Anyone who’s worked in a Big Corporate environment knows first hand the pain of working with severely constrained computing tools. Either that, or (rather like the probable majority) you possibly have know idea what you’re missing. Colin has a great post up today Web 2.0 or 1984 – which way is right? over on the Bank Watch looking at the number of office workers who are accessing “Web2.0” content today from their desktop — and what some IT dept’s are trying to do about it.
Again I ask the simple question, If you can’t trust your own employees and knowledge workers to use the tools you give them responsibly, who can you trust? What message of trust an moral are you sending to your people?
It may sounds crazy, but draconian IT policies are one of the reasons I walked out of an otherwise good job at a major Canadian (Red and Yellow colored) bank. I just couldn’t take it any longer. No access to webmail accounts, any number of websites or
But how will BigIT’s war on productivity be maintained in the feed-based web? With feed splicing & aggregating tools and web api widgets popping up all over the place, how will IT manage to keep blocking access to everything interesting on the web? And even if so, what of employees with their own devices or accessing outside wireless that might be drifting in through every window? I like to think that this is a war that constrictive IT policies can’t win.
For one thing the coming generation “N” won’t stand for it. What I see is that BigIT will have to change… from being digital nannies and security guards to technology coaches and enablers. Let’s call this the New IT.
The New IT will be working with us not against us. The New IT will be constantly showing us what we can do (not what we can’t) to help us be more productive, more collaborative, and more engaged with colleagues both in and outside the firewall.
Helping their employees maximize a healthy life-work balance is a stated priority of nearly every Enterprise.
IT should be inspiring us in how to use the latest tools to balance work AND life to get more out every day – and how to do that safely and constructively.
Now doesn’t that sound like a more fun job?
Well said Thomas. I would build on your point, that just because IT have a capability to say block something, does not mean business should listen to them.
First stand back from this and think about it … what are they in fact trying to achieve, and as you infer, what kind of a working environment do you want to create.
Well said Thomas. I would build on your point, that just because IT have a capability to say block something, does not mean business should listen to them.
First stand back from this and think about it … what are they in fact trying to achieve, and as you infer, what kind of a working environment do you want to create.
Great Post.
I am all to aware of your past situation, as I am in it from time to time. While I agree with your point about IT becoming coaches and enablers knowing the computer skill level of the average employee in that institution do you really think IT can stop being nannies.
Can IT enable without a safety net?
bryce
Great Post.
I am all to aware of your past situation, as I am in it from time to time. While I agree with your point about IT becoming coaches and enablers knowing the computer skill level of the average employee in that institution do you really think IT can stop being nannies.
Can IT enable without a safety net?
bryce
Sounds nice, except that I don’t think it will happen.
There is no particular need for corporate departments that do activities like coaching and enabling, whether in IT or anything else. They are cost centres, so if they can be dispensed with they will be, particularly in the heavily decentralized future. Individual departments will bring in IT coaches if and when they see fit, paying from their own budgets. I expect today’s IT departments to shrink dramatically, sometimes to zero.
As Nicholas Carr put it, “IT doesn’t matter”.
Sounds nice, except that I don’t think it will happen.
There is no particular need for corporate departments that do activities like coaching and enabling, whether in IT or anything else. They are cost centres, so if they can be dispensed with they will be, particularly in the heavily decentralized future. Individual departments will bring in IT coaches if and when they see fit, paying from their own budgets. I expect today’s IT departments to shrink dramatically, sometimes to zero.
As Nicholas Carr put it, “IT doesn’t matter”.
Colin I am with you. And yes to answer Bryce, it’s not trivial. But I think why IT needs to work for it’s users or else the users will work around IT.
If users are forced to circumvent/subvert IT that is when there is no safety net. IT should be instead working for users to do so responsibly.
This is the parenting approach of being permissive with your teenager so long as there’s communication party responsibly as opposed to the approach of the overstrict-IT parent who goes to bed thinking the kids are safely grounded — when really they’re sneaking out the bedroom window.
Rohan, you are right. This is the old IT. Old model == IT is a cost centre. NewIT = IT is a source of competitive advantage.
Enterprise 2.0 is people.
The NewIT is about empowering people.
If empowering people is not a profit centre in the new economy, then I don’t know what is.
Colin I am with you. And yes to answer Bryce, it’s not trivial. But I think why IT needs to work for it’s users or else the users will work around IT.
If users are forced to circumvent/subvert IT that is when there is no safety net. IT should be instead working for users to do so responsibly.
This is the parenting approach of being permissive with your teenager so long as there’s communication party responsibly as opposed to the approach of the overstrict-IT parent who goes to bed thinking the kids are safely grounded — when really they’re sneaking out the bedroom window.
Rohan, you are right. This is the old IT. Old model == IT is a cost centre. NewIT = IT is a source of competitive advantage.
Enterprise 2.0 is people.
The NewIT is about empowering people.
If empowering people is not a profit centre in the new economy, then I don’t know what is.
Tom, really nicely put. I disagree with Rohan, IT will continue to matter because IT leads the development of information policies which have huge productivity impacts as you’ve described. IT policy needs to be integrated with a firm’s talent policy. The Net Generation, the talent shortage and work/life balance in a world beyond the 40-hour work week are central questions to that.
If people are expected or required to bring work home with them to meet the expectations of the new workplace then it is fair and reasonable to permit those same people to check their personal email accounts and even check in on their friends on Facebook.
The divisions between Home and Work are breaking down into an overall flow of experience. IT needs to reflect that reality.
Tom, really nicely put. I disagree with Rohan, IT will continue to matter because IT leads the development of information policies which have huge productivity impacts as you’ve described. IT policy needs to be integrated with a firm’s talent policy. The Net Generation, the talent shortage and work/life balance in a world beyond the 40-hour work week are central questions to that.
If people are expected or required to bring work home with them to meet the expectations of the new workplace then it is fair and reasonable to permit those same people to check their personal email accounts and even check in on their friends on Facebook.
The divisions between Home and Work are breaking down into an overall flow of experience. IT needs to reflect that reality.
Tom, we’re in agreement that there is profit to be made by empowering people, but that’s precisely why IT departments won’t be the ones doing it: they’re cost centres, not profit centres. A profit centre is defined as an organization that is expected to turn a profit, as opposed to a cost centre which is not. So an organization that empowers people can be a profit centre only if it charges money for its services. Except in rare cases where transfer pricing is in place, IT departments aren’t allowed to charge for their work. As cost centres, they are subject to cutbacks whenever the corporation is looking to save money, which is most of the time. A corporate department looking for help in empowering its staff will hire a consulting company that specializes in doing that, because the IT department won’t have people with the time to do that.
Mark, just because something “needs” to be done doesn’t mean it will be. Corporations are often good at specific tasks like becoming a leader in a particular market, but are generally bad at vague things like productivity. And they are not like governments or NGOs: they run on bottom line, not on policy.
The one approach that can work is decentralization: get rid of the centralized cost centres and make each profit centre responsible for its own hiring, IT, etc. Decentralization of corporations is one example of the decentralization of just about everything in a world where dramatically lower coordination costs give “network” organizations an advantage over “hierarchy” organizations. We see this most dramatically in leading-edge companies that have few or no “staff” personnel, just “line” personnel working for the bottom line who when they need functions like legal, HR, and IT, outsource it to firms specializing in those areas. This is in fact the essence of Nicholas Carr’s argument: IT is not a strategic function any more than legal is.
So I see Tom’s “New IT” coming from consulting companies specializing in that, not from corporate IT departments. But in most cases the corporate departments that could use New IT help will do what they already do for other kinds of help they could use: just muddle along without it.
Ref Big IT. I think all the problems started several decades ago when “data-processing managers” started inventing new names for themselves. The solution is to put dp back where it belongs – as a department of Administration – where it will be properly managed like any other business function…
Ref Big IT. I think all the problems started several decades ago when “data-processing managers” started inventing new names for themselves. The solution is to put dp back where it belongs – as a department of Administration – where it will be properly managed like any other business function…
Pingback: Remarkk! » Banning Employee Use of Facebook? Your loss.
Tom, we're in agreement that there is profit to be made by empowering people, but that's precisely why IT departments won't be the ones doing it: they're cost centres, not profit centres. A profit centre is defined as an organization that is expected to turn a profit, as opposed to a cost centre which is not. So an organization that empowers people can be a profit centre only if it charges money for its services. Except in rare cases where transfer pricing is in place, IT departments aren't allowed to charge for their work. As cost centres, they are subject to cutbacks whenever the corporation is looking to save money, which is most of the time. A corporate department looking for help in empowering its staff will hire a consulting company that specializes in doing that, because the IT department won't have people with the time to do that.
Mark, just because something “needs” to be done doesn't mean it will be. Corporations are often good at specific tasks like becoming a leader in a particular market, but are generally bad at vague things like productivity. And they are not like governments or NGOs: they run on bottom line, not on policy.
The one approach that can work is decentralization: get rid of the centralized cost centres and make each profit centre responsible for its own hiring, IT, etc. Decentralization of corporations is one example of the decentralization of just about everything in a world where dramatically lower coordination costs give “network” organizations an advantage over “hierarchy” organizations. We see this most dramatically in leading-edge companies that have few or no “staff” personnel, just “line” personnel working for the bottom line who when they need functions like legal, HR, and IT, outsource it to firms specializing in those areas. This is in fact the essence of Nicholas Carr's argument: IT is not a strategic function any more than legal is.
So I see Tom's “New IT” coming from consulting companies specializing in that, not from corporate IT departments. But in most cases the corporate departments that could use New IT help will do what they already do for other kinds of help they could use: just muddle along without it.