IT does not evolve IT revolves (as in revolution)
Basic pricipals still apply though.
Discussion on:
View:
Show:
Who will bring/Create the projects for the Consultants, Developers and Project Managers to work? Business Administrators. Companies cannot get rid of them. Most of the Techie guys will lack business sense and they only focus on code or project management. They are inclined toward are specific goal.. They do not think about the big picture...there comes the Business Administrators.
Then you could get an IT job with no technical skills...
Oh, too late....
Oh, too late....
People responded to my book, "What you say is true, but I still disagree with you".
So all we have to do and wait to see if what Jason said is true.
No, wait!
It's already happened!
He's predicting the past!
It's the best and surest way to become a successful Prophet.
Unfortunately, no one will wait around for him to say, "I told you so".
The world moves on and forgets just how right you were.
So all we have to do and wait to see if what Jason said is true.
No, wait!
It's already happened!
He's predicting the past!
It's the best and surest way to become a successful Prophet.
Unfortunately, no one will wait around for him to say, "I told you so".
The world moves on and forgets just how right you were.
...try to sell your skills to a buyer. That's great for those with skills in high demand - but it leaves the rest of us in a more precarious position.
It's low supply and high demand that makes it "great" . The market will address that disparity one way or another.
It also means as a consultant in that market you a have to stay in high demand low supply market, new tool version, new certs, new tech. You ned to be paid a lot to do that.
Consultants aren't the reason "your" position is precarious, "you" are. "You" aren't offereing enough overall value. Easy street is easy, no one plays for easy.
It also means as a consultant in that market you a have to stay in high demand low supply market, new tool version, new certs, new tech. You ned to be paid a lot to do that.
Consultants aren't the reason "your" position is precarious, "you" are. "You" aren't offereing enough overall value. Easy street is easy, no one plays for easy.
Good article - as someone who works in IT, I agree with the concept of the three main roles.
The company i have worked for repeatedly try to use consultants and EVERY ONE OF THEM FAILED!!! Coincidence???? They are good at saying yes, not knowing the answer and having someone else experienced do the job and then take credit for their work. 1 word for this article, business "professionals" and consultants: OVERSIMPLIFIED!!!
Reading this article, it strikes me that the framing of the problem is a little wrong.
1. The general trend towards industrializing the cottage industry activities of businesses is a rather natural evolution. Carbon paper was replaced by Xerox machines which were in turn replaced by electronic forms and record keeping. As you progress along the automation life cycle, the existence of service and product choices allows elimination of staff who were previous inefficient or who were reinventing the wheel. At one point, Exxon Canada was building its own spreadsheet, something no one would consider today.
2. As strategists have pointed out, using commodity IT makes it difficult to create a unique strategy and unique value propositions that are differentiated and allow gaining of advantage. Using IT differently, or combining it in novel ways can create advantage. In many cases, this requires creating relationships and solutions, and supporting IT to deliver the solution. One only has to think of the Apple iPhone/iPod/iTunes/Ownership of Disney ecosystem constructed by Apple along with their advance purchases in bulk of leading edge components (flash memory, screens, purchase of processor developers, etc.).
3. When technology is developed, it can be developed to support two out of three of flexibility, low cost or high quality. Choosing what to emphasize and planning how to evolve it remains a very high value task, one that must be driven by internal staff, who may draw on outside expertise.
4. In today's IT, the ability to develop or deploy software does not necessarily create value or ensure rapid time to market. Strategic IT planning still remains important.
5. Information systems often represent a set of knowledge about a company works and is planning to evolve. In observing companies that have outsourced their development, I have seen loss of knowledge. Traditionally, the development of applications, or their configuration has been predicated on the assumption of organizational knowledge existing and being retained. It's easy to lose such knowledge with unthoughtful outsourcing. With thoughtful outsourcing, the cost advantages of specialists who have descended learning curves is taken advantage of, but a portion of the cost saving is invested in documenting and creating sufficient internal knowledge that informed decisions about future plans and changes can be made.
My belief is that a tactical view of information management leads to IT that is at parity with competitors. The ability to manage and trade off business issues and project portfolio issues across projects, time periods, regions and business units, in other words the gestalt of the company, its industry and competitors, and its ecosystem remains a complex integrating task that is difficult to do with a tactical perspective.
1. The general trend towards industrializing the cottage industry activities of businesses is a rather natural evolution. Carbon paper was replaced by Xerox machines which were in turn replaced by electronic forms and record keeping. As you progress along the automation life cycle, the existence of service and product choices allows elimination of staff who were previous inefficient or who were reinventing the wheel. At one point, Exxon Canada was building its own spreadsheet, something no one would consider today.
2. As strategists have pointed out, using commodity IT makes it difficult to create a unique strategy and unique value propositions that are differentiated and allow gaining of advantage. Using IT differently, or combining it in novel ways can create advantage. In many cases, this requires creating relationships and solutions, and supporting IT to deliver the solution. One only has to think of the Apple iPhone/iPod/iTunes/Ownership of Disney ecosystem constructed by Apple along with their advance purchases in bulk of leading edge components (flash memory, screens, purchase of processor developers, etc.).
3. When technology is developed, it can be developed to support two out of three of flexibility, low cost or high quality. Choosing what to emphasize and planning how to evolve it remains a very high value task, one that must be driven by internal staff, who may draw on outside expertise.
4. In today's IT, the ability to develop or deploy software does not necessarily create value or ensure rapid time to market. Strategic IT planning still remains important.
5. Information systems often represent a set of knowledge about a company works and is planning to evolve. In observing companies that have outsourced their development, I have seen loss of knowledge. Traditionally, the development of applications, or their configuration has been predicated on the assumption of organizational knowledge existing and being retained. It's easy to lose such knowledge with unthoughtful outsourcing. With thoughtful outsourcing, the cost advantages of specialists who have descended learning curves is taken advantage of, but a portion of the cost saving is invested in documenting and creating sufficient internal knowledge that informed decisions about future plans and changes can be made.
My belief is that a tactical view of information management leads to IT that is at parity with competitors. The ability to manage and trade off business issues and project portfolio issues across projects, time periods, regions and business units, in other words the gestalt of the company, its industry and competitors, and its ecosystem remains a complex integrating task that is difficult to do with a tactical perspective.
My humble opinion of what the IT department is going to look like is as follows:
CIO: There are always going to be strategic initiatives that are going to require a business-savvy IT executive to navigate the technological landscape to provide a solution for a company that has the company's interest at it's core. What systems to select? Why? How will it be delivered.
Enterprise Architect: There are going to have to be standards. Somehow, someway. That is the job of the architect. When the CIO says "This is the direction" it is the architect that designs the systems, infrastructure and process (the latter maybe a new concept for the enterprise architect) that will allow the organization to move forward quickly with as few speed bumps and obstacles as possible.
Business Analyst: It is the business analyst that takes the business requirements and defines what the system should look like. Use cases, process models and technological savy is key. THis group is the bridge between business and technology.
Project Manager: This role is key in everything. Firmly agree that this is key to every IT org.
Developer: This is the "It depends" position. If it makes sense to develop software, then you need good developers. The challenge is that the need to develop in-house software is quickly dissipating. This would apply in only a few instances.
Application Expert: This is more of a transitional role. Instead of system adinistrators, etc., we would need application specialists. SAP engineers, Electronic health record system experts, etc. But I see this as temporary. Eventually, the vendor will be able to provide these experts for a monthly fee that is more palette-able than hiring your own expert.
Chief Cat Herder: Sometimes this is the role of the CIO or the architect, but in larger organizations, this may transition to a specialized vendor manager. Most IT is going to be outsourced. Applications, infrastructure (especially) and typical utility-like IT (help desk, network management and monitoring) will typically be outsourced going forward. but finger-pointing will continue to be a huge time-suck for a period of time. This can become a huge distraction. Without the Chief Cat Herder, this responsibility can interfere with deliverables, advancements, flexibility, etc. This could be a temporary position as well, but my prediction is that this position will have a 10 to 15 year lifespan.
Just my humble opinion.
CIO: There are always going to be strategic initiatives that are going to require a business-savvy IT executive to navigate the technological landscape to provide a solution for a company that has the company's interest at it's core. What systems to select? Why? How will it be delivered.
Enterprise Architect: There are going to have to be standards. Somehow, someway. That is the job of the architect. When the CIO says "This is the direction" it is the architect that designs the systems, infrastructure and process (the latter maybe a new concept for the enterprise architect) that will allow the organization to move forward quickly with as few speed bumps and obstacles as possible.
Business Analyst: It is the business analyst that takes the business requirements and defines what the system should look like. Use cases, process models and technological savy is key. THis group is the bridge between business and technology.
Project Manager: This role is key in everything. Firmly agree that this is key to every IT org.
Developer: This is the "It depends" position. If it makes sense to develop software, then you need good developers. The challenge is that the need to develop in-house software is quickly dissipating. This would apply in only a few instances.
Application Expert: This is more of a transitional role. Instead of system adinistrators, etc., we would need application specialists. SAP engineers, Electronic health record system experts, etc. But I see this as temporary. Eventually, the vendor will be able to provide these experts for a monthly fee that is more palette-able than hiring your own expert.
Chief Cat Herder: Sometimes this is the role of the CIO or the architect, but in larger organizations, this may transition to a specialized vendor manager. Most IT is going to be outsourced. Applications, infrastructure (especially) and typical utility-like IT (help desk, network management and monitoring) will typically be outsourced going forward. but finger-pointing will continue to be a huge time-suck for a period of time. This can become a huge distraction. Without the Chief Cat Herder, this responsibility can interfere with deliverables, advancements, flexibility, etc. This could be a temporary position as well, but my prediction is that this position will have a 10 to 15 year lifespan.
Just my humble opinion.
Any time UM can get trim down / get rid of any people cost, irrespective if it really makes sense or not, they will give it a shot. However, since so much of life circles around computerized data management, UM will be stuck with us in some form or fashion. How many have had UM storming in our offices, excitedly wanting their latest electronic gadget synced to their email/network shares?
Everyone,
In my experience everything that is a constant in your organization is more expensive when you outsource it. I am not only talking about IT but also other supporting roles like hospitality, HR and the like.
If you let an accountant calculate the difference they will always go with the numbers that are derived from the IT department???s expenditure and only from there. What they fail to do (on every occasion) is taking into account that you get a lower quality support (due to generalization), from this the calls for support will (most likely) increase. When a new software product needs to be implemented there will be an increase in the time to market (you cannot push a supplier to change priorities without added costs) thus lowering/delaying the productivity of all employees hereby increasing total costs. The above factors are hardly ever calculated post facto.
And to quote my dear father "if someone else makes money of it, you are paying too much"
So I dont really think reducing to these 3 jobs and Clouding (outsourcing) the rest is the way to go in the long run.
In my experience everything that is a constant in your organization is more expensive when you outsource it. I am not only talking about IT but also other supporting roles like hospitality, HR and the like.
If you let an accountant calculate the difference they will always go with the numbers that are derived from the IT department???s expenditure and only from there. What they fail to do (on every occasion) is taking into account that you get a lower quality support (due to generalization), from this the calls for support will (most likely) increase. When a new software product needs to be implemented there will be an increase in the time to market (you cannot push a supplier to change priorities without added costs) thus lowering/delaying the productivity of all employees hereby increasing total costs. The above factors are hardly ever calculated post facto.
And to quote my dear father "if someone else makes money of it, you are paying too much"
So I dont really think reducing to these 3 jobs and Clouding (outsourcing) the rest is the way to go in the long run.
Some corporate executive with power or some lackey associated with an elected official and off you go. It's happened with Boeing and it's happening with a lot of other companies on a cost cutting binge.
At Pierce County, the Deputy Executive had a brother-in-law for whom it was claimed, saved millions of dollars outsourcing the IBM Mainframe and so directed the IT Department with their new Director to do the same. I came back with the figures which showed that it would cost nearly double to outsource it per year, plus all the headaches of cut over, communications, security and doing parallel testing. After that, they spent the next year proving what I said. Then, to save the money, the retained the IBM Mainframe with no software maintenance and no hardware upgrades for the next seven years, but saved some money by RIFfing the Systems Programmer supporting it for the Payroll / Personnel and Budget / Finance systems for the whole County and the School District. They have no plan for replacement, just a vision. They alienated IBM and the vendor who was the apparently successful bidder of the RFP. They've managed to burn all their bridges -- and it was based on some no nothing Deputy Executive who won't even be around in the time it would take to convert off the Mainframe.
I was standing by the elevators waiting to go down and the County Executive, the Deputy Executive and an admin came out. The bell on an elevator rang. The Deputy Executive said, "You see -- one ding is up and two dings is down!" They all oohed and aahed about how wise and understanding this obviously technically astute Deputy Executive was. That's how credibility is established: Say something "technical" that everyone can understand but never thought of and your career in politics is assured. Three weeks later, a well dressed gentleman came from the Executive's Office and joined me in the elevator. On our way down I said, "Have you ever noticed that one ding is up and two dings is down?" He was so impressed! He thought I was really brilliant! I established my credibility. And I pulled it off because, some how, I managed not to laugh while I did it.
At Pierce County, the Deputy Executive had a brother-in-law for whom it was claimed, saved millions of dollars outsourcing the IBM Mainframe and so directed the IT Department with their new Director to do the same. I came back with the figures which showed that it would cost nearly double to outsource it per year, plus all the headaches of cut over, communications, security and doing parallel testing. After that, they spent the next year proving what I said. Then, to save the money, the retained the IBM Mainframe with no software maintenance and no hardware upgrades for the next seven years, but saved some money by RIFfing the Systems Programmer supporting it for the Payroll / Personnel and Budget / Finance systems for the whole County and the School District. They have no plan for replacement, just a vision. They alienated IBM and the vendor who was the apparently successful bidder of the RFP. They've managed to burn all their bridges -- and it was based on some no nothing Deputy Executive who won't even be around in the time it would take to convert off the Mainframe.
I was standing by the elevators waiting to go down and the County Executive, the Deputy Executive and an admin came out. The bell on an elevator rang. The Deputy Executive said, "You see -- one ding is up and two dings is down!" They all oohed and aahed about how wise and understanding this obviously technically astute Deputy Executive was. That's how credibility is established: Say something "technical" that everyone can understand but never thought of and your career in politics is assured. Three weeks later, a well dressed gentleman came from the Executive's Office and joined me in the elevator. On our way down I said, "Have you ever noticed that one ding is up and two dings is down?" He was so impressed! He thought I was really brilliant! I established my credibility. And I pulled it off because, some how, I managed not to laugh while I did it.
Depends. Though, I strongly disagree! There is still tonnes of space for Specialist IT Professionals.
I hope that this is a joke 
. As sysadmin I can see the tendency of the systems to get bigger and the admin staff to get less, but still that requires IT staff with much higher education and skills. Also I can't see how the help desk will disappear ever - if there is a system where the users do not need any IT support I am sure that the company which produces it will become the biggest software developer in the world .
This can come only from a person who never ran a data centre or did hands-on IT support in a company.
. As sysadmin I can see the tendency of the systems to get bigger and the admin staff to get less, but still that requires IT staff with much higher education and skills. Also I can't see how the help desk will disappear ever - if there is a system where the users do not need any IT support I am sure that the company which produces it will become the biggest software developer in the world . This can come only from a person who never ran a data centre or did hands-on IT support in a company.
I think you have a fighting chance of getting the future you predicted here ONLY if you find a way to reverse compliance regulations, PHI and PII restrictions and even now jail time and monumental fines for "loss of control" of private data.
You are correct most people are tech savvy now, most do want their newest toy in the work place and in most case they and their toys are the newest threat to their own data privacy. They are also the ones who now pose a greater threat to data privacy and security of their own data than ever before simply because they are tech savvy...or at least enough to be dangerous.
The model we have been putting forth for the last ten years at least is that of go ahead and steal data and we will put the data owner in jail???simply because we are not well enough equipped or trained to punish the thief.
That is like jailing the banker because the bank robber held them at gunpoint and stole the money.
Fact is we have lost the war on cybercrime, do not have people or agent well enough trained to wage the war on cybercrime, and since we cannot handle what we have now with nothing more than an outdated wiretapping law, how can we expect to know how to handle the new mobile, cloud generation.
Downplaying the concern of ???Cynical IT Pros??? is sticking your head in the sand and not recognizing they have been charged with the insurmountable task of keeping their CEO???s out of jail. ???Shame on those cynical people???.
What we do need to outline for IT people in the future would be better served by adding positions for people who can re-design the weak, disastrous, un-designed, resultant internet into a working design that allow participants to use the resources while leaving behind a digital/cyber DNA that is as accurate as our current physical DNA.
Till then our current cyber status leaves lots of room for all the Cynical IT Pros we can find???emphasis on the Pros.
You are correct most people are tech savvy now, most do want their newest toy in the work place and in most case they and their toys are the newest threat to their own data privacy. They are also the ones who now pose a greater threat to data privacy and security of their own data than ever before simply because they are tech savvy...or at least enough to be dangerous.
The model we have been putting forth for the last ten years at least is that of go ahead and steal data and we will put the data owner in jail???simply because we are not well enough equipped or trained to punish the thief.
That is like jailing the banker because the bank robber held them at gunpoint and stole the money.
Fact is we have lost the war on cybercrime, do not have people or agent well enough trained to wage the war on cybercrime, and since we cannot handle what we have now with nothing more than an outdated wiretapping law, how can we expect to know how to handle the new mobile, cloud generation.
Downplaying the concern of ???Cynical IT Pros??? is sticking your head in the sand and not recognizing they have been charged with the insurmountable task of keeping their CEO???s out of jail. ???Shame on those cynical people???.
What we do need to outline for IT people in the future would be better served by adding positions for people who can re-design the weak, disastrous, un-designed, resultant internet into a working design that allow participants to use the resources while leaving behind a digital/cyber DNA that is as accurate as our current physical DNA.
Till then our current cyber status leaves lots of room for all the Cynical IT Pros we can find???emphasis on the Pros.
Bro,
I have consulted for Andersen (Now Accenture) and Deloitte (&Touche) the Number 1 and 2 then 1 consultancies. Service Levels for IT are at an all time low mostly due to the type of peceptions you describe. The joke at Andersen was that all the talent in Inida was used up in 1994. Anybody disagree? In my current role as a Systems Analyst I find it unfortunate that most of the newer users leverage less of the applications and data all the time and rely more on the social aspect of networking instead to be carried along in their career. This group think social networking is employeed by those who fear IT and decide to outsource to India (AhhhOmmmm). There is no magic cloud or outsoucing that will replace hard work and a well managed network; has anyone seen one lately? Honestly you sound like G.Bush denying global warming more than a respected editorial commentator.
I have consulted for Andersen (Now Accenture) and Deloitte (&Touche) the Number 1 and 2 then 1 consultancies. Service Levels for IT are at an all time low mostly due to the type of peceptions you describe. The joke at Andersen was that all the talent in Inida was used up in 1994. Anybody disagree? In my current role as a Systems Analyst I find it unfortunate that most of the newer users leverage less of the applications and data all the time and rely more on the social aspect of networking instead to be carried along in their career. This group think social networking is employeed by those who fear IT and decide to outsource to India (AhhhOmmmm). There is no magic cloud or outsoucing that will replace hard work and a well managed network; has anyone seen one lately? Honestly you sound like G.Bush denying global warming more than a respected editorial commentator.
Let's see now... Andersen was caught with their pants down and thoroughly discredited.
The global warming scientists were found to be taking readings in asphalt covered parking lots and next to air conditioners' heat exhaust.
Not a lot to inspire confidence there.
Probably not viable evaluation of Mr. Hiner either.
As for "Service Levels for IT are at an all time low" it isn't clear what that means and no proof was given to support the claim, whatever it meant.
But it does seem that the commenter's statements are internally inconsistent and his / her / its credibility is at an all time low. And after all these years, a mere Systems Analyst I? One would think that such sterling credentials would result in significant promotions, instead of being stuck in some dead end career, having to move from one accounting firm to another. On the job problems with your work?
Not sure we would be able to rely on any answer.
The global warming scientists were found to be taking readings in asphalt covered parking lots and next to air conditioners' heat exhaust.
Not a lot to inspire confidence there.
Probably not viable evaluation of Mr. Hiner either.
As for "Service Levels for IT are at an all time low" it isn't clear what that means and no proof was given to support the claim, whatever it meant.
But it does seem that the commenter's statements are internally inconsistent and his / her / its credibility is at an all time low. And after all these years, a mere Systems Analyst I? One would think that such sterling credentials would result in significant promotions, instead of being stuck in some dead end career, having to move from one accounting firm to another. On the job problems with your work?
Not sure we would be able to rely on any answer.
What a load!
And who manages the consultants time and signs the time sheets?
Who analyses business requirement and documents them for the developers?
Who decides what projects to run and which not to? Who manages project deliverables and agrees project scope?
Who manages the developers and guides their development?
In all, a VERY poorly thought through article. If anything IT is moving into a stronger management direction with more and more automation of support as organisations IT get optimised.
Good IT management enables a business. No IT management lets business run amok, cost the shareholders money and at the end of the day gets nothing done.
And who manages the consultants time and signs the time sheets?
Who analyses business requirement and documents them for the developers?
Who decides what projects to run and which not to? Who manages project deliverables and agrees project scope?
Who manages the developers and guides their development?
In all, a VERY poorly thought through article. If anything IT is moving into a stronger management direction with more and more automation of support as organisations IT get optimised.
Good IT management enables a business. No IT management lets business run amok, cost the shareholders money and at the end of the day gets nothing done.
The preponderance of anecdotal evidence is against any such thing as "good" IT Management. It is Management in general which has run amok, not really sure how to follow process and keep up with the artificial demand for superficial change.
> next 5-7 years. "clouding". Tremendous focus and resources needed to move corporate IT to cloud. (strategy, operational efficiency and spending). Developers, consultants, PM will be in demand.
> Corps will spend money on BIG Data analysis. BI area. (Strategic)
> Maintenance Developers ...outsourced (reduce Operational spending)
> CTO..required..for strategic direction..functions as a PM
> CEO (will be former CIO.)
> Corps will spend money on BIG Data analysis. BI area. (Strategic)
> Maintenance Developers ...outsourced (reduce Operational spending)
> CTO..required..for strategic direction..functions as a PM
> CEO (will be former CIO.)
While reading Jason's article, I had this overwhelming feeling of Deja Vu. It was a very well written article and I couldn't agree more. I used to be an IT Manager at a medium sized company and now I provide that same company consulting and technical services. They reduced their IT staff and now rely heavily on consultants. The company is running on auto pilot for the time being and won't realize the error of their ways until their ERP system crashes hard. They weren't wrong for reducing their IT staff and outsourcing. However, they are wrong in the way they are outsourcing. Instead of obtaining a contract from a reputable company, they only call someone in when things break. That is where I come in. One thing I have learned as consultant, contractor or whatever name you want to give. In the SMB world, you learn to become an "everything tech". I think one of my biggest challenges while serving as an IT Manager was trying to bridge the communications gap between IT and upper management. Let's face it, we are geeks for a reason and we think and speak differently. That has been and always will be part of the problem. There are always exceptions and there will always be IT staffers, but overall, I agree with the fact the majority of jobs will be the three Jason described.
"we think and speak differently"
The IT Technologist must work with pragmatic realism: It either works or doesn't and if it doesn't you can't just talk your way out of it.
The study at the University of Toronto defines "Executive Ability" explicitly as the capability to lie effectively: Management does not deal in reality, but in effective deception.
Against this, the IT tech has no defense: He is surrounded by smarmy liars who want the Universe to comply to their wishes -- if they don't like Plank's Constant, change it; if the gravitational field isn't to their liking, change it; if the speed of light is to fast or to slow, change it -- after all, you are techs, so change the laws of the Universe to work for managment and do what you are told. The bags are packed; the management team is going to Andromeda February 12th 2012; have the starship ready by then -- and by the way, we're going to outsource half of you before October 30.
The quality triangle is fast, cheap, good: Management is convinced that you can have all three, and if you say you can't then you don't have any credibility because you're not saying what they want to hear. Spend less on IT, get more, faster and better quality. The more you shave off, the more profitability you have.
And because these well-heeled, smarmy, well-groomed Managers have the ability to lie with a belief system of convincing delusion, it's a lose-lose proposition for IT Technologists who cannot live in the fantasy make-believe world of the Management. Trying to do so will drive you insane. As it is, working in a dysfunctional environment will leave you less than competent.
The IT Technologist must work with pragmatic realism: It either works or doesn't and if it doesn't you can't just talk your way out of it.
The study at the University of Toronto defines "Executive Ability" explicitly as the capability to lie effectively: Management does not deal in reality, but in effective deception.
Against this, the IT tech has no defense: He is surrounded by smarmy liars who want the Universe to comply to their wishes -- if they don't like Plank's Constant, change it; if the gravitational field isn't to their liking, change it; if the speed of light is to fast or to slow, change it -- after all, you are techs, so change the laws of the Universe to work for managment and do what you are told. The bags are packed; the management team is going to Andromeda February 12th 2012; have the starship ready by then -- and by the way, we're going to outsource half of you before October 30.
The quality triangle is fast, cheap, good: Management is convinced that you can have all three, and if you say you can't then you don't have any credibility because you're not saying what they want to hear. Spend less on IT, get more, faster and better quality. The more you shave off, the more profitability you have.
And because these well-heeled, smarmy, well-groomed Managers have the ability to lie with a belief system of convincing delusion, it's a lose-lose proposition for IT Technologists who cannot live in the fantasy make-believe world of the Management. Trying to do so will drive you insane. As it is, working in a dysfunctional environment will leave you less than competent.
Techrepublic should have screened your article before allowing it to be posted. You probably have not worked in a mid to large sized organization and thus lack the understanding how office politics work to shape IT spending. Tsk tsk, TechRepublic.
Unfortunately this view of the future continues to propogate the idea that IT and the Business world are two different silo'd parts to a whole. I argue that people that continue to look at it in this manner are responsible for the problems we have, including poor products being delivered, misunderstandings about what can be accomplished and other disconnects. Even if we follow the logic of the article above most, I think, would agree that Business Analysts would continue to be relevant to a company. Some flaws I think in the basic premise around which this article is formed.
There are people on either side of this fictitious divide who profit from it. Let's face it if they didn't have each other to blame, well career problems...
No mention of security positions after all all systems are open to cyber crime; It seems to me to be the biggest area of potential losses for any company doing business on the Internet or with Internet access.
I believe it's purely economic. As Mr. Hiner mentioned, in 2001, IT was scaled back due to recessionary constraints - and now in 2011 - with a global financial meltdown - history is simply repeating itself. I believe IT will always be a strategic asset to any successful company - particularly as the complexity increases with the cloud based services - a complimentary technology as opposed to a outright replacement of existing on-premises infrastructure and applications.
And while I agree streamlining IT is important, I can't see it boiling down to 3 functional roles, when some of the best practices for IT service management suggest more processes and more functions to deliver service reliability and predictability - a critical value of IT.
And while I agree streamlining IT is important, I can't see it boiling down to 3 functional roles, when some of the best practices for IT service management suggest more processes and more functions to deliver service reliability and predictability - a critical value of IT.
By summer of 2001, at a time I attended the IBM Share Conference in San Francisco for IBM Mainframe Systems Programmers, IT People were suffering and particularly anyone who worked for the airlines. One poor man spent more time at the hotel bar than he did in the sessions. He worked for United Airlines and the handwriting was on the wall.
One could have argued that this was all cyclical.
And then we had 9/11/2001. HP had its own 9/11 in November when it announced it would no longer make the HP3000.
We also had such things as Enron, Global Crossing and a number of other Corporate scams, none of which amounted to much of anything in the light of sub prime lending and the subsequent devastation of our global economy as a result. These days, we just wait for the next Katrina or Texas drought or whatever flooding and earthquakes.
The point is, it isn't getting any better.
There is, for example, only one IBM Mainframe left in Pierce County in Washington State. Jobs are being outsourced offshore. While major Corporations are making record profits, they are not sharing with the workers and IT jobs are shrinking.
It's amazing that anyone thinks that prosperity is right around the corner and we're going to have a bright and glowing future of prosperity and plenty. One of the other things which has happened is really bad management from the Federal Government, to Wall Street to dysfunctional major Corporations everywhere. Robert Jackall's Moral Mazes is more pertinent today than it was when he originally wrote it two decades ago.
It isn't just that the economy is sick and IT is suffering, it's that there's also an accompanying moral bankruptcy which doesn't seem to have any kind of potential of being fixed anywhere on the horizon. It's like my website DNArefutesBI.com: "They lie to you; then they take your money".
This isn't just history repeating itself: We're rewriting history. Good luck with any predictions because there is no pattern of the past to go by.
One could have argued that this was all cyclical.
And then we had 9/11/2001. HP had its own 9/11 in November when it announced it would no longer make the HP3000.
We also had such things as Enron, Global Crossing and a number of other Corporate scams, none of which amounted to much of anything in the light of sub prime lending and the subsequent devastation of our global economy as a result. These days, we just wait for the next Katrina or Texas drought or whatever flooding and earthquakes.
The point is, it isn't getting any better.
There is, for example, only one IBM Mainframe left in Pierce County in Washington State. Jobs are being outsourced offshore. While major Corporations are making record profits, they are not sharing with the workers and IT jobs are shrinking.
It's amazing that anyone thinks that prosperity is right around the corner and we're going to have a bright and glowing future of prosperity and plenty. One of the other things which has happened is really bad management from the Federal Government, to Wall Street to dysfunctional major Corporations everywhere. Robert Jackall's Moral Mazes is more pertinent today than it was when he originally wrote it two decades ago.
It isn't just that the economy is sick and IT is suffering, it's that there's also an accompanying moral bankruptcy which doesn't seem to have any kind of potential of being fixed anywhere on the horizon. It's like my website DNArefutesBI.com: "They lie to you; then they take your money".
This isn't just history repeating itself: We're rewriting history. Good luck with any predictions because there is no pattern of the past to go by.
One hard lesson businesses and corparations have had to learn is that there is a difference between a real IT Pro and someone who claims to be. The IT market was flooded with so called IT Pros who were terrible . They have all the paper in the world but put them out there to get the work done and they have no clue what they are doing. Corparations now understand the value of a real IT Pro. The one thing i think that is becoming apparent as well is that IT pro's are being forced to concentrate in a area of expertise. Gone are the days where a good IT Pro knew everything about everything. There is just too much out there now to be able to do this. Users are more knowledgeable but software continues to grow and become more complicated and they are having a harder time keeping up. Take Outlook,it is extremely hard for the average user to learn how to use proficiently. Throw in several more apps that are as difficult and there is plenty of need for local IT Staff. I would agree that program manager and consultants positions will be more popular. They will be in charge of gathering the IT Pro's that are specialist in fields that your corporation needs. The outsource option for real network management is dead. A person can't sit at a desk in india and really understand what is going on with your network and other IT resources. You have to have a real IT Pro in house who has his or her finger on the pulse of your environment and knows what you need and can manage the implementation. To sum it it all up, Corporations are learning the value of real IT Pros and understand their value. There is going to be a demand for real IT Pros and corporations are going to be willing to pay for them. There is an old addage "You get what you pay for" a real IT Pro is invaluable to any business or corporation.
The Three jobs of IT may be what is at the site where people work - not the ONLY jobs. Even when outsourcing the hardware people, network people, software puchasing people, testers, research people ALL still exist - but just at another place.
And of course if they implement new software but NOT the way you want to use it - you are stuck - unless you have a enough money to pay the outsourced company to build it the way you want it - or bring it ALL back inhouse again.
The new healthcare requirements may swing a lot out to oursourcing even if inefficient in running the business - if a company does not have to pay for 50 people's medical benefits that cost savings per year may make them accept that it will take an extra month or six to get things done as acceptable.
And of course if they implement new software but NOT the way you want to use it - you are stuck - unless you have a enough money to pay the outsourced company to build it the way you want it - or bring it ALL back inhouse again.
The new healthcare requirements may swing a lot out to oursourcing even if inefficient in running the business - if a company does not have to pay for 50 people's medical benefits that cost savings per year may make them accept that it will take an extra month or six to get things done as acceptable.
These 3 kinds of jobs were there in 80s and I totally agree. got tired of IT departments of 50 resources - 20 being help desk not being able to solve even the first level of support, 10 - 20 business systems analyst none of them with no clue of applications they support or help to enhance, or trying to translate business needs to meaningful business system requirements. The rest of resources (10) being a mix of system administrators, network support guys, database administrators and eventually 2-3 developers.
What Jason mentioned was exactly the three (3) jobs from 80s responsible for application layer and all them able to do programming as PMs and consultants all were developers in their first years in career. Even CIOs and CTOs were PMs and developers in early years of their career.
I'm glad to see IT going back to its roots.
What Jason mentioned was exactly the three (3) jobs from 80s responsible for application layer and all them able to do programming as PMs and consultants all were developers in their first years in career. Even CIOs and CTOs were PMs and developers in early years of their career.
I'm glad to see IT going back to its roots.
As a "shade tree" self-trained tech, I can tell you that I have known people who could wallpaper their office with degrees, certs and stuff but could not figure out how to join the PC to the domain and other stuff that should be in 101 courses.
On the other hand, I have known people with lots of experience that have fossilized and blocked advancement/progressive because it would upset their comfortable environment where they were just clocking in to get to retirement.
Thus, as in all things, balance is the key. Problem is finding that balance. If all you will hire is people with experience you will never give the lads/lassies just out of school to gain that experience. If you only hire fresh grads you will have to deal with book larnin' without street creds.
The best bet is to keep your IT department salt and peppered with the old salts for continuity and experience purposes but pepper the department with some fired up fiesty grads ready to tackle any project even if it is charging Hell 5.0 with Squirt gun 101.
The infusion of the young will reinvigorate the old salts if they will catch some of the grads fire and the old salts will temper the youthful temptation to damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead.
I am currently in such a department and the old and young work very well together and both groups are enhanced and made more valuable.
On the other hand, I have known people with lots of experience that have fossilized and blocked advancement/progressive because it would upset their comfortable environment where they were just clocking in to get to retirement.
Thus, as in all things, balance is the key. Problem is finding that balance. If all you will hire is people with experience you will never give the lads/lassies just out of school to gain that experience. If you only hire fresh grads you will have to deal with book larnin' without street creds.
The best bet is to keep your IT department salt and peppered with the old salts for continuity and experience purposes but pepper the department with some fired up fiesty grads ready to tackle any project even if it is charging Hell 5.0 with Squirt gun 101.
The infusion of the young will reinvigorate the old salts if they will catch some of the grads fire and the old salts will temper the youthful temptation to damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead.
I am currently in such a department and the old and young work very well together and both groups are enhanced and made more valuable.
In my opinion the classification is wrong, I should be:
1 .- Leaders (CIO, directors, managers, consultants, coordinators, etc ...)
2 .- Programmers. (on ??????any platform, color and flavor)
3 .- Networkers (support, networking, etc ...)
In the article from my point of view, 1 and 2 are the same, what about the nets in my classification # 3?
What do you think?
1 .- Leaders (CIO, directors, managers, consultants, coordinators, etc ...)
2 .- Programmers. (on ??????any platform, color and flavor)
3 .- Networkers (support, networking, etc ...)
In the article from my point of view, 1 and 2 are the same, what about the nets in my classification # 3?
What do you think?
My dad has just moved across from Network technician to development and SEO services I agree with the shift towards virtual, these days you just buy a laptop then throw it out once it stops working, very minimal repairs or upkeep.
We've had a constant growth in demand for IT services - but they have been changing over the years.
We have a few customers that have moved all their IT services to a company that have all the hardware. Then they access "their" system over the web. This result in fewer jobs for us. Only every time they change their copiers/MFCs we have a small job to do.
We have also a lot of extra work to do with not tech savy users - that think they are. They fill the office with Apple products and expect everything to work fine. We make a fortune serving those people. They think they are high tech and will not see the limitations on their choice.
We have companies running Linux on almost all machines. Usually they have their own tech guys - and we have little or no work there.
We have some to do with smaller companies running their own MS server. They usually have no IT guy, and it one person is ill - we have a job to do.
Out growth now is in private homes. They have 5-10 PCs in a house, their own NAS and maybe a server/media server and they have added smart TVs and what not. Not everybody know how to connet everything, and that is where we come in. We also install back-up solutions and software for video editing.
A lot to do there
We have a few customers that have moved all their IT services to a company that have all the hardware. Then they access "their" system over the web. This result in fewer jobs for us. Only every time they change their copiers/MFCs we have a small job to do.
We have also a lot of extra work to do with not tech savy users - that think they are. They fill the office with Apple products and expect everything to work fine. We make a fortune serving those people. They think they are high tech and will not see the limitations on their choice.
We have companies running Linux on almost all machines. Usually they have their own tech guys - and we have little or no work there.
We have some to do with smaller companies running their own MS server. They usually have no IT guy, and it one person is ill - we have a job to do.
Out growth now is in private homes. They have 5-10 PCs in a house, their own NAS and maybe a server/media server and they have added smart TVs and what not. Not everybody know how to connet everything, and that is where we come in. We also install back-up solutions and software for video editing.
A lot to do there
I would say that list is a nice one, but is missing some very important points.
1. TI Architecture as a new profession will raise, featuring the four pillars: Infrastructure, Information, Software and Business. All these is needed as that is the force to close the TI-Business strategy gap.
2. TI will go beyond a simple operation supporter into an strategy level ally. That means we will not need only developers but technology strategists as well (and those are NOT the Project Managers)
3. Support will evolve into new figure, say a technology facilitator, a mix between educator and integrator for more people that is already in the digital era.
1. TI Architecture as a new profession will raise, featuring the four pillars: Infrastructure, Information, Software and Business. All these is needed as that is the force to close the TI-Business strategy gap.
2. TI will go beyond a simple operation supporter into an strategy level ally. That means we will not need only developers but technology strategists as well (and those are NOT the Project Managers)
3. Support will evolve into new figure, say a technology facilitator, a mix between educator and integrator for more people that is already in the digital era.
I have been in the IT field since 1998 and have always seen the day were corporations will understand the business value of an IT person. Throughout my professional IT career, I have seen a disconnect from IT personnel and other staff personnel in the arena of "Customer Service". Prior to my IT career, I was a customer service rep. Ever since entering the IT world I have always come across comments of "You are not like the typical IT guy". At first I was not clear on what this was meant to be exactly or what to think of it. Then I realized that the point was in my customer service approach and the fact that I saw the business impact their technical support concerns had. With this stated, I see your point and my interpretation is that the IT person needs to be more customer service minded and have an appreciation to the business needs to any technical support issue. This is how corporation will begin to understand our direct impact in their bottom line. And not see us as impacting their business needs equal to running into a wall. What I do not see is us not having the need to be internal, but rather "most" of our current minded professionals driving companies decision to outsource out positions. Now as for SMBs they may be better off having an external IT person from a monetary business point of view.
If we loved one and other more than hating, then the future would be an era of peace and harmony, I'm not a zealous, fanatic of Transformer films but I dislike their ideology ... that is, two sides fighting each other using the most advance and hi-tech equipment. We should teach particularly the young children of the world, the essential value of love and peace throughout all of God's creations.
Age discrimination is pretty severe in IT, companies look at older, experienced IT systems employees as a COST. ( I have learned a GREAT bit of knowledge from them myself and respect them).
IT is a COST, companies have been chasing the pipe dream of getting rid of people and causing chaos/turmoil at the same time. I left a company that was using ATTRITION as their method of making people miserable. The ironic part is now, they have a reputation of a unstable company. The amount of talented people who left is NOT replaceable and the skill sets (mostly open systems) is hard to find.
You can hire anyone out of college for low dollar amounts, the problem is knowing how ALL of the systems work together and being able to fix the broken piece of the Chinese puzzle.
I find that smaller companies admire experience as you have already been there and made the mistakes (like everyone has). However in IT experience workers are viewed with a negative light, I have learned a VAST amount of information from working with older IT people as they can save you from yourself.
Companies can wage the war of attrition on employees, however they lose in the end I do not care what you know. It takes a minimum of 2 years to understand the complex flow of a data center and even then you are STILL learning in a new environment.
IT however is not a fair place to be, it is a fast moving, cut throat, dog eat dog environment and the sad part is the management is what created this hostile environment to begin with.
IT is a COST, companies have been chasing the pipe dream of getting rid of people and causing chaos/turmoil at the same time. I left a company that was using ATTRITION as their method of making people miserable. The ironic part is now, they have a reputation of a unstable company. The amount of talented people who left is NOT replaceable and the skill sets (mostly open systems) is hard to find.
You can hire anyone out of college for low dollar amounts, the problem is knowing how ALL of the systems work together and being able to fix the broken piece of the Chinese puzzle.
I find that smaller companies admire experience as you have already been there and made the mistakes (like everyone has). However in IT experience workers are viewed with a negative light, I have learned a VAST amount of information from working with older IT people as they can save you from yourself.
Companies can wage the war of attrition on employees, however they lose in the end I do not care what you know. It takes a minimum of 2 years to understand the complex flow of a data center and even then you are STILL learning in a new environment.
IT however is not a fair place to be, it is a fast moving, cut throat, dog eat dog environment and the sad part is the management is what created this hostile environment to begin with.
The day when management stops jumping on every new ITIL invention that comes along they will be 1000000 times better off.
So what if BIG MEGA CORP's use ITIL this is IT and not every mold fits all companies.
IT needs to be managed by experienced veterans, who can push people, not put the fear into them that making a mistake is the end. I have learned the most from mistakes, they COST money but they also educate as well.
So what if BIG MEGA CORP's use ITIL this is IT and not every mold fits all companies.
IT needs to be managed by experienced veterans, who can push people, not put the fear into them that making a mistake is the end. I have learned the most from mistakes, they COST money but they also educate as well.
As tech charges forward and "gadgets" move into the business world, the inhouse techs job becomes more integrater and troubleshooter. Non-techs come out of school knowing nothing computers and networks, but need this new "do it all" application or gadget to communicate with the old CRM program. Many new techs come out of school only knowing how to use wizards. The money is in finding the middle-ware that connects the old tech to the new. I constantly get calls about connecting the DOS/Unix CRM to a new iPad or printing from a smartphone.
I've been booted from another out sourced system engineering job. On the plus side I found a part-time job cleaning and restocking toilet paper in restrooms at $10 hour. Fortunately the Dept. of Labor Trade Act. extends unemployment benefits another year.
IT department as we know it will continue to change, the two positions of defense and offense strategies will continue to define us.
Sadly, in the age of corporate attacks, digital espionage, and patent wars, we have become an army of gate and port watchers.
Sadly, in the age of corporate attacks, digital espionage, and patent wars, we have become an army of gate and port watchers.
There are many valid arguments here for keeping at least something of IT on the inside, such as a burned out drive in a server or something that requires a PHYSICAL hand. Unfortunately, WE SEE THAT!!! The Techrepublic community. Ever notice that nobody in a CTO or CFO position posts here!!! THEY only see the cost, only see the salary expense. IBM has a plan called 2015 where they are gutting the US workforce to send jobs to China and India, two countries that are really not all the friendly to this country. THEY do not see IT as an integral part of the business but only see it as a COST, A LINE ITEM that can be cut dramatically by farming IT to India where, THEY SEE, that all problems can be solved over the phone. THEY KNOW NOTHING of what we are writing about here. BUT THEY CONTROL CORPORATE IT BUDGETS and cut, cut, cut. $2 an hour on India or a day in China. No kidding. AMERICAN MANAGEMENT is blind, stupid and dumb but it is "cheaper,faster,better" in India, isn't it. RIGHT????
- Keyboard Shortcuts:
- Prev
- Next
- Toggle
