All Posts in Policies and Procedures

|In: Industry Commentary|Last Updated:

In 1980, a 3278 green-screen terminal cost (as I recall) about $6,000, not including the mainframe it attached to.

Along came the PC. It cost half that, and was self-sufficient.

IT tried to keep them out. They put too much power in the hands of ignorant users and you couldn’t do serious computing on them anyway. Yes, the IT authorities made both arguments, simultaneously, and didn’t even blush.

PCs leaked in despite IT’s opinion. Distributed computing leaked in too. The economics made them unavoidable. Various pundits claim otherwise, but they are comparing the costs of PCs and distributed computing with the competition-deflated costs of mainframe computing, not the pre-PC high-margin early-1980s price tag.

Fast-forward to now. You can buy a 150 gigabyte drive for less than $100. For another hundred bucks you can buy a USB external disk to back it up.

For 150 backed-up gigabytes, IT would charge $1,500 per year.

From my backup drive I can restore any file in five minutes. IT would take more than a day. Self-service? Forget it.

In 1980, IT completely locked down the 3278 terminal, by definition. IT now locks down the PC, not by definition but by choice. Meanwhile, at home, people install whatever they please, and in spite of what the doomsayers tell you, few run into insurmountable problems. Those who do sheepishly ask their teen-aged children to help them. Their teenagers give them the same eyeball rolls they get from the Help Desk staff at work, but much better service.

Nothing in this comparison is fair. Fair has nothing to do with it. My PC at home beckons, saying “Yes, you can do that too.” My PC at work says, “No you can’t.” Your end-users experience that contrast every working day.

Preaching to them that “it’s a business computer, to be used only for business purposes,” isn’t persuasive, because they know something we in IT often ignore: It isn’t really a computer.

Oh, technically that’s what it is, but technically doesn’t matter. The PC is a portal to a universe of possibilities. While the word “cyberspace” has fallen out of use, the idea of cyberspace is alive, well, and built into the perception of everyone who looks at a screen while manipulating a keyboard and mouse.

It might be time … past time … for IT to look at its job in a new way.

Try this on for size: Imagine you ran IT as if it embraced this PC-as-portal perspective. As if IT’s job was to manage one corner of that universe of possibilities.

What would you do differently?

Let’s take it a step further. Let’s look, not just at the PC but about work as a whole from the employee’s point of view. That shouldn’t be too hard. We in IT are employees too, when we aren’t busy being IT professionals.

From the employee’s point of view the job is, in addition to being a way to earn a living, a place for: social interaction; developing the self-esteem that comes from creating value and achieving important things; structuring time and staying occupied; exercising their brains and keeping them from becoming stale.

Few employees draw a hard boundary around their work life, keeping it psychologically distinct and independent of the rest of their life. They are the same people in the office as out of the office.

We in IT are stuck in a 1950s industrial view of the workplace. Much of the workforce is post-industrial in perspective. They don’t “achieve work/life balance.” They just live their lives, wherever they happen to be at the moment — sometimes in the office, sometimes out of it.

In the office they research reports, create presentations, check their investment portfolios, answer business e-mail, answer personal e-mail, make business phone calls, answer personal phone calls.

Out of the office they think about the reports, edit the presentations, check their investment portfolios, answer business e-mail, answer personal e-mail, make business phone calls, and answer personal phone calls.

Employees live a significant part of their lives in the universe of possibilities they reach through their PCs, their Blackberries, the Treos, their iPhones.

The economic gap between self-sufficient computing and central IT that drove the PC revolution is back. The existential gulf separating IT’s perception of work from the employee perception of work is new, and wider. We in IT had better figure it out, or business users will figure it out without us.

Because for us, a PC is an expensive, hard-to-support business resource. But for them it’s a portal to an entire universe they can buy at Costco for a few hundred bucks.

Comments

|In: Industry Commentary|Last Updated:

Nitpicking is fun, but pragmatism pays the bills.

Last week’s column, which deconstructed the notion that CIOs should run IT as a business, was fun, but it might have been more self-indulgent than useful.

The column, if you missed it, listed eleven definitions of “business” and demonstrated that none of them makes sense as a basis for running an IT department. But running IT like a business doesn’t require you to define it as one, Louis Sullivan’s dictum that “form follows function” notwithstanding.

After you’ve finished singing, dancing and playing the tuba, running IT like a business means negotiating “service level agreements” (SLAs) for what you do and instituting a system of charge-backs to the rest of the business to pay for it.

Negotiated SLAs are contracts between IT and the departments IT serves, and are just plain silly.

Contracts are how businesses manage relationships with their customers, so if you are to run IT as a business, this is what you must do.

Which brings up the question, what happens if you fail to live up to one of your negotiated SLAs? In business, this would result in financial penalties, withheld payments, binding arbitration, or lawsuits.

Just how stupid would a business look if Manufacturing took IT to court for failing to live up to an SLA? This isn’t an easy question to answer because “stupid” isn’t easily quantified, nor is there a unit of measure for it. If stupid was electricity and we measured it in volts, I’m pretty sure this would reach Taser levels.

Charge-backs, in contrast to SLAs, do have one thing going for them — they vastly simplify IT governance. If, for example, Marketing wants to re-plumb the company website with a content management system (CMS), you have no worries. Marketing signs up for the cost and charge-backs give you the budget you need. You hire staff, engage contractors or bring in a systems integrator and everybody is happy.

Not really. What really happens is that your staff based its CMS recommendation on what would integrate best with the rest of your technical architecture, scale without major reconfiguration, and allow granular administration to avoid opening interesting holes in your information security.

The Marketing Director, being a prudent steward of her departmental budget, obtains three competitive bids. All are lower than your estimate.

Of course they are. Because your staff failed to run IT like a business. They are running IT like a department, responsible for managing the company’s information assets. And so you lose the Marketing Department’s business to a competitor.

It isn’t the Marketing Director’s fault. IT isn’t alone in this nonsense. If IT is to be run as a business, so is every other shared service department in the enterprise, Marketing included. Marketing doesn’t want to lose the Dental Accessories business unit’s account to an outside agency, so it has to keep its costs as low as possible.

And the race to the bottom continues.

CEOs who organize the enterprise so its shared services departments act as independent businesses have forgotten a basic engineering principle … that optimizing the parts sub-optimizes the whole and vice versa (“Optimizing the organization, Keep the Joint Running, 10/27/2003).

Specifically, the company’s shared services organizations, when run as businesses, lose their authority to preserve the integrity of essential resources. In the case of IT it’s the information architecture. In the case of Marketing it’s the corporate image and the meaning of the brand. In the case of Human Resources it’s the policies that protect employees from bad managers while allowing managers to deal with non-performing employees without the risk of ending up in court.

And so on.

No question, the idea is seductive. CEOs, for understandable reasons, are likely to have a strong faith in the power of markets to regulate themselves efficiently without the need for outside controls or guidance. That being the case, turning the enterprise into a marketplace sure seems easier than the hard work of instituting the governance processes, difficult choices and consensus building that are otherwise required. As is so often the case, trying to avoid hard work doesn’t lead to brilliant results.

Marketplaces don’t require all of this because they don’t have a purpose. They are simply spaces where entities that do have purpose interact in complex ways.

Companies have a purpose. Marketplaces don’t. Turning a company into a marketplace misses this essential difference.

In the end, running IT as a business … and the enterprise as a marketplace … is an attempt to avoid the need for governance processes, difficult choices and consensus building.

Another name for these activities is leadership. Done right it’s hard work.

Comments