Enterprise IT Bashing

In response to an earlier post, Jeff adds some additional insight. For clarification, the reason I provided some background on my own work experience was to set some context that I have not only talked to hundreds of clients on business and IT alignment issues as an IT analyst but also have a first-hand experience across multiple roles within IT from management to emerging technology, architecture, applications, infrastructure and operations. Understanding the various perspectives of groups within large organizations and how they work or view the each other, and their relation to the business overall, I feel is very important. Much of what this debate comes down to is not "Enterprise IT" per se but issues pertaining to the interplay across individuals, groups and institutions in regards to cultural, social, relationship and value constructs. "Change" is difficult, period.  

My point (which perhaps was not as articulate as I had hoped) is that "enterprise IT bashing" has become somewhat of a sport for those touting all-things-suffixed-by-2.0 and does no one any good since the strawperson being defined does not exist across the board. There are all types of IT organizations - some are aggressive and always in a mode of technology disruption while others are absolute laggards and adopt technology seemingly at gunpoint. But most IT organizations in my experience are a hybrid of both extremes. Most IT organizations are a complex collection of institutions, groups, and sub-cultures with differing perspectives on technology and the best way to apply technology in support of the business. I'm sure business organizations are the similar in many ways. That makes it impossible to paint "all" of enterprise IT in a single brushstroke.

I lament the situation where "2.0" proponents feel that they only way they can advance their cause is by bringing another group down. There are certainly some thoughtful and provoking arguments within the body of "2.0" thinking. The case should be decided on its own merits and not through stereotypes that fit the argument (and product/service selling proposition when that argument is presented by a vendor and its agenda).

We can agree to disagree and that's fine. I am not in favor of the status-quo however, that's not my role. Beyond the normal analyst "stuff" regarding market trends, business drivers, vendors, technical architecture and such, I work with clients to help them understand the people issues unique to their enterprise regarding organizational change and the role of technology. This aspect is often as valuable to a business audience as a technical one.   

In reading the intro I couldn’t help but think that with so much of Gotta’s resume tied up in enterprise IT, it does not surprise me that he comes to the defense of IT. While I appreciate his post I find nothing in it to suggest anything other than a defense of the status quo. This really doesn’t surprise me, it would be like me walking into a crowd of Oracle DBA's and telling them that we’re gonna switch to MySQL because it’s a less costly solution and it will accommodate our needs… none of them are going to be happy about it and each one will offer an impassioned response on why Oracle is a superior product when in fact they are offering little more than an impassioned response for why I should not devalue their hard earned skillset.

However, it’s a little hard to argue that I’m wrong for suggesting that enterprise IT should get smaller when your consulting organization’s primarily serves enterprise IT. You are about big IT, I am about small IT… we can agree to disagree.

Source: Venture Chronicles

Comments

[jeff nolan]

Mike,
I am really not as entertained by the sport of IT Bashing as you might believe. Indeed, many of my friends and other people I respect are in that end of the business. Many of the groups that come through Teqlo are IT groups interested in what I care about - giving business users more control over their business apps. I want to see innovators and power users who aren't in IT have more say and control over their IT, it's that simple. I left SAP because I just couldn't get excited about enterprise software and enterprise IT, I joined a startup dedicated to satisfying users because that is where growth will be found.

Here's a better post that comes at this issue in a more reasoned tone than the one you highlighted:
http://jeffnolan.com/wp/2007/03/03/revolution-means-deciding-for-myself-who-the-bad-guy-is/