Some of our biggest threats (part 1)
For the purpose of this thought:
Our = information technology.
Threat = a condition, environment or stimulus that jeopardizes information technology organizations from being successful, agile, flexible.
And a big caveat here - there's lots to quibble with in here and to write it up right would take a very, very long time. I'm tired of sitting on a draft entry and want to get the idea out there.
Some months ago, I had lunch with a Penn State colleague (not in IT). We had a free ranging discussion about many matters regarding Penn State, his line of business, IT, parenting, etc. It was a really nice lunch. I had asked for the meeting because I had long been impressed by his ability to embrace, succeed and apparently enjoy a career and a position despite its significant challenges and unending supply of controversy and stress.
This colleague has a degree in law and while he isn't in a practice at the moment, he does call on his degree and experience on a daily basis. We got to talking about significant professional, personal, and educational influences in our lives. That's where I really pressed for insight and he was wonderfully open.
A professor received a bulk of the credit of his work ethic and perspective. It was then that we drifted in a discussion about an "ethic" that seems to be pervasive in the legal profession (I need some vocabulary freedom here as I'm not quite sure it's an ethic, an ethical framework or maybe even culture. I hope you'll allow me to interchange "ethic" and other words with the understanding that I realize there might be a better word or phrase).
I've watched "For a Few Good Men", "Law and Order", "Perry Mason", and "12 Angry Men" so I know a thing or two about law and lawyering. In these dramatic portrayals of life in the legal profession, we learn over and over again (and you can probably recall having seen this in your own life) that lawyers can and will change jobs over the course of their career - spending years on the prosecution side and then spending years on the defense side of the system. That's pretty interesting to me so I've lingered on this for awhile.
A lawyer isn't judged by whether or not they are on one side of the courtroom or the other, but rather on the skill, manner, and success with which they execute their parts of the legal processes. Prosecution isn't better than defense, defense isn't better than prosecution. The framework depends on both sides doing all they can the best they can and the culture/ethic among the players is such that doing one or the other isn't really a big deal seemingly. The framework helps as does the shared common goal of justice.
So what is our "justice" in information technology? I've concluded that it's service. Delivering the service is the woman with the blindfold over her eyes. Whatever you do in IT, you should be driven to deliver the service. By zeroing in on service, the service area and constituency is neutralized - and priority setting is in another layer of the discussion. If you think that this is wrong, close this tab and move on to the next wave in your surfing because you won't agree with the rest either.
In IT we don't appear to have an analogy for prosecution and defense in our framework for service delivery. And we do have multiple players in the game: engineers, developers, trainers, writers/communicators, managers, administrators, security specialists, etc. Lots of animals are necessary in our zoo so that we can facilitate service delivery.
In legal training and practice (it seems to me), there is only respect for both sides of the framework. It makes no sense to have it any other way. When programmers are learning to program, are they taught about the other sides of service provisioning - all sides of it - and that a respect and understanding of those aspects is critical for programming success AND service delivery success? How about system administrators, engineers, etc.? We're taught to do what we do and it is implied and in fact sometimes even spelled out that "my" component is more important than another. A case could be made that we're trained and encouraged to have a narrow pride and there's little room for discussion of a blind devotion to the larger common goal of service.
How do we introduce behavior that leads to cultural adoption of our own blind justice? How do we get to a place where we expect each other to do the very best we can in what we do and do so with only deep respect for what has to be done "on the other side." It probably won't happen in the classroom to the degree it would happen in law school - so perhaps this is something left up to the organization.
More, sometime soon.
Kevin, I think I have an appreciation for what you are getting at - it might be helpful to consider this from a slightly different angle than that of service delivery. The same environmental problems exist with IT security - most IT organizations end up being implementers, judges, prosecutors and the jury - well, it's still out. BUT, we tend to forget there are others we could utilize - the auditors for examples can play the role of police and prosecution where IT could be judge and partners in deployment - or even the department of corrections!
Getting back to the service angle of IT - auditors could play a role here. Traditionally, it's not what they do, but they never did IT audit before there was IT. There are others in our community who can play critical roles aiding and abetting the success of IT - to the benefit of all.
I find the line of thinking of your posting useful. I wish more folks would think along these lines.
/mrg
I have worked in several of the roles mentioned above sometimes all at once. I have been a support technician, an administrator, a trainer, a manager, and now an engineer. Too often, we get absorbed in what it is specifically that we do, and as a result neglect the other pieces.
I would suggest that genuinely listening to others is one of the best ways for us to achieve better service delivery. What can listening do for us?
Kevin,
I agree and see this all the time. We even had a similar discussion regarding business processes in a meeting just yesterday. Understanding both sides of the fence is critical to be effective in the future IMHO.
One obstacle I see that is harder to control is to be "in the room" at the right times. I think we need to have a mechanism to be at the table as normal process with respect to other than IT being on the other side.
Understanding the scope and deliverables of a project may not be all that's required to produce a service that the masses will actually use!
In the legal system, both sides spend a great deal of time analyzing the other.
From observation during 23+ years at PSU, I believe this doesn't happen as best it could here in one aspect. We don't always analyze our customers - the other side of the service paradigm. I know many individuals in ITS that have rarely (if ever) sat down with a faculty member and discussed any relevant IT issues.
How can we deliver accurate, needed services if we don't understand to whom we are delivering them?