back to article How to shop wisely for the IT department of the future

If your IT department is inefficient it is entirely possible that the responsibility does not properly belong with the nerds who run it. It is human nature to cast about for blame, but chances are the problem of IT cost overruns and project delays lies with the business. An inability to reach the promised "agile" nirvana so …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Semtex451

    "If your IT department is inefficient it is entirely possible that the responsibility does not properly belong with the nerds who run it."

    If Nerds ran it, it would be bloody-well efficient, its non-nerd, know-nothing tw*t managers that cause the inefficiencies.

    End of rant. Calming down.

    Phew

    1. fnusnu

      It might be hyper-efficient, but it would probably be of absolutely no use to the business. Hence this article...

      1. Steve Knox

        It might be hyper-efficient, but it would probably be of absolutely no use to the business

        Reminds me of this Dilbert cartoon.

    2. dotslash

      i'm not sure a pure nerd model would be efficient. The nerds would just spend a lot of time arguing which technology is the best thing to use, whilst not finding out what the business actually requires.

      1. Christian Berger

        "The nerds would just spend a lot of time arguing which technology is the best thing to use, whilst not finding out what the business actually requires."

        How is that any worse than having a department which regularly chooses the worst solutions, while not finding out what the business actually requires, but just buying what vendors have to sell.

        What you need, and this is true for just about any area, is a mixture of smart people with different backgrounds.

        Unfortunately the typical quality of human resources is so low even running on a bunch of narrow minded idiots (having exactly the same perspective) still makes you competitive in the short run.

    3. Steve Knox

      If Nerds ran it, it would be bloody-well efficient, its non-nerd, know-nothing tw*t managers that cause the inefficiencies.

      Nerd do run IT, in spite of managers' attempts to manage* IT.

      * manage: n (IT) to stick your nose or other jutting appendage where it doesn't belong; to make arbitrary decisions based on insufficient knowledge or understanding; to generally obstruct or eliminate efficiencies.

      Example:

      "We need to manage our IT infrastructure in strict accordance with our business principles." said the CIO.

    4. Fatman

      RE: If Nerds ran it,

      If Nerds ran it, it would be bloody-well efficient, its non-nerd, know-nothing tw*t managers manglers that cause the inefficiencies.

      FTFY!!!!

  2. Pete 2 Silver badge

    Fear, Ignorance, Laziness, Greed

    My experience of consulting in large organisations is one of mixed emotions.

    On the one hand, it appears that navigating the purchasing process is long and arduous (and occasionally: random). It takes a lot of meetings, proposals, cost-benefit analyses, persuasion and horse-trading to get your project or upgrade financed. A side effect of this is that those who are experienced (i.e. have gone through the whole mess once before) will minimise the amount of stress they are subjected to.

    There are many strategies for this. In no particular order:

    Overstating the benefits. Since nobody can measure things that haven't happened, and everyone expects some degree of exaggeration, project benefits will always be higher on paper than in real-life. The only people who really, truly believe (or at least: repeat) them are politicians and the P.R. people. However, if you want your project to be approved, you have to be ready to make some outlandish (but not too extreme) claims for the benefits it will provide.

    Padding the proposal Everyone expects to get less than they ask for. Hence they include some sacrificial lambs in the shopping list of stuff, so that when they are told they have to cut 20% off the costs, there are some items that can be axed. The trick seems to be to not make the paring-back process look too easy, or the bean-counters will ask for more. The problem is, that sometimes these (obviously padded) costs don't get challenged.

    The twofer You have a BIG project that is critical for the business. You also have a few pet projects that you'd like to get done, too. The trick seems to be to merge them all into one, indistinguishable pile of interdependencies, so nobody can question why you need a 10TBmedia server for the LAN upgrade project. That way you only have to go through the pain and suffering of getting one single approval, rather than many. Most bean counters' eyes glaze over when you try to explain to them the technical stuff - frequently they'll sign-off on your requests just to get you to stop talking.

    The bigger, the better It's a curious fact of business life that the more you ask for, the less resistance you meet. Say that your project will cost £100k and all sorts of people will stick their noses in: questioning your costs, asking if it's really necessary, can it be put off to next year (i.e.: cancelled)? But ask for £30 Mil and they'll all assume that you're serious and the organisation will be doomed to failure, or a takeover, or become uncompetitive, if your project gets the can.

    As a consequence most middle-layer managers will submit proposals for a small number of mega-projects, rather than for what they need in reality: which is a dozen or two projects every year split between new work, upgrades, revamps and the occasional bit of blue-sky funding that might pay-off in 5 years time. The problem is that the people who's job it is to vet these submissions are unable to tell which ones are vital and which are pie-in-the-sky.

    On the other hand, the mixed emotions I feel is that I am often in a position where I see these vanity/over-complicated pieces of work getting approved (real-life quote from an earlier boss: "it doesn't matter, it's only an extra 60k") when I know they are mostly unnecessary - but then again, they do pay for my consultancy time.

  3. Captain Scarlet Silver badge
    Paris Hilton

    companies rarely understand what it is they are purchasing

    The companies trying to peddle their wares don't tend to do much better, all that is needed normally is oh how does such and such feature work for them to crack.

  4. MissingSecurity

    Thoughts...

    I would also suggest that companies rely to heavily on the consultant and demand less knowlege from thier IT staff regarding the ability to analyize and spec servers/equipment. (This is more from a SME standpoint where I see this a lot). Many IT admin are constanly updating, maintaining, or drowning fires.

    Besides all the wants / needs of a project, I still run into many issues (mostly due to lack of time allowed) to properly specify server specs, and I often work with consultants or third parties to do this work and recommend specs. I've had issues with this other than I probably could have shaved a good chunck of costs by diggin deeper into stats. I don't disparage consultants, on the contrary, (Unless I hire for soultions and all you want to sell is product A), but I know personally, if I had time on my side, I could save time and money doing that work.

    I've not met a PM for a network project that actually can really talk to the wants and needs without deffering to the opinions of there more technical teammates and I tend to be anal when it comes to IT details.

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like