Tech Article for You

From my experience working for corporate aliens, from what others have told me, and from numerous articles on the internet, I have come to the conclusion that managers of many corporations show considerable disrespect to their technology workers. Throughout my career, I’ve had a several bad experiences. This was one of my worst.

A couple of years ago, I worked as a systems administrator for a private college. A new School Director just started his administration. When a new School Director takes over, instead of doing anything job related, usually the Director cosmetically starts changing his or her environment. Office furniture gets transferred from one room to another, pictures are moved from one wall to the adjacent wall, and a host of other labor intensive but irrelevant activities are scheduled. Some of these tasks required furniture movers. To save money and get bigger bonuses, management, instead of hiring the needed help, found it appropriate to use their technology instructors. They did not ask for volunteers, nor did they offer additional pay. They just outright ordered them to become laborers for a day.

Being a systems administrator, I believed I was immune from the furniture moving experience. I soon found out differently.

As a systems administrator I took care of approximately 300 computers (with internet connectivity) in the classrooms and offices. I assisted all office personnel and instructors with their computer, networking, or internet problems. I had two people under me. Whenever new computers came in and needed to be set up, either me or one of my assistants would physically unpack the computers and monitors and set them up for the user. If a computer had to be moved from one office and set up in another, this was considered part of the job, and I had no problem doing this.

There was a classroom that had over twenty computers that were old and of very little use. This classroom was going to be turned into a teachers’ lounge and the computers were to be stored in a closet upstairs. Eventually they were to be donated to charity or thrown out. The Director of Education, who was my boss, ordered me and my assistants to move the computers upstairs. I told him that the computers were just junk and my skills were not required for this undertaking nor was it a part of my job description. I pointed out that I didn’t spend all this time and effort learning practical skills to be treated as a furniture mover. I also told him that I wouldn’t ask my assistants to do it, because that’s not part of their job either. He told me that if I felt that way, I should look for another job. I said, “No, you fire me!”

Tempers flared and to avoid getting physically violent, I left the building and walked around the block several times. After I came back, they called me into the School Director’s office. The School Director was the Director of Education’s boss. He only gave me a pep talk about “pitching in” but didn’t fire me. One of my assistants was ordered to move the computers, and he did. I avoided termination, simply because no one knew anything about what I was doing. My assistants were excellent workers, but were relatively inexperienced.

Later, they got a new School Director. Eventually, management found a replacement for me and used a trumped up reason to fire me. Not long after that, the entire school chain was forced to close by the federal government.

The school had several departments reporting to the School Director. They were Management, Education, Business, and Sales departments. The systems administrator didn’t have a department. I was placed under the Education Department, even though I had to service every other department as well as the School Director. It seems that corporate did not think technology was important enough to be given a department. Then they would’ve had to pay me the much higher salary of a department head.

All the managers had nice offices, but the systems administrator’s office was in the server room cluttered with old computers, hard drives, cd-roms, and other assorted parts. This is a typical arrangement for working systems administrators. There are corporations that hire useless tech managers that are only familiar with buzz words. In these cases, the managers would get the big offices, and the ones that actually do the work would get the server rooms.

Being a systems administrator, I could have easily found ways to compromise corporate data. I strongly believe that, no matter how abusive these corporations get, it is wrong to get back at them by sabotaging their systems or corrupting their data. Corporations do have a fear of retaliation. When they fire the systems administrator, they give no notice, change all passwords and provide an immediate security escort off the premises.

Technology instructors, programmers, and web designers are also subject to all types of abuse. I’ve seen programmers who wrote some really creative code but whose names were never mentioned in the company newsletter. Their technologically illiterate managers were highly praised instead.

If you look to sites like rent-a-coder, you’ll find that you can get fancy websites for next to nothing. You can even buy 10 articles for your site for as little as 50 dollars (5 dollars per article). That’s because so many good designers, writers, and programmers from countries like India and Russia are willing to work for relatively low pay. Since currently there is an ample supply of creative people, this abuse will continue.

In America your chances of becoming management material improve greatly the less you learn. When I went to college studying engineering, I met this man that never could understand the subject matter taught in class. When I ran into him years later, he was a highly paid manager working for the state. He told me that the only technology he needed for his job was to “know who to call”.

There are two types of degrees, ones in real fields like Biology, Chemistry, Computers, Engineering, Web Design, etc. and the ones usually held by management like the Masters in Business Administration (MBA), or a Doctorate in History, Literature or Education. A lot of times, someone working as a cashier for McDonald’s has more common sense than a typical PhD in Education. On the other hand, people with more practical degrees actually possess real skills. If it weren’t for people that create and understand technology, we would still be at the mercy of the Bishops of the Inquisition, all holding Doctorates of Divinity.

With some exceptions, corporations generally tend to hire MBA’s, PhD’s in Liberal Arts, or inept individuals with technology degrees as management. They are perfectly suited to the requirements of corporate culture. They just have enough brains to follow orders from corporate, but are not creative enough to challenge any directives.

I don’t think that my views of management are unique. You only have to look to the comic strip Dilbert and note the intelligence of the “boss” character. The strip wouldn’t be as popular as it is, if it did not satirize the truth.

Let me warn the corporate alien management of today: Stop treating your technology people as “go-fors”! One day they’ll just get fed up and quietly walk off the job. Without them your data driven, email centric cyber world cannot long endure.

Tags: Corporate Aliens, MBA, PhD, Technology, Technology Workers, Workplace AbuseCorporate Aliens, MBA, PhD, Technology, Technology Workers, Workplace Abuse

Share This

“A company runs on information, not data.”
- Bryce’s Law

INTRODUCTION

You’ve heard them all before. They particularly arise whenever
quality work is required or when organization and management control
is imposed. Of course, I’m talking about the ten common myths of
I.T. Ten common rationalizations people in the Information
Technology world turn to whenever their authority or professionalism
is challenged. They are neither new or limited to a specific
geographical location. They have been around as long as the modern
computer and they transcend all cultural and industrial boundaries. What’s
worse, they have proven to be effective.

The following is the ten most popular myths in the field. Obviously, it
is not all inclusive. It is simply the ten most commonly used:

• OUR PROBLEMS ARE UNIQUE

• WE NEVER SEEM TO HAVE ENOUGH TIME TO DO THINGS RIGHT

• YOU ARE STIFLING OUR CREATIVITY

• SYSTEM DESIGN IS AN ART FORM

• TECHNOLOGY WILL SOLVE OUR PROBLEMS

• A DBMS IS A PREREQUISITE FOR DATA BASE

• THERE IS AN INFINITE AMOUNT OF DATA IN AN ORGANIZATION

• OUR COMPANY RUNS ON DATA

• USERS OWN THE DATA

• USERS DON’T KNOW WHAT THEY WANT

Let’s look past the facade of each of these for a moment and
see what they really mean.

“OUR PROBLEMS ARE UNIQUE”

This is perhaps the most popular of the myths and is probably
used to pacify the ego of I.T. Management. I discovered it
several years ago when I happened to do some consulting for three
separate companies from the United States, Japan and Brazil. In all
three instances, the I.T. Managers insisted their problems were
unique to their company. They pointed at the overwhelming pressure
they operated under, uncooperative users, insensitive management,
and some cultural constraints. The parallelism was incredible. Here
were three separate companies, geographically separated by thousands
of miles, all of which describing the same problems, yet viewing
themselves as unique.

In studying this further, I discovered most companies share
the same problems, such as:

A. A substantial backlog of user requests (three to five years seems
to be the norm).

B. Poor communications internally within the I.T. staff
and externally with end-users.

C. Project cost overruns and slipped schedules.

D. Employee dependencies to maintain and support systems.

E. Hardware/Software dependencies; systems are tied too closely
to a particular vendor, making upgrading difficult.

F. Redundant data throughout an organization (we know of one state
government who conservatively estimated NET-PAY is calculated
at least 100 different ways).

G. Lack of adequate documentation (thus providing job security for
the staff).

H. High staff turnover.

I. Design inconsistencies.

J. Systems personnel clash with data base personnel.

K. Information Systems do not meet users needs.

L. DBMS is used as nothing more than an elegant access method.

M. Data is tied too closely to applications, making change difficult.

Bottom-line, I.T. organizations suffer from low productivity
and poor performance. Inevitably they end up in a “fire-fighting” mode
of operation constantly patching problems. However, the problem here is
the chief fire-fighters are also the principal arsonists. It is
unfortunate the “fire-fighters” enjoy higher visibility than those
who work quietly in a methodical manner. This is a situation where the
guilty are promoted and the innocent are prosecuted.

Instead of imposing management discipline and control, I.T. managers
resign themselves to a life of chaos. It is no small wonder their average
tenure in office is less than three years.

“WE NEVER SEEM TO HAVE ENOUGH TIME TO DO THINGS RIGHT”

This implies “we have plenty of time to do things wrong.” There
is an interesting relationship between the quality of a product
and the speed by which it is developed. This phenomenon is true of
any product being built.

The faster the delivery of a product, the greater the chances are
for inferior quality. The slower the delivery, the greater the chances
are for superior quality. Neither extreme is acceptable; an even balance
must be maintained to assure one doesn’t have an adverse effect on
the other.

Instead of developing a long range plan that incorporates an information
strategy, management nurtures the problem by saying they need everything
“yesterday.” Software vendors prey on companies like this by offering miracle
products (e.g., CASE, 4GL, program generators, etc.) promising to accelerate
development while producing quality results. Without the appropriate
management environment, they deliver neither and compound problems
further. These tools concentrate on efficiency, not effectiveness. Before
you can streamline your operation, you must first know what you are doing.

“YOU ARE STIFLING OUR CREATIVITY”

This scapegoat is a favorite among the “techy set.” It is a defensive
expression that springs up whenever discipline or change is mentioned. What
is ironic is these same people do not hesitate to reorganize a user’s
department. The hypocrisy is incredible. Systems people, who are supposed
to be the agents of change in an organization, are the most resistant to it.

“SYSTEM DESIGN IS AN ART FORM”

Closely related to the “stifling” myth is the view of system design
as an exotic art form. Most systems developers like to be viewed as
free-spirited souls who do not like to be encumbered with organization,
discipline and accountability. The fact is, many of these so-called
“Rembrandts” are nothing more lousy house painters. They hide behind
the mystique of their technology in the hopes it will conceal their
poor performance.

Systems design is a proven and teachable science. This is not to
suggest science lacks creativity. For example, there is considerable
creativity in the sciences of architecture, engineering, music, etc. Science
simply establishes the governing principals and rules to be observed
in your work.

“TECHNOLOGY WILL SOLVE OUR PROBLEMS”

This is more of a train of thought as opposed to an actual
expression. It is based on the belief that hardware and software will
correct all of the ills and ineffectiveness of the company. The belief
that technology, not management, will solve problems is just as prevalent
today as it was when the computer was first introduced.

It is fascinating to watch companies throw millions of dollars at
solving a problem through technology, yet balk at spending money for
management, a sort of “penny-wise and pound foolish” mentality. Corporate
management genuinely believes that I.T, management controls and tools can
be developed inexpensively, if not free.

To some companies, technology is purchased more as the latest
status symbol, as opposed to its practicality. It is purchased more
to “keep up with the Jones’” than anything else. What they don’t realize
is the Jones’ are in as much trouble as they are.

“A DBMS IS A PREREQUISITE FOR DATA BASE”

I remember meeting an I.T. Director from a large regional bank from the
U.S. southwest who insisted his company didn’t have a data base. What he
meant to say was he didn’t have a DBMS (Data Base Management System). With the
propagation of DBMS packages in the field, most companies now sincerely believe
a DBMS is a prerequisite for data base. Although DBMS software offers
tremendous leverage for file management, it is far from being a mandate for
data base.

All companies have a data base, some are managed, most are not. A data
base is nothing more than a collection of all of the data required to produce
information. Obviously, this definition transcends the computer. It is a
recognition that data is a resource which must be managed like any other
resource; e.g., money, people, materials, etc.

A DBMS offers great capability when managing data stored on mass storage
devices. But it must be realized that data is used throughout an entire
organization, in manual and computer applications, in a variety of files
(manual, tape, microfiche, disk, etc.). Data Base Administration
activities typically cover only the data used by a DBMS. What is necessary is
a higher level position that manages all of the data, regardless of where used
or how stored. The Data Management function should behave in a manner similar
to Materials Management, Financial Management, and Human Resource Management. This
is the Achilles’ Heal for most I.T. organizations, the failure to recognize
data as a valuable and re-useable resource.

To compound problems further, even when DBMS technology is introduced
to a company, it is rarely used effectively. Instead of utilizing a DBMS
to share data among applications, most apply it as an access method only.

I conservatively estimate less than 5% of all I.T. organizations
in the world have successfully implemented a managed data base environment,
DBMS or not.

“THERE IS AN INFINITE AMOUNT OF DATA IN AN ORGANIZATION”

Some people would have you believe there is an inordinate number of
unique data elements used in an organization and to catalog and control
them is a mammoth undertaking (therefore, we shouldn’t waste our time). Instead
of documenting a data element and re-using this intelligence,
people typically redefine data with each application. This leads to
inconsistent definitions and redundant work effort. But worst of all,
it makes implementing a change to a data element extremely complicated.

In reality, there is a finite number of data elements in any given
organization, probably in the neighborhood of 3,000 to 5,000. And although
it is no small effort to document the data, it is a wise investment in the
future. Once it is defined, a data element can be re-used in multiple
applications, which leads to a shared data base environment. Capturing this
intelligence must evolve over time with each application, it cannot be
captured over night.

“OUR COMPANY RUNS ON DATA”

This is one of the most naive statements in the business, one
rooted in ignorance. The person using this expression obviously
doesn’t grasp the inherent differences between data and information. They
are not synonymous. The differences are simply too numerous to list
here but essentially Data by itself is meaningless; it is the representation
of a fact or an event. It is the raw material by which information is
produced. Contrary to this, Information is the intelligence or insight
gained from processing data to support specific business functions.

A company runs on information, not data. In fact, information is the
most important asset a company has. All actions and decisions are
predicated on information. Organizations progress when the impact of
good actions and decisions outweighs the impact of bad actions and
decisions. Information gives us the means to make these actions and
decisions.

Those who do not understand the differences between information and
data are probably the same people who do not understand the differences
between an information system and computer software.

“USERS OWN THE DATA”

This is a typical attitude found in companies who do not
understand the concept of managing data as a resource. In this
situation, data is jealously guarded by each user. As a
consequence, redundant files and applications are the norm. The
sooner you get past this stage, the better off your organization
will be.

Does the Controller “own” the money? Does the Human Resources Manager
“own” the employees? Does the Materials Manager “own” the parts?
Of course not; they simply administer the resource. A comparable
position to manage data resources must also be created.

“USERS DON’T KNOW WHAT THEY WANT”

Translation: “I don’t know what I’m doing so I’ll just keep hacking
away at the problem.” This type of comment is a sign the person
is not properly trained in Systems Analysis. Users didn’t get their job
by default; they must know a little bit about their end of the business,
otherwise they are not going to have it for long. The problem typically
stems from the analyst’s inability to define business problems, specify
information requirements and to effectively communicate with the
user. Instead of asking how the user wants to view their screen,
try to understand their problem first. An elegant solution to the wrong
problem solves nothing. Only when the Systems Analyst can walk in the
moccasins of the user, does the analyst have the right to build a system
for the user.

CONCLUSION

You would think after forty years of promoting these myths,
we could invent some new ones that are a little more imaginative. The
fact they have survived this long is indicative that management is
still not facing up to their problems and are still baffled by
technical gobbledegook.

Tags: Bryce, Infortmation, IT, MBA, Technology, TimBryce, Infortmation, IT, MBA, Technology, Tim

Share This

“As computer hardware capacity increases, software becomes more bloated.”

- Bryce’s Law

INTRODUCTION

Ever wonder why our computers typically last no more than three years? Many contend it is because of the fast pace of technological advancements. Maybe. But I tend to believe there is a little more to it than just that, namely “Parkinson’s Law.” For those of you who may have forgotten, “Parkinson’s Law” was devised by C. Northcote Parkinson, noted British historian and author. His original book, “Parkinson’s Law: The Pursuit of Progress,” was introduced in 1958 and was a top-selling management book for a number of years (it is still sold today). The book was based on his experience with the British Civil Service. Among his key observation’s was that “work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion.” Basically, he suggests that people make work in order to rationalize their employment. Consequently, managers create bureaucracies and superfluous work to justify their existence, not because it is really needed.

As an aside, CEO’s clearly understood Parkinson’s Law, which became the driving force behind the flattening of corporations in the 1990’s, such as General Electric under Jack Welch’s reign.

AS APPLIED TO INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

Whereas Parkinson was primarily concerned with people, his law is equally applicable to machines, particularly computers; for example, Parkinson’s Law can be applied to computing in terms of “Data expands to fill the space available for storage.” Years ago I had a Compaq Presario computer with 50mb of disk space, which I considered substantial at the time. I never dreamt I would be able to fill up the hard drive. But, of course, I did (as well as other PC’s I have had over the years). My current PC has a hard drive with a capacity of 224gb and though I’m a long way from filling it up, inevitably I know I will for two reasons: I now feel more comfortable with downloading large multimedia files (MP3, AVI, WMV, etc.), PDF files, data base files, and other larger file formats, and; Second, because developers have become sloppy in programming.

Back when memory and disk space were at a premium, there was great concern over the efficient use of computer resources. Program code was written very tightly and consideration was given to file size. For example, establishing a simple file index was scrutinized carefully. But as the computer capacity grew and hardware prices declined, developers became less interested in efficient programming. To illustrate, not too long ago packaged software installation programs were delivered on 3.5″ diskettes. Today, it is not uncommon to use multiple CD’s to install the same products. This means that as computer hardware capacity increases, software becomes more bloated. This is but one example of Parkinson’s Law as applied in computing.

An another example, let’s consider data transmission lines as used in networking. It doesn’t seem long ago we were using 14.4 baud modems over telephone lines. I remember when we doubled the speed to 28.8 and then 56.4. It seemed like the sky was the limit with every increase. But eventually performance seemed to slow to a crawl. Was it because the technology was aging or was it because our web pages were becoming bigger and more complicated requiring greater data volume over the lines? Frankly, it was the latter. Today, DSL and cable are commonplace in households as well as in business and “dial-up” is rapidly becoming a thing of the past. But as data volume increases with the number of subscribers, will we ever hit a wall in terms of capacity with DSL and cable? Undoubtedly. Again, more due to Parkinson’s Law then anything else.

Make no mistake, computer hardware and software vendors are acutely aware of the role of Parkinson’s Law. It is what allows them to build-in planned obsolescence into their products. As consumers reach capacity, they can either add additional capacity or, more likely, purchase new computers.

There is undoubtedly an incestuous relationship between hardware and software vendors. Hardware enhancements are primarily implemented to increase capacity in order to overcome software inefficiencies, and software vendors make their products more bloated as hardware enhancements are introduced. To illustrate the point, is it a coincidence that every major release of Windows requires additional hardware support? Hardly. This is done more by design than by accident.

CONCLUSION

Parkinson’s Law is just as much a part of computer technology as it is in the corporate world. But what would happen if we decided to “flatten” computer technology in the same manner that Jack Welch flattened G.E.? Keep in mind, Welch did so to eliminate bureaucracy and force his workers to become more efficient and focus on the true problems at hand. By flattening the “bloatware” we would probably get a lot more mileage out of our computers. But I guess that wouldn’t be good for selling computers (or the economy).

I guess Parkinson’s Law and the viscous circle of computing will be with us for quite some time.

Tags: Bryce, Information, law, management, MBA, Parkinson, Parkinsons, Technology, TimBryce, Information, law, management, MBA, Parkinson, Parkinsons, Technology, Tim

Share This