Why "Running IT As a Business" Is a Bad Idea 364
snydeq sends along a provocative piece from Infoworld, arguing that the conventional wisdom on how IT should be run is all wrong. "Bob Lewis dispels the familiar litany that 'IT should be run as a business,' instead offering insights into what he is calling a 'guerilla movement' to reject conventional 'IT wisdom' and industry punditry in favor of what experience tells you will work in real organizations. 'When IT is a business, selling to its "internal customers," its principal product is software that "meets requirements." This all but ensures a less-than-optimal solution, lack of business ownership, and poor acceptance of the results,' Lewis writes. 'The alternatives begin with a radically different model of the relationship between IT and the rest of the business — that IT must be integrated into the heart of the enterprise, and everyone in IT must collaborate as a peer with those in the business who need what they do.' To do otherwise is a sure sign of numbered days for IT, according to Lewis. After all, the standard 'run IT as a business' model had its origins in the IT outsourcing industry, 'which has a vested interest in encouraging internal IT to eliminate everything that makes it more attractive than outside service providers.'"
Re:He is correct (Score:3, Interesting)
I agree. IT people should be more in tune with how the business works as well. This is where industry software and hardware often fall apart.
They have one of two things:
1. IT person creating business applications and hardware. They are technically superior, but miss the goals of the business partially, or entirely. Because of this, the business cannot run optimally.
2. A Business person creating business applications and hardware. They are technically inferior...sometimes so much to the point of not working half the time, but the ideas, and the process fit the business model.
Having IT people within the business that can identify what the user is trying to do, and how to do it, can help the IT person come up with better ideas of how to do it. When a user asks to fix a problem, don't just fix it, perhaps there is a better way of doing what they want.
Reminds me of a time when I was called in to fix some scanners and printers. After fixing them, they proceded to print a document, then scan it in, just to email it to a vendor. I politely showed them that CutePDF prints PDFs like a printer, and they can email it, saving a few steps and a lot of time. Now I try to engage the users in asking them what they want to accomplish.
Selling to customers (Score:3, Interesting)
Here is the problem with most businesses, is that often the lowest paid employees handle customer service. Should IT departments focus more on good customer service, even if their "customers" are fellow employees in the company? Certainly. But this is a failing of all businesses.
Focusing on customer service may in fact entail paying more to hire better employees, and spending cash on training. How many businesses are doing this?
Sorry, this will never work.... (Score:4, Interesting)
This concept will only work in an 'enlightened' company, ie one that IS IT. In a company that sells things or services, it's all based on how many beans you can count. If you have this completely integrated IT organization, how does the company keep the IT budget under control? Unless you segregate the work into it's own silo, and then yell it like those Burger King "Angry Whopper Onions", how will costs go down.
No one sees IT as a partner. We're not even a business unit in a company. We're a collection of desklamps and staplers. I've seen management boggled by the fact that a Windows SA doesn't know anything about tuning an Oracle database. "But you're IT!" I've seen very skilled people moved over into jobs they are not trained or qualified for, and then eventually let go because they didn't have the skills for the job.
I haven't seen many companies that don't down right object to the fact they have to pay for IT. They don't blink at ordering 1000 new business cards for all the sales people, but ask for a $50 piece of software and you might as well be Oliver asking for more pourage.
Outsourcing has just made it easier for them to do this. How are you going to have a strategic partner doing IT, when the IT person you are dealing with is loyal only to the contract you've signed with them and really could care less if the company is growing or not, as long as they get paid.
Yes, I'm bitter. I'd love to see the fantasy land where IT is cherished. Especially outside of an IT company. I haven't seen it.
The blind spots. (Score:3, Interesting)
IT is still young. And we have an extremely muddled labor pool that is mixed with young geniuses and out-of-date veterans, as well as idiot young guns and some older people who *really* know what they are doing.
The problem with this situation is that from everyone's own perspective, it becomes extremely difficult for everyone else to make the right decision.
A novice non-IT business is the perfect target for a one-stop shop type of IT outsourcing company. They will never truly understand what you need, teach you anything, or explain exactly what you are paying for. You will get propriety solutions and pay a heavy margin for maintenance. Yes, they will meet requirements, but this is far from ideal.
Another pitfall is hiring the true techie to *manage* an IT department or an IT solution. There is a HUUUGE difference between someone who excels at technical knowhow and accuracy, and someone who sees the whole picture, can work with people, and can make compromises when weighing non-technical priorities.
The best scenario for any company is to find a savvy insider early and hire them. This person might not be able to do everything themselves, but they will know good from bad. They will also be close to management and will be pragmatic about implementing the needs of the company. Give this person sufficient resources, and you are good to go. Of course, whether or not you hired such a person, you may never know. If you actually have such a person *in* management, then you are ahead of the curve.
One thing is for certain though. New businesses that embrace IT will have a distinct edge. If you work at a fairly young company that doesn't care about their web page, or is losing business to competitors that do, I would get ready to jump ship. Seriously, IT can make or break even a restaurant (eg. SEO and yelp management).
Re:He is correct (Score:4, Interesting)
On the other hand, how many users have I had where I go to their machine and they say they are having a "problem" connecting to the web, and they open up an IE window with 5 or more toolbars popping up?
How many users have I had that installed Weatherbug, or some other little widget, and then complained a couple weeks later when their machine was overrun by various spyware/scareware apps?
CutePDF, for instance, comes bundled with ASS ("Ask") TOOLBAR. Pain in the ass to remove. Nuisance in terms of security. If you don't know what you're doing when you install it, that crap gets dumped in along with it, then starts opening you up and phoning home as well.
"If it sounds too good to be true..."
Yeah. It's like that. Get yourself into a large enterprise and there are reasons to be cautious. Hell, there are reasons to be cautious at home on a 1-machine network.
Driving An Airplane (Score:3, Interesting)
Running IT as a business is like driving an airplane:
It seems like a logical extension of known abilities.
In the situation, if you try a few driving techniques, they'll probably work out fairly well.
But the first time you try something that seems simple but works very differently, say try to turn left by turning the 'steering' wheel to the left, you're going to be sorry.
Making parallels between IT and business is what business people do when confronted with having to run IT based on their business experience rather than learning how to do it right. They are rationalizing using the tools they already have, and protecting their ego by trying to make the rest of the model fit them. When they try to turn left and end up pranging*, they can blame the IT department for not falling into line with the business model. They can use that excuse when interviewing for their next position and get the sympathy of all the other business people who commiserate with colleagues forced to work with the IT people.
Do your business-based IT manager a favor. Soothe his ego by telling him he drives like Mario Andretti. Then brief him on the basic differences between driving the track at Indy, and moving in 3 dimensions using pitch, yaw and roll, and how if he tries to take the first turn the way he used to, he's going to get a valuable lesson in roll, as well as in pranging. Then take him out for a few touch-and-goes and let him hold the stick for a bit on the level. Then sign him up for beginner's ground school, which would be learning to be a help desk droid. If you're stuck with him, you might just try to get him to learn to be part of the department rather than part of the problem.
And if he refuses? Fuck it, strap him in and let him solo. It won't take long. There's lots of these guys that the big kids upstairs want sent your way, for various reasons, and 'making IT work' may be the mantra but it's not always the reason.
Pranging, from prang v. (Brit.): To land an airplane nose first, usually at high speed, often under power, almost certainly by someone with no previous experience landing an airplane in that fashion. The lucky tend to learn to land in other ways after this, the smart learn to before this, the rest never get a second chance.
Re:Business School Ideology (Score:3, Interesting)
Under the ideology of business school, this person's management skills should have been directly transferrable between many different fields. The reality on the ground was quite different
Managing people is directly transferrable between many different fields.
Managing business processes and operations is almost always industry (if not company) specific.
Re:He is correct (Score:4, Interesting)
And I get paid a little more.
Re:Business School Ideology (Score:3, Interesting)
He lacked both detailed knowledge of production methods, and had a poor understanding of scientific principles. Under the ideology of business school, this person's management skills should have been directly transferrable between many different fields. The reality on the ground was quite different
I think this really gets at the point of the article, and it seems to me like a lot of people are missing it. The point is that IT often isn't a service that can be offered uniformly between different businesses in different industries. At the level of a helpdesk tech running around servicing desktop computers, yes, he can probably switch from one industry to another without too much extra learning. However, when you get into IT management, you can't just know IT stuff an operate independently from the rest of the company.
Part of the problem is with treating IT as an independent business servicing your business (or actually outsourcing) is that the non-IT part of the business often doesn't know what it really wants from IT. In short, if they knew enough about IT to know what to ask for, then they wouldn't need the IT department.
If you're running a business and aren't much of a computer expert, then you don't necessarily know what computers can do for your business. You don't know what parts of your business processes can be controlled and audited automatically by computers, and which ones can't. You need the IT people to learn your business and be part of it so that they understand the ins and outs of your process, and then they can tell you how to best use computers to maximize productivity.
I think that's the message the article is trying to put out. The article blames companies that have pushed outsourcing as a solution, since they have something to gain from convincing people that IT should operate independently. There may be some truth to that, but I've seen a different culprit. I think part of the problem is that the IT department is sometimes too quick to take the attitude of, "I just want to fix your computer and ignore all that business stuff," while the MBAs think, "Those IT guys are so wrapped up in their computers that they can't be trusted with business decisions."
Re:He is correct (Score:3, Interesting)
Good for you. I recently left a large enterprise after 20+ years that had gone from being a fantastic creative place to a loathsome hole governed by policy nazis. Where I work now is still large but truly empowered and I no longer hate going into work each day. I grieve for my former co-workers who are managed by MBA's who think that aligning with the business will move them upstairs. It hasn't happened to anyone yet but they still hold on to their deluded dream.
Re:Business School Ideology (Score:5, Interesting)
I am not saying that the skills learned in business school are useless. Only that claims that management is a completely transferrable skill independent of the specifics of the operations of any type of business are overblown.
I should also specify something more about the particular food plant that I am familiar with. The previous manager had worked his way up from the shop floor. He new the ins and outs of food manufacturing. He was familiar with how much maintenance was necessary on the machines, how much cleaning was necessary, how hard he could push the machinery and the workers. He was fair minded but firm. And when he ran the plant, operations ran smoothly and the company made lots of money. The plant gained a reputation for reliability and quality. But he didn't have an MBA, and so he was pushed out by upper management types with MBA's.
Fast forward to the new guy, an MBA manager who previously ran a train plant. He would sit up in his office staring at graphs. His method of management was basically to control money flows. He would cut money from sanitation, from quality control, from food safety testing. He would push the system to its limits, and several times the system broke, hurting the reputation of the company. To top it off, the company lost more money under his watch.
The business schools, to a certain extent, teach managers to cut themselves off from the details of operations, to abstract the operations of a company to a certain number of parameters. I am arguing that this is not a good methodology, and will not usually lead to an agile and innovative company.