Slashdot Mirror
Ask Slashdot: Are Companies Under-Investing in IT?
Long-time Slashdot reader johnpagenola writes:
In the middle 1970's I had to choose between focusing on programming or accounting. I chose accounting because organizations were willing to pay for good accounting but not for good IT.
Forty years later the situation does not appear to have changed. Target, Equifax, ransomware, etc. show pathetically bad IT design and operation. Why does this pattern of underinvestment in and under-appreciation of IT continue?
Long-time Slashdot reader dheltzel argues that the problem is actually bad hiring practices, which over time leads to lower-quality employees. But it seems like Slashdot's readership should have their own perspective on the current state of the modern workplace.
So share your own thoughts and experiences in the comments. Are companies under-investing in IT?
Forty years later the situation does not appear to have changed. Target, Equifax, ransomware, etc. show pathetically bad IT design and operation. Why does this pattern of underinvestment in and under-appreciation of IT continue?
Long-time Slashdot reader dheltzel argues that the problem is actually bad hiring practices, which over time leads to lower-quality employees. But it seems like Slashdot's readership should have their own perspective on the current state of the modern workplace.
So share your own thoughts and experiences in the comments. Are companies under-investing in IT?
The problem is always the same: how to scrape by paying the minimum amount for labor and supplies. It's literally called cutting corners. It's not a new problem and it only really gets solved through the application of regulation.
This isn't rocket science, people!
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
To the average person, the only reason IT people exist is to make sure they can check in on Facebook every 30 seconds while at work and replace their keyboard when they spill coffee or soda on it.
Aside from that, IT has no useful purpose and thus is seen as a debilitating cost. Why spend money on something which provides no value?
Because people don't like the stinky nerds, and don't care about "nerd things".
Its because students get out of college and think they're the shit and know it all which comes down to Dunning Kruger syndrome. Companies and Corporations aren't willing to invest in self taught life long IT professionals and hackers who have dedicated their entire life to learning security and technologies, but instead want the unskilled grads who have the paper without the experience!
My experience reflects a very reactionary industry;
- Don't buy disks till current storage is redlining.
- Don't buy LAN till the current one is swamped.
- Don't patch till someone else (if you're lucky) gets raped.
- Don't train till you you get bitten by a big knowledge gap, likely a result of the aforementioned rape.
- Don't spend till someone bigger than you tells you to, even if a condition exists that leaves you vulnerable to any of the above points.
If accounting operated like the IT industry, accounting as we know it would not exist. A server is recoverable, an empty ban account due to negligent or facetious handling, is not.
I would however suggest the problem is not poor quality employee's but, as it turns out, poor quality accounting by the broader organisation. Time and time again I have seen projects and upgrades get bumped from capex to cpex till something happens that resonates high enough up the food chain for someone to open the loot box, no matter how hard the guys on the ground are petitioning for it. Perhaps it is accounting that has the poor quality employees?
[Sorry, this signature is unavailable in your country/region]
Exactly.
But, accounting is stable, definable, and well understood.
If anything, computing is changing faster today than 10, 20, and 30 years, ago.
It's costs, benefits, and weakness are indefinable. Some best practices today will be worst practices in 5 years.
Invest a year early and you could gain an advantage, but it's equally likely you will overpay for technology that is obsolete on delivery.
Our tax structure severely punishes maintaining software.
Until computer hardware and software stablelize, the law can't catch up.
Broadly speaking, business leaders are largely unable to discern the difference in effectiveness of half-assed IT and good IT. Except for two facets:
-You become the next equifax
-Good IT costs more
Of course, even if they want good IT, they can't tell the difference, so they my try to invest to get "good IT" and still get bad IT and have expectations calibrated that there is no good or bad IT, only cheap and expensive.
One sign of bad IT is your employees complaining about how bad the systems are. From a business perspective the answer is to tell your employees to suck it up, perceive them as whiners. They can't imagine better. The tools selected come from big reputable companies with reassuring salespeople talking it up and how it has improved other customers, while the pitiable users are comparatively less well equipped to precisely explain how or why the system sucks. In the meantime, often this phenomenon is offset by the users by "shadow IT", peer support to give each other what they need to get their jobs, without telling official IT about it (because the relationship between IT and people gets adversarial). This is a strong indication IT has picked the wrong tools for the job, but it also tends to create invisible business critical systems with 'admin' as the password.
Note that sometimes it's what bad IT does to otherwise well made software, imposing maddening workflows that make no sense on software that was designed for a sane world.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
I have rarely met an MBA who had the time of day for an Engineering type. You tell MBAs that such and such needs to be encrypted moved, backed up, or whatever critical thing for $10,000 and you won't get the budget. Then an interior designer comes in and redoes the front lobby for the 3rd time in 5 years for a cost of $250k.
Then there are the pay scales. In any large not obviously IT company (many of which delude themselves into thinking they aren't nearly all IT like banks) you get an MBA with 5 years in getting $120k and the Engineers getting $70k. Then they wonder why they can't keep the talent.
The MBAs even treat the accountants like trash.
What I see are people of near zero talent who are genuinely scared of those with it. The more talent you have outside of their MBA world the more scared they are. You realize that you can save the company $10 million a year through something you found in the data and you get a pat on the back. Some MBA does a stupid deal worth $10 million (worth, not makes) and they get a rockin' bonus larger than the Engineer's salary.
Then, hidden among the corporate world are the companies that are pretty much just Engineering people some of whom are good at sales and business. Those companies attract the top talent and often run circles around the old guard. An old guard who realize that they need to up their IT game so they outsource to India and lay off half of their employees.
I have a simple formula. If a company has a large number of H1Bs in its staff then it will gain a short term advantage as it reduces costs and rides on its earlier momentum. In the long term it will start to find the ride bumpy, and then it will sink into oblivion. Think Yahoo, SUN, Compaq, etc. These companies were taken over by their MBAs who thought that Engineering was a commodity business.
So to answer the original question. Crappy companies that are not going to be competitive in the long term are not investing in IT. The companies that are kicking ass and taking names are.