« SCIENCE IS AWESOME | Main | A couple of applications »

It must be spring, we have the first "TEH END OF TEH EYE-TEEEEEEE" article of the year, this one "The end of the IT department" from "David" at 37signals. First, let's be clear: David has a vested interest in this, working (i assume) for 37Signals, a company offering CLOUD collaboration services.

In my "real" job as an IT director, I not only use Basecamp, a 37Signals product, but I'm pretty happy with it. I would much rather use Basecamp than try to run that shit in-house, it's really quite a pain in the ass to implement and support. That doesn't mean Basecamp is effortless, not with a few hundred users, and contrary to what Dave and the boys at 37Signals think, their UI isn't that good yet. But, I'm an IT guy with two decades in the biz, and I do appreciate products like Basecamp. I just don't think they're magical.

Anyway, as we'll see, David's making some pretty far-fetched stretches, and telling half-truths rather a lot here.

When people talk about their IT departments, they always talk about the things they’re not allowed to do, the applications they can’t run, and the long time it takes to get anything done. Rigid and inflexible policies that fill the air with animosity. Not to mention the frustrations of speaking different languages. None of this is a good foundation for a sustainable relationship.

Well yes, unfortunately, when you have limited resources, you sometimes have to exert a small measure of control. When you have to deal with things like SOX, GLBA, or worse, HIPAA, you have to limit what people can do. I'm pretty sure David doesn't want a janitor at a hospital having the same level of access to his data that his doctor does. He's probably thrilled that IT says "no". The problem isn't "no" the problem is how and why IT says "no". I will be the first to agree that too many IT departments are just assholes about it. They take almost a perverse thrill in it. I think this is unprofessional, stupid, and immature. After the amount of time I've been in this industry, I think it should be my job to say "yes" whenever possible. "No" should be rare, and have a solid reason that can be quickly and easily explained. I also have learned that contrary to popular, and David's belief, IT doesn't set nearly as many IT policies as people think we do. In fact, a lot of what we do is because we are ordered to. Some of it is astoundingly stupid. Case in point:

One place I worked, (no, not naming names), was an Exchange shop, and had a perennial problem with vacations. Not as a concept, but dealing with things like time-critical emails sent to people who were going to be gone for just a bit too long. The solution, for anyone who knows anything about Exchange and Outlook was obvious: Shared folders. We said "This is easy. When someone goes on vacation, they give access to their inbox to whomever is handling their stuff while they're gone. When they get back, they revoke access. It's easy to do, and easy to teach." Great idea right? Solves the problem, allows the users to handle it in a flexible manner, and IT doesn't have to do fuck all except teach them a new trick. Management freaked out. There was a torrent of complaints that made very little sense. "WHAT IF THEY GET AN EMAIL FROM THEIR BOSS ABOUT THE OTHER PERSON WHO CAN NOW READ IT?" "What if their boss remembers they're on vacation and waits to send it?" "WHAT IF THEY GET PERSONAL EMAILS?" "What if we're all adults and don't just troll through each other's shit because we can?" On and on. The eventual dictum: We couldn't tell anyone about this feature, but if they figured it out on their own, we could help them set it up.

Yeah, fuck me. That happens more than you think. We actually tried to explain it better than what I wrote. Didn't matter. But, who's the bad guy? IT. Because we're the ones that have to tell people "no" and usually, with orders not to explain why. IT ends up covering so much ass, they should call it "Fruit-of-the-Loom".

The "speaking different languages." thing is stupid. Every industry, every specialty has its own language. The language of graphic designers is just as foreign to me as networking is to them, and accountants? Gibberish. But not to them. If specialized terms are some huge problem, then IT is hardly leading the way here.

If businesses had as many gripes with an external vendor, that vendor would’ve been dropped long ago. But IT departments have endured as a necessary evil. I think those days are coming to an end.

If your IT department is a necessary evil, either you should try actually involving them in the business or...actually involve them in the business. There's no other way, and fortunately, it's a way that benefits everyone. Even if you don't like them, suck it up, and make them a part of things. You'll find that IT people probably have more good ideas than you think. If they won't play, fire them. It's really simple. IT is no more a necessary evil than any other group in a company.

The problem with IT departments seems to be that they’re set up as a forced internal vendor. From the start, they have a monopoly on the “computer problem” – such monopolies have a tendency to produce the customer service you’d expect from the US Postal Service. The IT department has all the power, they’re not going anywhere (at least not in the short term), and their customers are seen as mindless peons. There’s no feedback loop for improvement.

Oh bullshit. That's what that is. Bullshit. First, for the lamer crack on the Post Office, (seriously. If you're going to say that shit on your web site, walk your ass down to the Post Office and try to do their job, and tell them they're lazy bastards) and secondly, the crack about how IT sees its customers. First, David is giving into the myth that "IT" is some monolithic groupmind wherein all remote nodes are clones, and all are ruled by the hive.

No, they aren't. Every IT department I've worked in has been different, and almost none of them saw customers as "mindless peons". We didn't always have the highest opinion of them, true, but we saw them as people who needed to use computers to get shit done, not people who needed to care about the damned things as things unto themselves. We didn't expect them to do, you know, the jobs they're paid to do and start doing IT stuff in addition. But if David thinks, really thinks that we're all some kind of Overmind that only cares about keeping the users down, he needs to put the pipe down. I'm not going to say there aren't some IT departments engaging in that kind of idiocy, but they are, by and large, the minority, and becoming more of a minority every day. David really needs to get out more, and stop assuming that all user stories about IT are the unfettered and complete truth.

As well, given that 37Signals "support line" is either a contact form on a web page, web forums or twitter, he doesn't exactly have any moral high ground about 'feedback loops'. I certainly pay enough for Basecamp, why can't i have a phone number? How come I can only get a response during banker's hours? (I know why, that costs money.)

Obviously, I can see the other side of the fence as well. IT departments are usually treated as a cost center, just above mail delivery and food service in the corporate pecking order, and never win anything when shit just works, but face the wrath of everyone when THE EXCHANGE SERVER IS DOWN!!!!!

He almost has a clue here, (he'll wreck it with the next paragraph, hence the "almost".) The hard truth about IT is this: in an average non-IT-centric company, your best efforts, your most awesome planning and setup will result in, if you are lucky, in people forgetting you exist. IT is, on many levels, like the plumber. You know you need a plumber, but you sure don't want to need them every day. If you want to be covered in glory, be an indie programmer and create Angry Birds or Twitteriffic. Don't be in IT.

At the same time, IT job security is often dependent on making things hard, slow, and complex. If the Exchange Server didn’t require two people to babysit it at all times, that would mean two friends out of work. Of course using hosted Gmail is a bad idea! It’s the same forces and mechanics that slowly turned unions from a force of progress (proper working conditions for all!) to a force of stagnation (only Jack can move the conference chairs, Joe is the only guy who can fix the microphone).

Wow, stupid, insulting, and a ignorant union crack in one paragraph. Triple Word Score. I have no doubt that there are some IT people and departments that think this way. They're a minority, and they're on the way out. First, IT hates, hates servers that require constant babysitting. That shit is tedious and soul-crushing. We like servers that don't need a lot of work, that once properly set up, (and please God, make that easy too), just works. Because it then frees us up to do the fun work. Like figuring out where to go next.

Also, can we please stop with the New Media Douchebag-meme that IT hates Cloud. We do not. We do not hate CLOUD. However, we do not think it is magic. When someone says "Lets put all our critical data and processes on some remote server", we have to say "Wait. Let's make sure we get proper support. Let's make sure we have some SLA in place so we aren't just stuck with outages. Let's make sure they have some form of decent security and processes in place." That's not hating cloud. That's being a realist. IT is about what is, not some fucking fantasy land of Unicorn-Fart Cupcakes. The reason we don't want people using random email accounts isn't because we're fearful for our jobs. It's because we know how often those accounts get hacked because people used "1234" as their password, and we are worried about company data. Cloud is not magic, cloud is servers and clients.

Seriously, it's people like David that make working in a datacenter with no users the IT dream job.

But change is coming. Dealing with technology has gone from something only for the techy geeks to something more mainstream. Younger generations get it. Computer savvyness is no longer just for the geek squad.

BAAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAAHAHA!

BAAAHAAHAHHA

I love it when geeks tell me this. I love this assumption that they are representative of the majority of humanity. Fuck, I think I coughed up half a cup of coffee there. Listen, here's the reality of it: Yes, people are far more comfortable with computers than they were twenty years ago. I don't have to overcome anything close to the levels of fear that I had to deal with in the 90s. When I talk about the basics, by and large, the twentysomethings I support get it and understand it.

But do not, even for a minute, think a lack of fear and a certain comfort level translates into technical ability. These same twentysomethings, who are so connected that I'm amazed they don't crap capacitors still look at me like I'm some kind of witch doctor when I start talking about tech on a deeper level. You know what, that's a good thing. It shows that being comfortable with tech is becoming a feat on the same level as being comfortable with your car. But it does not mean you can troubleshoot your email issues or your server issues any more than being a good driver means you can rebuild an engine.

What you are seeing here is "I know a lot about computers. I know a lot of people who also know a lot about computers. Therefore, all people are like us". No. They aren't. But, that assumption shows in cloud stuff, just look at most of the UI out there. (Pro tip: that's why Dropbox keeps kicking everyone's ass.) People are indeed far more savvy about computers. But that doesn't mean they have the knowledge and experience to handle actual IT issues.

You no longer need a tech person at the office to man “the server room.” Responsibility for keeping the servers running has shifted away from the centralized IT department. Today you can get just about all the services that previously required local expertise from a web site somewhere.

CLOUD IS MAGIC!

Right. Okay, so tell me, when I can't get access to basecamp because my wifi is pooched, who do I call? David? The hotel lobby? Some guy? Who is going to help me make sure my CLOUD data is backed up somewhere that I have control over? David? Who's going to help me set backup policies, or vet vendors for compliance with any laws/regulations I have to deal with. David?

See, what David is making it sound like is that you just hook up to CLOUD and bam, problems go away. David is full of shit. When he says "Today you can get just about all the services that previously required local expertise from a web site somewhere." that's code for "Find an IT consultant". Don't get me wrong, consultants are in fact a good option when used correctly. But what do you call a consultant that you're paying a retainer for, so that you can get 24x7 support? Yeah. An IT department. They're just really remote. Folks, if you think that paying someone from a random web site at 3am to fix your shit, or help you is a good idea, let me ask you this: would you do that for your car? Your hot water heater? Not more than once or twice, and you're going to pay through the fucking nose for it. But David doesn't want to admit that working with a consultant is just like working with IT, because you are working with IT.

It's actually a bit more complicated, for example, you say "I want a 4-hour response." "Done". So something happens and you call the hotline. They reply "Got it, we'll have someone there in the morning." "But that's in six hours, I paid for a four hour response." "That's what I'm doing now. I have responded within four hours."

Congrats, you just learned that response is not response is not response. David's not going to tell you any of this, because a) he has to admit that his link-baiting headline is bullshit, and b) he really wants you to think CLOUD IS MAGIC. You want to see how magic cloud is, shut off your network ports.

That is not to say you need in-house IT staff. For smaller companies, especially SOHO, a local consultant is not only a good choice, but may in fact be the best choice. You only pay for what you use. Since they're local, you can have them in, to get a feel for your company and your needs. You're a person, not just an account number. They probably have a phone number you can call. You can talk to their other clients and get references. So on and so forth. But you're not going to get that with a random web site, no matter what David thinks. But then, David does have an interest you thinking CLOUD IS MAGIC.

The transition won’t happen over night, but it’s long since begun. The companies who feel they can do without an official IT department are growing in number and size. It’s entirely possible to run a 20-man office without ever even considering the need for a computer called “server” somewhere.

Oh David, that's the biggest bullshit line ever. That thing you send your email through? That's a server. That thing that hosts your files IN CLOUD? Server. That thing running all of 37Signals' services? Server. Again, David's speaking in half-truths. For small companies, it is entirely possible to never need your own in-house dedicated server. However, that is not the same as never considering the need for a server somewhere. It just means that things like email and file sharing and the like, especially on a small, (and often, quite large) scale are now able to be used without you having to own it and maintain it. That's a good thing. The idea that a company with a small number of users, and simple needs, (No PCI, no HIPAA, etc) can meet those needs without having to buy server iron, and IT expertise is really awesome. It makes running that business really easy. It makes it easier to make money, and pay the people you do need.

You still need to worry about servers, and SLAs and data backups and all the rest. You just have more options now.

The good news for IT department operators is that they’re not exactly saddled with skills that can’t be used elsewhere. Most auto workers and textile makers would surely envy their impending doom and ask for a swap.

Yes. We can try to write columns that tell half-truths so that we can bullshit people into buying our services and vision of the world.

Comments