Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Why IT Needs To Change for Gen Z

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the what-do-you-mean-it's-against-policy dept.

Cellphones 443

An anonymous reader writes "Staff will routinely be bringing their own devices to work in five years time, according to IT industry experts in the UK. Some companies might already allow a few iPhones and iPads, but CIOs and businesses are not only going to have to support a general influx of consumer kits — they're going to need to get a whole lot more relaxed in general. 'Big businesses are going to have to become more flexible about how IT is provisioned and managed — to enable a new generation of workers who use consumer technologies to communicate and be productive.'"

cancel ×

443 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Not where I work... (4, Insightful)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 2 years ago | (#36204048)

Staff will routinely be bringing their own devices to work in five years time, according to IT industry experts in the UK

Not where I work. Seriously, a *LOT* would have to change - like a move away from Windows networks, and that's not going to happen (sorry).

Re:Not where I work... (2)

AlienIntelligence (1184493) | more than 2 years ago | (#36204104)

Yeah, I run a home office and I would rather provide a pc than have some virus infected vector on my network.

-AI

Re:Not where I work... (1)

davester666 (731373) | more than 2 years ago | (#36204376)

Isn't that like saying you only would give your employee's Honda Civics to drive [which has the highest rate of theft in the US], and refuse to let them use their personal Maserati to make deliveries because it might get stolen?

Or did you mean PC's running something other than Windows?

Re:Not where I work... (5, Insightful)

Tarlus (1000874) | more than 2 years ago | (#36204474)

A [insert OS here] computer managed by competent IT staff is likely to be far more secure than an an unmanaged [insert same OS here] computer brought in from the outside.

Yes, even Windows.

Re:Not where I work... (4, Insightful)

klubar (591384) | more than 2 years ago | (#36204498)

I second this thought. Remember, that's why they call it work. If employees want to update their facebook status, chat with friends, shop or goof off, I believe that's what they call leisure.

Re:Not where I work... (1)

peragrin (659227) | more than 2 years ago | (#36204574)

exactly which is why the wired network has strict rules but the wifi is open to the internet.

employee's don't have to use work computers to update facebook.

Re:Not where I work... (2, Insightful)

PC and Sony Fanboy (1248258) | more than 2 years ago | (#36204470)

Yeah, I run a home office and I would rather provide a pc than have some virus infected vector on my network.

-AI

... Your problem isn't virus vectors, it's hiring incompetent people.

Re:Not where I work... (3, Informative)

adamofgreyskull (640712) | more than 2 years ago | (#36204594)

A person can be a perfectly competent bookkeeper, accountant or any number of other things and yet not be competent (or diligent) enough to keep their machine virus-free.

Re:Not where I work... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36204120)

Where I work is a Windows only network.

We allow anybody to connect via wifi with a device they bring from home. Captive gateway, with deep packet inspection.

Not really that hard.

Re:Not where I work... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36204258)

Same with me, large advertizing office.

Network is secured. Wifi is isolated; one for guests, one for "personal devices" (requested and matched on MAC), one for test-devices.

Everybody happy.

Re:Not where I work... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36204290)

Network is secured.

Yeah, so who cares if the network is secured? I mean, your computers run firewalls right? You don't really need to consider your network secure. What you need to worry about is add-ins and other crap that ride along on these machines. Once the user authenticates to a resource, these craplets have the same rights to that resource that the user does. Delete data? Update data? Steal data? Yep - all of those. The problem with these devices is that you have no idea what code may be impersonating the user and taking actions that the user is permitted to take. It isn't a pretty scenario and allowing these devices access is not a good idea at all. This is one of the reasons we only allow logon with a smart card. The malware laden consumer gear that comes in doesn't have a driver or a card reader. If it had a reader it doesn't have the middle ware and isn't joined to our domain so there is no trust path for the PKI certificate. They don't have an "ID and password" so they can't connect to resources on their malware infested consumer gear.

Re:Not where I work... (2)

klubar (591384) | more than 2 years ago | (#36204528)

I believe the solution is to put the "courtesy" network completely outside of the work network--no connection. Although you still need to run a firewall to prevent rogue servers and downloads. One could argue that the company is completely responsible for any illegal use (downloads, spam) on their corporate IP addresses.

Unless the IP addresses are in a completely seperate range, the company needs to be careful that any spam from the "friends" network doesn't impact the corporate rating.

The next question is it really worth the bother? The hip employees with their iphones already have data plans (and probably don't care how much it costs (see Apple kit)), so why do you need to provide free wifi?

Re:Not where I work... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36204322)

No it's not until the police get involved in finding out who is downloading Bambi or one of the bosses are targeted for child pornography in error.

What whiners. Do your fucking job and protect your companies interests and tell the iTards to surf porn on their own dime and their own time.

We have and soon will not have such a laid back dimwitted IT department. There's been so many problems and several attacks on our network. This latest was an attack on the wifi they have for the iTard users.

Re:Not where I work... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36204364)

No it's not until the police get involved in finding out who is downloading Bambi or one of the bosses are targeted for child pornography in error.

Assuming our deep packet inspection didn't catch it, we tell them the id who signed in to that IP.

Seriously, did you not even try to read what I said?

Right! Who is responsible for security? (5, Insightful)

khasim (1285) | more than 2 years ago | (#36204144)

It SHOULD come down to a simple business decision.

Is the advantage of adding those devices going to bring in more revenue than the extra effort and lost/compromised data is going to cost?

Re:Right! Who is responsible for security? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36204300)

It SHOULD come down to a simple business decision.

Is the advantage of adding those devices going to bring in more revenue than the extra effort and lost/compromised data is going to cost?

But will this decision take into account externalities such as the mess I have to deal with when they lose my credit card number?

Re:Right! Who is responsible for security? (4, Insightful)

speculatrix (678524) | more than 2 years ago | (#36204344)

I agree, but it's not just the revenues and cost, it's as much about securing the safety of the business's data (and their customers), and demonstrating a duty of care in the handling of that data. In some case there may be a legal requirement effectively preventing ANY use of the corporate network by the invididual.

Computers provided by the employer should be seen as tools for the job, owned and operated by the employer solely for the benefit of the employer's business.

If that laptop computer is owned by the business, the business can:

  • deny the user admin rights
  • install only the required applications and deny unnecessary applications (e.g. flash plugins, itunes etc)
  • set up whole disk encryption
  • install an anti-virus toolkit and ensure it is up to date
  • enforce the use of VPNs and proxies for any internet access
  • confiscation of the computer for any reason, such at the moment of job termination

Many of the above actions are difficult or impossible if the employee uses their own laptop... unless the laptop is simply a thin client, but even then a key logger would be a security risk.

There is already a big problem with people storing confidential information on laptop computers which leave the workplace. How this can be controlled if staff use their own?

I agree. (1)

khasim (1285) | more than 2 years ago | (#36204494)

I agree, but it's not just the revenues and cost, it's as much about securing the safety of the business's data (and their customers), and demonstrating a duty of care in the handling of that data.

Except that violations of that kind are usually dealt with via fines or losing your compliance certification (which requires that you go through the process again after a certain time).

Which can both be translated into MONEY.

In some case there may be a legal requirement effectively preventing ANY use of the corporate network by the invididual.

Yep. And again, that usually translated into a fine (MONEY) or loss of certification (MONEY).

Computers provided by the employer should be seen as tools for the job, owned and operated by the employer solely for the benefit of the employer's business.

Exactly. You don't see other employees "fixing" the locks on the doors, do you? Hey, it's easier for me if they're keyed the same as my house key. No problem, right?

Many of the above actions are difficult or impossible if the employee uses their own laptop... unless the laptop is simply a thin client, but even then a key logger would be a security risk.

Not to mention the implied requirement that every single employee doing that have the same (or higher) education/experience as the dedicated IT department. How many people out there don't even know that their machines are zombies?

There is already a big problem with people storing confidential information on laptop computers which leave the workplace. How this can be controlled if staff use their own?

Exactly. And if someone steals their iPhone which just happens to contain a copy of the customer database including credit card info ... that's even more MONEY that has to be spend in fines and PR and lost customers.

Personally, I don't see any way that using personal electronics for work can generate more revenue than it can cost.

Maybe I'll be wrong in the future. We'll have to wait and see.

Re:Right! Who is responsible for security? (1)

clang_jangle (975789) | more than 2 years ago | (#36204536)

Ultimately I foresee a solution which has people using their device of choice as a thin client, with security checking done by the server against the contents of the device's storage media. Of course, supporting every device under such a scenario is unlikely to occur, and devices which are already essentially administered via the manufacturer (iOS) would be harder to verify authoritatively, to the point where most sane admins won't want to bother with them. Especially since an iOS device is not a proper replacement for a workstation anyway.

Re:Right! Who is responsible for security? (1, Insightful)

Darinbob (1142669) | more than 2 years ago | (#36204514)

I'd like to first see a correlation between those employees who bring their own devices and those employees who are productive.

Re:Not where I work... (1)

KingBenny (1301797) | more than 2 years ago | (#36204146)

i think the point here is that to what they label as gen-Z (something that sounds as disrespectful as what the hippies called gen X), the employer is no longer god, work is no longer the meaning of life, but a means to it, its pretty much saturday tho , as well as late so i might have missed the point entirely, in which case i sincerely apologize :)

Re:Not where I work... (2, Interesting)

SerpentMage (13390) | more than 2 years ago | (#36204164)

No I do think people are missing a point. I think what will happen is that people will be allowed and encouraged to bring their own devices. BUT those devices will be treated as security risks. Then to get into the network it will be a sort of private cloud type situation.

Think of it as follows; you bring your iphone and you access your corporate network using a terminal. That terminal does not let you share with the local environment. It is completely closed off from your own data. I have already seen some prototypes in the investment banking field.

Re:Not where I work... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36204492)

Well, things are changing whether you like it or not.

Where I work we've "always" had it in our IT policy that no personal electronic devices can be brought in, employees are not allowed to use cellphones at work other than company-provided ones, headphones and mp3 players are strictly banned because it makes employees look "unprofessional" or something like that, company email cannot be accessed from the outside, the since-ten-years-computerized schedule system for those who don't work regular office hours is not accessible from the outside because, well because. And don't you dare go near any social networking websites or forum unless your boss OKs it and tells IT.

So, what has changed? Well, cellphones are no longer über-banned, you can get away with a having your phone on vibrate rather than turned off. Those who work nights (basically a few customer services types) get away with having mp3 players. Oh, and most amazingly is that there is no longer the monthly firing of an employee or two who visited banned websites. In fact, the monitoring system that tracks this was essentially turned off a few weeks ago (I say essentially because the traffic still flows through it, it just isn't recorded anymore).

But yeah, management types here aren't happy about it, every little increase in freedom in the workplace is met with middle-managers having meetings where they all proclaim that this spells doom for the company, the freedom will be abused and so on. What's kind of funny is that most of these policies were put in place because these middle-management types demanded them, not because there were actual problems with lots of employees wasting "company time" on social websites, potential clients somehow wandering into the mailroom and being appalled by the guy there wearing headphones or whatever the reason was for banning the use of company email from outside the network (this is by no means a high-security operation with lots of trade secrets, the data we have which is valuable is valuable because of the sheer amount of data we have and the fact that we've invested quite a bit of money into hardware capable of handling this data, not exactly data you can email, not to mention that most employees don't have that kind of direct access to the data).

Re:Not where I work... (3, Interesting)

GunFodder (208805) | more than 2 years ago | (#36204530)

How does your company attract and retain talent with such draconian policies?

Re:Not where I work... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36204610)

"like a move away from Windows networks, and that's not going to happen"

There will be no PCs on my work network. Seriously, a *LOT* would have to change - like a move away from our Univac-only network, and that's not going to happen (sorry).

Times change. Get used to it.

umm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36204066)

More like gen y have a shock comming and will have to change the way they behave at work.

NOW gert orf my lawn!

Re:umm (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 2 years ago | (#36204266)

Pretty much what I was thinking, yes.

Structures in companies, especially old and big companies, tend to be rigid. Changing them doesn't take years. It takes decades. GenY'ers will probably be used to carrying around their own computer-in-the-pocket (with their cellphones and pads that do by now easily double as computers), only to notice that these devices will not be allowed in corporation networks.

Bluntly, I don't think corporations will change. They will force YOU to change and adapt to their way of thinking and working.

Re:umm (2)

qubezz (520511) | more than 2 years ago | (#36204434)

The biggest entitlement problem with people and their own devices is they feel like they can use their work time for personal phone calls, tweeting, updating their facebook status, IMing, etc. The policy should be more like steal the company's time, your frickin' fired!

Re:umm (1)

PC and Sony Fanboy (1248258) | more than 2 years ago | (#36204506)

The biggest entitlement problem with people and their own devices is they feel like they can use their work time for personal phone calls, tweeting, updating their facebook status, IMing, etc. The policy should be more like steal the company's time, your frickin' fired!

Sure, I agree with that. So long as the company recognizes that I'm not going to work on their projects on MY time. Lunch? Mine. Breaks? Mine. And I'll do whatever I want on my time - unless they want to pay for it. Then, well, it's not my time anymore.

Now, in all the bigger companies I've worked at, this hasn't been a problem. But when I jumped ship to a small (ish) business, the boss suddenly decided that he could bother me any time of day, no matter what I was doing, so long as I was at the office.

Suddenly, my lunch (which was at 10, not 1, because I started much earlier in the day at his request) was frequently interrupted by meetings or technical requests. My breaks were interrupted when clients had technical questions. I got stuck at the office 5-10 minutes late every day because there was always one more problem that couldn't wait until tomorrow. Sure, while there, I could use my own devices. In fact, if I didn't, I was stuck working on the POS that my boss provided (it was a hand-me-up from his supposedly technically inclined son) that had an underrated psu and a superfluous lighting system that had been hardwired on... which I wasn't allowed to modify, since he wasn't sure when his son would want it back.

So now I'm back at a big company. Sure, I'm just a replaceable cog in a big system... but my time is now my own.

Depends (1)

Spad (470073) | more than 2 years ago | (#36204096)

I'm all for flexibility, but allowing unmanageable, unsecurable, unmonitorable devices like the iPhone (Android isn't much better, Phone 7 is better but still a big step back from WM6), that IT departments will somehow have to support every time they go wrong because they're "being used for work" is simply unworkable.

Re:Depends (1)

Jarryd98 (1677746) | more than 2 years ago | (#36204178)

Based on personal experience, the issue seems to start with executives, rather than the Generation Z underlings mentioned in the article. Usually in the following order, Executive: - Hears of new device. - Purchases said device. - Preaches (corporate) virtues of recently purchased device. - Demands device be catered for (and managed/monitored) within workplace environment, regardless of impracticality. Sound familiar? As an aside, who's to say those mentioned in the article are going to be in a position to dictate which devices are/aren't managed? After all, *they* are seeking employment.

Re:Depends (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36204274)

So at work I have to use Win 7 and BB phone, all prehistoric in the face of MacOSX or IPhone/Android. The issue is security of course. Those non-standard device need to be security tested, but we don't budget for such new and creative technology. On my Win 7 laptop I have full disk encryption, malware and anti-virus. Why because to safely use windows you need that protection. At home, I don’t have any of those overheads on my Macs, not do I fear that someone will produce a bad piece of software that will knock out my router. The endless and senseless cost of have that software on any modern device is staggering unbelievable in 2011. But the head is always slower that the body or so it seems. Maybe in 2015 or later, I’ll be able to use an iPhone or Android but for now in 1999.

Re:Depends (2)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 2 years ago | (#36204326)

Not only that, but C-Level executives are also the biggest security problem in a company. I am neither exaggerating nor is it the usual management-bashing.

Usually they will insist for no good (read: work related) reason on being exempt to content filtering and require local administration rights on their computers. Why? Beats me. Maybe an ego thing, how could that support tech grunt have more "power" over my machine than me? Personally, I had to be browbeat into accepting administrative rights on my machine. No rights - plausible deniability when something hits the fan.

Re:Depends (2)

Dahamma (304068) | more than 2 years ago | (#36204486)

So true. My favorite exemption often demanded is the (already idiotic and not helpful to general security) policy of periodically changing passwords. We peons are expected to come up with a secure, non-duplicated and non-derivative password every 3-6 months that we can somehow remember, while the executives don't want to change theirs since it was already a stretch to remember their wife's birthday for their current password.

Re:Depends (2)

Larryish (1215510) | more than 2 years ago | (#36204252)

True dat.

Keep your fucking cellphone in your pocket, or better yet, leave it at home.

Nothing worse than having an assistant or coworker who spends every free second texting everybody and their brother.

How the fuck are they supposed to stay focused at work?

Re:Depends (1)

Local ID10T (790134) | more than 2 years ago | (#36204332)

Nothing worse than having an assistant or coworker who spends every free second texting everybody and their brother.

How the fuck are they supposed to stay focused at work?

That sounds like a management issue. If your use of $whatever interferes with your ability to work, or with the ability of those around you to work -your boss should simply tell you to cut it out and fire you if you persist.

Re:Depends (5, Informative)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 2 years ago | (#36204460)

Agreed, it became a issue at my workplace with the guys on the warehouse floor, they are moving large heavy objects while operating forklifts while constantly texting. You cant get their attention cause its also jacked into their ears for MP3, and if you ask them a question they cant tell you what they did 5 seconds ago cause they are totally unfocused on their 1 simple task.

Starting Monday if we see a celphone on the floor your gone, period.

A few iPhones? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36204122)

Does the writer of the summary actually work? An iPhone is just a phone. On my floor alone, I think there are dozens of people with iPhones (myself included). No network needs to change, either you're on 3G or Edge ... What does this have to do with the company?

Re:A few iPhones? (1)

obarthelemy (160321) | more than 2 years ago | (#36204328)

email+calendar, then IM and (video-)phone, and then documents and apps, from easier to more difficult/riskier.

Re:A few iPhones? (1)

PC and Sony Fanboy (1248258) | more than 2 years ago | (#36204544)

Does the writer of the summary actually work? An iPhone is just a phone. On my floor alone, I think there are dozens of people with iPhones (myself included). No network needs to change, either you're on 3G or Edge ... What does this have to do with the company?

Agreed. So what if I can't network my device? I use HSPA for all my data needs, and look at my computer when I need to check my appointments. When I'm at work, I check the work computer for my appointments. If I don't have appointments ... I'm at work anyways. It doesn't matter if I can't check my personal device for my work calendar - I know my work hours, and I'll check my schedule when I'm there. Even better, I've only ever received ONE call at 10pm from my boss who *needed* something done in the AM because of a meeting, and I just said "Hey boss, you know what? I don't bring my work calendar home with me, but I'm pretty sure that meeting isn't until next week". Since the meeting actually *was* the next day, I think he got the point : I don't bring my work home with me, and I don't bring home to work. I keep them separate - if he wants to put me on call, he can pay me the extra $10k a year and hire me into that position.

Not on my watch (3, Insightful)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 2 years ago | (#36204124)

Bringing in non-managed hardware would be a security and support nightmare.

its one thing allowing a personal phone to hit your email server, ( since connecting to them often means you get some control, such as remote wipe and its no worse than offering webaccess to mail ) but its a far different issue letting people bring in their personal computers and expect to have them on the network.

No thanks.

Re:Not on my watch (1)

Bryan3000000 (1356999) | more than 2 years ago | (#36204316)

So you let them bring them and connect to a partitioned network which you treat as a public network, and hit your email server just like they would over the internet. If they need more, make more requirements for VPN access.

Perhaps you underestimate the number of companies that have already forgone many in-house systems in favor of publicly available services. Whether accessed from inside or outside the company network, they are public facing and are secured accordingly.

The point is, if you have not already secured your internal network from internal threats, it is likely that everything you have is already compromised. Allowing devices on your network poses no more threat than allowing your employees access to the outside world; if that's a problem, you also manage accordingly -- but the ivory towers that need such security are not the norm, even if they represent a large subset.

Re:Not on my watch (3, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 2 years ago | (#36204346)

Pretty much what I was thinking.

Ask your CSO/CISO what he thinks of that idea and tell me how long it took him to regain composure. Any security conscious company will monitor what machines are connected to their network and refuse "unknown" machines entry, they might get assigned a different network segment or nothing at all, but certainly these machines that are not under my (read: company's) control will NOT gain any access to anything. Even assuming that the owner isn't trying to "steal" anything, who tells me that nothing on the machine is, unbeknownst to the owner?

You really expect a company to trust its employees to keep their computers clean? Companies that don't even trust their workers to actually, well, WORK when they're at work but feel the need to monitor their presence, behaviour and time on the can?

Re:Not on my watch (2)

Lehk228 (705449) | more than 2 years ago | (#36204614)

Ask your CSO/CISO what he thinks of that idea

no thanks, i like keeping my job

Re:Not on my watch (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36204368)

It's really quite a simple and well-known solution: All devices whose OS/cases is not under your control, get only into the de-millitarized zone. Meaning you trust them as little as anything else from the Internet, but they get to access a few more services after some intense scanning (the de-militarizing). Also, specific data is never ever allowed on those devices.

But to be honest: Without a TPM and a OS using it, you don't really can guarantee control over your trusted in-Intranet devices anyway.

Assertive much? (2)

nicholas22 (1945330) | more than 2 years ago | (#36204138)

Well, while I'm in charge, they can bring them alright but they can't plug them or use them for anything work related. Won't there be a capacity for company issued devices in five years time?

Re:Assertive much? (2)

Kenja (541830) | more than 2 years ago | (#36204308)

I am reminded of an incident back in the dot com era. Some sales VP got an email with a virus, my security system wouldn't let him open it. His solution was to bring his personal laptop in, hook it into the company network and open the email. The resulting virus explored the entire network exploiting NT security share flaws and zeroing out (not just erasing, but filling with nulls) every MS Office document and source code file it could find.

Re:Assertive much? (1)

PC and Sony Fanboy (1248258) | more than 2 years ago | (#36204562)

I am reminded of an incident back in the dot com era. Some sales VP got an email with a virus, my security system wouldn't let him open it. His solution was to bring his personal laptop in, hook it into the company network and open the email. The resulting virus explored the entire network exploiting NT security share flaws and zeroing out (not just erasing, but filling with nulls) every MS Office document and source code file it could find.

Sounds like your problem isn't a tech problem, it's a HR problem. Solution : Have some good IT policies in place ... but mainly, don't hire idiots. No matter how secure your network is, idiots will work around it. Instead of having a super secure network attacked by idiots, have smart staff and decent security.

Push the cost of work stations to the workers (1)

RalphSouth (89474) | more than 2 years ago | (#36204142)

I can see plenty of motive to force the workers to pay for their own work stations. You can simply fort up the servers and dump the headache of dealing with the &*^%$# programmers and their work stations. The data entry and administrative systems will still be locked down and controlled; but, all the others will have to fend for themselves.

Re:Push the cost of work stations to the workers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36204212)

LMAO, spoken like a true IT guy. if it wasn't for all those #(%*#$%& programmers, the company would be out of business and the IT guys wouldn't have anything to do. Shut up and do your job IT monkey. As a programmer myself its your job to not interfere with my ability to make the company money, so give me the damn workstation I ask for. The next IT monkey that tells me its too difficult to set up my server spec or too costly to upgrade me, they should be fired on the spot.

I would gladly pay for my own workstation AND IT support services as well if it means I wouldn't have to hear about another IT guy whining about doing the basic job they were hired for. I mean, WTF do you guys actually do if not dealing with #%(&%(* workstations...exactly, sweet f*ck all?

Re:Push the cost of work stations to the workers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36204292)

If you're such a hot shot, why haven't you gone and done it already?

Re:Push the cost of work stations to the workers (2)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 2 years ago | (#36204372)

Hush, codemonkey.

I know well how much you want that 12 gig i7 rig to ... well, to do what? Save a second per compile? Learn to code and don't rely on the compiler and linker to find your glaring syntax errors! The next codemonkey that tells me it's too time consuming to compile on his "old" machine should be fired on the spot!

(well? How does it feel?)

Re:Push the cost of work stations to the workers (1)

PC and Sony Fanboy (1248258) | more than 2 years ago | (#36204588)

Hush, codemonkey.

I know well how much you want that 12 gig i7 rig to ... well, to do what? Save a second per compile? Learn to code and don't rely on the compiler and linker to find your glaring syntax errors! The next codemonkey that tells me it's too time consuming to compile on his "old" machine should be fired on the spot!

(well? How does it feel?)

Hush, BOFH. You havn't left your cave in years, and it's been even longer than that since you've felt the sweet caress of human contact. You don't really know what goes on in the world anymore, and you just keep screaming at us to get off your lawn.

Seriously though. There is a line between "working with the tools you have" and "working with the tools that were purchased 10 years ago when the company opened up". Sure, they both compile just fine. But if you're paying me $40k a year to program, can't you splurge on an extra $400 and get me a half-way decent computer? You'd recoup your costs simply because I'd complain just a little less, and work just a little more.

We already deal with this issue. (1)

Local ID10T (790134) | more than 2 years ago | (#36204170)

You are welcome to bring in your equipment, and use it. I put time, effort and expense into protecting the company assets from harm, including that which may come from your random equipment on our network, accessing our data. Yes, it takes more (time/effort/expense) to work with your random equipment than it would to just lock you out and threaten you with $punishment when you try to use stuff. That is ok. We have adapted.

Now when your stuff doesn't work, or you cant figure out how to do something with it... that is not my problem. You want your own gear -it's your gear.

More info on that? (1)

khasim (1285) | more than 2 years ago | (#36204304)

I put time, effort and expense into protecting the company assets from harm, including that which may come from your random equipment on our network, accessing our data. Yes, it takes more (time/effort/expense) to work with your random equipment than it would to just lock you out and threaten you with $punishment when you try to use stuff.

How are you doing that?

I spend a lot of time locking out systems because I cannot tell the difference between your legitimate connection and your machine being used by some cracker who was running a key logger on your home machine.

How do you handle it?

Why Gen Z Needs To Change for Work (4, Insightful)

Bloodwine77 (913355) | more than 2 years ago | (#36204186)

Sorry, no matter what the generation, they should not be allowed to bring more attack vectors and security vulnerabilities in to the workplace.

They are not special snowflakes, and their personal devices are not necessary for productivity.

Businesses where mobile devices are useful and helpful should already have their infrastructures designed to handle it, so again Gen Z will make no difference.

Re:Why Gen Z Needs To Change for Work (4, Interesting)

St.Creed (853824) | more than 2 years ago | (#36204272)

So your CEO walks in with his new iPhone and wants to access his mobile reporting solution. The one containing all his sales information. You're telling him he can't?
And if the CEO has it, his underlings will have it a few weeks later. They still outrank you. You're going to tell them they can't have it? And when all the managers have it, how long will it be before EVERYONE has access?

Seriously: start preparing, because the tidal wave is coming. It is already happening. 17% of companies now have a "bring-your-own-device" policy in place (a quote from 2 weeks ago by Claudia Imhoff, she spoke at a BI-event I was at). Some provide a choice: company laptop with maintenance or your own device but you do the maintenance. This will grow rapidly.

Philips was migrating to this policy about 5 years ago. Big companies I'm working for are already preparing for that transition. The ones who are not, will find it very hard to satisfy their interal customers. They will also find retainment of new workers a big problem.

Ofcourse this is difficult: it is most difficult for those companies that still have software in place with dedicated clientsoftware, beyond MS Office. Companies (like a few where I worked) that started moving away from that and to webbased apps, are in good position to actually profit from this move.

A couple of things there. (4, Insightful)

khasim (1285) | more than 2 years ago | (#36204404)

The ones who are not, will find it very hard to satisfy their interal customers.

There aren't any "internal customers" because the concept of "customer" contains the element of "choice". If you don't like the service, you go to a different vendor. Internal departments do NOT have that option.

They will also find retainment of new workers a big problem.

The implication being that those "new workers" will be worth the additional considerations. I'm sure you can find enough skilled workers who do not demand that you support their personal electronics.

Seriously: start preparing, because the tidal wave is coming. It is already happening.

As can be said with most fads and bubbles. The question isn't whether it will be happening but whether it will be a new requirement. Or will it happen and then fade as the security issues become evident?

Companies (like a few where I worked) that started moving away from that and to webbased apps, are in good position to actually profit from this move.

Who cares about the software? It's the data that is important?

Ofcourse this is difficult: it is most difficult for those companies that still have software in place with dedicated clientsoftware, beyond MS Office.

It's about the data, not the software.

Losing credit card info is a problem.

Getting Excel running on your phone is not an issue.

So your CEO walks in with his new iPhone and wants to access his mobile reporting solution. The one containing all his sales information. You're telling him he can't?

That depends upon the situation. Do you have read-only access via a secured web site?

What does he REALLY want to accomplish?

He is the CEO. But that just means that he is the CEO.
You can always find a new job.
It's easier to find a new job while you're still working.
Rather than AFTER you're fired because the company hits the papers for losing credit card info because of how you put a hole into your security for the CEO.
And you know that it will be YOU who is fired first and blamed for not keeping the place secure enough.

Re:Why Gen Z Needs To Change for Work (2)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 2 years ago | (#36204454)

The company will supply the CEO with a properly secured iPhone, just like Obama was supplied with a properly secured Blackberry.

It won't be his personal device. There are too many legal issues associated with having a CEO carrying around a device that doesn't adhere to the variety of requirements of a corporate officer.

Re:Why Gen Z Needs To Change for Work (2)

petes_PoV (912422) | more than 2 years ago | (#36204462)

You're going to tell them they can't have it?

No of course you don't dent anything to people more senior than you. But have you ever heard a drill sergeat chewing out a squad of officer recruits? There are ways and means (just put "sir" on the end). You tell them "That's a great idea. I'll get right on it. Oh - and I'll need your cost code for this work ..... you do have a cost code, don't you?" or "Yup, sure. Is that the Mark 3 or the Mark 4, cos those old Mark 2's well - they're just not up to it. ... Oh, that's a shame" and any sysadmin worth his/her pay has a cupboard full of responses like these.

Ultimately, if they absolutely INSIST, just say you'll need to keep it for a day or two to test the integration works OK and then "find" some smut on it, or simply just lose it. Isn't that what all the retail support outfits do?

Re:Why Gen Z Needs To Change for Work (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | more than 2 years ago | (#36204526)

The CEO makes the decisions :-) Generally everywhere I've seen IT bends over backwards to help out the executives (including home computer repair service for retired execs in some cases). When you're an overhead organization your very survival depends on keeping the bosses happy.

Re:Why Gen Z Needs To Change for Work (5, Insightful)

fyonn (115426) | more than 2 years ago | (#36204350)

yeah, I've heard this thing several times over the last year. all these "innovators" talking about how the next generation of "digital natives" will need to work on their ipads while posting everything on facebook and twitter, but I just don't get it. Why? I don't think the average work environment is so short of people as to be that desperate.

In fact, my place is in the middle of cutting costs by 40%, so why would they then bend over backwards massively changing internal policy and introducing risk to attract inexperienced, self entitled oiks who by their own admission, want to spend most of the day on facebook rather than actually doing any work?

Thing is, the company is the one paying the bills, and taking the risks. Where is the business advantage to most businesses to do this? I admit that some more specialised industries that regularly take high skilled graduates may want to do this, but for most industries, i don't see what they'll get out of it?

dave

Re:Why Gen Z Needs To Change for Work (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 2 years ago | (#36204390)

But ... but ... they only handed me this dated blackberry crap and my Android/iPhone is so much cooler!

Re:Why Gen Z Needs To Change for Work (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36204400)

I love this quote..."They are not special snowflakes, and their personal devices are not necessary for productivity."

Who the hell do these young whipper snappers think they are? Why in my day I walked up hill both ways with 20 servers strapped to my back...

I understand Bloodwin77's position on this but I also understand that Gen Z feels that they can't function without their mobile devices and that's because they can't! They really are pathetic in that sense but since the Gen Z's will be our bosses someday why not accommodate them with something like HBSS? That way when they connect their all important mobile devices to the network it has to meet policy or else it is banned as a rouge device. That'll fix them little brats, er, I mean future clueless bosses. :-)

Re:Why Gen Z Needs To Change for Work (4, Insightful)

PC and Sony Fanboy (1248258) | more than 2 years ago | (#36204596)

Sorry, no matter what the generation, they should not be allowed to bring more attack vectors and security vulnerabilities in to the workplace.

They are not special snowflakes, and their personal devices are not necessary for productivity.

Businesses where mobile devices are useful and helpful should already have their infrastructures designed to handle it, so again Gen Z will make no difference.

Sure, you tell the salesman who brings in 150k of business a week for your company that he can't use his new toys to keep track of his contacts. He talks to his boss about the fat guy in IT that drains company resources by depriving him of valuable tools. And then reminds his boss that he makes all the sales that actually pay for IT to exist.

See how long it takes to change policy. Unless you're in non-profit or government, the folks making the money are the folks calling the shots.

I don't think so (2)

perpetual pessimist (1245416) | more than 2 years ago | (#36204208)

It doesn't matter what generation anyone belongs to -- you'll do things the way the employer wants them done, or you won't be employed.

Now, are there some new technologies that are in common use in the consumer market that can be used effectively in the business environment? Probably, yes. And businesses will use them if it makes sense in their environment. But they won't use them because the pouty-faced punks with their newly-minted college degrees will throw a hissy-fit if the boss doesn't let them use their personal gadgets.

Business don't give a damn about their current employees, let alone potential future employees. You'll do as you're told if you want the money... and eating is such an addictive hobby.

Of course, young people just might start up their own businesses where everyone can stay focused on their iWhatevers all day, and if it's better than the old businesses than the young folks will win. I wouldn't put my money in their stock, though.

Re:I don't think so (3, Interesting)

Arterion (941661) | more than 2 years ago | (#36204312)

"It doesn't matter what generation anyone belongs to -- you'll do things the way the employer wants them done, or you won't be employed."

This is not true, nor is it ideal. If a whole generation of people, or even half of that generation, is willing to continually break the rules to use their own devices, employers cannot commence with the wholesale termination of half their labor force. Production would grind to a halt. There would be economic turmoil.

No, if they're smart, employers will find a way to use the workers own technology as free capital.

This is not only a shift in technology, but a whole generation of people communicate differently! Every new mode of communication has been disruptive of the previous: post disrupted the courier, telegraph disrupted post, telephone disrupted telegraph, electronic mail disrupted all the previous, and now we have technologies to send visual as well as text along (PDF attachments, for example) that have disrupted hitherto necessarily paper documents -- are we at all surprised that text messaging, twitter, and facebook should disrupt elements of previous forms of communication?

This is not a question of "what will employers allow" but rather "how do people communicate".

Re:I don't think so (3, Interesting)

HornWumpus (783565) | more than 2 years ago | (#36204446)

The thing about kids is that they are never even half of your workforce and their are usually plenty more where you found the ones you've got now.

The ones that can't get over facebook make good waiters/waitresses.

Employers only need to deal with one year of new hires per year.

On the other hand if a companies business model is 'Facebook/twitter users are stupid attention whores, we separate stupid people from their money.' their might be value in allowing work access to facebook and twitter.

Re:I don't think so (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | more than 2 years ago | (#36204548)

If they're smart, employers would just lay off these layabouts with entitlement issues. If the kiddies can't learn to talk normally, no company should be forced to deal with it. With the baby-boom surge there will be a large employable base of people so that corporations won't be subject to extortion by the self-esteem generation.

Re:I don't think so (3, Insightful)

DarkOx (621550) | more than 2 years ago | (#36204580)

This is not true, nor is it ideal. If a whole generation of people, or even half of that generation, is willing to continually break the rules to use their own devices, employers cannot commence with the wholesale termination of half their labor force. Production would grind to a halt. There would be economic turmoil.

No they won't engage in wholesale termination they will identify a few people they don't like for whatever reason that was not really good enough to justify firing them before, and make a lot of noise like "John Doe" was insubordinate and violated or policy. The rest of you are on notice!

And the rest of em will realize that the job market is still tough and getting caned because "I could not respect my employers desire for me not to have my IPad on their network is kinda stupid. " Much better to keep collecting that check every two weeks so I can buy toys to play with at home.

Re:I don't think so (1)

St.Creed (853824) | more than 2 years ago | (#36204516)

If you are in a market where qualified technical workers are a dime a dozen, sure, you can try and do it your way. But if you do it like this you will find both recruitment AND retainment increasingly problematic. And HR *will* put the blame on IT, if they're not completely stupid. Given the shortages in qualified IT-workers, this movement towards more personalized devices on the network will have to be accomodated.

Consider it an opportunity to secure your network for real. Come on: having the security on the clients instead of the servers is one of the factors in network penetrations. And if you say you don't trust the clients, then what's the difference with the new situation? So treat it as a chance to boost server and internal core network security. On HR's budget.

Not going to happen (2)

tsotha (720379) | more than 2 years ago | (#36204232)

This will not happen in the US outside of some niche industries. Companies have too much legal exposure to take the risk some porn site malware is logging credit card info from all the customers the support people helped today.

I don't know the laws in the UK, but I suspect the same would apply.

Already happened where I work. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36204244)

Isolate their connectivity and treat them same way you handle connections from the internet. There's your security done. Get management approval that personal devices are the owner's problem. There's your support done.

On top of that, while everybody wants free wifi on their phone to waste away company time with, many balk at having to use something they paid for to do company work. Get enough complainers whining about why the company doesn't provide them what they need to do their job, and this whole "problem" mostly goes away.

Whiner (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36204256)

If you can't handle being told no you should go live in your moms basement and steal her wifi. Until the police arrest her for child pornography.

Who cares if they bring their own devices (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36204264)

as long as they also bring their own networks too? The policy should be that personal devices cannot connect to the company network, period.

Same thing happened with regular cell phones. Companies used to monitor employee phone time and long distance. Now employees have a phone in their pocket on their own network, which never touches the company network. Same thing will happen with data devices.

Article Summary (1)

clinko (232501) | more than 2 years ago | (#36204282)

1st page: Kids want to use their computers/gadgets at work.
2nd page: These kids are clueless as to how IT really works and unemployable.

Pure insanity (1)

stevegee58 (1179505) | more than 2 years ago | (#36204284)

Most companies don't allow employee devices on the network for perfectly good reasons: to protect their IP and keep malware off their network. Everyone needs to stop worrying about mollycoddling these whining Gen-Z types and teach them to live in the real world.

Re:Pure insanity (2)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | more than 2 years ago | (#36204384)

Most companies don't allow employee devices on the network for perfectly good reasons: to protect their IP and keep malware off their network.

And companies that support confidential or secure environments, like where I work, don't even allow cell phones with cameras (or other such devices). Some areas/places even require that one leave *all* their personal electronic devices offsite. Yes, the "real world" might be a shock to Gen Z...

Really? (1)

Cougar Town (1669754) | more than 2 years ago | (#36204288)

Big businesses are going to have to become more flexible about how IT is provisioned and managed.

At my job (where I work in the IT department), if they need a device to do their job they're more than welcome, and even encouraged, to ask their director to fund it for them, in which case we'll be happy to provide them with a device we can control on our corporate network that allows them to do the job they were hired for. If they need it to do their job properly, we'll make sure they get it. No need to use their own personal (and potentially insecure and uncontrolled on our network) device they paid for themselves.

If they simply want to use their personal device because they want to or think it's cool and trendy, even though the device we provide them with does everything they need to perform the job we hired them to do.... too bad, sorry.

This attitude seems to miss the point, somewhat (1)

blincoln (592401) | more than 2 years ago | (#36204318)

When I hear people saying "the next big thing" is people bringing in their own devices, my first reaction is that those people are assuming that using their personal devices will be "better", because they won't be locked-down the way managed IT hardware is. But I don't see how that's significantly different or better than just giving employees admin/root access to their own machines. At least with the latter, the devices aren't going back and forth between the (hopefully) firewalled/proxied corporate environment and the wild west of their home network.

What I think is more likely is that aside from limited access (email, maybe web browsing), the criteria for bringing their own devices in will be so onerous that they would rather have separate devices after all, rather than accept the new limitations on using their personal devices. After all, if it were cost-effective to support unmanaged systems, business IT would already be run that way.

I am a CIO and... (1)

pleasegetreal (744605) | more than 2 years ago | (#36204324)

... I have no problem with allowing employees to use their personal devices at work. If the rest of the executive team wants excessive network downtime, no viable way to maintain data security and a compromised network, who am I to argue with them? This sounds like a great way to easily justify doubling my budget and staff too. What's not to like?

And ... There You Go (1)

CrankyFool (680025) | more than 2 years ago | (#36204338)

Most of the comments before this one are a good example of the attitude of your average IT person toward this whole "personal equipment" thing.

Me, I work at a different company, where we decided to treat employees like responsible adults. We make sure people know how to secure their equipment and, if they want (and usually they do), we do it for them. If they want supported equipment, they choose between a wide selection of equipment choices (desktop/laptop, pc/mac/linux); if they want to be responsible for their own equipment, they can go and buy (and then expense) whatever equipment they want. I'm using an HTC Thunderbolt that I went to Verizon to purchase, then expensed, and then told the company to take over the contract (I could have simply expensed the contract on a monthly basis, but I'm lazy).

It's seemed to work pretty well for us, with no noticeable virus outbreaks. It supports that whole "our employees are our biggest asset" stuff that most companies just spout but never believe. In fact, it really comes down to that point -- IT people (much like HR people, BTW) mostly consider employees threat vectors, rather than colleagues. Here? It's the other way. And it seems to work pretty well.

Why IT Needs To Change for Gen Z (2)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 2 years ago | (#36204352)

Because "gen Z" is even thicker than "gen Y"?

they're going to need to get a whole lot more relaxed in general.

Yes, companies are way too uptight about security. After all, it's not like there have been a lot of breakins or anything.

BTW what comes after "Gen Z"? Oh. Wait. The Rapture was yesterday. Nevermind.

Re:Why IT Needs To Change for Gen Z (2)

superwiz (655733) | more than 2 years ago | (#36204484)

what comes after "Gen Z"

"Gen [", of course.

Re:Why IT Needs To Change for Gen Z (1)

JockTroll (996521) | more than 2 years ago | (#36204624)

Gen ZZ, Gen 0, Gen Unicorn, Gen SEED, Gen Rebirth and possibly GenKaiser.

Re:Why IT Needs To Change for Gen Z (1)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#36204512)

There is no "Gen Z", or "Gen Y" for that matter. Gen X was a one time name, the only one to ever be named with a letter. The next generation is the millennials, sometimes split into early and late millennials, depending on whether you were born before or after 1990. The one after that will probably be named sometime in the next ten to twenty years. Trying to keep the lettering thing going is stupid, obviously short-sighted, and misses the entire reason why Gen X was named as it was.

Re:Why IT Needs To Change for Gen Z (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | more than 2 years ago | (#36204570)

IT needs to change for Gen Z, because Gen Z is too stupid to change for IT.

some of this is from cost cutting other from old h (0)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 2 years ago | (#36204398)

some of this is from cost cutting other from old hardware / slow to get stuff needed.

As some people will / departments will buy there own Ram and other hardware then wait for stuff they need under the official way / budget. Some departments even setup there own testing severs / hardware.

programmers like to have there own tools and IDE's.

marketing departments tend to use macs or pc with stuff like Photoshop and no a basic low end office pc is not a good fit for that kind of work.

Some people Abuse hardware just to get new / better / faster systems and some times they need to do so they can get there job done.

So the way I see it is management needs to give the hardware that is needed for the job and departments should pay the IT department the cost of the hardware for the stuff that department needs and let IT take care of it or setup it where IT can tell workers who want to use there own stuff what you should buy and say we may it pay part or all of the cost of it (if you can say way it's need for the job).

There are down and up to doing both ways.

Experts are like standards (1)

petes_PoV (912422) | more than 2 years ago | (#36204406)

There are thousands to choose from. If you don't like one, pick another.

Seriously, these ones have no great insight - they're merely guessing. But what they're guessing is what will make a good story in 2011, not what will happen in years to come - when their guesses have been forgotten, superceeded, revived, altered, discredited and forgotten again. They have no great insight, or knowledge of what's to come and are really only useful for entertainment - such as posting equally ignorant replies to.

Already happened at least once before. (1)

willyv (856224) | more than 2 years ago | (#36204422)

I think we've had this already when people/organizations went from mainframes to PCs. I think the people in charge of IT came up with similar arguments.

This is not going to work (1)

gweihir (88907) | more than 2 years ago | (#36204430)

I am system administrator on my work laptop, but this is something most people will not be able to handle. If any kind of personal data is on these machines, they need to be secured far beyond what a normal user can do. In some industries, e.g. banking, using you own machine will still be completely out of the question. I predict that with the additional data breaches that are to be expected for the near future, most people will instead of on their own devices work on company devices that are even more locked down than today and that putting company data on personal devices without explicit permission will not only be reason for immediate termination but also a hefty contractual penalty in many workplaces.

Fuck Gen Z (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36204438)

A bunch of coddled, entitled, whining pieces of shit. I don't care how special every told you you were growing up, you're not and you're going to use the same computers and software everyone else does. IT spends a lot of time and effort coming up with a standard configuration that's stable and secure. Suck it up and use it or find a new job.

Re:Fuck Gen Z (2)

JockTroll (996521) | more than 2 years ago | (#36204608)

No, don't fuck them. You'll get disease. Take a long, sharpened pole and drive it through their soft, squishy, boneless bodies. Pin them to the ground, pour gasoline on them and set them on fire.

The users have to change too (3)

DarkOx (621550) | more than 2 years ago | (#36204458)

I work in IT security and I have been told in no uncertain terms what my job is by upper management.

They don't want to find themselves having to put something in the notes to the financials that our trade secrets have leaked, or that our competitors no our costs. They don't want to be embarrassed and have to apologize for leaking customer data. We are a manufacturing company we sell tools to professionals they expect us to be professions as well as look it. Management does not want to look like Sony.

I don't get off on saying "no" to people. I really don't but if I let a device be connected to the network I have to be able to know DLP policies are being followed. That means I probably have to have more control over your toys than you want me to have, or you have to settle less than great experiences. No you can't read e-mail on your IPhone APP, you can use Citrix to read it in Notes via your IPhone, and yes that probably is to painful to be worth while. We can't afford a large cached copy of your mail file to be sitting on a device you might lose which *may* be recoverable by its next possessor.

Your personal laptop, certainly if you let me put our full disk encryption software on it, and our endpoint policy enforcement tools and only IT Security gets root. You won't like that though, and I know it. Trouble is I don't have better solutions.

oh? (1)

superwiz (655733) | more than 2 years ago | (#36204464)

The business has to change? Love the name by the way. Generation Z is brilliant. Just add 2 more ZZ's. How about the generation ZZZ has to grow up? No young people of any generation were ever trusted with anything until they earned the trust. This generation is no different.

If iPads and iPhones were work friendly (1)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 2 years ago | (#36204480)

they might have a place where I work. However they are not. See Apple has this one major problem. If the iOs device has an invalid password for a network it was previously connected to it will not prompt the user for the correct password, it will simply keep attempting to connect which in most shops locks out the account. This has caused a great amount of grief with the network people where they now simply tell people - no support. Please buy an Android device or Blackberry to get your mail and/or access the network. Supposedly Apple has a fix scheduled for 4q 2012.

So while gen Z might want their fad devices and similar in the work place it will require manufactures to have their heads somewhere else other than up their own butts. It will also require laws to change in some areas because I have been in jobs were removable media was not permitted, nor cell phones, nor cameras. I seriously doubt Gen Z will get a new rule set.

This has been coming for a while (1)

HangingChad (677530) | more than 2 years ago | (#36204508)

Big businesses are going to have to become more flexible about how IT is provisioned and managed...

That's been true for years and it still isn't happening. Most companies don't even have their network segmented to make that possible. If they were working toward that end, they'd be separating the data from the network and isolating critical systems. It's not happening in many places I've seen.

This will happen when IT is put in its place. (0)

solios (53048) | more than 2 years ago | (#36204520)

IT exists to enable the business, not to dictate terms or restrict it. At present the basic corporate dynamic is a largely computer-ignorant upper management that can't be arsed to stay up to speed on the basic IT environment, so they blindly delegate the power and authority to the sysadmins, and IT gets to (largely) set policy and tell the office employees what they can and can not do.

As basic IT competency becomes progressively more and more of a requirement to get anything done (for work or at home), the user base is becoming more educated, and more irritated at the "priesthood" attitude of the IT department. Give it a generation - or less - and upper management will be dictating terms to IT instead of living in fear of the Beige Box, blindly accepting whatever The High Priest Of The Beige Box tells them.

Gotta Love it (1)

Lanteran (1883836) | more than 2 years ago | (#36204620)

You've got to love how every article like this out there assumes Generation Z has any clue about technology. Most of the younger (10-20) people I know have less of an idea about what technology is (let alone how to operate it) than I did when I was 5. If external devices are allowed on your network, you are going to be compromised.

Re:Gotta Love it (1)

Lanteran (1883836) | more than 2 years ago | (#36204626)

Hell, with the idiots out there you're probably going to be compromised anyway. All this is is playing for time.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?