

Run IT as a business -- why that's a train wreck waiting to happen - monkeygrinder
http://www.computerworlduk.com/management/careers-hr/my-career/how-to/index.cfm?articleid=2891

======
nhoj
"Primarily, I asked him why he didn't transition from building web apps to
instead creating a solution using cloud technology and true mobile devices
like BlackBerrys, iPods, and emerging tablets. He could offer a better
solution, at about a quarter of the cost. "

That quote made me chuckle since it just seems to be so out of context with
what the article is trying to say.

Why not new buzzword instead of old buzzword?! At only a quarter of the cost!
Seriously, if the development organisation is having problems creating CRUD-
webapps maybe switching to "emerging tablets" is not the answer..

~~~
packetwerks
> That quote made me chuckle since it just seems to be so out > of context
> with what the article is trying to say.

I too read and reread that. If you are trying to sell a new way to run IT,
maybe you shouldn't make buzzword sausage.

------
ratsbane
This reminds me of a great editorial in the Wall Street Journal in the early
'90s by the president of Cornell. He wrote about how universities aren't
businesses and about how treating them as such will have disastrous long-term
effects. He observed that there are many higher-education institutions that
have been around hundreds of years but few commercial enterprises; also how
the goals of higher education are compromised by the pursuit of shareholder
value.

I would like to find that essay again. If anyone can point to a link please
post it.

~~~
theycallmemorty
The implication, however, is that higher-education institutions that last for
hundreds of years are better for education.

Who's to say Cornell is a better 'educational institution' than Wikipedia?

Sure a degree from Cornell looks better on your resume than reading a bunch of
information on wikipedia, but that's not a measure of education.

~~~
ratsbane
"Better for education" might not mean "better for undergrads." It might mean
expanding the sum of human knowledge through pure research. That's a lofty
goal that might frequently lie at odds with the upstairs-downstairs nature of
actual grad school but enough good work comes out of large research-oriented
universities to note. Smaller universities and colleges that don't do much
research can still contribute to a community in other ways - libraries,
lectures, publications. A lot of the benefits of higher ed to society don't
come from teaching (or babysitting) undergrads. That parallels the point of
the OP - if you focus solely on the bits that make you money in the short term
you may miss out on some other good stuff.

------
TomOfTTB
In a perfect enterprise this would work. But in reality this is just a
theoretical as the solutions the author debunks.

The problem with companies is that they have departments and whether you like
it or not those departments compete with other departments for resources. That
in turn means those departments have matters that they want to keep internal
(like “we pushed a lot of next quarter’s sales onto this year to make
ourselves look better at review time”)

To make the point try this and see what reaction you get. Go up to a senior
exec. in your company and say “Hi. I’m from IT. I’m going to sit in on all of
your internal meetings, have access to all your internal numbers and pretty
much act like a part of your team. Except that I won’t be reporting to you and
will report everything you say and do to my own boss”

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying I disagree with the author. But for his
theory to work IT people need to realize they aren’t the biggest hurdle. The
bigger hurdle is to get your organization to buy into transparency. To adopt
an open culture where people act as a whole organization and not a series of
departments. Only then can IT integrate itself as the author suggests.

~~~
btilly
Your _In a perfect enterprise_ line carries the implication that no companies
are like what he described. But I've worked in multiple companies that worked
like this.

Just because your company doesn't do this doesn't mean that others don't.

As for your silly example, you're pushing enforced openness. But people, even
in the most open companies, sometimes need to be closed. However if the
company is working well then people have no problem reaching out to IT early.

Incidentally in my last job there indeed was a woman who was part of IT but
sat in on another department's internal meetings, saw figures, etc. She took
on that role after the previous project manager left. Said project manager was
from that department but was managing several IT people. Either way IT and the
other department are integrated together.

------
ajtaylor
Favorite quote: Nobody in IT should ever say, "You're my customer and my job
is to make sure you're satisfied," or ask, "What do you want me to do?"

Instead, they should say, "My job is to help you and the company succeed,"
followed by "Show me how you do things now," and "Let's figure out a better
way of getting this done."

Hear, hear! It's amazing what happens when people work together rather than
against each other.

~~~
GFischer
Ahh... I'd love to do that... but, unless you're the head of IT (and probably
not even then), it's very difficult to get other departments to see it that
way. I definitely see lots of opportunities for process improvements at my
current job, but it's not easy to push them to the decision-makers (I'm quite
low on the ladder :P )

------
lutorm
I think the problem with having people admit that it doesn't make sense to run
the IT department as a business is that it flies in the face of capitalist
ideology.

If a corporation can better succeed by having everyone work "as a team"
instead of as businesses buying and selling services, maybe society can, too?
But wait, doesn't that sound like "socialism"? ;-)

~~~
heresyforme
A corporation is a government construct, hence it is a socialist construct,
not a capitalist one. It is a direct creation of and controlled by the
government.

<a
href="[http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0411e.asp>](http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0411e.asp>);
"We should recognize that state corporatism is a form of socialism, and it is
nearly inevitable in a mixed economy that the introduction of more socialism
will cartelize industry and consolidate wealth in the hands of the few." </a>

Therefore, describing it as capitalist is misleading.

~~~
lutorm
_It is a direct creation of and controlled by the government._

Well I'm not sure I'm with you on that one. Maybe that was the original
intent, when government would revoke charters etc., but we're pretty far from
that time now.

Anyway, what is a _capitalist_ construct then?

------
edw519
This is a great article that really gets right to the heart of the problem
with enterprise IT. I started cutting and pasting great lines for my response
until I realized that were just too many of them. Read the whole thing.

This is, of course, a great situation for us hackers with consulting and
software businesses. When people in enterprises can't get what they need from
corporate IT, they turn to those who can provide it. I wonder how many web
startups originally intended to serve consumers but ended up serving more
people at work instead.

This is nothing new. PC's were originally targeted for the home until users in
large enterprises found ways to buy them with them own budgets. The same thing
is happening now with software and services.

When users have serious big dollar business problems and they're not getting
what they need internally, that opens up the opportunity for someone else to
step into the void, and I, for one, am happy to oblige.

OP also hints at the best news of all: this situation probably won't change
much until _we_ change it from the outside. Let's do it.

~~~
pavel_lishin
I came to a screeching halt when I read past the pile-up of buzzwords:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1059925>

Is there something worthwhile after that?

