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?

Comments

Different outcome if you screw up

[klingens]

If you skimp on accounting, there is a lot of case law where you end up in jail.
When you have an IT disaster you never go to jail so far. Target, Equifax, etc. certainly haven't.

With both, if you skimp too much you might end up bankrupt. E.g. if you don't know your invoices and who owes what to whom, you go bankrupt. If that ransomware disrupts your business too long you also go bankrupt. So there is a certain needed minimum standard in both, but thanks to centuries of experience with it, accounting has much better laws, standards and especially case law than IT, raising the needed minimum bar much higher.

Re:Because greed.

[wwphx]

Warren Buffet (IIRC) had an excellent suggestion to encourage long-term thinking in companies: tax the C-levels 100% on their stocks if they sell them while they're in the company or their first year out. It then goes down 10-20% every year afterwards. It would eliminate pump & dump, might even kill off vultures like Bain.

It'll never happen, but I think it's a lovely thought.