What IT Needs
-
@MattSpeller said:
@Nic said:
I think IT needs to be licensed for safety reasons, given all the security breaches and releases of data that happen lately.
What does licensing look like to you? What are it's pro's and con's?
Something like this:
http://ncees.org/licensure/The cons are barriers to entry and sometimes licensing is just there to keep new people out. But I think in the case of IT it's worth getting better quality control.
-
@Nic said:
@MattSpeller said:
@Nic said:
I think IT needs to be licensed for safety reasons, given all the security breaches and releases of data that happen lately.
What does licensing look like to you? What are it's pro's and con's?
Something like this:
http://ncees.org/licensure/The cons are barriers to entry and sometimes licensing is just there to keep new people out. But I think in the case of IT it's worth getting better quality control.
You mean just because I know how to do a virus removal, know a couple of commands at the command prompt, and have heard the word "Linux" before, I'm not made for IT?! NONSENSE!
-
@Nic said:
Maybe the model would be engineers, who can be held liable for buildings or bridges that collapse.
That's specifically civil engineers, not general engineers like mechanical or electrical. I don't think IT should be held accountable like that because IT doesn't get enough say in the process. If they did and were accountable, we'd refuse to implement anything not warranties by a vendor and not totally overkill because it would be a cover our asses situation. It's very important that we be able to take on business risk as part of the process. Otherwise, we actually do harm rather than good.
-
@Nic said:
@MattSpeller said:
@Nic said:
I think IT needs to be licensed for safety reasons, given all the security breaches and releases of data that happen lately.
What does licensing look like to you? What are it's pro's and con's?
Something like this:
http://ncees.org/licensure/The cons are barriers to entry and sometimes licensing is just there to keep new people out. But I think in the case of IT it's worth getting better quality control.
I agree that QC and keeping people out is important. IT is overloaded with bad people making it hard for good people to get work. Even though we are short people, we would do better if we had fewer overall.
-
@thanksaj said:
You mean just because I know how to do a virus removal, know a couple of commands at the command prompt, and have heard the word "Linux" before, I'm not made for IT?! NONSENSE!
Maybe that is all that would be on the test.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Nic said:
@MattSpeller said:
@Nic said:
I think IT needs to be licensed for safety reasons, given all the security breaches and releases of data that happen lately.
What does licensing look like to you? What are it's pro's and con's?
Something like this:
http://ncees.org/licensure/The cons are barriers to entry and sometimes licensing is just there to keep new people out. But I think in the case of IT it's worth getting better quality control.
I agree that QC and keeping people out is important. IT is overloaded with bad people making it hard for good people to get work. Even though we are short people, we would do better if we had fewer overall.
I think if IT dropped all the people who really aren't cut out to be in IT, we'd see a lot more MSPs and only the largest of companies would have in-house IT staffs. Jobs would be almost exclusively at MSPs.
-
@thanksaj said:
I think if IT dropped all the people who really aren't cut out to be in IT, we'd see a lot more MSPs and only the largest of companies would have in-house IT staffs. Jobs would be almost exclusively at MSPs.
That's a reasonable thought but I think it's years and much work away. I could see worse outcomes.
-
@thanksaj said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Nic said:
@MattSpeller said:
@Nic said:
I think IT needs to be licensed for safety reasons, given all the security breaches and releases of data that happen lately.
What does licensing look like to you? What are it's pro's and con's?
Something like this:
http://ncees.org/licensure/The cons are barriers to entry and sometimes licensing is just there to keep new people out. But I think in the case of IT it's worth getting better quality control.
I agree that QC and keeping people out is important. IT is overloaded with bad people making it hard for good people to get work. Even though we are short people, we would do better if we had fewer overall.
I think if IT dropped all the people who really aren't cut out to be in IT, we'd see a lot more MSPs and only the largest of companies would have in-house IT staffs. Jobs would be almost exclusively at MSPs.
There would be a lot more cut-rate MSP's. How many does NTG get jobs from already because they have no clue what they are doing?
-
@Minion-Queen said:
There would be a lot more cut-rate MSP's. How many does NTG get jobs from already because they have no clue what they are doing?
There will always be the good, the bad, and the ugly - that's part of why I find this so interesting; how do you sort them out?
-
@thanksaj said:
I think if IT dropped all the people who really aren't cut out to be in IT, we'd see a lot more MSPs and only the largest of companies would have in-house IT staffs. Jobs would be almost exclusively at MSPs.
As it mostly should be. IT should not be a "one guy here, one guy there" kind of job.
-
@Minion-Queen said:
There would be a lot more cut-rate MSP's. How many does NTG get jobs from already because they have no clue what they are doing?
But how many do they not get because people hire incompetent people and put themselves at risk not understanding the difference?
-
@Minion-Queen said:
@thanksaj said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Nic said:
@MattSpeller said:
@Nic said:
I think IT needs to be licensed for safety reasons, given all the security breaches and releases of data that happen lately.
What does licensing look like to you? What are it's pro's and con's?
Something like this:
http://ncees.org/licensure/The cons are barriers to entry and sometimes licensing is just there to keep new people out. But I think in the case of IT it's worth getting better quality control.
I agree that QC and keeping people out is important. IT is overloaded with bad people making it hard for good people to get work. Even though we are short people, we would do better if we had fewer overall.
I think if IT dropped all the people who really aren't cut out to be in IT, we'd see a lot more MSPs and only the largest of companies would have in-house IT staffs. Jobs would be almost exclusively at MSPs.
There would be a lot more cut-rate MSP's. How many does NTG get jobs from already because they have no clue what they are doing?
All I know is that poor @FiyaFly already has enough on his plate for a royal banquet....
-
@MattSpeller said:
There will always be the good, the bad, and the ugly - that's part of why I find this so interesting; how do you sort them out?
You don't completely, but you sort what you can. You make it harder to not even know what IT is and claim to be an IT guy. How many people have I seen contemplate if they should count their time "using a computer" as a kid as professional experience?
-
I think a few more expensive lawsuits over lost consumer data might sway businesses. If nothing else, having a licensed IT person working there who adheres to security standards will protect them from being sued successfully.
-
@Nic said:
I think a few more expensive lawsuits over lost consumer data might sway businesses. If nothing else, having a licensed IT person working there who adheres to security standards will protect them from being sued successfully.
Customer data could be a special case situation. Lots of businesses don't have customer data, or nothing worth anything. And having an IT person there that is licensed might actually make them more likely to be sued because they had access to the info, supposedly, but failed to protect themselves. Just because you have one doesn't mean that they were in charge, knew what they were doing or were listened to.
-
But pretty much everyone takes credit cards these days, so if their system gets hacked they'll get shafted. A judge just ruled that the banks could sue Target for not taking adequate precautions.
-
@Nic said:
But pretty much everyone takes credit cards these days, so if their system gets hacked they'll get shafted. A judge just ruled that the banks could sue Target for not taking adequate precautions.
Not many people do. I've worked with a lot of companies, very few of them take credit cards. If you are thinking of retain stores, sure. But outside of the retail business it is relatively small. Most companies that do outsource that so that it isn't part of their IT. It is a few large CC processors that handle it for most companies.
-
True - most of that is outsourced. But they still have do PCI compliance no? I'm seeing more reports of smaller places being hit lately, so at the very least they'll have to eat the cleanup cost and notifying customers.
-
@Nic said:
True - most of that is outsourced. But they still have do PCI compliance no? I'm seeing more reports of smaller places being hit lately, so at the very least they'll have to eat the cleanup cost and notifying customers.
No, PCI compliance only applies to the companies handling the CC data, not to companies being paid in the end. PCI impacts very few companies (percentage wise.) Big retailers like Target store that data in house and are PCI governed, yes. But most small businesses are not as they never possess your CC data.
-
Ah that makes sense. Hopefully there will be some better standards that roll out at some point. I'm tired of having my data leaked by whoever I shop with. And if we're lucky some of that will filter down to SMB.
