the excuse for not holding IT meetings with whole company is that it is felt to be a waste of time and MIS is a support service. Generally no one care until something breaks down.
I always wonder how this scale for a large company and I had always been skeptical when the CIO/CTO is not in business meetings with the CFO, CEO and etc. It is worse when CIO/CTO is not having meetings with the people below. Functionally in the larger companies, the lines that separate departments can be tough to bridge.
Discussion on:
View:
Show:
In my company of 65 end users (and their related technology hardware), 2 support staff (including myself), 30 servers and constant change within the bounds of IT I have not the time to conduct these meetings. I attend the weekly executive meetings, and bi-weekly program manager meetings in an effort to get a pulse of what is expected of IT as well as inform the business of changes that will affect them globally. The low to mid level employees are expected to get the information from these meetings via their department heads. This proves to be successful about 33% of the time and the rest is just to much information for the end-user base to understand or care about. Not to mention the typical 'resistance to change' attitudes amongst the unwashed masses of our end users... 
I've discussed the "waste of time" issue, but the answer always falls back on the side of finding ways to make it productive. If it does end up being a waste of time, or it's perceived as such, then it's the presentation and delivery that needs to be addressed, not the concept of having the meetings.
Depending on the nature of the meeting absolutely. IT is already looked on as "black magic" and having "secret meetings doesn't help the image. Obviously not all meeting to-do's need to be communicated - common sense discretion is a good tool.
When I first started working in my current situation, I instituted such a process. It was guardedly looked on at first but was later quite accepted especially as new technologies hit us daily. The organization in making some changes decided to create a CIO position which was hired from outside. Overall not too bad but at some cost. For example, after much discussion the CIO compromised and continued our communicating IT meetings to the organization, however, he decided to "edit" the meeting minutes. And this is where the problem now lies. This communication has become irrelevant since his edits have made the minutes useless - no one really gets anything of value from the communique.
So at the end of the day it's all down to corporate culture. (And who gets hired.)
When I first started working in my current situation, I instituted such a process. It was guardedly looked on at first but was later quite accepted especially as new technologies hit us daily. The organization in making some changes decided to create a CIO position which was hired from outside. Overall not too bad but at some cost. For example, after much discussion the CIO compromised and continued our communicating IT meetings to the organization, however, he decided to "edit" the meeting minutes. And this is where the problem now lies. This communication has become irrelevant since his edits have made the minutes useless - no one really gets anything of value from the communique.
So at the end of the day it's all down to corporate culture. (And who gets hired.)
- Keyboard Shortcuts:
- Prev
- Next
- Toggle
