It's official: Your IT department doesn't cope well with change
Perhaps it should come as a shock to no one, but a Gartner survey released Wednesday makes it pretty clear that people aren't thrilled with how their IT departments handle change.
The survey, released as an early teaser for Gartner's Web Innovation Summit and Gartner Portals, Content, and Collaboration Summit (that's a mouthful!) in September, says 30 percent of users are unhappy with the slow rate of IT change at their companies. That number is expected to climb to 50 percent by 2013.
In other words, if someone wants to use a Firefox browser or noodle with that free Google application, please, please Mr. IT person, let them use it and don't give them the "Well, you're on your own when it fails you!" lecture. (This in no way should reflect on CNET's outstanding IT department, of course, which has embraced Firefox. By the way, I'll really need help today since that VPN software I heroically installed with little aid is making my laptop crash every two hours.)
In March, Gartner surveyed the proverbial IT pros at 360 companies to get an understanding of "what workplace technologies (including social software and new communication and collaboration tools) they were investing in and why" in order to reach the conclusions.
There are obvious culprits for the problem: Understandably, IT departments don't want to be stuck supporting half-baked software, and aren't exactly eager to learn an endless array of downloadable tools. Also, many young users are more savvy about social Web tools than the IT people who are trying to support them, which explains why that dissatisfaction number is expected to go up in the next few years.
Gartner has a few helpful suggestions: Companies should reconsider uniform technology deployments. Instead, they should seed new technologies with cutting-edge users who are more than willing to experiment. But at the same time, they shouldn't ignore the laggards, who just want their computers to work without a fuss. The survey found that one in five users still think the rate of tech adoption is too fast, rather than too slow.
Now about that VPN software: I swear, it's corporate-approved, and there's just no way it could be clashing with some non-approved software I've downloaded. Really, I swear. I'm stumped.
Jim Kerstetter has been writing about the high-tech industry for more than 13 years, as a senior editor at PC Week, a Silicon Valley correspondent at BusinessWeek, and now an executive editor at CNET News. He moved back to Boston because he missed the Red Sox. E-mail Jim. 
I hope this article was written 'tongue in cheek'. Browser updates/changes, web tools, social networking? Management, with assistance from IT, makes decisions regarding what software is required to run our business. We prefer our workers to work, not experiment with the latest/greatest. When we have to support software that is not vital to our business processes, it takes time away from the thing we're supposed to be doing: supporting hardware and software that runs our company most profitably. If users want to play, they can do it at home & not on my company's dime; I'm here to pick up a paycheck every two weeks and, in my opinion, when they're not working they're taking money out my pocket.
The only purpose of IT is to ensure that the corporation has the technology resources to be profitable, not to keep Joe Hippie user happy with its trinkets. Corporate IT is supposed to move slow to change, because most of the time it's supporting legacy applications that are still performing its function and bringing the moolah.
There are social tools that are applicable to an organization, but they're not exactly new being that collaborative tools have been around since the 80's . They just have morphed into web enabled applications.
Wiki's and collaborative development tools would be on the list of applications that may have its use within a company for a select group of users. However, access to My Space and downloading Spaz to tweet are not. Like Orphu says, those are better to be used at home and not on company time.
Many organizations have a technology group that explores technologies and they are usually shared with a select group of savvy users, but must be done in a controlled manner.
I personally use many open source application during the course of my job which are beyond of what is provided by a company. But, after 20 as a computer engineer years working on different platforms. I'm pretty sure I can get my way around those. :).
On the issue of supporting firefox. Well, how much can your IT department can do when Sharepoint screws up rendering? Nothing!!! Cross-browser compatability is a night-mare and is productivity killer. Luckily, many solutions have emerged in past few years, but it is still an issue.
Finally, IT departments are not be viewed as "Software Janitors" even though effectively, that is what most of the time is wasted on, cleaning other peoples **IT.
Additionally, the users need to realize that they DO NOT own the computer that they are using. The computer and the network is owned by the company which maybe subject to oversight and regulations, for which they need to CYA. Also, it is the IT department's job to ensure access and continuity of the systems in the company, which is impossible to do when you have a subset of users that decide to use a new software package or Web app that overlaps on functionality that an in house system provides, that the rest of the company uses.
-Justin
oddjobsintech.com
Also, I don't see what is wrong with the comment that "Well, you're on your own when it fails you!" especially when the folks doing the survey/article reflect the fact that IT does not have resources to support all the half baked goods out there.
I do agree most it departments out there don't treat power users the same as people behind the curve; some flexibility is appreciated here.
Also, I don't see what is wrong with the comment that "Well, you're on your own when it fails you!" especially when the folks doing the survey/article reflect the fact that IT does not have resources to support all the half baked goods out there.
I do agree most it departments out there don't treat power users the same as people behind the curve; some flexibility is appreciated here.
My manager asked me to test it out, install it and write up some documentation. Everything worked as it was supposed to, and I was in the process of unplugging the hardware from my system. As soon as I disconnected it, the power failed in the building. Better still the generator failed as well.
My manager was looking at me as I started to pull the plugs on the CTO's toy when all this happened. His response was "Well, no way is THAT thing touching MY network!" :D
I've been a network administrator for 8 years in a corporate environment. Anyone will to put Firefox on their PC's in a Windows environment obviosly has time to kill. Why introduce cross browser problems (because you can't unistall IE). What do you risk is obvoisly not reward, what is the reward anyway? The risk, uh having to path 2 browsers fun, and thats just the start.
In general smart IT admins are slow to intoduce new software because they know time is money, so if user wants to mess around with software on his computer then he'lll be out of a job. For 2 reasons, he's wating his time and introduciong possible security risks. All new software that is introduced in a corp network needs to be tested, also what about the costs? Oh yeaj those upgrades cost money, you should see the crasy quotes I've gotten from software vendors.
In short you IT administrator is trying to fix things not break them, or he should be trust me I have worked with plenty of IT guys that want to put the latest and greates on corp PC's because its cool. In these cases the busuness losses with downtime. These "Bad" IT admins ussually have never been resposible for a network and sem to think everything "just works". They didn't ever have to struggle with early versions of 98/NT/2000 and UNIX that didn't work well.
I say often, because there are some visionary types who actually do want to serve the real needs of their employers. These are the types who like to take classes. They're the types that just don't swallow ever lame technology that comes out of Redmond as the default best thing since sliced cheese that Ballmer and company foist on the world.
If they REALLY cared about security they wouldn't use Windows. Desktop or server. If they REALLY cared about productivity they would listen to professionals who know their own jobs better than the IT guy does. And they would install the software those professionals recommend, regardless of whether it's blessed by Microsoft or not. They would not install software like Sharepoint that is obviously designed more to enrich Microsoft more than it is to make people productive.
The bottom line is that nobody wants to work for less than what they deserve. So people minimize their own efforts to do their jobs. In that "business" climate, it's expected that IT departments are not going to serve their constituents if it conflicts with their own self interest which is to expend the least amount of energy possible to avoid being fired or laid off.
Most IT personnel who have a clue generally don't last as IT works they become developers and software engineers.
There's almost always a specific formula for each network or department. Imo, keeping the formula (as long as it's successful and productive) is worth more to a company than changing for the sake of changing.
In almost all cases, it become more of a preference battle, than an actual productive advantage. So IT fights with those that don't PREFER certain applications, in favor of "what they're used to".
Networks, servers and workstations break when you CHANGE something. They also become infinitely complex when you stray from a working standard. It's more costly and more likely to break if I have to support Opera, FF and IE. Blackberry or Windows Mobile. Or WIndows Linux AND Mac, just to accommodate a user's preference.
IT may fight change, but it's for all the right reasons. Users want change (in some cases) because they want to be "cool" or wants to keep up with the Jones'. As long as the business processes are smooth, there's no reason to fix something that's not broken.
One of the biggest hurdles I've run across over the last 12 years is introducing new software, the latest joy has been Vista and Office 2007. We make the change, but I can assure, there wasn't one employee happy about it. While Office 2007 and Vista have marked productivity improvement, the training and encouragement was lost of just about everyone.
Trust me, it's the user's that can't handle change. Most because they don't understand why some things need change and why others should be kept as they are.
Nearly as bad as those that think they should be allowed to dick around with the computers their companies have bought for them.
How many network administrators come in and tell you how to do your job, or demand that you let them do it instead? **** I know how to cash a cheque, I should be in charge of paying myself, not have some idiot with a calculator make me wait for a particular day to get paid. And when I want a 50% pay rise, those payroll nerds don't do a thing to help me.
Heck I've been using a word processor for years, I should be allowed to alter this article in any way I want, because I'm a power reader.
But no, we have to put up with retarded comments like "Most IT personnel who have a clue generally don't last as IT works they become developers and software engineers" as if the two jobs had any relation to each other.
Yeah, and mechanics with any kind of ability become pilots and Fed Ex delivery men.
Way to insult both professions in one go with the typical ranting of the ignorant.
So what I want to know is why anyone thinks it's okay to use a computer for something other than the jobs they're supposed to be doing, why they think it's acceptable to put their fellow employees personal information at risk by having administrative rights to their computers - because if you really knew what the heck you were talking about, you'd understand that allowing you to do what you want means opening up a large whole in the network we spend every day guarding from intrusion.
Make sense? No, I didn't think so. So then why would you advocate users putting untested, unsupported software/hardware on their computers and expect IT to support it?
If that makes IT slow to adopt then GREAT! IT will be the most productive, and so will the company!
In response to ajbright, yes every IT person I have ever met wanted to be a software engineer or developer and worked in IT because that was the only job they could find. It is actually pretty funny our IT department tries to tell our software engineering staff what tools they can use, but the whole IT staff is trying to get into software engineering (which comes with a 30%-50% pay raise) only the best IT people ever make it.
You might as well say I wish I was a basket ball player, because they earn lots of money.
Software engineering requires putting up with even worse hours than even network administrators have, and its dry and very boring. The qualifications bare no relation whatsoever to those needed to look after Cisco gear, or virtual servers, or network appliances, or whatever else a large network requires.
And the big paying jobs you are talking about are very few and far between these days. They require a level of previous experience that no network administrator will have, because their knowledge and experience will be entirely geared towards their work. This is especially true if they're any good at their jobs, they simply wouldn't have the time to keep up with new development software.
You can't be a jack of all trades these days, because the systems involved are on a level of complexity not even dreamed of 20 years ago when this was the case.
20 years ago, all IT staff came from one of two backgrounds. Self taught on 8-bit / 16 bit microcomputers, or via university. These people were all programmers to some degree, and therefore businesses often put them in charge of all things computer.
It wasn't until the 90s and the advent of certification from people like Novell, that real qualifications for networking came along.
These days the two fields of expertise are so far removed from each other, you'd have to spend literally all your time learning to keep up with both, and none on your actual work.
The people you're talking about are not in my opinion all that great at their jobs. They're tinkerers, and want to move to where the grass is greener.
But these high-paying development jobs aren't going to be given to anyone that doesn't come with years of prior experience, and not just any experience, but that in the programming languages relevant to their business.
An SQL database programmer is not going to get a job at Sony developing games. An EA games coder is not going to get a job at IBM writing deduplication code. An engineer that develops embedded code for cars, refrigerators, tvs, dvd players, traffic light systems, whatever - isn't going to get a job developing the next version of Windows. At least not at the top, where the big money is.
Now the bottom feeder jobs, those paying $15 / hr and on the same pay scale as the guy answering the phone at tech support. Those are in plentiful supply.
Of if you choose, move to India or China and earn $10 / hour doing the work that used to earn your $100 / hr.
- by rightmacatcha July 11, 2008 5:38 AM PDT
- How about you guys blaming IT try to get to know your co-workers better? At least before you start accusing them of not caring. Or at least before your whining starts making outsourcing their jobs more likely. IT supports your business. IT supports your wants and wishes balanced against the rest of the business needs. Most early systems administrators from the 1990s will remember when terminals were replaced by Windows systems. More secure was replaced by something "nicer on the eyes". As systems change at home, more changes are going to occur within the workplace. As long as XP (wow, is it 8 years on *that* OS as well?) continues to thrive in the home, nobody is going to feel Vista is going to be better for the work environment. Stop assuming the decision is ITs to make. Your departments also have to fund the changes they need to support their processes and policies. If they prioritize supporting new things, I'm sure IT will be right behind them making sure it happens. This is not "us" versus "them". It is a clear case of misunderstanding who makes the decisions on what to support. Stop trying to make IT out to be slow and cumbersome and unwilling. Try to make friends with the folks who help keep your Sales or Accounting or Marketing departments going and try to explain in more detail in e-mail or power-point or whatever. IT folks are good at asking questions. They like clear answers to "Why?". They may not have the figures to provide you why your suggestion is going to be hard to implement, but at least if you have some allies within the department who understand what you need to do, you can both help affect a change.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(24 Comments)