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

[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]

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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.

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.

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.

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"