how Technical an IT manager should be ?

I used to work for a net admin. who had a fair amount of tech skills but zero people skills. he didn't know how to budget, how to delegate authority, or even praise or reprimand employees. He knew a lot about hardware, software, databases, etc. but just couldn't effectively manage the IT dept. he would have been a lot better off if during the 3 years I was there he took some mgt. courses. It equally important to be able to manage people as well as to know the technology.

I didn't say non-technical, I said, not experienced in the area they managed - but technical in other areas.

I have had little experience in programming in my life - one Fotran course twenty years ago, some Cobol work, a little Filemaker, a little access. But I have highly developed technical skills in a wide range of areas. At one point my bosses in their infinite wisdom decided to have me implement a tool for software configuration management, despite the fact I had not done any development for them. I managed the task by asking the right questions.

And as a QA/planning person now I have the respect of the dbas and programmers, because I ask thoughful, intelligent questions.

If you have a manager who consistently gets the wool pulled over their eyes, perhaps they don't have what it takes to be manager.

As for the industry moving fast thats the point. No one can stay on top of everything. Thats why they need good staff, staff who keep on top of things, share it with theircolleagues and contribute. Good managers find, hire, support and reward such staff. They should be able to immerse themselves in industry trends and understand future directions. But they don't need to know every bolt in the boiler. They do need to know that they have someone they can trust who does.

James

Don't blame me for your managers problems. I am not the cause.

Go back to the original question. I didn't say the manager didn't have to be technically inclined, I said they didn't have to be technical in the same discipline as the people they manage, and thats a big difference.

I've learned alot about troubleshooting from fixing desktops and being a dba. I have never taken any courses on networking, but having worked with networking people extensively, I've kept my ears open and learned from them. Could I then manage a networking group? Again I said in previous posts -depends on the group. If its a mature group who have established technical excellence yes. If they are technically immature, a more experienced tech with network experience would be more appropriate.

As for asking the right probing questions, I'd sure like you to meet my boss - he's got extensive development experience, and an engineering degree, a BSc, an MBA and incredible memory. He can certainly ask questions in fields he doesn't have direct experience in and adds value by giving his perspective, which is considerable.

As to the real world, I have plenty of experience in good companies and bad, small and huge. I did work my way up.
James

My 'manager' does not understand why I need to keep paced with newer technology. He can not see what it takes to keep things running. This brings many issues up, which costs IT alot of support.

A technical manager must be schooled in the discipline he is managing. I find my role as a tech manager requires answering detailed questions, suggesting avenues of research, possible solutions. In addition I must keep my staff up to date, deal withpersonnel issues and manage project schedules and estimates.
As you move up the management ladder, the requirements tend to broaden and become less detailed oriented. I do not expect the CTO or IT director to know java, but I do expect him to know what java can do and how webservers and application servers fit into the picture, etc...

Well, Yes I agree, he should definitely know the tasks that are assigned to his team... Also sometimes, he may be asked a question on how to resolve a technical issue..... It's no good if he can't help at all....

I think you make an extremely salient point here Jeff. Those who are out there complaining that we must know every facet of their job...and every facet of every job of every other individual we manage...has clearly got no experience in management, or has an axe to grind. I say this simply because of the overwhelming amount of "Hell, management is easy, just get your golf clubs and get out my way..." or "He has to be able to dive in here and do anything any of us could do..." comments I have seen here. No one can no it all...especially once you are managing a group whose reach extands past one discipline. Not only can't it be done, it shouldn't be done. Yes, managers need to know enough, and have had enough background/training to sling the lingo, know BS from real answers, and enough to research an issue for themselves (For those of you who would gleefully torpedo a manager who couldn't ferret out the facts for all the BS you threw at him...and I know you are out there. :) ).

But "doing" isn't my job anymore..."making sure it gets done, and done right, and on time , and on budget, and without the staff quitting, and while keeping the project in-scope, and, and, and...." IS.

Let's plese recall that the intent of a discussion like this is to shoare information with a wide audience and not to disagree with individuals. A simple test to keep in mind is to evaluate a post as to whether it is adding new information to the discussion or whether it is merely reiterating what is said in other posts or reacting to other posts.

It seems there are some underlying points to be made by some of the message exchanges above, but the points remain lost to at least this one reader.

I would be interested in hearing expansions on any of the ideas presented, but "I said, you said" arguments bore me.

Y'all are paranoid!

I have run a number of Support situations and I have had my fair share of projects from telephony, to databases and back again.

I manager people. I am a nerd herder by trade. I think that you need to have a level of knowledge of what your techs are doing. I did support years ago. I know what they are going through on every call. I had the guy who got up to "close the door" (as the old joke goes). But if you asked me to support our product today, beyond the basic level, I can't do it! I simply don't know the product that intimately.

On the same note my boss doesn't know the phone system either. But we share information and how it relates to my bosses needs and my staffs needs. I manage that information and its technologies.

Maybe that is why I have the title of IT Manager!

1) People who believe that a manager must be a top techie.

2) People who believe that a manager should know technical details.

3) People who believe that a manager need not know technical details but must understand the technical environment.
4) People who believe that technical understanding is nice but not stricly necessary.

5) People who believe that technical understanding is either irrelevant or undesirable.

As for extremism, I see extremism in camp 1 and 5. You probably see it in camp 1, and maybe in 2 and 3 but don't see it in 5. Of course, the perception of extremism is based on where you are. I am in camp 3, so 2 and 4 seem pretty reasonable to me.

As for egos, one of the nice things about accusing someone of being afraid of having their ego bruised is that it deflects attention from the way your own ego takes place in your opinions. Used as a pre-emptive strike, it is highly effective.

Is the strike accurate? I don't think so. A lot of people who have spoken here are speaking from experience. I've been a technical manager, under a technical manager, and under a non-technical manager. I've never been a non-technical manager, but still, 3 out of 4 is pretty good. With the technical managers I've seen a low defect rate, a very low failure rate, mid-to-high usability, and a low-to-mid turnover rate. With the non-technical managers I've seen a high defect rate, mid-to-high failure rate, mid-to-high turnover rate, and low-to-mid usability.
I know the anthropological value of cultural relativism, under which you can't judge one aspect of a culture without understanding its relation to the whole. As the non-technical manager mindset is one that I can't get into, I can't know whether such things are considered important. So, for all I know, non-technical management is more successful from a completely different set of cultural criteria.

1) People who believe that a manager must be a top techie.

2) People who believe that a manager should know technical details.

3) People who believe that a manager need not know technical details but must understand the technical environment.
4) People who believe that technical understanding is nice but not stricly necessary.

5) People who believe that technical understanding is either irrelevant or undesirable.

As for extremism, I see extremism in camp 1 and 5. You probably see it in camp 1, and maybe in 2 and 3 but don't see it in 5. Of course, the perception of extremism is based on where you are. I am in camp 3, so 2 and 4 seem pretty reasonable to me.

As for egos, one of the nice things about accusing someone of being afraid of having their ego bruised is that it deflects attention from the way your own ego takes place in your opinions. Used as a pre-emptive strike, it is highly effective.

Is the strike accurate? I don't think so. A lot of people who have spoken here are speaking from experience. I've been a technical manager, under a technical manager, and under a non-technical manager. I've never been a non-technical manager, but still, 3 out of 4 is pretty good. With the technical managers I've seen a low defect rate, a very low failure rate, mid-to-high usability, and a low-to-mid turnover rate. With the non-technical managers I've seen a high defect rate, mid-to-high failure rate, mid-to-high turnover rate, and low-to-mid usability.
I know the anthropological value of cultural relativism, under which you can't judge one aspect of a culture without understanding its relation to the whole. As the non-technical manager mindset is one that I can't get into, I can't know whether such things are considered important. So, for all I know, non-technical management is more successful from a completely different set of cultural criteria.

First of all you must realize that although they fit like hand in glove the operation of a department is separate from the business needs of the company. Both are best served by managing them individually instead of using the Swiss army knife approach to management.
The impact of management as it strictly applies to departmental and employee management, tends to be both less favorably received and least accurate, the further away management is from production. Of those most distant is where you tend to find non-IT managers as well as, managers who are the least experienced with a practical working knowledge of the department for which they manage. This happens the more the number of employees and both the number of departments and their diversity increase. An IT-manager tends to be more of a fish out of water the further away they get and that tends to impose a glass ceiling. I think that the dual management approach works best. You need someone to manage production and that person must be technical without question. This person will manage everything up to where the department must interface with other departments and company needs. Since you also need coordination outside of the department were it interfaces with other departments and company needs, you would be best served with two different managers performing the two different tasks. You still will have the possibility of an issue with the two managers butting heads however that is where the problem belongs not with management against staff. This dual approach will consist of both an operations manager and coordinating manager. The idea is that you place power in the hands of those who know what to do with it. One coordination manager could handle several operation managers.

>>James?, can a (computer literate) financial manager run the IT dept.? I surely run my own finance at home, can I run the financial dept?.<<

And when was the last time you took a survey as to how many CTO's and CIO's have finance backgrounds?

If "Management is management", then would you accept a CFO who was a good manager, with only limited finance experience?

I don't think this can be a yes or no question - it depends on the situation.

If the company needs the IT department to trim its expenses and the finance manager can do that, and he/she would have good skilled managers reporting to them, then the answer is its possible. If the company needs to implement large new systems and increase the value of IT to the organization, then the answer is probably no, unless they had extraordinarily good managers below hwo had both the experience and the vision.

I have hired from the ranks, and I have hired from outside. I have hired a help desk manager to manage desktop people - and its proven to have been a good choice. But it was the right choice for the situation, and every situation has to be assessed on its own merits.

Could you run the finance department? Well I know several successful IT people who were finance project managers for technology implementations, so I would say its not impossible. If you had worked on several implementations of finance systems, and gained a knowledge of finance, and perhaps did some work on a CA at night - maybe.

James

Saying that one has to be a great technician to be a great IT manager is like saying that someone has to be a good follower before they are a good leader. Not a requirement, but sometimes helpful. It seems to me that there a great number of techies who have been promoted from the server team to management out of convenience and they are now attempting to defend their turf. "True Management Professionals" are able to adapt to any circumstance and add value to the efforts of the organization by their intuitiveness and insight.

A small company's IT dept requires a small team of people who can multi-skill, and so ALL need to be technical (even the mgr).

At the other extreme, a big company usually requires a higher level mgr who is further removed from the tech stuff. BUT the IT Mgr MUST still have a good understanding of IT, AND be able to TRUST the direct reports with their recommendations and decisions.

OR, the answer can lie somewhere between these 2 extremes. There is no right or wrong answer. It isn't easyas it depends on the circumstances. (And I could write a whole essay on this topic.)

rbb

James, Paul, epepke, fellow Marines. Please accept my appreciation for this excellent discussion. Incredibly eye-opening. The kind of stuff that keeps our industry evolving. I only hope that we were all open-minded enough to learn something fromthis discussion.

Cheers,
Grant

Generally, I have found in management positions that I have to have high level interpretive skills. I completely disagree with those who are saying the middle is a cop-out or "Politically Correct" position.
A manager without an understanding of what their employees really do cannot interpret their departments wants and needs to the people who hold resources successfully and a technical person without management skills cannot explain their day to day activities in a way that people with resources who are non-technical understand. If you can do both of these, then you have both skills. To align oneself in one camp (Manager or Technical exclusively) can only exist, in fact, because someone else in your organization is doing this "interpreting" for you.

Miller?s response to Linn?s statement is basic argumentation. I think it is healthy for a discussion to be broken down and the assumptions behind key statements questioned. If you notice, it took Linn two replies to fall on his own sword and admitthat a manager should be technical in at least one area. And relatively proficient in that area as well.

He originally stated that a manager should be ?technical enough? without stating what that really meant. In context of the first posting, Linn wrote that if a manager could manage a staff and projects, then that manager ?doesn't have to be able to do the job themselves?. This, as Miller points out, begs the question concerning a ?competant staff (sic).? How does a manager know what a competent staff is if she/he is not an SME in the field in question. (Those who can do; those that cannot teach??) For example: As a ?technical enough? manager, I can determine that the software can perform the correct task within the given parameters, but how do I know if the software was coded well, efficiently and without conflicts with other apps? That would take a QA staff to report the bugs. And that would reflect on management of the project if the QA reported failures and conflicts within the system: wasted time and money

Miller pointed out some good inherent questions in Linn?s logic. The tone may not have been agreeable to all, but the logic in the question should have been. A competent manager should counsel Miller on toneand aggressiveness, but take that statement for it?s merits.

I agree with David K. Smith. The ultimate degree of a civil (and civilized) discussion is the court of a large monarchy, where every statement is layered in many levels of deceit, and nothing of substance is dealt with.

I get the impression thata lot of people who try to be civil are more interested in presenting a "professional" image than in finding out what works best. I am skeptical of the notion that there really are any successful IT managers who are just managers without technical knowledge, but I think some feel the need to pretend that they are in order to maintain some particular image. It's like physicians who pretend to be infallible robots: there are personal rewards for doing this, but they are not related to getting the job done.

Most people here seem to be gravitating toward a position where the need for some technical expertise is required; although there are disagreements, they seem to be quantitative.

I think that people are being more honest than they were at the beginning of the discussion, and perhaps some incivility was necessary for this to happen.

During my twenty years in telecommunications I've worked for some non-technical managers (sales oriented mostly) who created nightmare situations for the 'techies'. During the same twenty years I also witnessed 'techie' managers who created far worse situations because of their lack of managerial training and people skills. Although they're hard to find, it IS possible to find individuals whose variety of skills match the technical manager requirements. For instance, in telephony, there is no way anyone can know the software and hardware of every PBX, but since the call processing aspects of telephony (dialtone, station/switch features, etc) are the so similar and the special applications (ACD, IVR, AA, VM, etc) are so closely related, a seasoned veteran can/should have a good grasp of the technical side of the equipment. The managerial aspects of the job are quite another story. Nothing in the technical world prepares someone for the world of operating/capital budgets, white papers and executive level interaction. The verbal and written skills, so essential to the success of technical management, can make or break a manager. The ability to lead and inspire a team, set the focus and vision for a department and gain the confidence of senior management must be developed. The environment of the technical manager is a slippery slope and if an individual has aspirations to achieve such a position, that individual must not only be technically trained but have the knowledgeof the business world in combination with the people skills of the successful consultant.

These people do exist. They are just few and far between!

Mike Mitchell

It looks like you've covered everything very well.

I'd like to go one step further. If these people are few and far between, why are they few and far between?

One possibility might be that there aren't enough people who are smart enough. This may be the case, but I hope it isn't true.

Another possibility is that there are people who are smart enough, but that it is hard to get the education and experience. This is, I think, more likely. However, it merely deepens the question to another layer of "why?"

Part of it may be due to an apparent hostility between management and technical culture, which may in fact be based on the scarcity of people who can do both. Perhaps technical types do not want to learn "people skills," andperhaps managerial types do not want to sully the nobility and purity of their profession by getting their hands dirty.

Yes, the costs are extremely high.

This feeds back into another comment I made elsewhere in this thread. There's a positive feedback loop going on that can affect any rare quality. If you fit into a pigeonhole, you get to have at least one home. However, if you fit into no pigeonholes, you're a stranger anywhere. Anyone without that peculiar set of characteristics that make loneliness bearable can be naturally excused for giving themselves auto-lobotomies. (I've tried it many times, butit hasn't worked well enough, so I've given up.)

So, the rare individuals who can seamlessly blend both managerial skills and technical skills may feel compelled to choose sides. One skill has to be presented as the more defining, current, or real. I get the sense of a sort of exorcism of the self.

I recently read a book by Alan Cooper: _The Inmates are Running the Asylum_. As a former programmer (they call him the "Father of Visual Basic" [no comment]) turned usability advocate, he asserts that being a programmer is inherently incompatible with designing for usability. I think he's wrong (consider Bill Atkinson), but it certainly is a self-fulfilling prophecy, as the orthodoxy determines what skill sets are permissible.

I agree wholeheartedly with myakus. I have worked as a Technical Services Manager for quite some time and it is my experience that there are nearly always two separate departments within an IT department, being some sort of Client Services (administrative) section and a Technical Services section.

Where the manager is non technical, the administrative side of the department explodes astonishingly, technical services staff are treated as simply a resources, administrative staff are offered lead positions with no formal IT qualifications and sometimes with no qualifications whatsoever, advice given by technical services staff is not recognised by the manager as having come from that source, rather as his/her own work and IT degrees are poo-pooed as meaningless in comparison to experience or business degrees. This list of points is far from endless.

Where the manager is technical, the technical services department is resourced properly, outstanding calls are down, support staff are freed for training, qualifications are recognised and support given for the path from technical to management and the proper perspective is placed on "those" administrative procedures.

I disagree with the responses here that a person with goodmanagement skills can manage any department. This is a typical "management" answer that I wish I had a dollar for every time I've heard it. It is a highly conceited belief and reeks of "protecting the hen house". Maybe you mangement types are a little afraid of the techies treading on your turf?? :)

The IT in IT Manger stands for Information Technology does it not? Therefore it stands to reason that an IT manager should know something about IT??

Please...the comments above are not meant to insult, incite or enrage...they are simply my observations of which I am entitled to. Standard management answers to this posting will be ignored :)

FWIW, I agree with James about the skills an I.T. Manager requires. Those skills should be in Management, not (necessarily) the nitty-gritty technical details.

It's not to say that the effective I.T. manager does not have a good background in I.T.. Certainly, as James says, the I.T. manager necessarily needs to be technical. However, in all but the smallest oirganisations, the manager needs to let the staff go off and "do the doing".

The downside of having a manager who is "too techie" is that (s)he always knows better than the front-line techie how something should be done. Such a manager is just getting in the way of things being done. Eventually, all of the good staff will say "OK, if you know HOW to do my job so much better thanme, I'm outta here!" Then where do you end up?

Yes, they should be knledgeable,because when techs try to explain some thing and they look at you as if you are talking french.

We must not forget that a managers job is not to do our jobs, but to trust in our skill sets and understand our jobs while allowing us to perform them. The IT manager must have a grasp of the technology that they manage, but not to the point of doing the job that we were assigned. I used to have a manager that was not technical at all and it resulted in a lack of trust with those beneath. We could be trusted because they couldn't understand the task. I now have a manager that is on top of the technology and the job is much easier and rewarding.

8) They require an operator for best results.

:)

Should be "significantly less than light speed." Just shows you how much I know about trucks!

There is no definitive answer to how technical an IT manager needs to be. It is dependent on several factors.

1) Department size. The smaller the department, the more technical the manager needs to be and vice-versa.

2) Budget size. The more outside help you use, the less you lean on your manager's technical skills and the more you need them to be able to know whether someone is feeding them BS or reality.

3) Job functions. What level of soft skills do you need for their planned functions?

With all of that in mind, several large organizations have brought in CIO's out of their sales force. I would use caution on putting a non-IT person in charge of IT people for several reasons.
1) Lack of respect from his subordinates.
2) Infamiliarity with managing IT personnel. IT personnel are rather different from most other areas of a company.
3) Your CFO has to know GAP. S/he has to sign off on the finnancials and mispractice can land people in jail. No organization I know of has ever hired a CFO who doesn't understand accounting and doesn't have some practical time in accounting. Why would you place your information systems in the hands of someone without practical experience and the ability to accurately "sign-off" on whether technology plans are feasible and cost-justified?

So, if you are looking to hire someone, the most important part is understanding your needs and environment. Be certain the candidate is comfortable with technology, look for a successful management track record within IT and make sure they are comfortable in your corporate culture.

After almost 9 years' experience in software support, QA, product mgt, project mgt, I think it works best when you have a tech manager who is (1) soft-skills -competent, (2) has demonstrated excellent judgment AND is (3) technically-capable OR EXPERIENCED...

BUT, the more mgt s/he does, the further s/he can get from 'hands-on' over time...

AND, with the pace of tech change today, once you jump out of 'hands on,' I'd guess that within a year or so, you are NOT going to be able to DO as readily... At least, your ramp-up to DOing is going to take some time...

That's why I said soft skills, judgment and EXPERIENCED, above... at some point, you're going to have to make a decision -- stay in the DO loop or dive into mgt more so... Maybe some people are exceptional at 'ping pong,' and able to capture big pieces of both Doing and Managing = those folks, in my perception, are the REAL architects, they are relatively rare, and, therefore, expensive.

As a software "technical product mgr" and "project mgr," my success has always been based on a solid team that included a technical mgr / leader who could DO the work AND who could handle the development sub-team within the larger cross-functional team...

However, I have seen a case where a very competent techie completely lost steam in the mgt role, and ended up demoralized as a result = went back to 'hands on' full-time, loves it, may try mgt again later...

I have also seen a VERY effective tech manager who came froma 70's/early 80's programming background, but has his OO SE team and their various supports and PM rubric in top shape... He is a VERY capable dude with a tech background, but he'd be VERY hard pressed to write a solid bunch of code in today's context... doesn't choose to do so and doesn't have time...

Good tech mgrs are where you find them and, when you do find one, take good care of her/him.

Should an accountting manager know about accountting?
Should a mine manager know about minning?

Maybe not but if you need and want the best possible value for your business who would best be suited to get the job done.

Should an accountting manager know about accountting?
Should a mine manager know about minning?

Maybe not but if you need and want the best possible value for your business who would best be suited to get the job done.

(that's it, exactly)

double-sheesh

IF LEADERS ARE TO KNOW EVERYTHING THEN WE CAN ALL BE LEADERS,,, RIGHT???? WRONG!!!!!
THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO WILL NEVER BE LEADERS AND PEOPLE WHO NEVER WANT TO BE. BUT WITHOUT LEADERS WE'D SURELY FAIL AT CERTAIN THINGS.
PUT IT ALL IN PERSPECTIVE;
ANY PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES HAS NEVER KNOWN ALL THE WORK INSTRUCTIONS BUT BY-GOD MOST KNEW WHAT THEY WANTED OR NEEDED AND KNEW HOW TO INIATE, MOTIVATE AND PRESS THE ISSUE. STEP DOWN TO THE CORPORATE CEO/PRESIDENT OF A COMPANY, ITS THE SAME THING. AS YOU STEP DOWN THE LADDER THE MANAGING AND DIRECTING TASKS AND ABILITIES GO DOWN AND THE HANDS-ON SKILL LEVEL COMES UP, AS FAR AS DAY-TO-DAY ACTIVITIES IS CONCERNED. DO YOU REALLY WANT TO PRESIDENT TO BE ABLE TO FILL THE HUNDREDS OF POSITIONS BELOW HIM AND SPEND VALUABLE TIME CROSS-TRAINING. HELL NO!
DO YOU WANT THE CEO TO KNOW EVERYTHING OR TO PUT 100% TRUST AND RESPECT INTO YOUR KNOWLEDGE.THE CEO DOES WANTS HIS/HER MANAGERS AND DIRECTORS SPENDING TIME ON SAVING MONEY AND IMPROVING THE BUSINESS. IF A MANAGER OR DIRECTOR HAS ALL THE TECHNICAL KNOWLEDGE OF ALL HIS/HER EMPLOYEES PUT TOGETHER, THEN GREAT, HOWEVER, THAT MANAGER OR DIRECTOR SHOULD BE ABLE TO PUT HIS/HER TRUST IN HIS STAFF 100% AND SPEND HIS TIME ON BUSINESS GOALS AND IT ALIGNMENT AND RESEARCHING THE TOOLS, ALONG WITH HIS STAFF, THAT WILL MAKE THE COMPANY A WORLD-CLASS PROFIT MAKING MACHINE. NOW I KNOW FROM EXPERIENCE THAT IF YOU PUT, FOR EXAMPLE; A CFO WITH NO IT EXPERIENCE OVER IS/IT AND YOU DONT HAVE AN IS/IT MANAGER/DIRECTOR BELOW HIM/HER THAT HAS THE MANAGEMENT ABILITY AND EXPERIENCE IN IS/IT THEN THAT COMPANY IS IN SERIOUS TROUBLE.

NOTICE THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

A TRUE TECH-FOR-LIFE DOESN'T WANT TO BE A MANAGER AND SOME EVEN DISLIKE MGMT. PERIOD.

A TRUE TECHIE THAT ASPIRES TO BE A MANAGER THINKS THAT IF HE KNOWS THE TECH STUFF INSIDE OUT THAT THAT IS ALL HE NEEDS; EXAMPLE: A 30 YEAR OLD NT ADMINISTRATOR WHO KNOWS NT AND ITS RELATED SOFTWARE INSIDE AND OUT AND NOW HE/SHE THINKS HE/SHE SHOULD BE MANAGER AND HE WIGGLES HIS WAY INTO MGMT. WHAT HAPPNENS NOW? BE ASSURED THAT EVERYONE DOES NOT POSEES THE SKILL CALLED MANAGEMENT AND THE CIO OR CEO WILL FIND THE NEW MGR. OUT AFTER THE FIRST MEETING WHEN HE/SHE BOLDLY SAYS IN A CORPORATE MEETING "I THINK WE NEED ALL NEW NT SERVERS AND END-USER PC'S AND WE MUST RE-WIRE THE WHOLE COMPANY, THIS IS MY TOP-PRIORITY!!!" AND THE CEO SAYS OK MR. NTGOD HERE IS YOUR BUDGET FOR THE YEAR AND BY-THE-WAY WE NEED YOUR COST SAVINGS/BUSINESS PROCESS IMPROVMENT METRIX BY THE END OF THE MONTH,,, OH AND SINCE YOU KNOW IT ALL YOU CANNOT HIRE AN NTADMIN TO REPLACE YOURSELF EITHER. GOODLUCK FOLKS.

In the IT field, we are dealing with IT lingo and our tools are IT based (MS Project/ MS Access/ Visio/ LAN connections/ etc..). Unless your project is to build a river from land A to land B, you better have a foundation of technology.

I've worked with non-tech PMs found it frustrating to work with them because they did not understand the project. Their contribution came down to taking minutes and scheduling more time wasting meetings.

These PMs would also be paper-based. Everything had to be printed out for them because they were afraid to use the Notes Repository to which they would not contribute.

On top of all this, as the PMs traveled sites, they would need a "techie" each time to reconfigure their ThinkPad so that they can connect into the LAN.

The place for non-Tech PMs is as "Consultants" if the tech-PMs do not know how to do risk management, managing scope creep, etc.

Dipesh.

I RUN A SMALL IT DEPARTMENT FOR A MEDIUM SIZED, AUTOMOTIVE MFG. COMPANY, BUT WE HAVE DONE SOME BIG THINGS.
NEW ERP/MRP, NEW PAYROLL/HR, NEW GL AND NEW EMAIL, INTERNET AND DEVELOPEMENT TOOLS. OUR LATEST PROJECT WAS A NEW INTERNATIONAL WAN THAT INCLUDED, DATA, VOFR, LD AND VIDEO.

NOBODY IN MY STAFF NEW ANYTHING ABOUT THE ROUTERS OR VOFR WHEN WE STARTED, HOWEVER, WE LEARNED ALOT.
WE MET OUR DEADLINE ON A PROJECT WE HAD NEVER EXPERIENCED.
HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE? WE KEPT OPEN MINDS, READ ALOT AND WE WORKED TOGETHER VERY WELL.

I AM THE CORPORATE IT DIRECTOR AND MY STAFF KNOWS THAT I HAVE AND WILL STILL GET DOWN IN THE TRENCHES AND I DO THAT, AS I NEED TO. THEY APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT EVENTHOUGH I COULD ELECT TO DROP THE HEAT IN THEIR LAPS, I INSTEAD UNDERSTAND THAT ANY FAILURE AT ANY LEVEL IS MY FAILURE AS WELL.
IF I CANNOT HELP THEM THEN I PAY FOR TRAINING AND HELP, IF THEY STAY LATE, I STAY LATE.
IF WE WERE A LARGE DEPARTMENT THEN I WOULD HAVE TO MORPH INTO MORE OF A DIRECTING ROLE, BUT SINCE WE ARE SMALL AND CALLED ON FOR EVERYHTING IT SEEMS, I NEED TO BE AVAILIBLE AT ALL TIMES AND FOR ALL THINGS, AND I AM. I HAVE CONSISTENTLY, OVER 3 YEARS, TALLIED MORE OVERTIME THAN ALL OF MY STAFF PUT TOGETHER, THEY APPRECIATE THAT, AS LONG AS I AM HELPING AND NOT STANDING OVER THEM. PLEASE NOTE THAT WE HAVE BROUGHT A DYING/PITIFUL MIS DEPT. TO THE POINT WHERE ANY OVERTIME IS RARE, I STILL SPEND A LITTLE MORE TIME AT THE OFFICE THAN THEY DO BECUASE SOME OF MY PLANNING AND STRAGIZING IS PERFORMED AFTER THE NOISE AND FRUSTRATIONS OF THE WORKDAY.

There are really some good arguments on both sides of the issue and the specific situation you are dealing with should dictate how much technical savvy the unit's manager really needs.

An inexperienced group or a smaller group probably needs someone with more direct, technical background that can show the way and cover for the inexperience.

A larger team with mature, experienced technicians or trusted people in technical lead roles will benefit from a strong manager type (recruiting, finance, budgets, staff management, etc.) - regardless of technical savvy.

What has killed the dotcoms are inexperienced managers with technical skills leading teams of people without the true management skills. Many dotcoms were doomed becauseof their inability to develop standardized processes, hire and retain the right talent, make decisions based on business funeamentals rather than cool technology, and other critical management disciplines. The dilemna for dotcoms was their size often required the skills of both a technical savvy and a business savvy manager - a rare and expensive breed.

and everyone is responsible - both the technical staff and their managers. What you may fail to realize is that customers need to be sold on ideas so they can evaluate the merits of a solution/decision/proposal. If you are a technician with an idea, you better be able to sell to your customer - in this case your IT manager. If you can't get buy-in for your ideas, how do you know they are good ones?

If the manager doesn't understand, you are responsible for communicating to them in a wayso they do understand. This is in no way unique to relationships between staff and management in IT. Every functional and staff group has these same issues.

They also should be able to do the job so
that they are not recommending solutions to
problems based on marketing hype.

Huge Companies often have technical talent duplicating tasks becaust their leader is neither "business efficient" or "well organized". The smaller the Company the greater his/her need for "technical know-how" and the larger the company the greater his/her knowledge of the appropriate "skill" (not necessatily how to do something).

The TOP IT "guru" EVERYWHERE MUST understand "Data Modeling" and "Personnel Management" before he/she can be expected to analyze a technical problem and/or correctly apply the appropriate (long-term) resolution.

Different results are often achieved by technical and nontechnical IT managers. As
companies go chapter 11, they go there by the .COM route or the dismal failure route.
Technology is simply an implementation to an
end. The lack of vision is as big a problem
as implementing technology that reduces revenue permanently. Implementing client server technology was very important. For those companies that remained on the mainframe they were spared the implementation, maintenance, and destruction
costs of this technology. For the companies that understood that the standard for the company is income from a happy client technology became a means to an end. The person makes the job not the job makes the person. An IT manager today mustunderstand
the best concept for the company, rely on dependable information, and be able to focus this in a realistic plan. In my mind, this requires technology capabilities coupled with
management skills and corporate common sense.

The truth is that in order to be a good IT Manager he must have managerial experience, be extremely knowleadgeble in the IT field, good technical writing, and believe in working as a TEAM member when necessary.

SOCIAL SKILLS, IT SKILLS & MANAGEMENT SKILLS are essential requirements for an IT MANAGER. The ability to know how to perform multiple task in the field is much better than just being a single task person.

I agree with Mr. Linn. Managers do not necessarily need to know deep under the covers technical expertise to be a manager. They do need to understand the technology, its implications in their environment and what impact, both good and bad, it willhave to their companies. Managers need to be financially savy, understand trending, ROI, budgeting and other financial stuff. They also need to know the humanistic part of their job, career planning, how to deal with people, etc.

To be a successful manager, you need to meld the three worlds together, technical enough to know what you are talking about and present it in a way to upper management that they understand it, financially savy and have great people skills! Not an easy task.