customers and service providers with all such relationships entail, is not optimally applicable to a specific situation (IT). The economy, and the world, is far more complicated and subtle than simplistic and faddish business school ideologies.
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
Don't confuse problems stemming from bad management with problems stemming from a bad model.
The idea of internal customers comes from Total Quality Management. TFA bears absolutely no resemblance to TQM. TFA describes what happens when you have the old style business structure (divisions/departments) and a pointy-haired boss learns accounting are calling IT a "cost centre" and then mistakes an accounting technique for a management technique.
People like to blame accountants for this, but that's because... accounting is a different department. Sure, this "hairball" IT system I'm supposed to be in charge of is all someone else's fault, but that "chargeback" system, well accounting is in charge of that aren't they!
FWIW TFA is quite disappointing for Infoweek. It displays numerous hallmarks of a self-help book. It massages the ego by implying that yes, you are being looked down upon, you should be more important and given more freedom and control ("IT should relinquish its increasing stance as an order taker, and earn and advance its intended role as the qualified engineer of what makes a business hum"); it's all someone else's fault ("hard to get the business leaders to step up"); and genial bashing of accountants in order to be all like-minded and chummy ("full employment for accountants"). Ironic then that all does is suggest adopting a business structure that has been core material in accounting studies since Japan started making cars, all wrapped up in executive-speak babble and buzzwords (unsurprising given the reference material).
By the way, most of the time people seem to assume doing the whole integrated thing will automatically be more productive and satisfying. It can be, but don't for a minute assume it's also easier. One thing the traditional model does supply is a command structure and set procedures - take that out and everybody finds they have to do stuff that previously they associated with management.
The problem is that fundamentally, every other 'business support' eventually finds that it cannot be ruled by business... and as such makes itself a profession.
Lawyers - check
Accountants - check
Constructions and other engineering fields - check
Trades people - check
Right now, I'm looking at the elevator and it has be inspected by a licensed inspector. Yet, I'm working on software that runs the very internet... and I know they can bring in someone who has no experience and no knowledge and no licensing to build and test the router?
Anyone see anything wrong with this picture?
Even something as simple as network management (CCNA style). No other field would let CCNAs operate routers. They'd all require a skilled person a degree and probably industry certifications (CCNP) to operate a basic router.
You can look at other fields like healthcare. They all turn themselves into a profession so they have something to stand on when faced with 'business'.
There are a lot of things a profession does
1. Ensures people are trained properly. Lawyers go through grad school, become associates, learn under a senior lawyer... Law is complex. You can't throw a new grad lawyer in the middle of corporate law. Yet, in engineering, I've been thrown into an issue where the core internet router of a major city was down... and I (the new grad software engineer) was thrown it to deal with the ISP and diagnose the problem.
2. Ensures Quality. You have a voice if you feel standards are being violated. Short cuts taken that threaten some higher values (security, stability...).
3. A sense of independence
You are in charge of this. No business person tells a lawyer how to do their job. Yet I'm amazed when business people decide how to run software or IT. Oh, just throw people at projects... that'll work. Don't value knowledge in the current code base. Sure!!!
I'm fully aware of the downsides of professions... there is no way technology would have been able to progress as fast if it were a true profession. People would use the profession as job protection.
I am fully aware of business' need to make a profit. I don't rant against that. But as all professionals we say... if you let me do my damn job... we'd save you money! Give me 5 professional software developers and 5 professional tests, and we'll do the job of 200. But I suppose being a business person with power trumps making money.
That said, I don't blame business people. I can only blame IT and engineers. We refuse to use professions. When we do get on top/management... we treat our underlings the way we were treated. Too many of us are timid and don't stand up for ourselves. How can we expect not to be trampled over?
This article isn't going to enlighten you or give you the secret to running a top notch IT organization. And neither are most of the comments that have risen to the top. There is no magic wand. Anyone that tells you otherwise is probably selling something. There's just hard work and a commitment to excellence with the acceptance that there are certain things which are inevitable:
1) You're in business to produce a profit. You're not in business to procure, deploy, or worship technology. Technology is a tool. No different than a screwdriver or a machine press or a clock. It helps the workers be more productive and capable of producing a profit. Nothing more. Nothing less. Used well, technology is power. Used unwisely, it's an anvil around your neck.
2) Organizations are groups of people. People in groups don't communicate well. People one on one usually communicate very well. Whenever you get a large enough group, there will be miscommunication and that thwarts most "techniques" or "methodologies" engineered to negate this effect. The sooner you realize that you can't engineer away humanity, the sooner you'll be successful in using one on one relationships to get most of your wins. ALL organizations will NEVER be in sync at any given time.
3) No matter where you work, there will be a bell curve of capability and skill. You'll have a few rock stars, most people will be in the middle, and there will be a few truly aweful people. It doesn't matter if it's Google or the Army or AJ's Nails and Hair. No organization can attract the best and brightest all the time for all needs. So even if you have good processes and good relationships, they won't always work and you won't always get good results. The best you can do is work hard to provide the best you can and accept the fact that not everyone you are working with is capable or motivated to do the same. Stop complaining and do what is reasonable to solve the problem. That will bring you the most success. And happiness. Read this again, and then lower where you think YOU are in the bell curve.
4) People are relying on you to guide them and help them to make informed and intelligent decisions. To them, what you do is scary and expensive and magical all at the same time. Keep the previous 3 points in mind on how they will present their problem to you and respond to the solution that you present to them.
I've been a CIO for everything from startups to publicly traded companies to companies I've founded. The principals don't change. Just the budgets and egos.