Slashdot Mirror
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."
Why are IT staff treated with near universal contempt?
One reason might be because that's how IT staff treat everyone else.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
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.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
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.
Futurist Traditionalism
#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.
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.
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.
"They made me use Windows"
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
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.
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.
Deleted