Discussion in 'Business & Enterprise Computing' started by elvis, Jul 1, 2008.
I need you to cloudwash our software
lol make my day.
Yeah ok im going to read fuckin 1463 posts, so don't give me this shit about reading the whole lot.
The point is, back in the day, IT was a black art at best, and to everyone bar a few people was totally incomprehensible - this equated to power and therefore respect/money or both. You can wave your dicks around as much as you like, but my years of experience has shown me that knowledge is power and when someone begins to understand your area of expertise, you lose that power. This is what happened to the IT industry, it lost its power, which is why a lot of it can be outsourced to monkeys. From acronyms that began to be understood to hardware that was unified. Yes there are many people who are very qualified and do great things.
Back to the OP; read it, and you'll see this is exactly what Elvis is saying. He rants about outsourcing, hardware, and ignorance.
But essentially it is summed up in one quote:
The IT industry lost its way, because frankly its not about what you know, its about what value you can provide. Thats what people will pay for. Get over it.
My gripe has nothing to do with "losing power". It's about how clowns and cowboys have infected the industry, driving the professionalism through the floor.
So why is it that more and more people in IT provide less and less value? Whether they're low level techs or high level managers, the entire industry appears to be filled with people who gloss over details in a desperate big to fix every unique problem with the same tool, pad their resume and move on to "bigger and better things".
You're looking at this from the outside in - you're talking about how the industry appears from an outside point of view. I'm looking from the inside out - an industry once full of people who gave a shit about doing best for the people they support which is now just filled with people who complain everything is too hard, learning something new is too difficult, and the only thing that apparently matters is to make it to a management position which is achieved by implementing a successful outsourcing operation.
Two reasons, firstly more people in low paid overseas roles can provide more productivity = more value to many consumers of the profession and secondly, no one values extpertise, they value cost reduction and outcomes. All of which can be got cheap overseas. AKA willingness to pay. Are you going to work for $15/hr? No. But they will and they may be half as good, but most consumers will accept 50% of the product for 1/10th the cost.
You sound burnt out man, and I understand. I hate the Wipros of this world because yes, its rubbish, but if you cost it out, the job gets done for a lot less. Like everything, there is negative externalities not priced in (like quality), but thats the global market and movement of knowledge. Quite ironic really since the internet is a main driver for this change. I saw this coming and reskilled in 2000.
They used to. They're finally catching on that they don't even get 50% of the product. And outsourced IT (especially to india) isn't nearly as cheap as it used to be. I know of more than a few people whose current positions (mine included) are due to companies bringing IT back in house.
CommBank declares core bank overhaul complete
"All of us in the executive team have seen examples of offshoring processes. What can be tempting in the short-term in terms of labour cost benefits [is usually outweighed] by an overwhelming loss of control and increase in operational risk."
This has been proven time and time again to be a short term financial fix that causes long term headaches. These sorts of tactics are employed by fly-by executives who see a CIO type role as a stepping stone to CEO and/or a more lucrative CIO role somewhere else.
I've suffered these executives a few times over now. Two jobs ago I had a CIO who was very blunt about how he was working for a ~1000 person business only because he had his eye set on a CIO role at a ~5000 person business. He made terrible decisions about technology based on the 3 year turn around he expected to be in the role. When 3 years was up, he pissed off to another bigger job, and the business suffered due to his poor decisions for the following 4 years.
I'm not going to try and make some blanket statement here and say all outsourcing is bad. But at exactly the same time, not all outsourcing is good. Yet the short-term dollar savings appear to be all that some CIO-types look at, with absolutely no concern for the long term sustainability of the greater business. And this is more frequently being applied to smaller decisions at the IT Manager level as well.
I'll certainly agree with you on that. People who don't value expertise typically arrive at such conclusions based on ignorance. Regardless of industry, when non-experts try to trivialise complex tasks, it results in them no longer valuing the expertise of the people who do those tasks. The end result typically is an immediate desire to reduce the cost of labour to maintain these things, which leads to an inevitable drop in quality.
Absolutely not. I'm more energised now in my career than ever, and more determined to make positive change.
I've chosen a skillset that so far has been immune to the outsourcing plague, mostly due to the fact that overseas labour in my particular skillset has proven to be of a much lower standard, with much worse results when people have tried to outsource the labour.
My gripe is not the "they took our jerbs" type nonsense, but more the fact that I hear day in and day out how much non-technical staff loathe the shitty outsourced IT support they get, and equally loathe the apathetic internal IT staff that just don't care any more. I feel their pain, particularly when I seem to have to constantly clean up after poor solutions that were put forward by my predecessors.
My current workplace is a classic example. 5 months after I started, the IT Manager of 4 years lost his marbles and quit. I've been digging through the place, and some of the setup and configuration choices were absolutely pathetic. I've replaced most with solutions that cost a fraction of the price and perform several times better. Feedback from all staff (from the juniors to the CEO himself) has been that things are running smoother and faster than ever, despite a drop in cost of services. Yet another example of an underqualified individual with an "outsource everything" mentality who nearly crippled a business through lack of skill or care. And the effort require to reverse the situation wasn't substantial at all. What's even more depressing was that the rest of the IT department were desperate for change, but felt powerless to initiate it. What it ended up taking was a vocal outsider to come in and be quite blunt about how bad things were to initiate positive change.
I've got another 6 months or so of plans in the works before the place is at a satisfactory level by my standards, and yet production staff are already saying things are better now than they ever have been from a performance and consistency point of view.
I understand what you're saying mate, (as verbose as it is ) but your value proposition is failing clearly. Thats the point, right or wrong (i agree with you actually), but thems - the - facts...
elvis doesn't need a competitive "value proposition."
I don't know elvis personally but businesses are already fucked by the time they engage these types of consultants to fix the mess that was done by the previous internal or outsourced IT staff.
Businesses who value "cost reduction and outcomes" and get exactly that.. for a while.. until profitability and productivity are affected and the real long-term outcomes of the poor decision-making becomes apparent.
Very well put.
As I hear time and time again, "Price, performance, speed - pick two". Generally these businesses are on a fast path to save dollars for "quick wins". So guess what suffers in the long term?
Why would I pick the same thing twice?
Because performance applies the the "speed" of the system. Speed applies to how fast you can implement it.
I assumed it was a typo of price, performance and reliability.
Its professional IT, Reliabilty isn't an option. It just raised the base price somewhat.
It boils down to cost. You can pay $100K/year to someone who is qualified/experienced of you can pay peanuts to a monkey. Chances are the monkey can keep up the illusion that he knows what he is doing ... till the shit hits the fan and real experience is required to fix the issue.
option 2 is you've seen all the really skilled folk see their jobs go overseas to a bunch of barely trained script monkeys and see all their good work get turned to shit because some CIO/CEO wants to make their bonus, this then demoralises the skilled folk to the point where they don't give a shit, because lets face it nobody else does.
Lets face it, WHY would you work hard, when nobody notices, cares or gives a shit, whats the incentive. We've learned to accept less then the best, hell most of the time people are happy to accept 50% ... Welcome to mediocrity.
If i were to go back 15 years in my career and tell my workmates that there would be a 2 week minimum wait for me to make a simple ntfs security change, i'd be in deep shit. Nowadays, its just expected, or worse yet accepted. And it isn't only just IT.
There is no pride in workmanship or quality now.
So what you're saying is, changing the level of reliability (it's not a binary option) has a factor on price? Like the equation suggests?
Maybe the issue with professional IT is a complete lack of comprehension.
Monkeys are great at maintaining/administering what is already there - they are downright terrible in a crisis or as you look at scaling up/out.
Because quite frankly, I give a shit about the work i produce. I have pride in my work - and i dare say elvis does too, and its a large part of what drives him internally.
Ultimately (in many industries), the customer is to blame here. The customer has come to expect lower and lower prices for things. As such the overhead for running a business has become more and more efficient/lean.
Most IT departments in Business are not profit centres and a lot of the investment is "behind-the-scenes" as far as a user/exec is concerned. Meaning that they have trouble justifying the fact that you need a new SAN shortly because you've moved from 150-200 users (or whatever scale).
A big thing that People who are successful in selling business cases to exec's are able to outline costs per user that includes infrastructure as well as physical devices in their hands.
They also budget and plan - and make sure their business doesn't just get this whopping great quote/invoice lumped on their desk because no-one looked at the infrastructure till there was a problem.
There was a time when IT was considered a core requirement to business and that only super-premium options would be considered (and indeed were purchased and actioned - without question). This time has passed, because people have aggressively marketed IT in a race to the bottom.
We are now in a time post the race to the bottom (because the race to the bottom has killed response time, features, performance and reliability), where only the people who have the skills AND the ability to sell will get what "needs" to be done.
There is obviously scope for reliability and more importantly - redundancy - to be a variable. But this idea that you can flog off solutions that have below a certain level of reliability is all but gone, its simply been rolled into the base price.
If we're talking white boxes with 3 week RMA's on individual components, then no - that's not an option in "Professional IT". If you're talking a solution that can tolerate a country dropping offline - with zero downtime - it can be done, but bring your wallet.
You're being highly facetious, as usual.
* "Price" = total cost to deliver, implement, support and maintain
* "Performance" = how it performs relative to requirements. Can be any combination of technical performance at an objective scale (measurable things like BTUs, MB/s, etc), or subjective performance ("better than the last system", reliability with respect to failure rates or user happiness, etc).
* "Speed" = how quickly the thing can be implemented and running as expected.
But you knew that already, and your post above was yet another troll as has been standard across everything you've posted in the business forums to date. I seem to have rustled your jimmies substantially, and the result thus far has been you nit-picking ambiguous statements rather than actually making any valid points in any of the threads you've responded to. By all means, please add something of substance next time.
To be blunt, comments like these are not substantial, but rather inflammatory at best. Troll elsewhere.