Why Businesses Move To the Cloud: They Hate IT

jfruhlinger writes "Cloud services can be unreliable and pricey, and they often duplicate capabilities larger companies already have in-house. So why do many managers within organizations use them? Partly because they don't want to deal with their own company's IT department. Getting a big project started is often such a politically fraught process that for many managers it's easier to simply write a check."

Comments

Duh

[RMH101]

Guess what? No-one wants to deal with a department. They have business objectives they want to be able to achieve, and they want to pay for someone to deliver those as painlessly as possible, at the lowest cost possible. This is why they probably founded an IT Department. If that department is too slow or sluggish to deliver, they'll go elsewhere..."The Cloud" just offers them the chance to get what they want at a predictable, fixed cost...

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

So they'll "write a check" for the "cloud" service, but we are expected to provide whatever they want for free. I don't have a magic room where I keep equipment (and people) that I can pull out at the drop of a hat. Resources cost money, but they do not want to pay fr them wen the resources are internal, but can always find money to hire outsiders.

Re:Duh

[cjohnson319]

Problem is they basically outsource their internal knowledge and open them way more to hacker attacks and also to failure. I would be reluctant to move to a cloud no matter what.

It's entirely possible that the cloud host has better security than an internal IT department. If a huge cloud host, like Salesforce, devotes more resources, expertise and time to their security, and has higher security standards than an internal IT department, what's the disadvantage of going with the cloud?

Re:Duh

[MightyYar]

Congrats! You've pretty much illustrated exactly what this article is about!

Think of yourself in terms of having a customer and your competition is the cloud. Do you think the "cloud" provider is rude and surly? Do you think that they push back and make it seem like this whole idea is putting them out and making their life harder? I'm pretty sure they cheerfully offer services and then negotiate a price. Might even buy you dinner.

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

If a huge cloud host, like Salesforce, devotes more resources, expertise and time to their security, and has higher security standards than an internal IT department, what's the disadvantage of going with the cloud?

None. Hey wait, I see what you did there. Nice premise.

Sometimes the premise is that the cloud has worse security than the IT department.

And then the other 98% of the time, the relative security of the cloud vs internal is completely unknown and therefore can't be a factor in the decision. Management doesn't even understand how well their own IT department enforces security, and third parties are less well understood than that.

Re:Duh

[Penguinisto]

This is true to a point.

OTOH, the Cloud does have some big, fat hazards - security and politics-wise. When you have a bunch of sales/accounting folks setting up something IT-centric, it usually comes around to bite them (*and* IT) in the butt.

I remember a previous job when HR decided all by themselves to contract a SaaS for payroll stuff. The HR department head kept bragging about how IT was now useless to them, that they could do whatever they wanted to. They hired an HRIS person specifically for the SaaS provider... ...that is, until the SaaS provider went to set things up, and asked where the ADFS servers were (for employee sign-on/information integration - this way they could see their payroll info at home as well as at work - a *major* selling point, politically). It was funny watching the same department head come crawling around, because suddenly he couldn't deliver what he bragged on. It wasn't funny because someone in IT had to quickly evaluate, then crap out money and bandwidth for two servers and a wad of SSL certs, and then spend time working out the kinks.

My wee story is minor. There are far worse out there, usually when the rogue department comes across outages (and thus can't deliver), security breaches (and because IT wasn't told about it, they usually they find out the hard way - after A/P starts screaming that money is being lost, or employees start seeing identity theft), and general goof-ups that cause a great big mess that IT has to suddenly clean up.

A strong IT department head/manager/CIO will cut that shit off at the knees politically, and make sure it all funnels through his department, or that he/she at least knows about it before it goes in. That, or at the very least he/she can make sure all other department heads know there's a big disclaimer: If you don't involve us, we ain't responsible for what happens to it. It's as simple as insuring the firewalls block things in *both* directions, and that users are fairly locked-down. That way if some schmoe in another department wants to start FTP'ing files or opening oddball ports, for the most part they'll have to come to IT to do it, and the IT folks can ask "why".

The best way to prevent such things though is to have three things:

* a responsive and agile IT department. Not always 100% possible, but at least do your level best to serve, not block.
* IT management worth a fsck, who will insure that most stupid things don't happen.
* push (and get) a simple policy: If we don't build it or endorse it, then it's *your* ass on the block when it breaks/explodes/whatever, not ours. This includes any failure to deliver something specifically from that cloud service due to any network/server outages on our end.

The last part is just as important, because it removes any political cover that rogue department heads might have.

(A thought - if you can't stop it politically, but wanted to go all BOFH on that rogue cloud service connection, a little QoS action that ratchets connections to those IP addys down to the speed of a 14k modem would be an excellent start... >:) )

Re:Duh

[haystor]

All too often provisioning a new server costs weeks of paperwork and a ton of man hours from both IT and the business dept. Or, they can clone a new server in 30 minutes. There is no simliar service offered by IT, especially at big companies.

IT may have rules and procedures in place for good reasons, but all too often those rules are followed in a passive aggressive manner to put IT in control of business, instead of the other way around. Requests must be submitted with the hope of them being granted. Departments should be stating business cases and needs and IT should be helping figure out how they can help accomplish these. Frequently, this is not how it works.

Too many places, a request is made and IT denies it, telling the user they don't need what they're asking for. No research, no effort given, just a flat, automatic "no." I had a virus scanner fighting with my build, preventing the build from getting done. While our dept. is getting billed by IT for things, they refused to do anything at all about our new inability to build our main program. They had their rules that allowed them to say "no" and leave it at that. So here we are getting billed (internally) for IT support and being treated like no company in the world would treat a client. That is why departments move to the cloud.

The stories from developers fighting with IT are endless and all of them are countered by the same basic fear card and the general statement that users are idiots. In my two years at AT&T, I probably had firewall exceptions turned off a dozen times. They didn't keep their record keeping straight and couldn't justify a port being open between two computers so they shut it down. They didn't notify anyone at all, they just close a port. It would take 30 seconds to look up the paper trail on firewall exceptions and call/email the owner. There is a general arrogance that we are on "their" systems and not that they are managing "our" systems.

Re:Duh

[Penguinisto]

Agreed...

OTOH, who usually cleans up any messes that happens with it? Who gets blamed if the cloud provider has an outage?

Re:Duh

[cgeys]

The cloud service does, if you have SLA like you should.

But what comes to the article, I don't think it's just because everyone hates the deal with other departments. Some departments are nicer to deal with and some not. If you see what IT people say and do and how even we talk here on slashdot it might not be a surprise that we are not very pleasant people to deal with. It's something we as geeks should definitely try to improve. The common mindset seems to be "how could this idiot not know this??", while it's not their job to know it. We are there to help the other people to do their job too, after all.

Re:Duh

[Moryath]

IT may have rules and procedures in place for good reasons, but all too often those rules are followed in a passive aggressive manner to put IT in control of business, instead of the other way around.

You say that now. Then the Department Manager of your department, or the VP of Asshattery, gets caught doing various illegal things from his work desktop and IT gets word from on high to either (a) "cooperate fully" with a police investigation, (b) figure out how to hide it so it doesn't get to a police investigation, or (c) do some combination of (a) and (b) that may or may not be legal.

Departments should be stating business cases and needs and IT should be helping figure out how they can help accomplish these. Frequently, this is not how it works.

Everywhere I have worked, the process has gone line this:
- Department states business case. Part of the time, business case involves a complete lack of understanding of how the technology currently owned/operated by the company works. Part of the time, business case involves unrealistic assumptions like "it'll only take a couple days to move us from our current server environment to a completely different architecture." Part of the time, business case is actually reasonable.

- IT then figures out (a) what needs to be done to make it happen, (b) whether it can be done in a time-effective manner given the existing IT workload and available staff, (c) what it will cost to temp or outsource it if not. Sometimes there is also (d), whether the new toy the fuckwit VP du jour has purchased on company funds even does what he thinks it will do and how the FUCK to integrate it into the existing network.

The stories from developers fighting with IT are endless and all of them are countered by the same basic fear card and the general statement that users are idiots.

That's because for every story like yours, there are a dozen or more fuckwits like this or morons like this that the IT department has to contend with.

There is a general arrogance that we are on "their" systems and not that they are managing "our" systems.

And what you fail to consider is that "they" are caught between you, the user, and the weight of the company heads screaming the usual, contradictory priorities:

#1 Priority - "Just make everything work."
#1 Priority - "Keep everything safe."
#1 Priority - "Give the users what they want."
#1 Priority - "Protect the network from rogue users doing bad things."
#1 Priority - "Make the VP's latest toy cell phone plug in to everything."

Nothing that comes from "on high" for IT is ever not a "#1 Priority." IT is one of the most thankless tasks in existence. If everything is running well, people forget they exist. If something breaks or has to be taken offline for maintenance, someone is inevitably screaming bloody hell. Then they have to deal with mobile devices, 18 gazillion models of phone that everyone wants to hook in to company email, traveling flash drives that are a danger vector for worms coming in and corporate espionage going out...

Try putting yourself in their shoes once in a while. IT aren't the bad guys. They're stuck in a terrible position, under PHB's that make your department's PHB look like an utter genius by comparison, and your PHB is the guy who once took a week sick off of work after accidentally supergluing his hand to the family cat.

Re:Duh

[Carewolf]

IT may have rules and procedures in place for stupid reasons, and all too often those rules are followed in a passive aggressive manner, because management does not trust their own employees as much as they trust outsiders, and has forced stupid rules on IT and denied them a budget of their own.

There fixed that for you. As a developer, I probably fight more against IT every day than most other employees, but IT departments are a product of the company environment. They ignore new issues because taking on more responsibility is not something they are paid extra for, and more often than not, they are punished for being helpful when their other projects slip. Punish people for being helpful often enough, and they will stop helping.

Re:Duh

[Old97]

The other groups in the business are not my customers. They are my partners. If I were a consultant, ASP, cloud provider, or other vendor, my interests would be in making money for my company, not doing what is best for my customer. Sometimes the interests of the customer and the vendor coincide, but often they do not. A lot of vendors rake in tons of money doing whatever is asked of them with little or no regard for how bad it is or will be for their customer. That may please some clueless manager who is trying to look good, but it's not good for our employer. As a partner I have to care about our common employer. I have to be willing to push back when they want to do something stupid - something that is against the best interests of our company. That's in part what I'm paid to do. That's why we have an IT department.

That being said, I'm not advocating being a surly, snotty pain in the ass - a Mordac. We have to work to understand the requirements and challenges of our partners and help all of us through them. It's like a marriage. It takes work.

Re:Duh

[Carewolf]

An "internal cloud" is a server in your data center. It's not a cloud. It's a re-appropriation of jargon in an attempt to steer ignorant management types back to the old way of doing things.

An "external cloud" even by a big brand-name provider is not a cloud either. It's a re-appropriation of jargon in an attempt to steer ignorant management types into buying old hosting services with a new fancy name.

Re:Duh

[TemporalBeing]

In-house IT can timeline an issue for repair more reliably than a cloud vendor (see the Amazon outage).

Not really. The larger the company, the larger the IT department to support. IT departments are pretty much ignored, understaffed, and under-funded. That's the nature of IT. As a result, while they can try to time things to be more timely, the end result is that they may not enough resources to really predict how well it's going to go, and you may end-up with a lot of downtime that was still completely unplanned for because they couldn't do it in time, or roll-back to a working system in failure.

For example, one large company I use to work for did an email system upgrade - Exchange (yeah, I know - a problem unto itself). They scheduled it for the weekend when it shouldn't have been a problem. They had tested in their labs prior, so it should have gone through, right? no. A whole chunk of the organization that relied on the servers being updated (may be 1/16th of the entire (very very large) company b/c of how their system was configured) was out of e-mail for one whole week - including a top-level manager that had regular communications with government, as well as people at all levels trying to win contracts. They tried. They failed. They couldn't restore it. They brought it Microsoft to help; but it still took a week.

(Personally, I would have changed their whole email infrastructure as each site or division had their own dedicated email infrastructure instead of a single corporate-wide system. Yes, the site systems interplayed somehow into the larger corporate systems so that authentication, etc. worked. But it was still a mish-mash infrastructure.)

Just saying - even in-house IT can't really be relied upon any more than an external company you're paying to provide service. But then, the in-house IT folks see themselves as both mission critical and able to take their time to do whatever they want since besides their individual paychecks, the in-house IT organization doesn't have to fend for its right to live based on how well it provides service - it just provides service, users be damned. Where as the external company depends quite well on how well they provide service to you; you're paying them to do so and they (generally) want to retain that business instead of losing it to a competitor.

The biggest problem I've come across in IT is having a department and infrastructure that is just simply too big, where you don't have enough skill overlap (especially UP THE CHAIN OF COMMAND).

The biggest problem in IT is that it is highly neglected and poorly understood - at pretty much every level, not to mention especially in small organizations it tends to have a high turn-over rate, thereby it also has a very poor vision for how to provide the services rendered to the organization, and poor direction on doing so; and more often than not, not having enough people to support it either.

Good IT can be done. But IT leaderships is like CEOs these days - always moving on before the piper comes a calling.

Re:Duh

[EdIII]

There are cases where the cloud is a good choice or the right choice, but this just smacks of incompetent management.

You said it all in a nice little sentence.

We looked at the Cloud (I hate saying that word, it's misunderstood) with EC2 and we found that it was actually cheaper in the long run to make a financial investment in equipment to do it at our own data center. We have the expertise to have a fully virtualized group of servers that we can manage and with live migration have any technical issues mitigated with the bare machines themselves. After that it was just a matter of writing the service software to load balance itself out among all the servers in the group and a kind of command and control that keeps track of all servers entering and exiting the "Cloud".

All of that was actually cheaper than EC2 with the same specs.

However, it required a much higher upfront cost. So maybe it is not that the managers hate IT or anything (which is entirely possible) but that when the CTO comes in and tells the other executives in a meeting that it will take a week or two and a $100k investment in equipment and somebody brings up that they could just start paying a couple thousand a month to Amazon instead...... the CTO is basically told that the investment is not going to happen and make it work with Amazon EC2.... even after he explains that the long run costs are actually much higher.

It's the same disease that is destroying America. Short term thinking and short term profits for the executives, because that is what gets them the bonuses and all the fun fun happy happy time they get to have with all that extra money.

Amazon EC2 is fine and all, but you can use that as a backup, or a way to scale really quickly if needed. Anybody fooling themselves into thinking the Cloud is more financially efficient over the long run is just not doing the math. Amazon has to make a profit... so... yeah it will cost you more. Try getting a quote for what it actually costs with EC2 to create a group of virtual servers that are in different "availability zones" so that if part of Amazon goes down on the East Coast (Lulzsec having a party) that you are not actually impacted. The costs are more than one thinks to have all the really cool and valuable services that Amazon can give you. For plain vanilla that price is always cheaper. Reminds me a of Mexican fast food type joint around here. The "basic" quesadilla is $1.99. After adding some stuff to it they are $7 a piece.

I seem to remember Amazon recently having a major issue where all that amazing and expensive load balancing and redundancy across availability zones didn't actually work as expected..... and I can imagine how pissed off and disappointing the event was to the CTOs of the impacted companies. Sure they can explain that Amazon screwed up... but how many people here on Slashdot want to bet dollars to donuts that one of the executives didn't say, "Well why did you not have a plan for that?".

It's basically a lease on equipment. Too many Americans completely lack the ability to determine over time how much more the lease would have cost you versus a straight purchase.

To those executives, why the hell do they care? Most of them are already have the resumes on a nice heavy stock paper, golden parachutes, and exit plans from every building they step into.

Most IT people don't think anywhere near the same way. They don't hate us exactly, we just don't fit in with their culture.

Of course

[crashumbc]

Because their IT departments actually use the word "NO" when the managers want to do something stupid and retarded...

Re:Of course

[crashumbc]

No that is exactly the IT departments responsibility, just like your legal department's job is to tell the managers no when they want to do something illegal.

Re:Of course

[derrickh]

This is the exact attitude why managers like to avoid dealing with IT.

IT exists to help the rest of the company. Instead of saying 'NO', you need to figure out a way to say 'Yes' while solving the problems that make the request 'stupid and retarded'
D

Re:Of course

[baptiste]

Exactly - because if the IT department explains the risks, but goes ahead anyway because 'they said so' and then it blows up - who gets blamed? The brain dead manager that wouldn't listen or the IT department because it was an 'IT project'. Even if you have extensive documentation backing up the warnings you gave, it's too technical' and at the high mgmt level all they hear is 'IT screwed up' and it was an IT project. One of the main reasons I got out of corporate IT management - chronic lack of funding and not being listened to when you gave realistic cost and time projections for what was asked for and you never could achieve 'success' only 'not failing'. Nobody cheers for the power company because they keep the lights on day in and day out, but when the power goes out, they're public enemy #1.

Re:Of course

[surgen]

IT geeks do not run the company. They are there to provide service to the company, and to do as they are told.

Hey IT, go break HIPAA for me. I don't care that you're going to be held personally legally responsible. Its your job to do what I say!

Re:Of course

[cjohnson319]

Just as often, though, it goes:

Manager: I need a basic CRM setup so our regional sales people can get up-to-the-minute information on orders, as well as basic customer info.

IT: We're pricing this at $500,000 and a year to implement.

Manager: Nevermind, calling the cloud.

Re:Of course

[tnk1]

The answer is not to say "No", it is to say "Yes, but I will need X amount of money to get it done", where X is what it takes to do what it takes, no matter what. Once you put money into the equation, the management types will either give you the cash (doubtful) or they will back off. Sometimes, they push back and say "you don't need that!". You just tell them that its a rush project and it wasn't budgeted, so there really is no money for it. You really, really, really want to do what they want, but alas, you just need to get the equipment/people to get it done.

Keep saying "Yes" and explaining what you need to get the problem done in terms of dollars (or whatever you use). Management doesn't understand the word "impossible", but they do understand "incredibly expensive". Give them a path they can follow to get the money. Given the usual organization's reluctance to part with money, the rush project deadline will pass before the money is approved to be spent. That then shifts the blame to someone else, sometimes even the fool who made the stupid request to begin with.

You have only said "Yes we can!" to the questions. You may have to do some research and presentations to justify your numbers, but that's nothing compared to trying to implement the impossible. If you get really good at it, your face doesn't even momentarily change to horror when you get that sort of request, you just simile and hand them the price tag.

One thing you need to learn in business. Never say "No". You will look like you are an obstruction, rather than part of the "solution". I've found the way management works is based partially on what I call "happy horseshit", which means that your attitude tends to mean more than facts do. Even if you are correct 100% of the time, if you present that with a negative attitude, you're just as apt to be shunned or even fired as the incompetent people. Indeed, you'll probably be hated more, because the incompetent people might well be amiable idiots.

Re:Of course

[surgen]

What? You can't be serious. It will not bite them in the ass, it will bite you in the ass because you knowingly did something illegal. If my boss asks me to murder someone, I can't dodge the legal responsibility if I get it in writing that I am doing it under protest.

The purpose of the laws that hold the IT people responsible is so that they can't be coerced into doing it anyway, they're protected under the "employer can't fire you for not doing something illegal" protections.

I buy it.

[headhot]

Lots of people complain about security and reliability in the cloud. Who do you trust more. A system designed by our underpaid overworked IT staff that got their degree from DeVry? You Consultants that charge $250/man/hour who will be gone when the thing shits the bed? Or Google?

Welcome Brothers!

[Anrego]

This has been happening to us in the software world for some time. It's purely a cost thing (imo), which "dealing with IT" is a factor of, but in general I think it is a lot simpler.

Need some software. Your options be:

- Pay a team of developers to design, build, and maintain the software you use. Advantage is you get exactly (or well, in theory anyway) what you want. Disadvantage is it can take time to get the bugs sorted out

- Buy something off the shelf which is close enough. Advantage is you get it right away, it is generally mature out of the box, and you don’t need to keep a bunch of guys around to sort out bugs. Additionally because they sell this software to hundreds of users, they can throw way more development resources as it than you ever could (ye old horizontal market). Disadvantage is you don’t get exactly the features you want, but even that is changing as stuff becomes more extendable and more companies offer “customization”.

Option 2 starts looking very good, with option 1 becoming more reserved for “weird” or original software that no one else has written. A depressing trend.

I suspect as this same thing happens with infrastructure, you will find the same. Most businesses use some external provider, and the “real IT” jobs are mainly at places providing infrastructure to others, or handling really unusual cases.

Re:Welcome Brothers!

[cratermoon]

At its simplest, the build vs. buy decision is about competitive advantage. If a company needs some commodity IT service or function, it should buy the "good enough" product. If the company is looking to support and enhance whatever it is that company does that makes it unique and better than its competitors, build it in-house and get exactly the right thing.

Most of what "the cloud" does is commodity functions.

Re:Welcome Brothers!

[Cytotoxic]

There is another advantage to "off the shelf" software. Customization is difficult and expensive, so the incentive is to mold your business practice to fit the software. This can actually be a good thing. In many situations it can prevent time wasted reinventing the wheel.

If I was starting a mortgage business tomorrow, I'd buy an off-the-shelf mortgage origination package and design my entire business practice around the way the software works. This is because the mortgage industry is very mature, and the packages that exist address most business needs right out of the box.

I happen to work in an industry that has fewer than a dozen companies, worldwide. And really there are only a couple of major players. There is no off-the-shelf solution for our business model, so I've seen the 'build in house' model up close. It is fantastic for providing exactly what the business needs. Everything can be custom tailored to the exact demands of the business at that moment.

This is also a major weakness of this approach. When there are no limits to what you can do, well... there's no limits to what they can ask for. Smart people tend to be creative. So we end up getting a deluge of feature requests, a large majority of which won't actually help the business. If you can't say "no" on technical grounds you are left arguing on business needs - not the IT mission in the minds of most managers. So you end up building a lot of things that won't really help. In most real-world situations, off-the-shelf carries major advantages in terms of focusing the business on things that will grow the business.

True, but not IT's Fault

[MoldySpore]

Getting a big project started is often such a politically fraught process that for many managers it's easier to simply write a check.

Yes, politics all too often come into play when trying to get a project off the ground and started, especially in IT. But it has more to do with the politicians and the manager than it does with the actual IT staff. And I am not sure how putting it in the cloud avoids the politics? Any project of significance has to be run up the flag pole in any IT situation.

I am a network engineer for a county government that has it's hooks into state and federal level networks. Our political party is currently republican. So needless to say they hate all democrats. Any democratic IT idea or project that is started is immediately met with HUGE levels of opposition, while any ideas from their side is met with opposition from the democrats. There are also many cases where one party will get elected to the actual city government, while the county officials are from another party, which makes working together sometimes impossible.

IT and networking department are usually the worker bees, taking orders from their manager and higher ups, who all report to politicians of some sort at some point in the creative process. Getting rid of IT departments isn't the answer. Get rid of the politicians!!! If we remove the politics from most things, they will run better and most likely take 1/2 the time, which will ultimately reduce the cost of projects in man hours alone.

Re:The problem with IT.. well.. one anyway

[Cytotoxic]

I've worked at 3 different companies in my career, and at each of them, IT as an organization held the attitude that the company existed for their benefit, and not the other way around.

IT needs to understand that it is a service organization with the mission of satisfying its customer by providing top notch service and support, and asking "how high?"

I've heard this exact phrase many times over the years, particularly from big-company alumni. This attitude is exactly why companies fail. The only way to be successful is for all members of the team to work together to make the company successful. If your organization fails to foster true collaboration at all levels, your organization blows.

It is human nature that everybody wants to be in control. Sales managers want to have everyone cater to their whims, marketing wants their ideas followed without question, even the guys over in finance want to have their ideas implemented across the board without discussion. Well, following that paradigm will get you nothing but failure.

In a properly functioning company there should be no division between IT and the business unit (and accounting and legal and etc.). Any challenge being faced by the business should be addressed by all members of the organization. If the sales team is having trouble increasing business and feels that a new web application would help, a multidisciplinary team from all aspects of the business should brainstorm the problem and come up with the best solution possible for the company as a whole. There may be accounting reasons for using cloud services that are brought to the table by the Finance guys, and a better technical solution might come from the IT staff.

Your "service organizations ask 'How High?'" idea leads to misguided projects that don't address the underlying problem and fail to grow the business. Any manager worth their salary should know that they are not the expert in everything and welcome input from all quarters.

Of course, at the end of the day someone has to make a final call. But the 'service organization' meme is a stupid relic of the 90's outsourcing craze and has no business in modern corporate life.

Re:The problem with IT.. well.. one anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

Thankfully the IT dept you mention had upper mgmt that had a clue. We inherited a legacy backup system that at best was 'shaky' and put in a request for a new backup infrastructure ($15K at the time). Denied. But researchers were generating MASSIVE amounts of data for our storage infrastructure. One day we experienced a triple disk failure (one disk failed, was replaced, and during the rebuild two more fell out of the array). This array was part of a multi-terabyte storage system. Go to the backups on the old legacy system and it cratered (testing was OK when we restored a files here and there to ensure it was working, but when we went for the full recovery, it blew sky high and revealed extensive catalog corruption) Cost us $25K to recover the data (OnTrack - amazing folks for data recovery). When the inevitable finger pointing kicked in, our dept was in the spotlight. When I showed everyone the budget request and subsequent rejection with notes highlighting our concerns with the existing system's reliability, guess whose job was eliminated within 4 months in a 'restructuring'? Wasn't the big boss who denied the capital request!

Re:The problem with IT.. well.. one anyway

[Billly Gates]

Well, it all boils down to your employer's goals. If they make anything non I.T. related then yes it is how high. You are a waste of shareholder money and just there to be keep things from breaking. Not actually providing value at all to the company. You are a plumber and a technician and nothing more.

if you think you are better than get into sales or management as they are what is truly important. Or join an I.T. company where they actually make money from what you do.

The outsourcing crowd you talk about is just as active as ever and Clouds are the next progression. Now we can finally focus on our customers are let a website take care of our needs instead. These are answers you may not want to hear but it is the truth. It is insulting and I agree, but these other guys are correct. Technology is a commodity like electricity or plumbing. It is very important, but you never need to focus on it. Just pay by the month and do something else to increase sales. Each department has goals to help the company out and honest I see no value in I.T. other than repairing computers. 3rd party vendors and websites can help with certain customized needs you can't get with Office.