You cannot fix stupid vendors
-
@scottalanmiller said in You cannot fix stupid vendors:
@Dashrender said in You cannot fix stupid vendors:
@scottalanmiller said in You cannot fix stupid vendors:
@Dashrender said in You cannot fix stupid vendors:
@scottalanmiller said in You cannot fix stupid vendors:
@Dashrender said in You cannot fix stupid vendors:
This decision is, like so many, well above IT, and IT gets no say in not purchasing said solution.
This is just misidentifying where real IT is versus which team is just actioning the decisions of IT management. In most companies, IT management isn't labeled as IT. But all IT decisions are, by definition, made by IT. Just lots of companies don't like to admit it.
My bad - yeah I constantly do that... I keep forgetting -though I did tell someone the other day that I am not IT, that my boss is, and I'm just her lacky.
It's hard to remember when you have to deal with being called IT, versus actually being the IT decision maker. And it isn't that you aren't IT, you just aren't the part of IT that makes the decisions.
Although we have one client where we constantly have to say "The team called IT doesn't do IT, and the team that does IT has no name."
So what does the team called IT actually do?
They are developers. Real devs with no IT background.
Awww.. so the totally common, but completely wrong, use of the term IT.
gotcha. -
@Dashrender said in You cannot fix stupid vendors:
@scottalanmiller said in You cannot fix stupid vendors:
@Dashrender said in You cannot fix stupid vendors:
@scottalanmiller said in You cannot fix stupid vendors:
@Dashrender said in You cannot fix stupid vendors:
@scottalanmiller said in You cannot fix stupid vendors:
@Dashrender said in You cannot fix stupid vendors:
This decision is, like so many, well above IT, and IT gets no say in not purchasing said solution.
This is just misidentifying where real IT is versus which team is just actioning the decisions of IT management. In most companies, IT management isn't labeled as IT. But all IT decisions are, by definition, made by IT. Just lots of companies don't like to admit it.
My bad - yeah I constantly do that... I keep forgetting -though I did tell someone the other day that I am not IT, that my boss is, and I'm just her lacky.
It's hard to remember when you have to deal with being called IT, versus actually being the IT decision maker. And it isn't that you aren't IT, you just aren't the part of IT that makes the decisions.
Although we have one client where we constantly have to say "The team called IT doesn't do IT, and the team that does IT has no name."
So what does the team called IT actually do?
They are developers. Real devs with no IT background.
Awww.. so the totally common, but completely wrong, use of the term IT.
gotcha.It's common, but I've never seen it in a case where there is a completely dedicated IT department doing IT with no name at all.
-
@scottalanmiller said in You cannot fix stupid vendors:
@Dashrender said in You cannot fix stupid vendors:
@scottalanmiller said in You cannot fix stupid vendors:
@Dashrender said in You cannot fix stupid vendors:
@scottalanmiller said in You cannot fix stupid vendors:
@Dashrender said in You cannot fix stupid vendors:
@scottalanmiller said in You cannot fix stupid vendors:
@Dashrender said in You cannot fix stupid vendors:
This decision is, like so many, well above IT, and IT gets no say in not purchasing said solution.
This is just misidentifying where real IT is versus which team is just actioning the decisions of IT management. In most companies, IT management isn't labeled as IT. But all IT decisions are, by definition, made by IT. Just lots of companies don't like to admit it.
My bad - yeah I constantly do that... I keep forgetting -though I did tell someone the other day that I am not IT, that my boss is, and I'm just her lacky.
It's hard to remember when you have to deal with being called IT, versus actually being the IT decision maker. And it isn't that you aren't IT, you just aren't the part of IT that makes the decisions.
Although we have one client where we constantly have to say "The team called IT doesn't do IT, and the team that does IT has no name."
So what does the team called IT actually do?
They are developers. Real devs with no IT background.
Awww.. so the totally common, but completely wrong, use of the term IT.
gotcha.It's common, but I've never seen it in a case where there is a completely dedicated IT department doing IT with no name at all.
Question - does the no name department report to or get reported to by the so called named IT department? i.e. are they in any way in each others chain of command?
-
@Dashrender said in You cannot fix stupid vendors:
@scottalanmiller said in You cannot fix stupid vendors:
@Dashrender said in You cannot fix stupid vendors:
@scottalanmiller said in You cannot fix stupid vendors:
@Dashrender said in You cannot fix stupid vendors:
@scottalanmiller said in You cannot fix stupid vendors:
@Dashrender said in You cannot fix stupid vendors:
@scottalanmiller said in You cannot fix stupid vendors:
@Dashrender said in You cannot fix stupid vendors:
This decision is, like so many, well above IT, and IT gets no say in not purchasing said solution.
This is just misidentifying where real IT is versus which team is just actioning the decisions of IT management. In most companies, IT management isn't labeled as IT. But all IT decisions are, by definition, made by IT. Just lots of companies don't like to admit it.
My bad - yeah I constantly do that... I keep forgetting -though I did tell someone the other day that I am not IT, that my boss is, and I'm just her lacky.
It's hard to remember when you have to deal with being called IT, versus actually being the IT decision maker. And it isn't that you aren't IT, you just aren't the part of IT that makes the decisions.
Although we have one client where we constantly have to say "The team called IT doesn't do IT, and the team that does IT has no name."
So what does the team called IT actually do?
They are developers. Real devs with no IT background.
Awww.. so the totally common, but completely wrong, use of the term IT.
gotcha.It's common, but I've never seen it in a case where there is a completely dedicated IT department doing IT with no name at all.
Question - does the no name department report to or get reported to by the so called named IT department? i.e. are they in any way in each others chain of command?
Very well could depending on the organization, but I would suspect not in most instances.
-
@DustinB3403 said in You cannot fix stupid vendors:
@Dashrender said in You cannot fix stupid vendors:
@scottalanmiller said in You cannot fix stupid vendors:
@Dashrender said in You cannot fix stupid vendors:
@scottalanmiller said in You cannot fix stupid vendors:
@Dashrender said in You cannot fix stupid vendors:
@scottalanmiller said in You cannot fix stupid vendors:
@Dashrender said in You cannot fix stupid vendors:
@scottalanmiller said in You cannot fix stupid vendors:
@Dashrender said in You cannot fix stupid vendors:
This decision is, like so many, well above IT, and IT gets no say in not purchasing said solution.
This is just misidentifying where real IT is versus which team is just actioning the decisions of IT management. In most companies, IT management isn't labeled as IT. But all IT decisions are, by definition, made by IT. Just lots of companies don't like to admit it.
My bad - yeah I constantly do that... I keep forgetting -though I did tell someone the other day that I am not IT, that my boss is, and I'm just her lacky.
It's hard to remember when you have to deal with being called IT, versus actually being the IT decision maker. And it isn't that you aren't IT, you just aren't the part of IT that makes the decisions.
Although we have one client where we constantly have to say "The team called IT doesn't do IT, and the team that does IT has no name."
So what does the team called IT actually do?
They are developers. Real devs with no IT background.
Awww.. so the totally common, but completely wrong, use of the term IT.
gotcha.It's common, but I've never seen it in a case where there is a completely dedicated IT department doing IT with no name at all.
Question - does the no name department report to or get reported to by the so called named IT department? i.e. are they in any way in each others chain of command?
Very well could depending on the organization, but I would suspect not in most instances.
Do you work for Scott now? You keep responding to very directed and specific questions about that client, but don't seem to be providing the specific answer. I'm not looking for a general answer, but a specific one to the environment Scott is talking about.
-
This post is deleted! -
-
@Dashrender said in You cannot fix stupid vendors:
Question - does the no name department report to or get reported to by the so called named IT department? i.e. are they in any way in each others chain of command?
Sort of, both have a manager, but the "actual" IT manager reports to the dev manager with the IT title.
-
@JaredBusch said in You cannot fix stupid vendors:
Instead you simply refuse to purchase form them when possible. When not possible, you do the absolute minimum required to implement and keep any change documented in order to prevent stupid shit they do from coming back on IT.
This is where it is nice to have policies in place that only allow secure apps to be deployed that meet a a defined criteria. This policy is then signed by CEO and CTO. So when they want the software, you show them it doesnt meet the policy they signed and is it creates unnecessary risk
-
@IRJ said in You cannot fix stupid vendors:
@JaredBusch said in You cannot fix stupid vendors:
Instead you simply refuse to purchase form them when possible. When not possible, you do the absolute minimum required to implement and keep any change documented in order to prevent stupid shit they do from coming back on IT.
This is where it is nice to have policies in place that only allow secure apps to be deployed that meet a a defined criteria. This policy is then signed by CEO and CTO. So when they want the software, you show them it doesnt meet the policy they signed and is it creates unnecessary risk
Great idea.
-
@scottalanmiller said in You cannot fix stupid vendors:
@IRJ said in You cannot fix stupid vendors:
@JaredBusch said in You cannot fix stupid vendors:
Instead you simply refuse to purchase form them when possible. When not possible, you do the absolute minimum required to implement and keep any change documented in order to prevent stupid shit they do from coming back on IT.
This is where it is nice to have policies in place that only allow secure apps to be deployed that meet a a defined criteria. This policy is then signed by CEO and CTO. So when they want the software, you show them it doesnt meet the policy they signed and is it creates unnecessary risk
Great idea.
Another thing to write on the policy is that if there are any exceptions to this they must be signed off and documented. You will find out how quickly the c levels or even directors will not want to sign anything off and accept responsibility for the risk.
-
@IRJ said in You cannot fix stupid vendors:
@scottalanmiller said in You cannot fix stupid vendors:
@IRJ said in You cannot fix stupid vendors:
@JaredBusch said in You cannot fix stupid vendors:
Instead you simply refuse to purchase form them when possible. When not possible, you do the absolute minimum required to implement and keep any change documented in order to prevent stupid shit they do from coming back on IT.
This is where it is nice to have policies in place that only allow secure apps to be deployed that meet a a defined criteria. This policy is then signed by CEO and CTO. So when they want the software, you show them it doesnt meet the policy they signed and is it creates unnecessary risk
Great idea.
Another thing to write on the policy is that if there are any exceptions to this they must be signed off and documented. You will find out how quickly the c levels or even directors will not want to sign anything off and accept responsibility for the risk.
My office wouldn't care..
-
@Dashrender said in You cannot fix stupid vendors:
@IRJ said in You cannot fix stupid vendors:
@scottalanmiller said in You cannot fix stupid vendors:
@IRJ said in You cannot fix stupid vendors:
@JaredBusch said in You cannot fix stupid vendors:
Instead you simply refuse to purchase form them when possible. When not possible, you do the absolute minimum required to implement and keep any change documented in order to prevent stupid shit they do from coming back on IT.
This is where it is nice to have policies in place that only allow secure apps to be deployed that meet a a defined criteria. This policy is then signed by CEO and CTO. So when they want the software, you show them it doesnt meet the policy they signed and is it creates unnecessary risk
Great idea.
Another thing to write on the policy is that if there are any exceptions to this they must be signed off and documented. You will find out how quickly the c levels or even directors will not want to sign anything off and accept responsibility for the risk.
My office wouldn't care..
My guess is they don't care because there are no ramifications. Most of what I have seen is all talk and no action. Add to that, even if you show the signed sheet, blame will be shuffled on down the line.
-
@pmoncho said in You cannot fix stupid vendors:
@Dashrender said in You cannot fix stupid vendors:
@IRJ said in You cannot fix stupid vendors:
@scottalanmiller said in You cannot fix stupid vendors:
@IRJ said in You cannot fix stupid vendors:
@JaredBusch said in You cannot fix stupid vendors:
Instead you simply refuse to purchase form them when possible. When not possible, you do the absolute minimum required to implement and keep any change documented in order to prevent stupid shit they do from coming back on IT.
This is where it is nice to have policies in place that only allow secure apps to be deployed that meet a a defined criteria. This policy is then signed by CEO and CTO. So when they want the software, you show them it doesnt meet the policy they signed and is it creates unnecessary risk
Great idea.
Another thing to write on the policy is that if there are any exceptions to this they must be signed off and documented. You will find out how quickly the c levels or even directors will not want to sign anything off and accept responsibility for the risk.
My office wouldn't care..
My guess is they don't care because there are no ramifications. Most of what I have seen is all talk and no action. Add to that, even if you show the signed sheet, blame will be shuffled on down the line.
yeah, when the owners are the shareholders, they don't have to give a shit.
