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

Because greed.

[Gravis Zero]

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!

Re:Because greed.

[PolygamousRanchKid]

Well . . . people can be greedy, too . . . not just organizations.

I got into programming because I like to do it . . . not because I expected to make a lot of money doing it. I started in high school back in the 70's . . . with Fortran on punch cards.

I find that people who get into IT for the money will be frustrated, because they are not getting rich fast.

I'm not rich, but I'm not poor either. But enjoying my work is most important to me.

Re:Because greed.

[Anonymous Coward]

This. American businesses have become all about how to maximize short term profits with little or no regard for long term viability of the business. I think in large part due to the stock market mentality. It doesn't matter if your business is actually healthy, it just has to look attractive to short term investors to push up your stock price until your next quarterly report.

And I think that is strongly related to the fact that so few stocks pay dividends now. Stocks used to be (mostly) about investing in a company you believed in and waiting until your faith started to pay off in the form of dividends. The modern stock market has made it all into a "greater fool" scenario where it's all about getting an even bigger sucker than you to pay more than you did.

So that mentality has infected/trickled into even smaller businesses and gov't/non-profit orgs because people think that is "normal" for business now.

BTW, I'll add that this "greater fool" mentality is pretty much what is driving the cryptocurrency craze too.

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.

IT is costly

[quonset]

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?

Re:IT is costly

[geekmux]

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?

So, employees wouldn't dream of taking their own garbage out, taking turns cleaning the bathrooms at work, or working in an environment that wasn't equipped with a well-functioning heat and A/C system, so maintenance and cleaning staff is fully justified in their minds.

But the trained professionals who maintain the services that feed their social media and internet addiction, along with maintaining the systems that tend to help generate the revenue that feeds paychecks is somehow something that "provides no value"?

If this kind of ignorant mentality exists in an organization, then the fucking hiring problem isn't in IT. I say let the "average person" flounder like a fish out of water the next time the internet goes down, or ransomware hits their system.

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.

IT Workers

[ViXiV]

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!

I still blame the bean counters.

[BlacKSacrificE]

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?

Re:Dilbert cartoons

[plopez]

In a foreword to one of his books Scott Adams said he would come up with the most outrageous cartoon he could think of. Only to have people email in recounting how they went through a similar but even more outrageous situation. Dilbert just scratches the surface.