Software

Will the Google revolution engulf IT departments?

While most of us tend to think of Google as a Web-leading Silicon Valley company, a new study argues that Google is actually a disruptive technology that is transforming industries, companies, and communities. It could even engulf traditional IT departments.

Gartner has embarked on a wide-reaching new study of Google and its potential impact on IT, enterprise businesses, and society in general in the coming years. On April 10 at the Gartner Symposium ITxpo 2008 in Las Vegas, Gartner Vice President Richard Hunter revealed some of the first data points from this study.

The two most interesting points were:

1.) The best way to think of Google is as a disruptive technology.

2.) Disruptive technologies create big losers and big winners, and one of the biggest losers in the Google disruption could be traditional IT departments.

Google as a disruptive technology

This new study is being conducted by a team of 15 Gartner researchers, led by Hunter, and the full report will be published in mid-2008. The title of Hunter's presentation at ITxpo was "What Does Google Know?" The answer to that question was even more sobering than I expected, as the slide below demonstrates.

Hunter added that Google will know a lot more about what's sold on the Web if Google Checkout takes off, and could soon know a lot about medicine and health patterns if Google Health Records gets adopted.

The Gartner researchers have estimated that Google technology can address 100 exabytes of data (an exabyte is equal to a billion gigabytes). "Their infrastructure has unprecedented scale," said Hunter, "and what is even more impressive is their ability to connect vast quantities of information... Google is sitting on the biggest pile of information that has ever been collected in the world."

The reason why Gartner chose to characterize Google as a disruptive technology - rather than just an Internet search engine company - is due to the ambitions that Google has for all of that data and the potential impact that those ambitions could have on the technology industry.

"Where the previous [computing] paradigm has been about my computer, my technology, my stuff ... Google is trying to deliver any information, anywhere, to anyone in the world, on any device," said Hunter.

"Google's paradigm is a different paradigm. It's an open source paradigm... We're about to see a war of paradigms." Clearly, the leader of the "previous paradigm" and the counter-movement to Google is Microsoft.

However, we also can't forget that the Google paradigm includes massive privacy concerns. Hunter noted that Google continues to struggle to find the right balance between privacy, security, and its legitimate business interests. The more data Google collects, the bigger and more valuable target it becomes for electronic criminals. That will also make it a bigger target for governments, politicians, and citizen groups.

Hunter stated, "We believe Google's information security will be a political issue worldwide by the end of the year in 2010."

Here are few other interesting quotes from Hunter's presentation, based on the study:

  • "Google transcends the limits of the traditional OSI stack."
  • "We don't know how good Google's information security is."
  • "Google doesn't worry about resources. Google's always got more resources."
  • "Ask not what Google will do to you. Ask what you can do with Google ... Ask how much of your business you want to expose to Google."
  • "Above all, move fast, because Google is moving fast."

Google's disruption to IT

"Google is disruptive and disruptive technologies produce big winners and big losers," Hunter said, "One of the big losers is potentially traditional IT departments."

As part of his presentation, Hunter specifically noted a number of ways in which the Google revolution would disrupt the IT industry in general:

  • Traditional database management vendors would be marginalized into handling only high value transactions
  • Enterprises will co-opt Google's approach to data management and Google could host the data
  • Proprietary applications such as Microsoft Office would be "deeply threatened"
  • Many application builders could start developing on top of the Google platform
  • Collaboration services will take a big leap and Google could provide the platform
  • Companies will take major parts of the IT infrastructure (e.g. e-mail, storage, and business intelligence) and source it to Google.

However, after the presentation I followed up with Richard to get further clarification on how IT departments could be significant losers in the Google disruption. Here was his response:

"Google has the potential to be the first-choice provider of many services that are now handled by internal IT organizations, starting with non-competitively-differentiating services such as email (which Google already provides to a number of enterprises), and ultimately including high-value-added functions and services such as business intelligence, mobile sales support, and others. Some IT organizations might consider it a boon to pass these functions on to Google so that the IT department can concentrate on very enterprise-specific competitively differentiating applications. IT organizations that measure their worth in terms of how much of the company's IT needs they supply themselves will be less happy to see Google move in on their turf-and I do mean specifically that in many cases it will be an argument about turf, not enterprise value.

"An important question is: can Google provide the quality (e.g. reliability, availability, security, etc.) that enterprises-a more demanding market compared to individual consumers-require from their suppliers? Consumers are satisfied when the potential provider says 'Of course!' Smart enterprises demand certification from someone besides the provider. Providing that certification will be something new for Google. On the other hand, many IT organizations aren't mature enough to provide proof of their own capabilities in terms of value for money, and so will have a difficult time proving superiority over any external provider, whether or not it's Google".

Bottom line for IT leaders

What Gartner is arguing is that Google's database and data center magic is creating a massive cultural movement and a competitive advantage that is going to sweep away businesses and industries and transform the technology world. In fact, Gartner sees Google becoming so large and powerful from a data storage and access standpoint that it is going to attract scrutiny - and potential regulations - from governments.

While these predictions have legs, several of the trends are larger than Google. As far as IT departments go, there are two related trends that will transform IT over the next decade: utility computing and managed services. The utility computing model will allow IT departments to deploy only the computing capacity that is needed and to track it and charge it to the appropriate business unit, department, or project. That will allow IT to tie the value of technology much more closely to business decisions.

Some businesses won't want to handle that type of IT internally and so they will outsource it to providers like IBM, Hewlett-Packard, EDS, and Verizon Business. It's unclear whether Google will want to get into the managed services business, but it might make sense for them partner with vendors like the four mentioned in order to offer services such as e-mail, storage, and business intelligence.

In terms of Google's technical advantage - part of which is tied to its sheer data center capacity - let's not forget that the other two big data center builders, Microsoft and Yahoo, could tie the knot soon and became a much more potent threat to Google's vision. That could especially be the case if Microsoft allows its new technology leader, Ray Ozzie, to drive Microsoft in a much more Google-like direction centered around cloud computing. It's also not a given that what Google has created in the world's largest and most effective database isn't something that Microsoft will eventually catch up to and co-opt.

Nevertheless, Google is obviously on the leading edge many of the trends that are powering the next breaking waves in the technology industry, and the effects of these trends will fundamentally change the way corporate IT departments are organized, operated, and financed over the next decade.

About

Jason Hiner is the Global Editor in Chief of TechRepublic and Global Long Form Editor of ZDNet. He is an award-winning journalist who writes about the people, products, and ideas that are revolutionizing the ways we live and work in the 21st century.

97 comments
esalkin
esalkin

With tounge-in-cheek (mostly): ... and they adored the beast, saying: Who is like to the beast? and who shall be able to fight with him? And there was given to him a mouth speaking great things, and blasphemies: and power was given to him to do two and forty months. ... And power was given him over every tribe, and people, and tongue, and nation. ... And he shall make all, both little and great, rich and poor, freemen and bondmen, to have a character in their right hand, or on their foreheads. And that no man might buy or sell, but he that hath the character, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. (REV13:4-7,16-17)

Wolvenmoon
Wolvenmoon

Google and other providers need to either not respond to international laws limiting information access-such as in China where they're forced to sanitize their searches and let the government into e-mail, or be forced to. Instead of regulating google and letting a patch float in a swimming pool of problems and calling it fixed, we need to add global liability to software providers that provide software with a security risk. To be honest, any data that is accessible to any user directly or indirectly is insecure if that user has any rights on the accessing computer, or if *A* user has any rights on it with everything else at maximum security. While microsoft tends to let other people patch up their security issues (software firewalls, et cetera) google won't have that luxury, especially if microsoft fights them. Pardon me for meandering around so much, my point is that intense cut-throat competition is what drives innovation. Instead of worrying about the inevitable-that a massive amount of information will be under control of a single entity-we should be encouraging companies to attempt to be 'the best'. Along the way there will be hiccups, but eventually it'll narrow down.

gmmoon
gmmoon

After 20 years in IT, and as recently as 2 years ago still scoffing at services in the cloud, I've decided to send our e-mail filtering to Google (Postini). Google will provide our AV, spam filtering, and archiving for our MS Exchange environment. Economies of scale: they can do it for less than we can with our own hardware. This paradigm shift is now beginning, for me. 3 years ago I was using a Maxtor 300GB backup drive for my personal backups, today I'm using Amazon's S3 service for far less expense and effort. I can picture now how my organization could switch from hosting servers ourselves to in-the-cloud services. As was predicted, the Internet is still changing everything. Read "The Big Switch - Rewiring the world from Edison to Google" for a great insight into this!

ngcommute
ngcommute

An interesting article but you seem to mash up the concepts of data and information (and the assumed knowledge derived from them). Within the search arena Google is just an EDW. The models they use are superior to a lot of enterprise Information Architectures but they do not deal in "information". Data is information without context. Knowledge is one or more pieces of information cross-referenced via a nervous system to produce a new piece of information. Let Google store your data, they may do it more cheaply than you can but never assume Google can provide context or knowledge, they can only provide content. PS - don't confuse the fact Google knows 67% of web searches with 67% of the web. It would more likely be around 10%-15% (if you are lucky) when you take into account dynamic (DB driven) web sites and the metadata, thesaurus's and ontology's used so badly on the web.

BALTHOR
BALTHOR

Google goes right into you BIOS and CPU.al has it as his own computer and he's doing the will of.Google diverts the entire Internet through it's phone and computer system.They run into the Feds and loose computers---hundreds a day.

d3d4E4
d3d4E4

I for one, am eagerly looking forward to the IT deparment demise. I will finaly be able to get things done instead wasting my time in endless meetings why they can't be done.

dean.owen
dean.owen

Anyone who has been in IT for the last decade or longer has seen a number of 'disruptive' technologies. The trick is to identify the ones that will stick and the ones that will just fade away. Leave out the emotion and focus on true business value. Cloud computing is the new disruptive technology that will stick because it's convenient and productive for the users of technology. IT departments all too often think about what is convenient for them. Remember the early days of personal computing? How about the web? Mobile computing? Over the years I have had many bosses who called these disruptive technologies fads and continued to pour resources into COBOL and mainframe data centres! In five or ten years will you be remembered as the IT manager who called Google a fad?

Vulpinemac
Vulpinemac

[b][i]*...Almost anything that is connected to the web*[/i][/b] It's supposed to. How is a search engine going to work if it doesn't know where it is? [b][i]*... 67% of all web searches.*[/i][/b] Just shows that it is the most popular web search engine currently available. [b][i]*...1% of what's sold on the web*[/i][/b] That's a small number compared to .Net by Microsoft. Why isn't Microsoft considered disruptive? [b][i]*...the traffic to over 1.5million websites*[/i][/b] I doubt they know ALL the traffic to those sites, but they do get paid by click-through so they should know the traffic that clicks a link on their advertising. Hardly any different from any other service out there that relies on advertising for revenue. [b][i]*...the physical locations of many things*[/i][/b] With Google Earth, it should know the physical location of almost every place. Unlikely that all that many "things" are as easily locatable. [b][i]*...the status of your machine if you install Google Apps.[/i][/b] This only makes sense. For the app to work right it NEEDS to know the status of the machine. However, that doesn't mean you need to use Google Apps. If you want privacy, you don't want web applications doing your work. That includes Microsoft's attempts to do the same thing. [b][i]*...the behavior patterns of Google registered users*[/i][/b] You don't necessarily have to register with Google to use their services. And they can only know the patterns you use within their services once you're registered. [b][i]*...the physical location of any cell phone user who has installed Google Apps or uses Google services from the phone*[/i][/b] Is this necessarily a bad thing? By knowing where you are, it can tell you how to get where you want to go. It can also help emergency responders to locate you in the event of a life- threatening event. Of course, you don't HAVE to use Google services from your phone. The cell phone is a communications device and should not be used while you are driving or walking; the added distraction could cause the event that would require the emergency services to seek you out. [i]The reason why Gartner chose to characterize Google as a disruptive technology - rather than just an Internet search engine company - is due to the ambitions that Google has for all of that data and the potential impact that those ambitions could have on the technology industry.[/i] And what ambitions does Microsoft have for all that information? I see no difference between these two concepts. Yet Microsoft is seen as the hero and a supportive company while Google is being seen as disruptive? Google is the counter-movement to the much older and well-established Microsoft, not the other way around. [i]* ???We don???t know how good Google???s information security is.???[/i] On the other hand we already know how poor Microsoft's is. Can Google really be any worse? [i]* ???Google doesn???t worry about resources. Google???s always got more resources.???[/i] While Microsoft always demands more resources.... from its users. [i]???Ask not what Google will do to you. Ask what you can do with Google ??? Ask how much of your business you want to expose to Google.???[/i] "To you?" Aside from freeing you from Microsoft's proprietary file formats, Google's integration should be far superior in functionality. Even now, more than 20 years after Microsoft released Office, it is still difficult to share data between the different applications. All in all, I disagree with Gartner because it will allow the Enterprise to consolidate their IT into something that can actually focus on productivity rather than maintenance, increasing their value to the corporation and reducing costs. In all honesty, while I don't disagree with everything they say, it is clear that the enterprise is looking for a better way of doing things than the Microsoft way.

No User
No User

Gartner folks are simply clueless. They produce more garbage then you will find in most landfills. This is yet another one. The charge back system rarely makes a dent outside of very large corporations and is a system that is the result of failed management. Typically companies that deploy that nonsense have a bunch of arrogant pointy headed snobs managing the company and a strong arm run-a-muck Inhuman Unresources Departments (HRD). The two usually fit hand in glove. You have a bunch of pointy headed folks that can't wrap their pointy heads around technology and more to the point the need/value of technology to the business. So they event some retarded Tinker Bell method such as charge backs so they can create colorful graphics that they can wrap around their pointy heads. It makes them feel like they have a clue about IT and gives them that all around warm fuzzy feeling that they have the power of knowledge to make measured decisions for IT implementation. Unfortunately for all concerned with the company you can't judge IT needs nor understand the impact of IT based on their endless pointy headed schemes. The failed charge back system is not going to change the world and has already hit it's high water mark. The bottom line is Google is not going to change IT. Although to the untrained eye it may appear that a business such as Google which is adapting it's business solutions to the needs of a changing market may appear to be the catalyst.

jim.beebe
jim.beebe

The implications of this study should scare the heck out of everyone who reads it. This amount of data in the hands of a non-public entity, this kind of control in the hands of someone who does not answer to any kind of electorate has implications that go far beyond the impact on "IT." This is the company that hides it's premier data center - host of 700,000 servers - in northern Oregon under the fake name "Voldemort Industries." I know the Harry Potter reference, but there is a far more important connection here. "Vol de Mort" means "Flight of Death" in French. Who would name their data center "Flight of Death Industries?" I am not sick, paranoid or otherwise mentally unbalanced, but I am suggesting that anyone with an ounce of critical thinking skills start asking if they really want this much power in the hands of the two strange individuals that control Google.

htmapes
htmapes

"No prudent company would put their critical applications on PCs." "Microsoft Windows is too insecure for corporate data." Blah, blah, blah. We've heard this all before. Google will transform the relationship between companies and applications. Google will own the desktop and the Software-as-a-Service will own most of the rest. Yes, companies will still manage unique, critical applications, but everything else will be in the cloud. And not that many businesses have unique requirements or extraordinary security requirements. If you owned a fifty-person or less business, the vast majority of the landscape, why would you want to run your own IT? Is your data more secure or better backed up in your offices than it would be at Google or SalesForce? It's coming. You can choose to ignore it or adapt.

girish_thanki
girish_thanki

Whats makes you guys think that google will not put servers in actual IT departments (theese server would sync with the big cloud within google HQ). It overcome many of the issues complained about, it would also ensure that IT department also have an automatic backup facillity..

Systems Guy
Systems Guy

Skynet by any other name is still Skynet.

alec.wood
alec.wood

Google's business impact will be limited to those USA companies with short sighted management. There's two key issues which prevent widespread adoption beyond the borders of the USA 1. Subjecting non US citizens to US law, some of which may be contrary to the laws of the user's own country 2. Privacy. Quite apart from criminal concerns, US law gives many US government agencies unfettered access to their data. If the US department of trade want to do its job and help US companies compete, what better resource than the private company data of any of their foreign competitors foolish enough to use Google.

$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$

If remaining competitive in the face of cost pressures requires us all to "share" all our data, are we inviting Big Brother in the guise of free market competition?

DanLM
DanLM

Ok Balthor, I never understand you or where your going with a conversation. But this time, you totally lost me... More then usual, which is really saying alot. Let me put this in politically correct terms? hu? What the hell you talking about? Dan

jasonhiner
jasonhiner

If the feds "loose" that many computers then what do they do with all the belts?

gmmoon
gmmoon

You're nuts, right? Just checking - no offense. OR perhaps you're not of this planet?

ccarpenter
ccarpenter

You list your role as "other". I think that's probably pretty accurate.

Deadly Ernest
Deadly Ernest

remembered as the ones that sent the company broke for major breaches of privacy and other legislation relating to data security.

tony.maine
tony.maine

I've NEVER noticed anything REMOTELY like 'knowing' what you want when I've done a search on Google. I appreciate such 'knowing' is computationally extremely arduous, requires massive associative memory capacity etc etc which is what Google is now supposed to have. Of course! It's only used for alleged nefarious activities and not to help us mere mortals find something we actually want. I'll start getting worried when the answer to a search always appears on the first page. . .

thomas.peterson
thomas.peterson

IT costs in most organizations hover around 50% maintenance, 30% headcount, and 20% new service offerings. By off-loading some of the data maintenance overhead, company (not IT) resources can be leveraged to grow their business. If that includes investing in IT, so much the better for us, but not a necessity. IT being a cost center, for most organizations, should find ways of reducing its fiscal footprint and realize its role as a corporate citizen. BTW: I've enjoyed reading your well thought out and objective posts.

markbreaux
markbreaux

Seriously, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say you don't manage much of a department. Your hate for the business side of IT and your stereotypical attitude about "pointy heads" is what is wrong with IT. We are not super special. We perform an important part of a business. It's not IT that runs business. It's business that runs IT. A business is made up of many parts and without those parts nothing runs. I'm not trying to start a fight because you seem angry enough. All I am saying is lose the hate. If you try and understand what the business needs and not what you want, your approval level in the board room will go up.

AlterAngelus
AlterAngelus

Did that web-bot predict that I wouldn't belive in its predictions. If man is completely predicted in this way, for what do we need to discover this kind of prediction. If our belive that human freedom is a deception, who is the poor decepted one? Is there any interest inside a completely predicted system to find out that it is completely predicted. Who are you that you are beliving in this kind of total predetermination and still continuing to care about spreading it? It's all predicted, just lean back and wait for it happening! ???

Vulpinemac
Vulpinemac

Are you so certain that the Google owners intended the second definition? While you may be technically correct in your definitions, the meaning could be literally what it appears to be; an honorarium of sorts to the Harry Potter stories.

Deadly Ernest
Deadly Ernest

and you will be able to control the access - based on how much you spend for physical security. But when it's away at the Google sever farm you're dependent upon what they have and their security, and you also have to worry if they'll sell it off if they get a big enough offer. They could even access it for their own use without you knowing about it.

wzrobin
wzrobin

I always assumed they did not. They might have someone who is responsible for their computers, but then even with a more distributed environment you'll need someone to keep the desktops and network running. In large companies, I think it will be quiet a while til upper management is comfortable with the risk of allowing all our data go outside the walls. One thing that is constantly being discussed is how much data to retain, and when to get rid of it for legal liability reasons, put it in someones hands and you open up whole new realms of discovery that the lawyers will probably not be fond of.

Deadly Ernest
Deadly Ernest

and by putting their gear and people in your operation, they will be decentralising - why should they do that, and why should you go to Google if you still want it run at your place, just out source or stay with in house.

markbreaux
markbreaux

If the 2nd point is true...who cares what Google does? We have bigger problems then a monopoly.

DanLM
DanLM

When within their boundaries. Remember China? Google tailored their search to the Chinese government’s specifications. I hate repression, which is exactly what that was. But, that shows a history of Google respecting national boundaries... I don't think the argument being put here by non Americans that Google would be subject American laws as valid. Google has already shown it will abide by each sovereign governments laws that the data resides in. That would not be one of my worries, the concerns put forth over security. That would be my only worry... And I wouldn't do it for that reason. Dan

DanLM
DanLM

You are able to answer him... And I swear, on the same level.. Let me step away from the computer.. The Balthor's are taking over. Dan

Vulpinemac
Vulpinemac

Thank you, thomas. I wish more people could be as objective and less emotional.

No User
No User

First of all I am a realist. Being a realist I deal with reality. That said what "is" actually "is" and so I deal with it as such. Not to be confused with Slick Willey's question of what "is" actually "is". ;) Hate?????? They don't rise to the level were they have enough credibility for me to hate them. Perhaps I could pity them if they were not so greedy, crooked and counter productive but I don't "HATE" them. Perhaps if I hate anything it would be that there are so many "Followers" that it created an environment where they can run-a-muck. I am exactly what IT needs. Someone who knows the business side in addition to IT and who has both the brains and the nads to take a stand and call a Spade a Spade and a clueless pointy head exactly that and this article yet another piece of trash from Gartner.

KaptKos
KaptKos

Actually I find it humorous. Such as in 1999 with all the Y2K changes that I did for COBOL applications for almost a year at IBP. Did nuclear plants blow up that new years morning? :D Now I'm working with RFID Technology in tracking evidence for law enforcement agencies. Yeah; Big Brother is watching you. BOO! KaptKos

DanLM
DanLM

Them storing the data in the US. Would they though? Wouldn't most buisness's have issue with that? Too far away for real time response? Things like that. I also thought about backups... If Google were to store data in the nation of the buisness, where would the backups being going too? But, I see your point... But, unfortionally. It didn't occur to me until my drive into work. [edited to add] My thought process was that the data centers would reside in the nations of the buisness's... But, who is to say. Dan

alec.wood
alec.wood

But I think the issue is not Google's intent in regard to the disclosure of data to the federal government, but rather a product of circumstance. They are a US company holding our data in the US, and since they're subject to US law, so is my data if I use this service. While that's probably bearable for most US citizens, it wouldn't be for the rest of us. I agree the big issue is privacy and the possible unauthorised access to data by criminal elements, but my point was that even if it could be made absolutely watertight, the issue of authorised access by the federal government would make it unsuitable for use outside the US. There's been a few interesting debates this side of the Atlantic about whether or not it would even be legal under the UK Data Protection Act, or the relevant EU directives, for any business over here to store personally identifiable data on Google's services. In particular, current law prevents the export of such data beyond the EU, and it's almost impossible to fulfil your legal duty of care if you don't have absolute physical control over the data

DanLM
DanLM

from the computer in case it's contagious. Dan

rogcoley
rogcoley

Would you try to reason with an unreasonable person?

Vulpinemac
Vulpinemac

...that you aren't what you say you are. When you start flaming, you're obviously not a professional. All through this thread your comments have been nothing but flames and generalizations. You have in no manner proven your skills or your 'claimed' position as manager. In fact, your language usage brings into question that you hold any form of management postion at all, no matter the size of corporation whose IT division you claim to run. And the vague "somewhere in Maryland" doesn't go any farther towards giving you legitimacy. I hear every day from high-level administrators of IT departments about the lack of logic in business divisions of a large corporation; one much, much larger than yours. I hear comments from multiple levels of management all the way up to Senior Vice-President of technology and am aware of how many badly-conceived and even worse executions of technology systems due to the lack of communications between business and IT generating expectations that cannot come down to what IT is able to provide while at the same time being totally blown away by IT capabilities unexpected and often not desired by business. The point is, if you were half the IT manager you claim to be, you would be far more professional and able to give reasonably specific responses rather than calling all management "pointy-heads." Oh, and thanks for the 'nipping at your heels' comment. That's what foxes do, you know.

No User
No User

You are so far off topic it's pathetic. I don't have time for you nipping at my heels. If your title is false I would boot you out the door for false representation. Out side of trying to play Mr. Big-E-Man you have told me nothing about your skills which I'll bet involve a screw driver most of the time and I'll bet my skills dwarf yours in every way. In fact I'll bet the skills I had 15 years ago dwarf yours today. Just go away and soak your head. Over and out!!!! I have reached the maximum of both this thread and my desire to engage a flame war with a screw driver wielding PC Tech. I'm sure you can and have proven all your "creds" in this thread just like anyone else can. The anonymity of the web is the nectar the lets whiny little nut jobs like you flourish. What do you think the Over and out meant? It means that I'm done with you. Since you are not capable of comprehending that I now invoke my favorite Murphy's law. Never argue with a fool if for no other reason a mere passerby would not be able to distinguish the difference. Now go play with your screw driver and engage in your delusions of grander and no doubt spank your monkey.

Vulpinemac
Vulpinemac

I am a technician because I actually work with the products, not just manage them. That said, I am an independent consultant not working for any one employer (except myself.) On the other hand, I also see the damage uninformed managers can do because I am constantly in contact with administrative/management types and can see and hear for myself that many so-called experts have absolutely no understanding of anything outside of their direct control.

No User
No User

The only way you can interact in a productive way with a pointy head is to toss donuts at it and see how many you can rack up. It's and ipso facto. They do what they do because they think like they think. You can express yourself any way you would like to them but you can't teach a pointy head. Their head is pointy for a reason. Besides that they are in a state of gleeful bliss with their spreed sheets and color graphs and all those measurements. I don't have the heart to burst their bubble. ;) I would just rather replace them.

dnelsonwc
dnelsonwc

... of an ad hominem attack.

Tenagra71
Tenagra71

Just realizing the approach is sounds all wrong. Why not take the opportunity to educate and demonstrate to the "pointy heads" why you are so right and they are running the business in to the ground. Or is true change and success the actual hard part? I've sat through my share of powerpoint presentations where what was on the screen meant little to me and was actually wasting my time. An email would have done fine for me. But I don't beat my head on the meeting room table. I just do what I can to move things in the right direction. And sometimes it can be glacial. But I do have one question. If you're so right, why don't we all have your same line of thinking? Change takes hard work and eduacating of the leaders. But they have as much to teach IT. They typically know what the business needs. We need to give them the best way to get it.

No User
No User

Is there anything that you have to offer besides insults? You are a PC Technician not an I.T. Manager and I am. I don't need a job I already have one thank you very much. I'm sure companies that are run-a-muck with the pointy headed types would choke at my point of view I don't have much time for them nor the wreckage they create. That said you simply have no point. What I.T. needs is more people like me and in fact so does business in general. I don't need to make people jump through hoops so a color graph can be created that a pointy head can say this measures their activity and there for we shall do something incredibly stupid and counter productive with this but which results in the pointy head folks stuffing their pockets with money before the ship wrecks.

Vulpinemac
Vulpinemac

...that your rambling and decidedly ungrammatical manner of responding to these blogs absolutely eliminates any credibility you might have as an IT manager of any corporation. In all honesty, I don't know of any company that would hire you for IT if you went to an interview sounding as you do in these responses. What IT needs is intelligence and logic; the ability to recognize the needs of the company and the capabilities of the infrastructure. I don't deny that most of the top-echelon managers have little understanding of the real capabilities of their IT, but at the same time, the closed-mindedness of IT personell out to save their jobs are much more likely to hurt the company in the long run if they aren't willing to think "out-of-the-box." Things need to change at both ends so that the enterprise itself can move forward.

shardeth-15902278
shardeth-15902278

I think we are going to have to deal with the boundary/nationalism issue. Those (rather artificial) boundaries become increasingly meaningless in cyberspace.

Editor's Picks