Discussion on:

10 essential competencies for IT pros

How well do the competencies on this list map to your own skills and career objectives? Share your thoughts and suggestions.

...

That IT managers and CIO's are among the ranks of IT professionals, so your point's well taken.

Many companies put somone with better "soft skills" or "business skills" over IT. Heck, one local company that is having a hard time attracting candidates is well known becuase the put an investor over IT to keep costs down. Not that they have that big of an IT department left.

Large companies have the habit of putting someone in an IT Manager role for a few months to get his or her ticket punched, then on to the next department on the "management track".

After many years in computer/IT service, I think that the abaility to think rationally and to adapt are sometimes more important than sheer technical skills. I have worked with many hot-shot tekkies (or so they thought) that only knew how to treat "symptoms". When a problem did not fit their 'playbook' they were at a loss to solve it.
We have to be technically competent, but we also have to work with people and people skills are just as important as knowing one IRQ from another.

If the goal is to get a successful IT career, this fits in the majority of the companies. If the goal is to help the business, I would talk in terms of customer satisfaction (and not internal customer but the end customer!). Each competency should be directly linked to a goal in terms of business.

While the article obliquely references security, it REALLY needs to be its own point.

Why? Too many IT folks don't understand security at the core level. They think RSA, Kerberos, and biometrics will save them. However, the reality is that they are missing the "soul" of security and don't understand the basics.

The list was meant to be broad brush, so there are many essential competencies for which there just wasn't room. One of the major limiting factors in deciding which to include was to focus on those that are applicable to anyone who makes a living as an IT professional in any capacity. Although some studies report that as much as 80% of security breaches are internal, and while I absolutely agree everyone needs to comprehend and understand the fundamentals of security, there are many jobs in which security is but one of many factors that need to be built into a high functioning system.

I believe, as I'm sure do you, that every IT professional has a duty and responsibility to provide a safe and secure computing environment to their customers, and as such I appreciate your input.

I agree that it was broad and it did do a good job...

My point was that so many IT people seem to forget (or assume) that security is a seperate piece of the pie....

Thanks for the article though...A great read!

You are (unfortunately) correct...security is one of those components of any system, like documentation, that IT professionals love to ignore. The fact that it's a critical component makes that so much more dangerous.

You are also correct that security should NOT be considered as a separate component. This goes to competencies 2 (architecture) and 3 (integration). Good security should be built into the fundamental foundations of any system, and considering there are very few systems, if any, which exist entirely autonomously the design of any system should take into consideration the potential security weaknesses of other systems with which it is to be integrated.

In my own agency, in addition to being CIO and CTO I'm also CISSO...Chief Information Systems Security Officer. That's how seriously we take this in that the function is the responsibility of the highest ranking member of the department. I'm also CPO, Chief Privacy Officer. Those two areas go hand in hand.

I may write an article in the future on security issues and I'll be incorporating your input on this. If you gained any value from this article, I'm glad and I appreciate the feedback.

I agree that Security is a criticial sub-compotency. With identity theft, social engineering hacking and terrorist incidents, it isn't just the security director that ahs to be aware of threats and counter measures, it's everyone.

Documentation is another one.

I'm always shocked at the number of large clients which have little to no documentation of the architecture, processes and procedures.

It doesn't matter how well the infrastructure or application performs, if there is no documentation for it, it's a huge risk to the business.

Otherwise great article Jeff.

You make a good point. As I said in another post, some studies indicate as much as 80% of security breaches are from internal sources, which is to say a company's own employees and trusted contractors. All the security in the world won't help if everyone doesn't take it seriously. An ongoing training and outreach program to make sure all staffers know what's expected of them can be effective. In addition, whoever's responsible for overall technology security needs to make sure senior management is aware of the risks and what's being done to mitigate them. If the top layer of the organization pays short shrift to this area, everyone else will too.

In the private sector Sarbanes-Oxley has required an enormous effort over the last few years to review internal controls and as a consequence improve the amount and quality of documentation of policies and procedures. In the public sector we have OMB directive A-123 and a process called Certification & Accreditation, which is pretty much the same thing. Smaller companies, which so far have been but are no longer exempt from these compliance requirements, are now starting to go through the same process, although Congressional guidance on just how far that sector needs to go is still forthcoming. Security and documentation should be built into all system development project plans such that budget, time, resources, and scope can be adequately assessed and assigned.

Thanks for your contribution.

What about backstabbing, hording knowledge and brown
nosing? I noticed that this is rampant in my organization. I
learned that this type of behavior may help in the short-term,
but if you're looking for longevity, it is best to jump out of your
comfort zone, keep up with the times (like the article says), and
be a team player. I'm not the best technician there, but I still
know my stuff and I've focused on being a team player rather
than defending my technical turf. Now we're facing massive IT
cuts. I'm surviving while some of the "top guns" are looking for
other work with yesterday's skills.

All of these can, for the most part, be easily stated for any type of work.

These skills should be second nature to most managers who have come up thru the ranks to management. What is a major PITA is the fact that when you look for a management job at another company, the hiring companies will look for all of these skills *AND* the necessary technical skills. They want you to be "hands-on" to cover for your techs when they are out or handle "politically sensitive" situations when a VP can't figure out why or how all of the pop-ups are killing his laptop -- cause these users "Never" do anything they are not supposed to do..... The mind set being a manager should be able to "Work Down" and know how to do everything his or her techs do. Bottom line -- focus on these skills BUT make sure you keep your tech skills very, very current as well.

I'd make a distinction here between management and supervision. The model you describe, working down and knowing the jobs of the techs, is more supervisory in nature. The person in charge has the same technical skills as the staff so he/she can step in when needed, or take on the more sensitive or complicated assignments. This is typically true of entry level management positions in which more direct supervision than management is required. It's also more prevalent among smaller companies having smaller IT staffs, in which everyone by necessity has to get some dirt under their fingernails.

As one advances up the ranks this approach actually becomes detrimental to individual and team success. The purpose of a manager is to manage, to ensure that tactical solutions are consistent with strategic imperatives. A manager who's busy with hands on work can't have his/her eye fully on the ball, and while such a manager can tap out a string of base hits it's a lot harder to put a few over the fence.

Keeping technical skill sets current is indeed a critical competency. One must balance this against where one is and wishes to be in the hierarchy. An IT professional who wants to remain hands on, someone with no interest in project or people management and wanting to stay a technologist, needs to keep up on all the tactical level detail. An IT pro who is or aspires to be a manager needs a different skill set, one that includes strategic level technology deployment and an understanding of the language of business. This is a broader competency, and as such allows one more opportunity to become adept at competency number 10, being adaptable.

My experience is that 'the IT department' with its 'IT people' is not really interested in keeping track of stakeholders and (changing) stakeholders' concerns. Therefore all solutions for the related issues arising from these (big!) aspects are tunneling down to the IT leader to cope with. In transforming organizations this is a hell of a job, especially when the IT manager cannot find help from 'its people', because they regard themselves as specialists in IT, but (ironically) are analytically skilled to be able to help on this aspect!
I think successful IT managers in changing organizations are more successful if they are able to transform the mindset of the 'IT people' and use their skills to provide solutions for their stakeholders and their concerns and therefore making the IT manager more effective managing these.

Superb article. The challenge as always is to find the time to develop these areas. While the opportunity for team building and leadership might not always be available given your situation, there is NEVER an excuse to not keep abreast of emerging and existing technologies; if you're a system administrator, try translating some of your automated tasks into another scripting language, OR learn to develop your own classes for example. If you're a Windows geek, find out what all the rave is about in the Linux world and look for a way to integrate Linux into your environment effectively.

Until recently, I'd been procrastinating...as we all do from time to time...in the areas of professional development. But I have realized a sort of personal renaissance and renewed appreciation for IT and where I want my career to lead me. Thanks for this column.

Good thoughts, but as far as ranking, I would put #7 first. Everything else that is mentioned, and even most things in IT that are not mentioned, all focus on getting results. Good plans, processes, ideas, and methods are the tools for satisfying customers, otherwise they're purely academic. Nothing wrong with academic exercises or intentions, but they don't pay the bills, put food on the table, (aside: stimulate the economy).

Nice tip, but come on.....how about doing a spell check before posting it on the world wide web? Afterall, we're suppose to be 'Pros'.