Slashdot Mirror


Where Does IT Fall Within Your Organization?

ros256 writes "I help out a relatively small (100 employees) medical device company that does not have a dedicated IT department. Instead the network admin reports to a manager in the Clinical department. Although this seems unusual to me, the organization isn't really structured at this point to have IT staff report to a department more relevant to the work they do. I've been giving thought as to where within the organization would make more sense. So, I pose this question to the Slashdot community: Where does IT fall within the organizations you work with?"

7 of 243 comments (clear)

  1. India by BatGnat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    India

  2. Right next to the redheaded bastard stepchildren by DarthBart · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When shit works right - "Why do we need an IT department? They're just an expense!"

    When shit breaks - "Why the hell are you using shit that has to be kept together with duct tape and bailing wire???"

  3. Re:Few places... by nine-times · · Score: 5, Insightful

    the same people that keep the lightbulbs changed, the warehouse shipping and the driveway plowed.

    That makes sense, assuming "setting an employee up with a computer" to be comparable to "setting employee up with a desk". I've seen some companies where IT operates under the Finance department. I've never really understood why, except maybe because early computer use in many companies was limited to accounting, and it stuck in Finance for legacy reasons. I've seen other companies where there's a dedicated IT department that traces up to the CIO, and it kind of runs independently.

    I think it depends on the company, but a lot of companies miss out by failing to integrate IT very well. They treat the IT support guy like a handy-man who is completely divorced from the company's strategy, and meanwhile the entire business is running on computers. Not that I object to the comparison between support personnel and a handy-man, but if the productivity of your company depends of effective and efficient use of computers, then you might want to involve some people in your strategic decision-making who understand computers really really well. I've seen companies ask employees to spend hours going through a process that a computer could automatically complete in minutes, just because they never bothered to ask the IT guy if there was a better way to go about things.

  4. Re:Right next to the redheaded bastard stepchildre by nine-times · · Score: 4, Insightful

    -or-

    When shit works right despite being underfunded: "Why are we paying so much for the IT department? They're just an enormous expense, but there's no benefit because everything is working anyway!"

    When shit breaks because of being underfunded, "Why are we paying so much for the IT department? They're just an enormous expense, but there's no benefit because they can't keep anything working!"

  5. Re:Few places... by Urban+Nightmare · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That's the way our company works.

    They don't want to involve IT because we ask to many hard questions like:
    "Who's going to use the system?"
    "Do we want to put that promotion on the web site or just in the news paper?"
    "Do we want to track our click through rate?"
    "Is there power and network available in that spot?" "

    You know, stuff that everyone else just doesn't understand.

  6. Re:What is an IT department? by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Users are pretty much self sufficient on Macs. End of story.

    Speaking as a man who once had the misfortune of supporting Macs, I can assure you this is not true at all. It may be true for the specific people you have in your organization, but that's about it. Dumb users are dumb and require hand-holding and fixing, no matter what platform you stick them on.

    --
    "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
  7. Re:Few places... by JackieBrown · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I have noticed that would you do mention potential problems, people see you as someone that is "not on board" or "not a team player." Sometimes they even go as far as to assume you are out to sabotage their brilliant plan.

    When it turns out you were correct, people opinions of you do not change and they either are upset that you predicted the problems and now want to avoid any mention of your existence or blame you for somehow causing the problems that caused their brilliant plan or reform to fail. Those people who had ignored your warnings will go back to the planning board but now without you.

    I now smile and try to seem enthusiastic about any plan, no matter how unfeasible or ill-conceived it may be. And I am doing better (professionally) for that attitude.