Why Everyone Hates the IT Department

Barence writes "Why are IT staff treated with near universal contempt? This article discusses why everyone hates the IT department. From cultivating a culture of 'them and us,' to unrealistic demands from end users and senior management, to the inevitable tension created when employees try and bring their own equipment into the office, there are a variety of reasons for the lack of respect for IT."

Comments

Reflections

[petes_PoV]

Why are IT staff treated with near universal contempt?

One reason might be because that's how IT staff treat everyone else.

Re:Reflections

[Anonymous Coward]

Which in turn is no different from how IT hates dealing with HR, how HR hates dealing with Payroll, how Payroll hates dealing with Accounting, how Accounting hates dealing with Marketing, how Marketing hates dealing with Legal, and how they all hate dealing with Management, who hates dealing with all of these Grunts doing the actual work.

Corporations today are more about fostering hatred and dislike among the various units that make up the business, rather than working together toward a common goal. That's probably why many Western economies are in the shitter, so to speak. There's no incentive to be productive when you absolutely hate every single person that you have to interact with.

Re:Reflections

[Mad Merlin]

At the core of the problem is that security is a tradeoff between convenience and security. Users like convenience and don't care about security. IT is tasked with (among other things) keeping things secure, and so users see them as making things less convenient. Making things even worse is that people ignorant of technology closer to the top of the organization are fond of instituting security theatre policies, which of course also fall upon IT to implement.

Re:Reflections

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, we should allow everyone to break servers by causing ip conflicts to plug in an unsecured wireless home router. We should allow the user to fritter away time on facebook, youtube, and every game site out there. We should allow everyone to be local admins so they can update their flash player.
By extension we should also let you fix your own machine when you screw it up. We should allow you to plug in anything you want regardless of what it might interfere with. We should also allow you to install all the malware and file-sharing software you want.
Oh don't forget: we should also stop donating the 30 hours a week to research your problems and tech on our own time. We should also let you order your own tech at retail instead of corporate discount prices.
If you think its so easy maybe you should apply.

Re:Reflections

[nine-times]

There's some truth to this, except at as an IT support person with a fair amount of experience, I'd like to raise 2 points:

First, often enough the draconian restrictions are forced on us by upper management. Like... I might not care at all whether you're looking at Facebook at work, but if upper management says we need to filter the web usage to block Facebook, I'll do it. I might even let them know that I don't agree with the policy, but if they overrule me and tell me to implement the filter, I will. It's my job, after all.

Second, I have to comment on your statement, "This is especially true in software shops, where everyone tends to be fairly technically literate..." Honestly, software developers and the "fairly technically literate" are some of the worst people to support. They'll constantly break their own computers and make work for the help desk staff.

Seriously. Sorry, I know there are a lot of programmers on Slashdot and you think you know everything there is about computers, but most software developers I've known, no matter how brilliant, don't understand how to do IT support. They don't know how to make a stable system. They're one step away from the guy who wants admin access to his own machine because he upgraded his own video card once and he "knows what he's doing".

Now depending on the situation, it may still be a good idea to give developers some more leeway, but only because they need it. It can be a necessary evil, but be sure to have an "software developer" image ready, because they *will* trash their computers and expect you to fix it immediately.

I don't mean to make flamebait, but it needs to be said.

Re:Reflections

[Anonymous Coward]

You should have wireless networking in the first place.
Your job is not to manage what websites users go to. If their boss wants them to play on facebook all day, it's none of your damn business as the IT dept.
You should be keeping flash player updated in the first place.
You should facilitate installing any required software for them to do their jobs as soon as it is bought and paid for instead of whining about supported software lists.
You have an attitude problem.

Re:Reflections

[spire3661]

Dont you think we try that? But at the end of the day when a no stays a no for real, valid security concerns, you are STILL going to get butt-hurt about it. I.T. is very much a 'respect my authoritay' type of job. If you want to interact with the very fabric of what keeps the company secure, you better be prepared to walk away when we say no for cause. By the very nature of our job, we are the gatekeepers, it is our network and you will comply and operate within the framework which has been set out by our superiors. The minute we let fucking developers or god forbid sales decide what is best for the network is the minute we lose the network.

Re:Reflections

[cynyr]

yes, heaven forbid the code monkey would work better in gvim/emacs and a shell than whatever god awful gui is company policy....

or the CAD monkey would like to install the drivers for the 3d input device, instead of making do with a keyboard and mouse.

Re:Reflections

[DesScorp]

Even when that's true, it's usually because of the IT department thinking they know better than end users and hence calling them all stupid for wanting something other than what they provided. Then there are the ones with unrealistic power complexes. "whaddaya mean you want a program to do your job? I'm IT, I dictate what everyone gets to do on their computer."

IT does know better than end users. This is why IT locks down systems. Because if they don't end users do stupid things like opening attachments, surfing porn at work, an generally doing things that put the whole network at risk. There is no wisdom of crowds in the Enterprise. Just a lot of users who are, at best, competent, with a big number of frankly dumb people that do dumb things.

Re:Reflections

[DarkOx]

When IT starts unreasonably hindering that, you see the hostility build.

Actually I think this is a problem somewhat unique to IT. Everyone has a computer at home and therefore thinks they *know* what IT does. They think its just a matter of scale and that the issues they face on their PC are the same ones the IT department deals with. On the other hand hardly anyone runs payroll at home or does the sort of accounting the finance departments handles. The are not doing materials research like the engineering group so they don't constantly second guess those people.

Most users don't have a clue what is reasonable or not. They only think they do. They don't want to be educated or trained either, they one have their own work to think about, and be don't appreciate there is anything to learn.

I keep having finance people tell me they want to use Dropbox! Which my department blocks, we are public company, we can't have people putting financial records on Dropbox, because we really don't know who at dropbox can get the data, under what circumstances, etc as they can change their terms whenever. We'd never survive our next SOX audit! What do the users say, "everyone else is using the cloud!", no everyone else is NOT using the cloud for M&A documents, I assure you. They sent some baby photo's to grandma though so they think they get it.

Re:Reflections

[Anonymous Coward]

What you say is reasonable, but IT departments need to start meeting us halfway.

For example: it's reasonable that you can't upgrade everything the moment a new version comes out, and it's reasonable that you can't let us do that either. But when you're still providing us with Windows XP in 2011, you are doing it wrong.

For example: it's reasonable that you need to control the basic technologies. I may not like that I can't just install Linux, but I understand why you can't let me! But in that case, you need at least to let me have Cygwin or something. Yes, I know someone will eventually demand you support it even though we all swear we won't need to, and I know that means it will cost money in the long run. Guess what? My time also costs money, and failing to provide appropriate tools is wasting that money today.

Seriously, half the complaints I hear about IT departments relate to one or both of the above: providing software that is laughably outdated (Windows XP is what, 10 years old now?), or refusing to compromise at all on what software is provided. Meet us half-way! Explain why we can't have what we want, instead of just brushing off our concerns with "policy" or "too expensive to support", and then engage us in dialog about what you can provide! We are logically-minded people. Explain your logic and we will probably agree with it! We don't have to be enemies if you just stop treating us as dumb lusers and start talking to us as equals!

Re:Reflections

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

At the core of the problem is that security is a tradeoff between convenience and security.

This is a little oblique to your point, but what you wrote is a pet peeve of mine having worked on (using and developing) secure systems for a about a decade or so.

I'd say that the core of the problem is the belief that security is a tradeoff between convenience and security. It's a widespread belief to be sure, but it is wrong-headed and self-defeating.

Good security implementations put usability foremost. The goal should be to make it as easy as possible for the user to do their job in a secure fashion - make the path of least resistance be the secure path. When security hinders usability that encourages users to try to circumvent which is the worst possible result. Especially because the people most likely to figure out how to circumvent security are the ones who work with the system day in and day out.

Re:Reflections

[Anonymous Coward]

You speak specific cases. He speaks general case.

In general case, user can and often will harm himself, so default is to give user least permissions he needs and escalate them when needed - same as with driving licenses, by default you can ride a bike, but if it's not enough for you - show that you're qualified and get a license to drive whatever you need.

Because when "power user" (note the quotation marks) come demanding to assist him in getting the job done properly and earning money for the company after he breaks the PC in a creative way, IT staff has to find time in his already busy schedule amongst helping all other who need assitance in getting the job done properly and earning money for the company.

Re:Reflections

[SomePgmr]

I absolutely have to agree with the bit about developers, if just from my personal experience. I started my career as an admin, then worked as a developer for a few years, then back to being an admin (that does occasional development).

The developers I worked with really were bright people and could write some pretty amazing stuff in short order. But they were barely able to turn their own machines on before they started writing code. The moment anything went sideways on their workstations they'd threw their hands up and yell at IT. Usually that came with, "I need a newer computer". They (of all people) couldn't troubleshoot what had happened. And like you mentioned, it was usually because of something they'd done. Almost invariably, it was some silly years-old class generator, wonky launcher dock or shitty version-control assistance... something.

It was a learning experience. I picked up a lot of things that (I think) help me do both jobs better.

Re:Reflections

[alittle158]

But when you're still providing us with Windows XP in 2011, you are doing it wrong.

You do realize that not every company or department has the funds to provide you with the "latest and greatest". Some of us have to work with limited budgets brought down from up above. XP isn't ideal, but it's still being supported for the next 2+ years, which gives IT time to make sure the business apps will continue to function after the new OS is rolled out.

Re:Reflections

[anonymov]

But when you're still providing us with Windows XP in 2011, you are doing it wrong.

Yeah, sure, because Windows 7 can do _so much more_ than Windows XP. Really, there are just a few new features that could enhance productivity for your average user, so yeah, it's totally worth it to throw away stable and tested system and drop $many bucks for an upgrade to all new and better Aero theme^W^WWindows 7.

I may not like that I can't just install Linux, but I understand why you can't let me! But in that case, you need at least to let me have Cygwin or something.

Why? Really. 99.9% of things you can do in Linux and you can do in Cygwin, but not on Windows are developing in languages that don't have a stable Windows implementation - in which case you're surely in a wrong place, because either they don't know what they're doing, making you develop on Windows when they really need Linux, or you don't know what you're doing, trying to drag a "new and cool language" where it's not needed.

Anyways, what you should do is come to your boss and/or the IT and tell them "I need to do X". They'll figure it out.

And no, "I need to install Cygwin" is not a reasonable first request.

Re:Reflections

[DarkOx]

You should have wireless networking in the first place.

Why because you want it?

Your job is not to manage want websites users go to. If their boss wants them to play on facebook all day, it's none of your damn business as the IT dept.

Right up until management says we want to know who is playing on Facebook all day, we want you to prevent malware from hitting systems, we don't want our data uploaded to third parties, etc, etc.

You should be keeping flash player updated in the first place.

Unless you are in the marketing group I would be surprised if you have a legitimate business related need for flash player, in the first place.

You should facilitate installing any required software for them to do their jobs as soon as it is bought and paid for instead of whining about supported software lists.

Right so you will be the one who is responsible when said software quits working, the vendor cannot be found, and 1000s of hours of company labor is locked up in that proprietary format? Can I get that in writing?

You have an attitude problem.

The grandparent poster certainly might, but you seem to as well, clearly you think the entire world revolves around you.

Re:Reflections

[Volante3192]

...because of the IT department thinking they know better than end users...

Because. That's. Our. JOB.
That's why you don't see sales guys in accounting, human resources in the warehouse and CXOs doing real work. That's why doctors don't write up real estate contracts and loan officers don't remove appendices.

If the end users knew better, they would be doing IT.

So, yes, Mr. Sales Guy is the one that gets people to buy our stuff. Good for you. That's your lot in life. You don't see IT going, "You should sell like this!" to the sales team, do you? If there is a legitimate complaint, and you can explicitly demonstrate why it's a problem, we'll listen. Honestly! We will! But if you just want us to look at your new shiny and explain why it will maximize paradigms and make synergy...bugger off.

Re:Reflections

[marcosdumay]

Most of the time, IT isn't trying to protect their power. They just want users to stop trashing their systems. The users, by their side, just want to get their work done. And both will jump over whatever obstacles are needed to get to their goal. Management, by their side are trying to make IT not too expensive, and of course wants other people to do whatever they hired them to do.

There is enough tension here for creating conflicts even if everybody is perfectly competent and doing their best. And a company composed entirely of competent people is either very small or fictional.

Re:Reflections

[deniable]

You see that mostly when discussing storage. "I can buy xTB drives for $100 so why can't I keep all of my kitten emails on the mail server?" Don't get me started on Dropbox/ It's a great service, but it violates all kinds of statutory requirements.

Re:Reflections

[sjames]

That's what happens when any failure will get blame upon blame heaped upon their heads but a thousand successes will never be more than "meets expectations".

Meanwhile, once your IT is in the cloud, what are you going to do when your internet connection goes dead?

Re:Reflections

[Just Some Guy]

I keep having finance people tell me they want to use Dropbox! Which my department blocks, we are public company, we can't have people putting financial records on Dropbox, because we really don't know who at dropbox can get the data, under what circumstances, etc as they can change their terms whenever. We'd never survive our next SOX audit! What do the users say, "everyone else is using the cloud!", no everyone else is NOT using the cloud for M&A documents, I assure you. They sent some baby photo's to grandma though so they think they get it.

Want to be an absolute hero to your users? Give them solutions, not excuses.

Bad IT

User: I need Dropbox!
You: No.
User: Obstructive bastard.

Good IT

User: I need Dropbox!
You: I can't let you use the normal Dropbox because SOX made it illegal, but I can give you an account on our internal encrypted fileserver so you can share documents easily with your coworkers.
User: Oh, I didn't realize it was a legal issue. Can you show me that fileserver thing?

Re:Reflections

[NotSanguine]

Your comments are fine; I agree. We'll meet you half way once you help us get the budget to do it.

This reminds me of my first big company (70,000 employees) job back in the mid 90s. I was a Unix Admin/evangelist in a primarily mainframe shop. We had a pretty clear standard for implementing new technologies -- The first guy over the bridge pays to build the bridge.

This cut way back on the jackasses who wanted the "latest and greatest" just because some sales moron who needed to make his quota that month told him/her that they just "had to have" whatever crap they happened to be selling. When you have to justify the expense well enough that you will spend part of your own budget, there is a much greater likelihood that it will actually be something that will enhance the business, not just the latest crap that the 36DD sales lady with the short skirt and no gag reflex wants to sell you.

Re:Reflections

[fluffy99]

What exactly does Windows 7 provide you as the end user that Windows XP does not? My main reason for rolling out Windows 7 is that it has better centralized management and security features. Something I doubt an end user cares about. The non-tech types seem to care more about eye candy. Also consider that Windows 7 needs more horsepower and it not supported on older hardware, so if XP is working just fine, why replace the entire computer ahead of the normal lifecycle? Some systems that lots of memory, and for that I definitely go with Win7 (XP64 was a piece of crap).

I have a mix of users who want the latest Office 2010, and a more reasonable crowd who still want to stay with 2003. They don't see any benefit to the newer version and don't want to waste time learning a new GUI.

I don't care about minor software from trusted sources. Just don't start loading on crap or shareware that comes from untrusted sources (screen savers, your favorite widget, Flash, google desktop) and presenting a security risk by opening up vulnerabilities. If you have a legitimate need, you might try asking IT what other users are using. Then at least there aren't 20 different flavors of the same utility on the network.

Speaking of outdated, you probably want Cygwin for the shell environment? That's outdated, learn powershell. (I have cygwin in my office for other valid reasons, like reading solaris tar tapes).

Re:Reflections

[Stiletto]

I frequently argue with IT at my company over this kind of crap:

ME: Our build server keeps filling up. It's only got 40GB you know...
IT: Please spend 2 hours of your time looking through your directories and deleting 2GB or so you don't need.
ME: You realize, 2 hours of my time is about what 2 TERRAbytes of hard drive space costs.
IT: Procuring a hard drive takes 3 months and needs to be approved by senior management.
ME: I can go to Fry's this afternoon and buy any number of hard drives. There isn't a shortage.
IT: Just free up some space again and stop bothering us.
ME: I've had to E-mail you about this once a month for the past 3 months, because we have automated processes that copy builds there nightly.
IT: Why do you have to be so difficult? Just delete your shit!

Re:Reflections

[Rutulian]

You know, it strikes me after reading many of these comments, that the IT structures most people seem to hate are in corporations. I wonder why more departments don't operate the way they do in universities. I mean, most universities have very large networks with independent and disconnected people all trying to do their own things. They all have very different IT needs, and the basic needs of the infrastructure are still there (stability and security). At the same time, the IT departments aren't heavily funded, so they have to make do with what they have. In these situations, I have found the IT departments (the good ones at least) manage fairly well. It basically amounts to a few key strategies:

1) The network (uptime and security) is the responsibility of ITS. So no rogue wireless access points, no dhcp servers, everybody has a controlled network account with a strict password policy, etc. In return, the users get a single stable network (wired and wireless) from which to do their work. They can get static ip addresses if they need them, domain names for their servers, firewall exceptions, vpn access, domain authentications, single sign-on, mailboxes, network storage, personal webpages, etc. If they need a new network drop they can have one installed, or if a port isn't working they can expect a network guy to take care of it. For the most part, it's an arrangement that works pretty well and I have seen little dispute over it.

2) Offices with specific software requirements and no time or desire to manage it themselves have IT-managed computers. The software people need is there. The computers work. No administrative access is given. No flexibility in software choice is given. If there is a problem, the IT guys respond quickly and efficiently.

3) Computer labs and classrooms are run differently based on the needs, but one of the more useful setups I have seen is where complete access to the computer is given for a session, but the the computer wipes and resets itself after a period of inactivity.

4) Individual users and departments are free to setup their computers however they wish. a) They can go the entirely independent route (most students/staff pick this one). Reasonable assistance from the IT guys can be expected, but it is understood that they are unable to help with everything and that you are on your own if you go against their recommendations. Any computer that connects to the network must conform to the network policy. Anti-virus/anti-malware/strong passwords aren't strictly required, but if the network scanner picks up suspicious activity your computer will be banned until it is fixed. If your network account gets compromised, it will also be shut off until the problem is fixed. b) They can go the semi-IT-managed route (many faculty pick this one), where IT sets up the computer for them based on their software and platform needs. They monitor backups and critical updates for you, and keep an administrative account on your machine to do this, but they don't restrict you from having administrative access to your own machine. If you screw up your machine, you understand that it is your time that is being lost and that, while IT will help you get it back up and running, they aren't able to drop everything else that they are doing and you may have to wait. This usually causes people to be a little more conservative with what they do on their computers. c) Or they can go the fully-IT-managed route (most general purpose workstations and equipment computers are configured this way). They typically have domain logons, no administrator access, and a strict software set. Additional software can be installed as needed, but it has to be done by IT. The primary requirement is that the systems be available for use and not suffer frequent unnecessary downtime.

It is not a homogenous one-size-fits-all setup for everyone, because it is understood that everybody has different needs. There is a balance between what a budget-strapped IT department can provide and what users need from the network

Re:Reflections

[W. Justice Black]

+1 +1 +1, for the love of God, +1

Disk space is cheap (modulo the current supply problems); disk management is expensive. RAID, index time, backups all conspire to make that $100 Fry's special cost 10x as much in reality.

Re:Reflections

[deniable]

Well, why haven't you taken this to management? I've asked my customers to do this in the past. "Sorry, we're locked down but if you can get management to loosen up, we'll be happy to sort it out."

2 TB costs us about $1000 all up. I guess you're pretty expensive.

Re:Reflections

[mysidia]

However, as I've seen in many places, your time costs money to the company, but it's not money from MY budget! Going "out of the way" for a single person or even just a few, is not "cost effective" to IT because it __increases__ IT's budget

The company needs chargeback for the services IT provides, otherwise the concept of an "IT budget" is a complete farce, since the IT services are basically a common utility (like Electricity) required by each department. Specifically, when IT provides extra support for a certain money-making department, or sets up some big servers for some money-making department, that department requiring the additional services, technician time, datacenter computing power, SAN space, etc, should be paying IT accordingly, so that IT's not going to be underfunded.

Re:Reflections

[Just Some Guy]

You're missing the point that what the users want is sometimes blanketly impossible. Want to sync files with all your machines, everywhere in the world, including mobile devices? That's great if you're a graphics designer but flat out illegal if you're in certain financial or medical sectors. You're getting hung up on the "I want to use Dropbox" trees and missing the "here's the best compromise we can legally offer" forest.

Re:Reflections

[datavirtue]

I'm a software developer, system admin, and security specialist where I work. I give people whatever they want and pride myself on excellent customer service (yes the users in the organization are my "customers"). Of course, being a government organization, this level of service is frowned upon, but I do it anyway. I deflect a lot of gruff from my boss to give people the things they want (want-over-need translates to happy and productive people). The various users respect me for this and listen when I have to say no or talk them out of something. Be free, give em what they want, and let go.

Re:Reflections

[mysidia]

really? How does that work for all my machines, everywhere in the world? All my mobile devices?

You're not allowed to just store company files on all your computers! That's what we in IT security would call an information leak.

Re:Reflections

[Anonymous Coward]

conversion to a cloud-based infrastructure eliminates hardware costs and the need for IT to manage hardware; instead, $$ is paid based on usage of cloud resources at a software level.

So, instead of buying the hardware, you rent it in perpetuity AND get no control over it, because you don't own it.

Yeah, that sounds like a great business plan.

Re:Reflections

[SuperBanana]

Arrogant User : "Our build server just keeps filling up. It's only got 40GB, you know."

IT: Would you please take a look and see if there's anything you can delete first? How about this directory that is for a 5 year old version of the product?

AU: NO. I am a very important person and you should just replace the drive with a bigger one! See, Fry's has them for $100.

IT: So Frys sells Ultra320 SCSI disks for $100?

AU: OMG, you're using SCSI?! SATA is the ROXZORZ.

IT: Yeah, except that your build server takes Ultra320 drives.

AU: GOD, how outdated. Why do we have such a piece of shit? SATA ROXZORS.

IT: Actually, Ultra320 SCSI is as fast as SATA2...but yes, we asked for the budget for a new server 2 years ago, and upper management denied the request, saying that spending thousands of dollars on hardware and a dozen or more man-hours migrating to the new hardware...wasn't justified.

AU: I found one on NewEgg. Install it.

IT: That's nice. If we install it, it a)might not work properly since it hasn't been certified by the vendor and b)the vendor provides us with 4-hour turnaround, 24x7x365 support, but only for authorized parts bought from them. If your drive fails, they won't replace it, and we'll be blamed by management if we can't replace it fast enough and a failure occurs.

AU: .....

IT: Did we mention that if the drive fails in a year or two, it's unlikely we'll find a replacement? The vendor guarantees parts availability for these drives, or compatible parts, for several years.

AU: Uh, I didn't think of that.

IT: You also didn't think that if we can't find the exact replacement, we're rolling the dice, because different manufacturers have slightly different ideas of what "300GB" is. If other drives are smaller than your "300GB" drive by just one block, we can't use it to replace the drive, because it's in a mirror.

AU: ......OK, I found one made by Vendorco.

IT: Yeah, that's great, except it's part of a mirrored pair.

AU: .....OK, FINE, two of them.

IT: Great. Are you also going to pay for someone to come in during off-hours and do the swap, and then re-partition the drives? We're talking several hours of someone having to be in the office after-hours. That means overtime.

AU: ........

IT: And you're going to justify the downtime to repartition on the build server to management, especially given that there's a release in a few weeks? If the drive swap-out goes badly, will you shoulder the blame for the delay which will strain relationships with our distributors and customers, and screw up profit projections by shifting sales more into the next quarter? And, will you shoulder the blame for 12 developers sitting twiddling their thumbs for 2 days while we rebuild the server?

AU: ........

IT: And you're going to fill out the change request forms?

AI: Change request forms? WTF?

IT: Yes, the change request forms your boss demanded we complete after we had an upgrade to your development environment server go badly, causing an unexpected 4 hour outage. Upper management agreed and we now have to document everything, have rollback plans, and get sign-offs from upper management and the manager of affected groups, which includes your manager.

AU: I'll go check for old files that can be deleted.

IT: Thank you.

Re:Reflections

[mwvdlee]

Boy was I pissed. I whined like hell.
And got laid off. Poor "people skills". Bad performance.

"Whining like hell"is poor people skills.

Like lawyers, impose unrealistic limits

[SuperKendall]

The problem with many IT staff is that they can and often do impose more draconian controls than are strictly required; like lawyers they are simply trying to keep a company or client safe from harm, but they often cannot see that purity must often be sacrificed for the greater good of simply letting a business get work done.

Re:Like lawyers, impose unrealistic limits

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn right. The gigantic telco I am working for has symantec cranked all the way up to scan every single file extension. In addition to multiple full scans per day.
Full disk encryption on every desktop not just laptops.
And the AD admins decided that just about every option must be set one way or the other in group policies.
And they wonder why no work gets done on time when the multi-core boxes sit there with full disk queues all day long without doing anything useful at all.

Asked to do the impossible

[hessian]

Pro-IT:

1. IT staff are asked to make computers work, when computers are a complex interaction between hardware and software, most of which is shaped by commercial interests for their own profit or created by non-profits with no interest in business use.
2. Users tend to be unreliable, inarticulate and lack the ability to remember basic procedures in reporting errors.
3. Businesses inevitably strangle IT for funding where it needs it, preferring to spend on the salaries of managers, touchy feelgood "training," and gee-whiz gizmos that achieve very little.

Con-IT:

1. IT managers have difficulty standing up to the demands from marketing and management in order to insist on what is likely instead of what "might be possible."
2. Most people in IT have poor social skills and aren't as smart as they think they are, leading to them projecting an aura of arrogance that offsets users. Sympathy for the user is often lacking.
3. Because IT is a hot topic job, the kiss-asses get promoted over the competent and stable, which leads to a proliferation of incompetents while the heroes get driven into the back room.

A definition of IT is needed...

[jaymz666]

What's IT? help desk? Sysadmins? Developers? etc.

No user is an island

[realmolo]

The fundamental problem is that most people don't understand that while they think that piece of software they want installed is PERFECT for their needs, it might not be something that integrates well into the rest of the company's systems.

The IT department KNOWS that any new system/software that is brought in has the potential to stick around for YEARS, and that it is likely that someone will want to integrate the data generated by that system/software into some OTHER system. Contrary to popular belief, not every file can be opened by every program. Not easily or cheaply anyway.

Basically, IT wants to make sure that we don't get into a situation where we are FORCED to develop expensive custom software (or expensive support procedures) because some non-IT management-type decided they wanted to use MS Publisher to create webpages.

Then make a business case for it.

[khasim]

#1. The IT techs do NOT (as a rule) "impose more draconian controls than are strictly required". They are TOLD what to do by management.

#2. If you (as a non-IT and non-management user) want something done differently, then put together a business case and send it up through your manager.

#3. If your manager gets his/her manager and the other managers to approve and fund it then the IT techs will implement it.

Yay! Everyone wins! Then we all dance!

No business case, no funding, no changes.

And that is the core of the problem. People WANT things because they WANT them. But they don't understand (nor do they want to understand) how their "small change" affects the whole company's IT system.

Selling IT

[mseeger]

Usually the IT department is not very good at selling things. Being technically right is no replacement for explanations. If you take some extra time, you can give things a completely different spin.

I have seen very successful IT departments which were headed by marketing/sales guys. They just focused on selling what their department was doing and why. For technical decisions they had their staff. They were much better off (budget- and apprecion-wise) than the average IT department.

It is a typical mistake in IT departments to think the manager has to know about every topic. Therefor the best technical guys often become abysmal managers.

Yours, Martin

More likely

[publiclurker]

cases like when the IT department decided to ship all engineers with a standard system that does not include a DVD reader. The fact that our software shipped on DVDs at the time apparently didn't matter to them. then there was the time when IT decided that we needed to have IT perform all software installs on our systems. I was in charge of creating install packages for six different product lines at the time. IT only relented when I scheduled five solid days of their time to simply press the buttons on my regression test systems.

Re:More likely

[slippyblade]

Except that the IT Dept. most likely had NOTHING to do with the decision to not include DVD drives. That was accounting.

Re:where to begin....

[Anonymous Coward]

If they want you to use their network, then their network needs to meet your needs. If they want to use a particular network for a certain task (FERPA, HIPPA, PCI, Emergency Response, whatever) then they have technical, as well as legal, requirements to satisfy in the configuration and maintenance of that network. Additionally, if it is something that requires 24/7 access and support then they need to have adequate SLAs to provide the level of service demanded.

It sounds like the problem here was 3 fold. (1) You didn't adequately justify your demands with supporting documentation and requirements, (2) the IT group either didn't understand the request or failed to adequately understand the level of support/service you required, and/or (3) management failed to understand the difference between the two network types being proposed and/or the costs/benefits of doing it the way it is being done vs the way it needs to be done.

Depending on the organization and heirachy you may simply need to find the person who makes decisions and make your case. The CTO and/or Security Architect should (in theory) understand the argument that people / safety is the #1 priority and the dangerous consequences of inadequate disaster (yes, a power loss is a form of disaster) preparedness.

Why contempt?

[fyngyrz]

"They made me use Windows"

IT keeps changing things w/o telling people

[Streetlight]

My wife works for a very good company that depends heavily on modern technology. IT supports a VPN so that she can use her company supplied laptop at home if it's necessary. IT keeps changing the interface connection to the VPN as well as he access to her private and public company directories without telling anyone. She finds this out every time she brings he computer home. She ends up spending an hour or so trying to figure out how to connect to the VPN then to her online company storage. Usually she has to call IT from home and, if she gets in touch with a person that knows what happened, the IT person spends considerable time figuring out what went wrong and reinstalling the necessary aps. To restate: this happens every time she brings her laptop home. By the way, the laptop is connected to the company's intranet continuously at while she's at work. You ask why folks hate IT. Pretty obvious to me.

Listen to yourself...

[neiras]

My real gripe with IT folks is that they forget that they do not bring in revenue. They are meant to serve those who do. As is the rest of the support staff - hence the name. No one contacts the company I work because our deft IT management. Of course it is necessary but it is "the wiring under the board".

You sound like a typical arrogant, self-important salesperson. I'm guessing your attitude is compensation for all the brown-nosing and pandering you do on the phone - it's hard to respect yourself without being better than *someone*, isn't it?

Guess what? You aren't a member of a higher caste. You can't bring in revenue without decent IT folk. You need them. They know all about stuff you'll never need to think about, because that's how good they are.

And when their policies seem irrational, you're probably missing something really important. Question your knowledge and yourself before you question them. If you aren't getting the result you want from IT, it's usually more to do with your attitude and approach than it is with the people.

Stop puffing yourself up.

The funding model for I.T. is completely wrong

[Colin Smith]

Basically. Having an I.T. budget means that to end users, the services provided are perceived as free. It encourages poor behaviours on both sides.

Free means low value, if you are giving your services away for free (as most users experience the service). They are perceived as low value.
Worse than that, because the services are free, they suffer from Tragedy of The Commons effects, more and more work is loaded on to an under resourced organisation as budgets never match work loads.

Get rid of the budget and go for a charge model. Set up an internal IT Shop where people "buy" services using internal money which comes out of their budget.

They can "buy" network access.
They can "buy" 10 support calls
they can "buy" backups on X,
they can buy (Windows+MS Office(latest), Linux+OpenOffice, Mac+MS Office) + maintenance on their desktop for a year.
They can "buy" a 10Tb NFS file system.
They can "buy" professional services solution design for particular problems.
They can "buy" a 100Gb mailbox if they want.

I.T. often refer to their users as "customers". Well, real customers pay real money, and customers who don't pay, are not customers but free loaders. No pay, no service.

It aligns IT staff with real customers needs, free loaders get dumped as unimportant and the department has the resourcing to actually do what the paying customers want. You will find that customers actually start to behave responsibly when they discover their irresponsibility costs them money and they have to explain to their boss the extra 1 million for email + backups.

You will also find that paying for services dramatically increases the level of respect, particularly when
1. They discover what the trivial extra thing they are asking for is actually rather expensive.
2. You cut people off for non payment.

Problem solved.