This article really hit the nail on the head about what's wrong with large corporate IT. Unless your business is IT, the upper management just don't understand it, therefore it's just part of doing business.
I find the commonality are IT people who struggle with communicating technology in-plain-english to those that do not live it 24/7. If there is a logical business case to be made, then you should not have a problem getting budget approval (all things considered). That said, I've experienced IT departments looking to build a Rolls Royce infrastructure (disregarding cost-benefit) just because it looks good on paper, when in fact a Lexus-equivalent would have done just fine.
Furthermore, some IT people live in fear of their jobs becoming commoditized by self-sustaining technology so they enact extremely complex systems to bring value to their job. Upper management does not turn-over like an IT department... they remember the claims brought about by the former, and rightfully hesitant in their decision to embrace the latest and greatest kool-aid.
Certainly corporate America has it's faults, no doubt. But a majority of the time I've found the IT department to be one of the most miserable teams to work with at a non-tech company.
Well, it depends. It's not a competitive advantage for instance if your payroll goes through on time every month, it's just what's expected. It is a competitive advantage if you have say better employee retention than your rivals.
Similarly, it's not a competitive advantage if your printers are always full of paper and toner. It is a competitive advantage if you can automate things that previously required manual operation.
Comments
This article really hit the nail on the head about what's wrong with large corporate IT. Unless your business is IT, the upper management just don't understand it, therefore it's just part of doing business.
Sorry but I disagree.
I find the commonality are IT people who struggle with communicating technology in-plain-english to those that do not live it 24/7. If there is a logical business case to be made, then you should not have a problem getting budget approval (all things considered). That said, I've experienced IT departments looking to build a Rolls Royce infrastructure (disregarding cost-benefit) just because it looks good on paper, when in fact a Lexus-equivalent would have done just fine.
Furthermore, some IT people live in fear of their jobs becoming commoditized by self-sustaining technology so they enact extremely complex systems to bring value to their job. Upper management does not turn-over like an IT department... they remember the claims brought about by the former, and rightfully hesitant in their decision to embrace the latest and greatest kool-aid.
Certainly corporate America has it's faults, no doubt. But a majority of the time I've found the IT department to be one of the most miserable teams to work with at a non-tech company.
What exactly should IT be to a non-IT business? Why should it get any better treatment than Finance or HR?
Well, it depends. It's not a competitive advantage for instance if your payroll goes through on time every month, it's just what's expected. It is a competitive advantage if you have say better employee retention than your rivals.
Similarly, it's not a competitive advantage if your printers are always full of paper and toner. It is a competitive advantage if you can automate things that previously required manual operation.
I think the assertion was not that they should get better treatment, but that they should get equal treatment. I may have misinterpreted, of course.
I was replying though to the poster, not so much the article, specifically as he stated that they are "just a part of the business".
I'm not sure what else they should be, exactly.