All Posts in Policies and Procedures

|In: Leadership|Last Updated:

I’m sitting in our cottage in the Wisconsin woods. My laptop computer is working perfectly, unlike the pipe to the septic tank, which froze in the 15-below-zero cold. Is this juxtaposition of working and failed technologies irony, I wonder?

Speaking of technology that sometimes fails, I continue to digest reader comments about my proposed policy of “Productive Flexibility” which allows end-user software installation for business purposes with manager approval.

One comment came from a client and friend — a CIO whose opinion I respect. “You got that one wrong, Bob,” he told me, describing a current project for which total lockdown is the plan. It’s the best decision for his circumstance, as I agreed after he’d described his situation.

Which brings me to James Reaney, a reader who found himself agreeing with me, at least partially, even though he describes himself as, “… an individualist with VPS-leaning tendencies when I wear my IT manager hat.” Mr. Reaney challenged me to take the other side of this issue, instead writing from the point of view of a poor, beleaguered PC support manager.

Hmmm. Okay, I’m managing PC support again. (It’s been awhile — the last time I held this job my team supported Windows 3.1 and Netware 4.1.) I have a limited budget and staff. We’re keeping our heads above water, but only because we’ve standardized the PC build and enforce that build through total lockdown. Will I really take my own advice and allow end-user software installations?

Wattayou, nuts? Stick my neck out for an IT budget increase that will benefit someone else’s cost center at the expense of my own? Not a chance. That would be political suicide.

Here’s what I would do: Meet with every budget manager in the company to discuss the costs and benefits of a Productive Flexibility policy. I’ll put it into practice for every manager willing to support it. My department will track help desk calls to determine which workgroups are asking for the most additional support as a result of the new approach. Those driving the need for more staffing will either support my request for additional headcount or roll back the software packages that drive my department’s workload the most.

What about those cost center managers who won’t commit? If they won’t sign up to the business benefit, to heck with them.

Lock ’em down!

Comments

|In: Industry Commentary|Last Updated:

“We can’t just let users install anything they want!” This, the mission statement of the Value Prevention Society (VPS), has, in a decade, evolved from controversial policy to unquestioned postulate.

The history of the personal computer belies it. PCs succeeded because they freed end-users from the constraints imposed by centralized IT, letting them select, install, and make innovative use of whatever capabilities they could program themselves or acquire through the purchase of inexpensive shrink-wrapped software.

“Nice theory, but,” I can hear VPS members respond, “supporting uncontrolled desktops would blow our IT budget.”

This strawman argument misses the point perfectly. VPS members live in a binary world — the only alternatives they recognize are complete lockdown and total free-for-all. The real world is more interesting. So in the interest of offering solutions instead of criticism, here are some elements of a more balanced desktop support policy:

  • Establish multiple levels of supported software. The stuff you install, support, and pay for out of the IT budget right now is one level — fully supported. Next comes software IT has tested and found reliable, but doesn’t pay for or install. Call it endorsed. Third is software IT hasn’t tested, but is well-known, comes from a reliable vendor, or otherwise is deserving of some trust. Call it acceptable. And finally, there’s that other stuff. Call it disallowed.
  • Establish multiple levels of support. Problems with fully supported software are first in queue. Next come problems with endorsed software. Problems with software rated acceptable rate the lowest priority, with no guarantees beyond restoration to a standard image.
  • Require management approval. As Ronald Reagan was fond of saying, “Trust but verify.” Trusting employees doesn’t mean trusting them blindly, so if an employee wants to install (for example) a personal information manager (PIM) other than the company standard, his/her manager must approve the purchase … and, of course, the PIM must rate “acceptable” or above.
  • When integration is vital, company standards rule. If you have no CRM software in place, for example, sales representatives should be able to buy and install whatever contact manager they want. If you have implemented a serious CRM suite that includes sales force automation, the standard overrides personal preferences.

What’s that you say? It’s easier to just lock ’em down?

Of course it’s easier. That’s often the nature of a bad decision.

Comments