Slashdot Mirror
What 'Consumerization of IT' Really Means For IT
snydeq writes "Nathan Clevenger examines the impact that the 'consumerization' of information technology will have on IT organizations, a trend fueled in large part by employee interest in the latest mobile devices, notably the iPhone and iPad. The growing practice of introducing new technologies into consumer markets before industrial markets stands to cause a sea change in the IT/user relationship, Clevenger writes, adding that this will likely involve 'painful changes in the status quo of corporate IT,' including the need to 'shed our arrogance' to give the underlying technology a chance to succeed. 'Although the debate around the impact of consumerization will no doubt continue for some time, the adoption of mobile technologies and enterprise applications is moving forward, whether or not IT departments are on board,' Clevenger writes, in large part because the trend provides companies with a strong opportunity to improve efficiency, productivity, and profit."
"As perceptive CIOs seek to transform their rigid, legacy ridden infrastructures into agile, efficient, service-driven delivery mechanisms, they must adopt a pragmatic approach to managing the risks of consumer IT while embracing the benefits.
I stopped reading right there.
I don't think you understand what "underlying technology" means.
This isn't about the wireless standards that the phones adhere too.
Or any of the other REAL technologies.
This is about security and accountability.
Who is responsible for the data on your iPad when it is stolen?
What is the process AFTER it is stolen?
Your computer is going to be a MID that docks when you get to your desk and then syncs to the cloud storage (intra/inter-net). When it docks up it will be much like a traditional desktop you see now.
Right. So you're going to take your corporate desktop home with you in your pocket, and when you accidentally leave it on a train...
No corporation in their right mind wants people walking out the door with documents and software that they don't have to take out of the building with them.
Right or wrong, I can tell you from where that originates.
Most people would never fault a paraplegic, who is in a wheelchair, for being unable to do jumping jacks. He would probably love to do them. He really cannot. It is "cannot", not "will not". Likewise, most people would not fault a diagnosed mentally retarded person for being unable to understand simple things. Chances are, no one has a harder time not hating that than he. There is no point and no profit in blaming either of those, and doing so would indicate extreme heartlessness and lack of understanding.
The problem is, there are large masses of people who have no disabilities of any kind. They are capable of abstract thought, of following simple instructions, of performing at least a minimal search for something and only asking for help if that doesn't find what they are looking for. They can do all of these things. Yet, a great many of them refuse to think. They don't want to use whatever thinking they can perform. By that I don't mean anything extreme or over-the-top or unreasonable. By that I mean an unnaturally high degree of helplessness, a freakishly strong desire for handholding even when this would take much more time than a two-minute Google search they are more than capable of performing.
Thinking is for "the help". That's grunt work for the computer janitors to do for them. It would not even occur to them to try. Thus, for most tech support lines, the one person who truly has a real problem that really does require the attention of a technician gets to wait on hold for 10-45 minutes because the lines are tied up by people who failed to read page 1 of the manual, the help file, the README file, the FAQ, the Web site, and the last e-mail they received.
This is the mentality with which you are dealing. You can gloss over it and cover it up with your grand notions of service, but you're patting yourself on the back to forget how much youre tempted to apply a cat-o-nine-tails to theirs. In a way, it truly is a trophy to be able to deal with that without getting a severe headache. After a while you can start to believe that you're just that eager to serve. I consider it a coping mechanism. The truth is, that mentality invites failure, asks for failure, begs for preventable problems, and tries very hard to defeat itself with problems of its own creation. It just so happens that they hired you to stand between themselves and any such consequences.
So you end up having to defend a network from both outside threats and the self-defeating, shortsighted actions of insiders who meant well. This isn't a fun position in which to find oneself. Oh, and if you lock it down too much, you will be swamped with complaints about functionality. It's like trying to simultaneously satisfy multiple contradictory conditions.
Most of those conditions wouldn't be contradictory if only users would attain the slightest clue pertaining to the tools they use every day. I am not talking about the knowledge of a skilled mechanic. I am talking about knowing how to drive. Lots of highway accidents didn't require an auto mechanic to prevent; they required a driver who understood how to drive. IT is like this. I do not refer to the skill needed to smelt iron ore, forge pig iron, and craft a hammer. I refer to the fact that a carpenter knows how to use his tools, even though they are not the goal of his job. So it is with workers who use computers but should not need to become experts. They only need to know basics. They refuse to learn them in a way that a driver could never refuse to learn to drive and expect to get away with.
Just as there's no point in being well-adjusted to a sick society, there's no point in seeing all of this and telling yourself that it is normal and should not change. The crux of the matter is whether you can know how fucked up it is and still deal with it patiently, educating those who will be educated and assisting the rest as much as you can. Making excuses for it and debasing yourself is just weak.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
Wish I had modpoints to mod this up.
This is precisely the problem. In an ideal world, users would stick within usage policies and requirements. When there was a policy for equipment requests, for support of personal devices, they'd follow it.
That's fantasyland. In the real world, IT is stuck between a rock and a hard place. Between "supporting the users" and defending the network from the users. Damned if they do, damned if they don't, and taken through the wringer the moment some bad-apple employee makes off with company property or leaks trade secrets that have been copied to a USB memory stick. Or lets loose something on the network because they just can't resist clicking on "OMG FREE PUPPY SCREENSAVER."
The problem is that IT has to deal with five categories of user. They're easy to categorize.
1. Knows nothing. KNOWS they know nothing. Ask questions often, but ask questions before they cause trouble. Not a major source of trouble, just use up a certain amount of time.
2. Technically savvy, follows procedures. When these guys call, it's going to be a doozy, but they've got a ton of troubleshooting steps ready and a list of things they have done for you to look at. When they come in with a new gadget, they're willing to give IT the time to research how best to support it.
These two categories are not the problem, because they approach IT as coworkers to work with.
3. Knows just enough to cause trouble. Believes themselves technically savvy. Will lie out their asses rather than admit to flailing around and making the problem worse.
4. Knows nothing, but wants the Latest Shiny Thing and wants it to Just Work Like It Does In The Commercials.
These are the problem. These types of users are the ones who get into large amounts of trouble and take up the majority of troubleshooting time, mostly because they are not treating IT as co-workers to be collaborated with, but someone to be bossed around. These are the sort of user who treats passwords as a hindrance, rather than keys to important locks. They wouldn't leave the combination to the company safe in the open, but they think nothing of leaving their username and password on a sticky-note under the keyboard.
The final type of user, the one every IT person dreads and prays never to encounter but has to protect against anyways, is the user who is actively trying to sabotage the network or do something outright illegal on it. And yes, sometimes protecting against these users inconveniences the other users.
Name a profession where "customers" hold a dual position of know-nothing and know-it-all, and you'll name a profession where the true masters have derisive stories to tell behind "customers'" backs.
One of the arguments is about a person who is berating her IT department for the fact that her laptop won't work at home. Apparently, they told her repeatedly to call her ISP, and she refused to do so. The very picture of the uncooperative user who refuses to work with IT to solve the problem.
And yet, Mr. DeathSquid accuses the GPP of being incompetent, saying "a competent network engineer could diagnose that in minutes". Well, I reread GPP's post, and it appears that they did in fact have it correctly diagnosed, but that the problem was an intractable, uncooperative user who simply shouted "you fix it" at the IT department rather than holding up her end of the bargain to call her home ISP.
I'm willing to bet that this is the kind of stuff Mr. DeathSquid does to people in IT all the time. When you're dealing with coworkers, you have to be willing to look at things from their perspective. When IT says the problem appears to be with your home connection, and that you're the one who will need to call your ISP to have it checked, the proper response is to call your ISP, not shout at IT and yell at them for "not fixing it."