4 ms·

I think your first scenario is a good illustration of undervaluing IT, with attendant eventual disaster. Perhaps your second is IT being overvalued? You've des

by Kalium 6y ago

I think your first scenario is a good illustration of undervaluing IT, with attendant eventual disaster. Perhaps your second is IT being overvalued? You've described a situation where technologies are being deployed inappropriately by an organization ill-equipped to handle the ongoing effort required. This is the sort of silver bullet thinking I would expect from leadership that does not understand IT beyond that it is powerful.

buran77 6y ago
> You've described a situation where technologies are being deployed inappropriately by an organization ill-equipped to handle the ongoing effort required. I took the archetypal "non-technical companies" you gave as an example earlier. If I understood your meaning correctly in the vast majority of those cases undervaluing "programming expertise" is probably the best thing to do. And by "undervaluing" I mean they such companies should not consider this as a skill they should rely on to build their IT around. It's not that the skill is not useful in itself, just that it doesn't serve that type of company well, and valuing it suggests the companies are considering heading in waters that they're unlikely to successfully navigate. Most of those companies will do things inappropriately because they are ill-equipped to handle this. For all intents and purposes "programming expertise" in such a company is like driving drunk. Sure you can get home safe anyway but that's not a reason to be proud of. Or you can crash but the real issue isn't that you couldn't cut it while driving drunk. You shouldn't be doing it to begin with.
- ethbr0 6y ago
  I think there are two different kinds of IT value. The first: I am a competent employee, who can do what needs to be done (in whatever technology). The second: I am a forward-thinking planner, who surveys and keeps abreast of options and can identify, test, and deploy appropriate ones. In my experience, it's the second that's lacking. Aka the "we can only deploy if Microsoft holds our hands through it" shops. Usually 1/2 because of lacking talent and 1/2 because of lacking / incorrect policies. I've seen, but haven't seen too many, instances of "insert crazy state-of-the-art technology." Usually it's just institutional paralysis that prevents anything from getting done.

by Kalium 6y ago

buran77 6y ago

> You've described a situation where technologies are being deployed inappropriately by an organization ill-equipped to handle the ongoing effort required. I took the archetypal "non-technical companies" you gave as an example earlier. If I understood your meaning correctly in the vast majority of those cases undervaluing "programming expertise" is probably the best thing to do. And by "undervaluing" I mean they such companies should not consider this as a skill they should rely on to build their IT around. It's not that the skill is not useful in itself, just that it doesn't serve that type of company well, and valuing it suggests the companies are considering heading in waters that they're unlikely to successfully navigate. Most of those companies will do things inappropriately because they are ill-equipped to handle this. For all intents and purposes "programming expertise" in such a company is like driving drunk. Sure you can get home safe anyway but that's not a reason to be proud of. Or you can crash but the real issue isn't that you couldn't cut it while driving drunk. You shouldn't be doing it to begin with.

ethbr0 6y ago
I think there are two different kinds of IT value. The first: I am a competent employee, who can do what needs to be done (in whatever technology). The second: I am a forward-thinking planner, who surveys and keeps abreast of options and can identify, test, and deploy appropriate ones. In my experience, it's the second that's lacking. Aka the "we can only deploy if Microsoft holds our hands through it" shops. Usually 1/2 because of lacking talent and 1/2 because of lacking / incorrect policies. I've seen, but haven't seen too many, instances of "insert crazy state-of-the-art technology." Usually it's just institutional paralysis that prevents anything from getting done.