August 2007 Archives
Below is an excerpt from Ben Worthen's Wall St. Journal blog. He is writing about recent articles that have appeared on people working around their central IT departmental rules and procedures. The IT folks have argued that average users should be more controlled partly for security reasons, but also for cost control issues and overall management issues.
I wonder - are we guilty of what Ben discusses here? Do we frontload the process so that it is difficult to use or simply not practical to use? Is it reasonable that we not allow specific devices, or insist on only one OS? Do we create nuisance charges rather than look for ways to encourage better behavior?
From Ben's blog:
Information-technology departments are forcing their companies’ employees to use unsupported tech tools by insisting on policies that are outdated in the modern workplace.
Yesterday, the Journal described the other side of the coin in an article called “Helping the IT Department Help You.” Here’s an example, a tip on how to get your company to buy you new technology:
“Build a business case first. That involves writing a short letter explaining what you will be able to accomplish with the technology that you currently can’t do, and how that will benefit the company. Be as specific and quantitative as you can, to show how the purchase can help make money and keep costs low. Typically, these requests should be routed through your own manager rather than directly through the IT department. Find out what the protocol is at your organization.”
Processes like these are the reason that people end up buying their own technology. Here’s a newsflash: People aren’t real good at predicting what they’ll need to do months or even weeks or days from now. When employees ask for technology that will help them do something – say, share a file with a colleague or check email from a remote location – it isn’t because they need to do it six weeks from now. It’s because they have an immediate need. Writing a business case, and routing it through your manager and then IT just takes too long – especially when the employee himself can solve the problem by spending five minutes on the Internet.
The process is what’s pushing people to find their own technology. The Business Technology Blog is sick of people who point fingers – either at rogue users or insensitive IT departments – without ever taking a look at the root cause, which in this case is a policy that no longer reflects reality.
Recently there have been several articles about the need to "reinvent the Internet". For an alternative view, below is an letter written by Mike Roberts. Mike is currently a consultant to I2 and to Educause but one of the leaders in developing the Internet that we know today. He was Pres. and CEO of ICANN, VP of Educom, a director with I2 and prior to that Deputy Director of Information Technology Services at Stanford. Mike submitted the letter below to the Chronicle of Higher Education.
Design Choices,
Not Defects
To the Editor:
When I was in grad school some
years back, one of my professors often
said to me, "Rigor, Roberts, more
rigor." Your article on scrapping the
Internet quotes a number of academic
network researchers whose comments
could use a healthy dose of rigor
("Can the Internet Be Saved?," The
Chronicle, June 29). Many of the sup-
posed deficiencies noted in the text are
actually carefully designed features,
not defects.
To mention but one, the Internet
protocols were specifically designed to
avoid single points of failure, yet your
description of the Ethane network
says "Only if that policy is allowed by
'central
command' will it choose a
path for the packets" The last thing
the Internet, or academe, needs is
"central command." The country is
still recovering from the stifling of innovation
inflicted on us for genera-
tions by telephone engineers with
command-and-control mentalities.
Those of us who participated in the
generalization and commercialization
of the Internet back in the 80s and 90s
look askance at the indifference to
network architectural choices carefully
weighed and made in those days that is
reflected in articles like yours especial-
ly since the researchers involved have
their eyes on spending $300-million of
taxpayers' money.
Perfection in a computer network is
not an attainable goal; the deficiencies
of the Intemet reflect design choices
and value judgments In a technology
that has now, fortuitously, become an
essential means of human communica-
tion, it is essential to revisit those
choices But it would increase the rigor
involved if there were a little less
breaking of china and a little more at-
tention to achieving the best balance
of network features for the billions
who will use the Net in this new century.
Mike Robertr
Portola Valley, Calif.
